FN Weekend Open Thread - What Should the Flames Do To Move Into the Top-4?

Kent Wilson
May 11 2013 10:14AM

 


 

There's no question that at 6th overall a pretty good player is going to available when the Flames approach the podium in June. We can't know the team's draft board, but at 6th at least one of Elias Lindholm, Sean Monahan, Valery Nichushkin, Darnell Nurse or Hunter Shinkaruk will be around. 

Those are fine options. Nuchushkin and Lindholm are in the conversation with guys like Drouin and Barkov on some draft boards, for instance.

That said, there's a clear upper tier in this draft class where one is more or less guaranteed a future high-end to elite player: the top four - the aforementioned Jonathan Drouin, Aleksandr Barkov as well as Seth Jones and Nathan MacKinnon.

As we discussed yesterday, the Flames are flush with assets heading into the draft, ranging from three first round picks to gobs of cap space. In addition, given the team is just now embarking on a rebuild, pretty much any roster player over 24 years old may be up for grabs as well (and probably many of them under that threshold as well).

Which is a long way of saying the Flames have the will and perhaps the wherewithal to move up, assuming price is no object. The teams picking ahead of them are Colorado (1), Florida (2), Tampa Bay (3), Nashville (4) and Carolina (5). The Flames have 6th overall, 21st overall (Blues eliminated last night ) and PIT's first rounder (25th or higher). They also have some worthwhile roster players (Giordano, Wideman, Hudler, Glencross, Bouwmeester, Kiprusoff, Tanguay) and, if you want to go nuclear, some quality youngsters (Brodie, Backlund, Gaudreau, Gillies). Finally, Calgary can also accept an ugly salary dump if required (Vinny Lecavalier?).

I personally wouldn't advocate moving any of the Flames high-end guys under 24 to move up a couple places, but they are nevertheless an option. You can bet if the Flames make inquiries those are the names other teams will bring up.

So what would you do to move up to 4th or better?

Sample packages:

Giordano + 6th + 21st?

Brodie + 6th?

Backlund + 6th + other asset?

Baertschi + 6th?

Gaudreau + 6th + other asset?

6th + 21st + accept Leacavalier's contract?

21st+25th-30th+2014 first rounder+Giordano/Glencross/Backlund?

Submit your best offer in the comments.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#1 Emir
May 11 2013, 10:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

All of those are overpayment.

frankly I'm not interested in giving up much to move up two spots. So id do the 6th and the pens pick in exchange for top 4 plus at least a third rounder coming back.

all this pick and good roster play talk is ridiculous. I don't care how much hype there us over any of the top 3 that's just bad assert management. Edmonton has 3 #1's in their roster and they still suck because they don't have a supporting cast. So lets not go out there and do the same IMO.

Avatar
#2 Colin.S
May 11 2013, 10:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

There are a couple realistic scenarios to play out, I mean we could trade with TB, they will want to dump Vinny's contract sooner rather than later, I some how don't see them as a cap team next year. Maybe 3rd overall + Vinny to Calgary for the 6th overall + PIT frist + Tanguay.

I don't know about Nashville and what it would take there, but I'm going to assume they will want immediate help in the offense department to even think about moving. Maybe Camm + 6th overall + Horak for 4th Overall + Prospect.

And I don't know about Carolina's pick if its worth it to even move up to that.

Avatar
#3 SmellOfVictory
May 11 2013, 10:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I only want to see a move-up if it can be done without trading away the 6th overall, and without trading Brodie/Backlund/Baertschi. Those are the only real criteria, though; and I realize those might be the only pieces that would get the Flames further up in the draft, but if that has to be sacrificed, so be it.

