Five things: Reasonable trade targets

1. What the Flames need

So we’ve got the trade deadline in two weeks or so and the dominoes are already starting to fall. A guy I thought the Flames might target, and in fact did — Cody Franson — has instead gone to league-leading Nashville in one of those “rich-get-richer” deals that you’re not sure how they went down in the first place (it’s not dissimilar to how the Leafs pried Franson out of Nashville in the first place: For Brett Lebda, somehow). I think we can all agree that given the price — a B prospect, a first-round pick, and Olli Jokinen — that’s something that’s at least relatively in the Flames’ wheelhouse, although maybe you say the first-rounder might have been a bridge too far for a rebuilding club, though I’ll get to that in a minute.

What the Flames actually need in the trade market to make them actually competitive is, of course, a No. 1 center, which they’re not going to get anywhere at any time and will therefore probably have to develop. Sean Monahan is inching in that direction (very much to his credit) and Sam Bennett might one day be that, but we still have no idea what he looks like at the NHL level. But everyone needs No. 1 centers and they certainly don’t grow on trees. One miiiiiiight be available at some point in the indeterminate future — we’ll get to him later on too — but the raft of picks and prospects that it will almost certainly take to acquire him is something the Flames cannot and should not give up at this point.

They also need better defense, and that’s something I think cannot be reasonably obtained at this point. Again, unless you’re willing to buy high on Andrej Sekera or Keith Yandle, I don’t see the point of acquiring even a young-ish veteran defenseman because most of those guys are going to be rentals, unless you really feel like overpaying them in the summer. 

(That presents its own problems, obviously. The Flames are cap-rich now. Very much so, in fact. But here’s the issue: Give two or three “bad” contracts that last anywhere between five and eight years. Now think about what you’re going to have to pay Monahan and Johnny Gaudreau and TJ Brodie and whichever other prospects might turn into good or even great NHLers who will be due more money in the future. I think the recent issues with the devaluing of the Canadian dollar paint a stark picture of what the league could look like in a few years, especially for Canadian teams: Sagging revenues and a stagnant cap means that teams which spend a lot today could be in for some tough decisions even two or three years from now.)

2. What they can actually get

Of course, Brad Treliving was probably never going to play those games. While I was previously concerned that the front office might think just a little too highly of its chances, even with all the assurances of “we’re not Going For It,” I was a little worried that they’d get themselves just a wee bit too excited about the prospect of adding (Player X) because they liked what (Player X) brought to the table and sure he might cost a lot but (Player X) was worth it; except that in reality (Player X) sucks if you really watch the game, and now Calgary gave up a fair bit and got a guy back who sucks. 

We’ve been given little reason to believe in this administration’s evaluation abilities, because everyone who’s currently performing for the club was brought in by Jay Feaster, much as that may be weird to think about, and Brad Treliving’s big additions were a mixed bag to say the least. Sign Mason Raymond and Jonas Hiller? Sure, they make the team better. Sign Deryk Engelland to that deal? Give up an asset for Brandon Bollig? No thanks.

I like the Raymond signing well enough, but any GM in the league would have taken the Hiller-over-Ramo upgrade and not been called a genius for doing it. The other guys, well, the less said the better.

So really, we don’t know what kind of deal-maker Treliving is. In free agency, he has actively screwed up twice while making one obvious deal and one nice one. In trades, he acquired Bollig and made a like-for-like swap with Florida. So we really don’t know what he’s capable of in terms of finagling deals.

With that having been said, the ability to add possession-driving, bottom-of-the-lineup guys is a skill I’d think most people with a pulse have. They’re cheap to acquire and cheap to retain. That’s usually because they’re undervalued, or teams really don’t have a use for them beyond, say, a year or two. There are very few bottom-six possession drivers seen as “core” guys, and when they are seen that way, they’re typically overpaid and not made available. Which is a mistake for the teams signing those deals but not a concern to anyone else. Come up with any number of proven bottom-six guys on middling-to-bad teams — there have to be a few dozen of them — and you can probably get them for the cost of a Brandon Bollig-type move (third-round pick) at the absolute most.