Avatar
#4 Austin.
May 11 2013, 10:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I view almost all of these as overpayment considering Baertschi will be a top 6, Brodie is already a solid top 4 with upside. I think if we were to do something with Tampa, it'd be Lecavalier and their 3rd overall, for Glencross, and our St.Louis pick. By getting #3 we're getting someone who will be an elite first line player, or an elite top 2 defenseman. Glencross is an established top 6 and they will likely be able to get a good top 6 player with St.Louis' pick. Although this scenario is unlikely because he said he would never trade Glencross. If we could somehow get Drouin at 3 I would be ecstatic. Also if we keep our #6 I think we should get Lindholm. If there is someway of getting the Oilers #7 pick I would pursue that as well. Might even give them both other first round picks. Then we could have Lindholm and Ristolainen.

Avatar
#5 Double Dion
May 11 2013, 11:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Kent, this is the first time I've ever said this about something you wrote: You're WAY out to lunch. It won't cost anywhere near that to move up in the draft. The St. Louis pick alone might do it. The last time the top pick was traded it took two 3rd's to move from 4 to 1. We're not talking multiple high end assets to move up two spots.

Avatar
#6 Austin
May 11 2013, 11:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Double Dion

It's not that out to lunch if we were looking for first overall. Just out of curiosity, would it be worth giving all our three picks to Colorado for #1?

Avatar
#7 SmellOfVictory
May 11 2013, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Austin wrote:

It's not that out to lunch if we were looking for first overall. Just out of curiosity, would it be worth giving all our three picks to Colorado for #1?

Unless you're 100% certain that Jones will become the new Pronger, no, no it's not. He's as likely to be Erik Johnson 2.0 as he is Chris Pronger 2.0.

Also, there is literally no way Colorado is trading down. Jones is incredibly marketable for them.

Avatar
#8 Baalzamon
May 11 2013, 11:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Honestly, I'd rather just stay at 6th. Too much risk involved in moving up from there. What if the Flames move up to 4th and still take Lindholm? Yikes. Imagine the press conference.

If anything, I'd rather they tried to move up the other two picks.

Avatar
#9 Sincity1976
May 11 2013, 11:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

In 2003 the top 4 were Fleury, Staal, Horton, and Zherdev. The three after that were Vanek, Michalek, and Suter. The rest of the list included names like Brown, Seabrook, Parise, Getlzaf, Kesler, RIchards, Perry, etc.

The point being in a draft this deep it doesn't make sense to pay the astronomical cost it will take to move from 6 to the top 3.

I wouldn't even consider moving into 4 as the 4/5/6 picks rotate depending on who you ask. Sure it would be nice to have the option. But not at that price.

If you could package Baertschi with the St Louis pick and move into the top 3 I would do it. I would also consider the St Louis pick and the 6th overall. But that is the maximum I would pay and chances are that wouldn't be enough.

I know Feaster says there are 4 elite players in this draft. But Feaster says a lot of things. I don't see any of those guys being future Crosby's.

Avatar
#10 Soupy19
May 11 2013, 12:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Does anyone think that Florida will make their 2nd overall pick available? I mean, they ranked # 1 in the NHL for having the best prospect pool, especially at forward. And if Colorado takes Seth Jones at #1 overall, does Florida really need another top 3 forward prospect? Maybe they are wanting to draft for need at defense. Thus, it would make it attractive for them to trade down and they would still get a chance at Ristolainen or Nurse.

Avatar
#11 Kevin R
May 11 2013, 12:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Sorry Kent, no to all those scenarios. With bare cupboards, that is a terrible strategy to give up that much for a player that may not be any better than who would fall to us in 6th for free! Just no to moving up. Keep the 6 th & be bold to get another pick between 7th & 12th.

OK, someone pleeease clarify where this #21 pick for Stl is coming from. Someone please correct me but Montreal & Vanc were divisional winners that got eliminated. So if Ana, Bos, Wash & Pitt win the remaining series the draft order would be:

15th NYI

16th Minny

17th Det

18th NYR

19th Tor

20th Stl

21st Vanc

22nd Mont

What am I missing?

Avatar
#12 chillout
May 11 2013, 12:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

wow some of you guys are on crazy pills. vinny + tb 1st + tb 2nd for cgy 1st and cgy 4th. the difference in player quality is not overly massive at that point and the money and cap space we'd be saving tb would be more than worth a small drop. That is an insanely brutal contract we would not have to package players to take that on. we would be more than doing tb a favor with that. Stevie Y would owe us for years

Avatar
#13 chillout
May 11 2013, 12:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@chillout

but if it makes people feel better we could tack on tanguay since he's getting a little old.