3. Who else they should go for

But if there’s one player who’s a cut above those depth guys who are perceived as dime-a-dozen, one name that has apparently come up in trade conversation in the last week or so, and who intrigues me greatly, is Columbus’s Cam Atkinson.

He’s got a decent enough relative corsi, he gets somewhat-tough minutes, and he’s been bounced around the lineup a lot. He’s also second on the Blue Jackets in points per 60 minutes among forwards with at least 500 minutes at 5-on-5 this season, and fourth in points per 60. I’m not sure why he’s being shopped, based on these numbers; but he’ll be an RFA this summer and maybe they’re not too keen on extending him. That’s just me speculating, but I think he’s worth at least kicking the tires on.

In fact, over the last three seasons, only 10 Blue Jackets forwards have gotten 1,000 or more minutes at evens, and by just about any measure he’s among their best in terms of moving the puck in the right direction (second in corsi behind only Brandon Dubinsky), sixth in goals per 60, and and fifth in points per 60. And unlike some of the guys in front of him on both counts — Artem Anisimov, Nick Foligno, Ryan Johansen — he doesn’t have an insanely high shooting percentage.

The cost is obviously the sticky wicket here, and if other teams are interested it’s probably not going to be cheap, but the guy’s 25 and proven effective in the NHL over three years. That’s a guy who can be useful for some time to come, and might therefore be worth giving up assets to acquire. Not a lot or anything, and if the price is too high you’d like to see the Flames say “Thanks but no thanks,” but it’s something to monitor.

The downside is he’s small, listed at 5-foot-7 and only 175 pounds. That’s in Johnny Gaudreau territory (and hey, they went to the same college and put up huge points there!) and it might push the limits of just how much skill/non-size a Brian Burke club is willing to stomach.

4. Who they’ll probably settle for

A guy who might be more available and thus less costly, though, is from a team for which the sell-off has already begun: Toronto is probably going to make Dan Winnik available. He’s in the last year of a cheap one-off contract that pays him just $1.3 million against the cap, and I’d imagine he comes at the price of a mid- to late-round pick.

But among Leafs forwards with 400 minutes (there are 11, meaning he’s probably a third-line guy who occasionally gets a little time on the second) he’s No. 2 in CF% behind only Nazem Kadri. Speaking of Kadri and Winnik, they’re also tied for fourth on the team in points per 60 (though Winnik’s goals per 60 is a poor 0.5). He plays middling competition and takes a lot of the tougher zone starts so Phil Kessel and Tyler Bozak don’t have to. And he’s got some tread left on the tires (29 years old), he’s size-y (6-foot-2, 210 pounds), and he’s a guy who was targeted by a team that just figured out over the summer that having a good corsi is good.

If you can get a guy like that, then have the inside track to extend him during the rebuild for another year or maaaaaybe two if you want to push it, that’s a pretty good move.

5. Pie in the sky

Of course, the aforementioned center I’d be fascinated to see them pursue, not surprisingly, is Ryan O’Reilly. He’s likely on his way out of Colorado as soon as this current deal is done, has expressed an interest in Calgary before (the offer sheet debacle), and is awesome.

He will cost a lot to acquire, and probably won’t be available at the deadline anyway. But I think that Calgary would be wise to take a run at him in the summer. Save the bullets this time around and plan for that. Not that there won’t be 29 other teams interested, but an acquisition like that certainly helps drive a rebuild along nicely.

  • Burnward

    Isn’t O’Reilly guaranteed 7-million per or so on his next deal?

    That’s a tough one to justify for me when they’ll have Mony-Backs-Bennett on the way.

    Defense should be the only major target.
    Oh, and Kessel. Chubby Baby Jesus Kessel.

  • Burnward

    ROR is great, but not a number one Center. Backlund imo is just as good, and more affordable, especially when he’s healthy.

    I’d rather see Calgary go after Tyler Bozak as at least he’s great at faceoffs.

    A defenseman I would like to see Calgary kick the tires on is Braydon Coburn. He is a bit older, and probably not a top four guy… but he’s huge and can slot in nicely in the third pairing.