Avatar
#15 loudogYYC
May 11 2013, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'd be open to taking on Lecavalier's contract, mostly because Murray Edwards has so much frickin money and could handle it. If this happened though, I'd think Tampa has to pay through the nose asset wise, much like Vancouver will have to with Luongo.

I'd offer the Pittsburgh pick and Sarich for Lecavalier and 3rd overall. Anything more than that is not worth it. As awesome as the kids in the draft look, we're still talking about teenagers.

Avatar
#16 Parallex
May 11 2013, 12:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Yikes.

Kent, those are all terrible deals. Really really terrible deals. I mean... you have the Sedin's up there and Burke spent just two third rounders to move from 4 to 1.

To move up to #4 The most I would offer would be the Flames #6 pick and the higher of the two extra picks... I might throw in an upcoming project RFA I have no intention on qualifying (Nemisz for example) but that's it. Value of #4 less Value of #6 just isn't worth the addition of all that.

Avatar
#17 Doug
May 11 2013, 12:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Keep all three 1st round picks and take the best players available.

Avatar
#18 Mullen Mania
May 11 2013, 12:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kevin R

We likely don't know where the St.Louis pick falls until the next round is finished, but it will start to narrow with every elimination. If I understand correctly the pick will be at best 19 and at worst 24 at this point.

Avatar
#19 Mullen Mania
May 11 2013, 12:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kevin R

We likely don't know where the St.Louis pick falls until the next round is finished, but it will start to narrow with every elimination. If I understand correctly the pick will be at best 19 and at worst 24 at this point.

Avatar
#20 Baalzamon
May 11 2013, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

What if the Flames package the STL and PIT picks to move up as far as possible and pick twice near the top of the draft?

Avatar
#21 BJ
May 11 2013, 01:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

what about:

Calgary first round 2014 St Louis first round 2013 Matt Stajan One of Stempniak/Tanguay

to Tampa for

Tampa first round 2013 Vinny Lecavalier

That way we keep our 6th overall, and Tampa recieves some roster players for Vinny - and our first in 2014 could easily be top 5 so that could be tempting. ?

Avatar
#22 Lober
May 11 2013, 01:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Glenncross or Gio + STL 1st and PIT 1st pick for TB 1st round. Or CGY 1st round + STL 1st round. Maybe someone likes Lindholm or Monohan + likes the depth of this draft and is willing to drop, it is also possible we are fine with taking Lindholm or others :(

Avatar
#23 please cancel acct
May 11 2013, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Keep all our first round pick's.Take the best available forwards with all 3 first round picks.The only way we trade up is if another team makes an offer that totally benefits Calgary,and does not involve our prospect's

Avatar
#24 weevil17
May 11 2013, 02:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

if they trade brodie, baetchi or backlund i lose all hope in humanity.

Avatar
#25 clYDE
May 11 2013, 03:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

To move in the top 4 I would not give up the 6th overall or next year's first. I also wouldn't give up any of Brodie, Sven or Gaudreau. If something along the lines of the 21st, 30th, Gio, and acceptance of a crap contract will do it, then absolutely. If not, patience I suppose.

Teams like Tampa and Carolina are not far from being good. What about Cammy, Hudler, Arnold and 21st for Purcell, Ohlund and number 3. We even eat some contract so they could be active on the free agent market. With St. Louis and Vinny nearer the end but still very capable, Stevie Y may be interested in going after a cup now. Maybe even switch out Purcell for Connoly. Would be a very formidable line up.

Avatar
#26 RexLibris
May 11 2013, 05:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

The packages suggested are probably on par with what would be asked for.

For what its worth, I don't think the Flames should trade up this year. Although this is based on two factors: the first being that the Flames simply cannot afford to subtract from what little they have right now, the second being that I strongly doubt this is the last time the Flames draft this high, or higher, over the next four years.

The Flames are going to need Baertschi, Backlund and Brodie and would be best served in the long term by trading someone like Giordano at the deadline when they could get another prospect for him, rather than just moving up in the draft order.

In the debate between quality and quantity, the former accompanied by the latter.

Avatar
#27 Veggie Dog
May 11 2013, 05:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Some of these suggestions are nutty, but the Florida option seems intriguing. If Florida really is after D, and like Nurse or Ristolainen (sp?) AND Jones goes first, maybe our #6 pick plus any one of our defenders other than Brodie looks attractive. Could throw something else in too maybe?

Avatar
#28 SeanCharles
May 11 2013, 05:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think I'd be close to giving up on the Flames altogether if any of those deals were made.

Move up only if we don't have to give up any of Backlund, Brodie, Beatschi, Guadreau, Rienhart, Glencross or Gio.

It's actually slightly infuriating what some of you are willing to give up to move up a few spots....

Avatar
#29 SeanCharles
May 11 2013, 05:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The B-G's are our future core. Trade none of them....

Avatar
#30 Jeff Lebowski
May 11 2013, 05:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

I agree that Calgary has very very limited roster options to package. The kids are too valuable to Calgary and the vets are just not going to get that kind of deal done. All but Gio.

I'd go 6th + Gio.

If another team is making a more substantial offer I'd then see if a 3rd rounder goes or failing that one of the incoming prospects (Hanowski, Cundari etc).

Calgary should maintain three 1's.

What would suck entirely is if one of the top four deals their pick and Calgary isn't the partner. I doubt the order will change though.

I could see EDM having the assets to do it f they chose. 7th + their secondary young guys, MPS, Klefbom, Ladner etc.

The top four think they are getting truly elite players. The offer has to be substantial to get them to ditch.

Avatar
#31 Jeff Lebowski
May 11 2013, 06:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Soupy19 wrote:

Does anyone think that Florida will make their 2nd overall pick available? I mean, they ranked # 1 in the NHL for having the best prospect pool, especially at forward. And if Colorado takes Seth Jones at #1 overall, does Florida really need another top 3 forward prospect? Maybe they are wanting to draft for need at defense. Thus, it would make it attractive for them to trade down and they would still get a chance at Ristolainen or Nurse.

They could just take who they want at 2. But good thinking would be stupid not get value. The price would have to be low. 6 + lower round. Nothing more.

That said, the do have Kulikov and Gudbranson already.

Who do you think they take at 2 and who should Calgary take at 2.

Avatar
#32 clYDE
May 11 2013, 07:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Jeff Lebowski wrote:

They could just take who they want at 2. But good thinking would be stupid not get value. The price would have to be low. 6 + lower round. Nothing more.

That said, the do have Kulikov and Gudbranson already.

Who do you think they take at 2 and who should Calgary take at 2.

They have Petrovic and Rolbak too. I think Mckinnon goes in this spot whether it is Florida or Calgary. I think it would be a slam dunk if Calgary picks here. Mckinnon with Huberdeau could be lethal.

Avatar
#33 T&A4Flames
May 11 2013, 07:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Jeff Lebowski wrote:

They could just take who they want at 2. But good thinking would be stupid not get value. The price would have to be low. 6 + lower round. Nothing more.

That said, the do have Kulikov and Gudbranson already.

Who do you think they take at 2 and who should Calgary take at 2.

Who do I think they should take or do I think they want? If FLA retains the pick my gut says they go with Drouin. He played with Huberdeau during the WJC. My guess is they keep the pick. "If" we were to get the 2nd, I would hope they take MacKinnon.

All this talk is crazy. I would not do any of the suggestions Kent said; way to much to move up a couple spots and grab a slightly higher regarded prospect. Who knows, at 6 we could easily end up with the best player out of that draft. The only possible one I would consider is the Backlund one because as good as he showed this year that he can be, he may be at his highest value.