  • piscera.infada

    Sorry this is not related… but amusing:

    Craig Custance of ESPN: Surveying 10 agents on the three most commonly listed teams on players no-trade lists:
    1. Edmonton (5 first place votes)
    2. Winnipeg (4 first place votes)
    3. Buffalo (1 first place vote)
    4. Ottawa and Toronto (tied).
    Other mentions: New Jersey, Florida and Arizona.

  • piscera.infada

    I was thinking very much along the same lines as you with Cam Atkinson. He’d be a nice piece to add, but it’s very unlikely the Flames go for him with Byron and Gaudreau on the roster.

    No thanks to O’Reilly though. I happen to think that with his contract negotiation history, he’ll want a lot of money on this next contract (elite first line centre money). That’s besides the point though, it’s more the term that his contract would require that makes me think it wouldn’t work to the Flames. He would definitely be a help for the next 2-3 years, but then with Bennett and Monahan’s progression, Backlund still in the organization (hopefully), where does he fit? Is he then sliding to right-wing with an elite first-line centre’s contract?

    I just think the O’Reilly train has passed… I don’t see a way you can make a long-term, high dollar contract (which you know he’ll want) work with the current trajectory of the Brodie’s, Monahan’s, Gaudreau’s, Backlund’s, Bennett’s and their long-term contract demands and ice-time demands.

      • Matty Franchise Jr

        i think the flexibility is extremely valuable too. injuries happen. a team that has excellent centermen as wingers is just good management as far as I’m concerned. and a plethora of 2 way players is also excellent.

          • everton fc

            I thought so after I hit “send”!

            Reilly or Kessel? Who’d bring more back that helps the team?? We are stocked and stacked at centre. Even if you move Granlund to the wing.

            Kessel, if the Leafs eat salary and throw in a prospect like Percy, I’d consider. Kessel’s 27, and will put up at least Hudler-type #’s after he passes his prime (say 30-31). Again, get them to eat “cap”, and take Percy… And a pick… Even Gardiner could be added, if they want to drop salary. Kessel and Gardiner – what would that cost us if we didn’t budge on anything that would damage our rebuild. Granlund, and someone else, maybe a pick…

            But the Leafs would have to eat “cap”. Clarkson’s a good addition for a team if the Leafs did the same (not for the Flames… But for a playoff team with some cap room)

          • piscera.infada

            Again, you’re likely going to be paying O’Reilly 7.5 to 8 million (which is a reasonable expectation–look at what him and his agent were asking for in his previous contract negotiation) for the next 6 (or more) years to be a right-winger.

            The thing that scares me about this O’Reilly deal, is that in all logic, it’s probably a package that includes Backlund going back. Are we really that much better with Backs going the other way?

          • everton fc

            Yep. I agree. Unless Granlund and some others went the other way. But it makes no sense for us to move Backlund, or move him to a 4th line role. Unless O’Reilly becomes a wing…

            I’d rather take a punt at Kessel. Elite scoring from the wing we do not have. And he’s only 27. If the Leafs eat cap, and we get him for 6-6.5 a season… A change of scenery, and he doesn’t have to be “the guy”…

            Kessel’s only 3 years older then O’Reilly.

          • Southern_Point

            No way the Leaf’s eat salary on Phil Kessel. The guy is paid appropriately for what he does and other gm’s would be happy to give up an A prospect plus to take him at full pop.

          • everton fc

            Team’s will try. He’s seen as having baggage. Can’t hurt, but I don’t at all disagree with you. We could use him here. Now, and through his contract.

            No news on the Flames kicking tires on him anyways.

        • Rockmorton65

          I have to imagine that Backlund would be included in any talks for O’Reilly. I think it would make sense, too. If Bennett is as advertised, he is, essentially an upgrade on Backlund. I also can’t see Backlund signing another bridge for 3/4 C money. Matty Franchise is a great option at 4C, and is already signed.

          Monahan-O’Reilly-Bennett-Stajan. Has a nice ring to it.