My target is Barkov. I would try to set up a trade scenario with CAR that can be executed once NAS selects. If Barkov is there, we make the trade. CAR is close to cup contention so I would think roster players would be wanted. I've read they want to upgrade their D, specifically defensive D. Not sure we can help there but we could offer a player like Sarich and Cammi with salary retention and another asset if need be.

If we take on a Lecavalier, it better have salary retained by TBL. Otherwise, do not touch. I asked something similar on another thread but, is there the possibility that TBL trades Vinny to us with there 1st and retain 1/2 his salary. Then both teams buy him out and TBL resign him at a lower hit. That is basically CGY paying cash for the 3rd overall and TBL have circumvented the CBA and retained a player they wouldn't otherwise have been able to if they bought him out on their own. What is that worth to TBL?

Avatar
#34 T&A4Flames
May 11 2013, 07:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

My untouchables at this draft, and by untouchable I mean it would cost a hell of a lot to get (so they are kind' touchable).

GlenX, Gio, Backlund, Brodie, Wideman, Ramo, Gillies, Brossoit, Gaudreau, Baertschi and Wotherspoon.

Moving the prospects in that list to me is counter productive in a rebuild. The vets are the types we want to retain to pass on strong work ethics, desire to win and general professionalism. At this point, Backlund and Brodie are the guys that fill the gap that we are sorely lacking.

Avatar
#35 Kmp
May 11 2013, 07:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I would rather see them move down and get another first rounder. Number 6 and Tanguay for 8 16 and Leino. Go with Ristolainen at 8, I like the idea of dman could anchor the right side for a decade.

I don't think the Flames are in bad shape going forward, Wortherspoon, Sieloff and Ramage will be good Nhl defenseman. Cundari looks like he will be a good 3rd pair depth guy. Backlund will have a breakout year next year, Sven will get better, Horak and Reinhart are solid two way players. Arnold will be a solid pro, Gaudreau and Granlund have a lot of upside even if undersized. Jankowski who knows haven't seen him play, Agostino will be a good player. Gillies, Brossoit and Ortio could all be very good.

Better to be and optimist.

Oh I really like the kid they got in the 7th last year man he can fly.

Avatar
#36 clYDE
May 11 2013, 08:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Iggy with 9 points in round 1. I have a feeling the Pens are very happy with the trade. Are we?

Avatar
#37 Justin Azevedo
May 11 2013, 08:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@clYDE

ha no

Avatar
#38 Parallex
May 11 2013, 08:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

Iggy with 9 points in round 1. I have a feeling the Pens are very happy with the trade. Are we?

1st round draft pick and two prospects in exchange for 17 meaningless games (for us) with Jarome Iginla... How could we not be?

Avatar
#39 clYDE
May 11 2013, 08:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Parallex wrote:

1st round draft pick and two prospects in exchange for 17 meaningless games (for us) with Jarome Iginla... How could we not be?

2 Reasons: 1. We won too many without him and took us out of Mckinnon, Drouin territory. 2. 2 underwhelming prospects and the 30 th pick are not enough for a hall of famer with a great deal left in the tank as witnessed by his 9 point series.

Avatar
#40 44stampede
May 11 2013, 08:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Baalzamon wrote:

Honestly, I'd rather just stay at 6th. Too much risk involved in moving up from there. What if the Flames move up to 4th and still take Lindholm? Yikes. Imagine the press conference.

If anything, I'd rather they tried to move up the other two picks.

This.

I know that the scenarios above were meant to start a debate but really they seem pretty counter intuitive for a rebuild.

The only thing that makes sense is giving a useful veteran and taking on a bad (not horrible) contract to move up a couple spots. I think the GMs ahead of us are smarter than Feaster (not tough to accomplish) and would fleece him to try and move up to the 1st or 2nd. Not to mention I can't see the first or second overall being available in any case. I don't buy that Florida has already too many high end forwards. Can never have too many of those. I think the only scenario available is moving up to the 3rd ,4th or 5th spot which is not worth the huge payment it is likely to require.

Packaging the 2 later 1sts to move up makes sense too but obviously only if you really see someone special that you like that is still around.

I just hope to God they don't swing for the fences and blow this. If he trades down because he thinks he knows something that everyone else doesn't I would consider finding a new team to cheer for (half kidding) until they fired Feaster and crew.

Avatar
#41 Casey
May 11 2013, 08:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

To those of you offering Tanguay to Tampa Bay: Are you forgetting how awful he was the last time that he played in Tampa? There is no way that Tampa is going to reacquire Alex Tanguay.

Avatar
#42 EugeneV
May 11 2013, 08:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Trade the 2 late firsts and whatever roster players over 25 they want, for either the Panthers or Lightning picks (2nd or 3rd).

Draft Mackinnon (if we get the 2nd pick) or if Mack is gone take Barkov as a consolation at 3, then we still have the #6 pick as well, in case Drouin falls which has happened to top ranked QMHL'ers lately.

Avatar
#43 EugeneV
May 11 2013, 08:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kevin R

The StL pick is no worse than 20th and could be 18th if the Wings and Rangers both win their series.

Avatar
#44 Graham
May 11 2013, 09:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

This off season has the potential to be a once in a generation turning point for the Flames, no Iggy, no Kipper, lots of first round picks and cap space. At this point the Flames shouldn't have any untouchable players, everyone should be available for the right price. Our sixth overall pick was free, so if we trade up to draft a franchise quality first line center, it costs us our free pick plus a solid prospect. Feaster should seriously consider doing so, and put anyone on the team, including Sven, Brodie or Backlund in play. History has shown that the Flames can't win without an elite first line center, and can't acquire one through either the trade or free agent markets.

Avatar
#45 Parallex
May 11 2013, 09:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

2 Reasons: 1. We won too many without him and took us out of Mckinnon, Drouin territory. 2. 2 underwhelming prospects and the 30 th pick are not enough for a hall of famer with a great deal left in the tank as witnessed by his 9 point series.

1: The Flames record after the Iginla trade 10 losses - 6 wins... 37.5 win% overall record for the season 39.6 win%. Any idea that the Flames played better after the iginla trade is pure fantasy.

2: Two prospects and a first round pick is a great deal for someone who would have left in the off-season and provided the team zero value down the stretch since the team was out of the playoffs.

The Flames gave up 17 games of Jarome Iginla that they otherwise would have had... that's it. I question the sanity of anyone who isn't happy with a 1st round pick and two prospects for 17 games worth of Jarome Iginla.

Avatar
#46 clYDE
May 11 2013, 09:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Parallex wrote:

1: The Flames record after the Iginla trade 10 losses - 6 wins... 37.5 win% overall record for the season 39.6 win%. Any idea that the Flames played better after the iginla trade is pure fantasy.

2: Two prospects and a first round pick is a great deal for someone who would have left in the off-season and provided the team zero value down the stretch since the team was out of the playoffs.

The Flames gave up 17 games of Jarome Iginla that they otherwise would have had... that's it. I question the sanity of anyone who isn't happy with a 1st round pick and two prospects for 17 games worth of Jarome Iginla.

Like everyone though, we expected about 2 wins in our last 17 after the trades plus injuries. Look at what some of these def got and the top end prospect given up fpr Morrow before saying we got all we could for a Hall of Famer who can still bring it. Regehr and Morrow and Murray, although vastly inferior got above expected returns. Iggy got a lot less than what what many expected. Despite what Feaster says, I believe we could have received more. But, Jay has always been totally honest and informed right? I don't think Feaster knows how to negotiate a trade to be honest. Especially after the Iggy deal and the lack of negotiating for JBO.

Avatar
#47 Kurt
May 11 2013, 09:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

People keep saying Kent's suggestions are crazy and completely out of whack. I believe RexLibris is one of the only who thinks its on par, and as an outsider probably has the most unbiased view.

I tend to think it is on par. Put ourselves in the shoes of the team we want to trade with. If you were GUARANTEED to get Druin, McKinnon, Barkov or Jones would you be willing to trade down... It sure would be expensive! The talk of keeping our 6th AND trading up is lunacy. I honestly don't think there is a trade that could be done, no matter who we include.

So the real debate is if we want to trade up knowing the steep price.

I hope they do everything humanly possible to move up into that elite range. We don't need another Sven... We need a Taylor Hall or John Tavares or Stamkos, and we aren't getting that at #6.

For me the only names off limits would be Brodie, Backlund and Baertschi because that would counterproductive IMO.

But I'd trade 6th + ANYONE ELSE to move up, including the other first rounders. We need the next Iggy, and we aren't getting that elite superstar to lead the team for 10+ years by having volume of 1st round picks. You can't replace a top 3 pick with a bunch of lower down ones. That just gets you a bunch of middling prospects.

Avatar
#48 ChinookArch
May 11 2013, 09:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I've been advocating the idea that the Flames should use their buy-out option and ability to spend as an asset for a while now. This strategy gives the Flames the ability to add a player without giving up any of our very few assets in return. That said, I can't believe the Flames would entertain a Lecavellier Buy-out. It would cost Flames Ownership $30M to do that, and I would expect they'd want a lot more than the #3 overall pick. If the Flames offered this to Tampa, they'd be nuts not to accept the offer. Tampa would instantly get $7.7M per year in cap space and could resign Vinny at a paltry league minimum until he was ready to retire a Bolt.

Avatar
#49 clYDE
May 11 2013, 09:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kurt wrote:

People keep saying Kent's suggestions are crazy and completely out of whack. I believe RexLibris is one of the only who thinks its on par, and as an outsider probably has the most unbiased view.

I tend to think it is on par. Put ourselves in the shoes of the team we want to trade with. If you were GUARANTEED to get Druin, McKinnon, Barkov or Jones would you be willing to trade down... It sure would be expensive! The talk of keeping our 6th AND trading up is lunacy. I honestly don't think there is a trade that could be done, no matter who we include.

So the real debate is if we want to trade up knowing the steep price.

I hope they do everything humanly possible to move up into that elite range. We don't need another Sven... We need a Taylor Hall or John Tavares or Stamkos, and we aren't getting that at #6.

For me the only names off limits would be Brodie, Backlund and Baertschi because that would counterproductive IMO.

But I'd trade 6th + ANYONE ELSE to move up, including the other first rounders. We need the next Iggy, and we aren't getting that elite superstar to lead the team for 10+ years by having volume of 1st round picks. You can't replace a top 3 pick with a bunch of lower down ones. That just gets you a bunch of middling prospects.

Teams up against the cap like Tampa and/or close to contending and have guys at their peak or just past like Tampa and Carolina may just be inclined to make deals for sure things. Just because the guy is a fan of another team doesn't mean he is in tune with what it would take. It's not like Cammy and Gio aren't top end guys who could not help teams improve and contend immediately. Tampa may only have about 1- 2 good years of St Louis and Vinny left and want to strike now. Add to that we take some salary and take back a poor contract, it may be what a team is looking for rather than potential. This would also allow them to look at he free agent market. P.S. Why would we want Taylor Hall? Tavares and Stamkos made sense but you lost me on the other guy.

Avatar
#50 Kurt
May 11 2013, 10:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

Teams up against the cap like Tampa and/or close to contending and have guys at their peak or just past like Tampa and Carolina may just be inclined to make deals for sure things. Just because the guy is a fan of another team doesn't mean he is in tune with what it would take. It's not like Cammy and Gio aren't top end guys who could not help teams improve and contend immediately. Tampa may only have about 1- 2 good years of St Louis and Vinny left and want to strike now. Add to that we take some salary and take back a poor contract, it may be what a team is looking for rather than potential. This would also allow them to look at he free agent market. P.S. Why would we want Taylor Hall? Tavares and Stamkos made sense but you lost me on the other guy.

Why would we want Hall??? If I have to explain that to you... Oh boy

The kid is 21, top 10 in league scoring and crushed it in virtually every advanced stat category. 7th in ev pp60 league wide.

A guy like that is exactly why we need. And it's what we might just get if we can trade up.

Comments are closed for this article.