          • Johnny Goooooooaldreau

            I simply don’t rate Baertschi at all, and believe that signing Backlund for a long term cap hit above 3M is too much for a player who 2 years from now will be our 3rd line center.
            Bigras is a Dman who would possibly be our top ranked D prospect, and getting him, ROR and a first would be a good move for us.
            No drugs involved “my friend”

          • Greg

            I agree. Although I’ll bet half the people on here think he’s high for offering up Backlund, and the other half think he’s totally nuts thinking Colorado would give up ROR and a first.

  • Greg

    Much as I like Atkinson and Winnik type players, this franchise has more than enough forward depth for the foreseeable future. It isn’t a need and I’d hate to see them give up a future asset to acquire more of what they’ve already got. Although if you can upgrade on what you’ve got, for example Byron for Aktinson or sell GlenX for a pick and trade a similar pick for the younger Winnik, great!

    Otherwise, they need to stay focused on addressing their real holes. I don’t think it’s an elite Center, when they’ve already got Monohan, Backlund, plus Bennett in the pipeline and, hey, if Matty Franchise is toiling on your 4th line, you’ve got enough depth to get by just fine. Their real needs are an upgrade on the 2nd/3rd pairing, a shallow prospect pool of Dmen (imagine what this team looks like if Gio fades before that’s addressed!), and elite level scorers.

    The last one they might already have between Monohan, Gaudreau, or Bennett, so I wouldn’t chase it if it costs you one of those guys. But they also don’t grow on trees or generally get acquired outside a top 10 pick, so if you can get one (eg Kessel) for a package not including one of those players (unlikely) you do it. If it costs you one of those guys, or even Poirer, you wait and see if they become that themselves instead, and just focus on the D issues.

    • piscera.infada

      I agree with the majority of your post, minus the “elite scorers” thought. You need players that can put the puck in the net, yes, but I’m unsure how absolutely necessary a 35+ goal scorer, or even an 80+ point guy is to a contending team. Yes, it’s better to have one than not, but it’s not an absolute must. It seems more important to have depth scoring and several players that can hit 10+ and 20+ goals, and around 50+ to 60+ points. For example, the Flames this year have 9(?) players with 10+ goals (and not, I’m not concerned in this discussion about how sustainable the goals are, the number of scorers is the point). The only team ahead of them? Tampa Bay.

      Likewise, let’s look at the two teams that were considered the “best-bet” for a cup last season: LA and Chicago.

      LA: 2, 20+ goal scorers (Kopitar [29] and Carter [27]); 9, 10+ (the aforementioned two; Williams, King, Brown, Toffoli, Richards, Martinez, Doughty). They had 1, 70 point player (Kopitar); 1, 50 point player (Carter); 7, 30+ point players (the aforementioned 2; Williams, Richards, Doughty, Voynov, King).

      Chicago: 2, 30+ goal scorers (Sharp [34] and Hossa [30]); 3, 20+ goal scorers (Kane, Toews, Shaw); and 9 10+ goal scorers (the aforementioned 5; Saad, Smith, Bickell, Versteeg). They had 1, 70+ point player (Sharp [78]); 4, 60+ point players (Kane, Toews, Keith, Hossa); and 9 30+ point players (the aforementioned 5; Saad, Seabrook, Shaw, Leddy).

      Chicago was clearly the more offensively gifted team, but they don’t have a Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Kessel, etc.–I realize Kessel doesn’t belong with those three, but I’m talking the perennial 40+ goal guys and the perennial 90+ point guys.

      It’s just an observation, I’m interested how often a player or two have been able to carry a team to glory, in recent years. From a team -building stand point it seems more pragmatic to strive for depth as opposed to one (or two) “cream of the crop” scorers.

      • Greg

        Fully agree, you don’t “need” 35+ goal scorers or 80+ point guys.

        But you do need some “elite” talent in that you’ve got either of those types (aka Crosby and Malkin), or slightly less offensive but otherwise elite players like Kopitar, Toews, Bergeron. Teams can become really good but never able to win it all without that (ie Stl, although SJ shows you can have it and still fail).

        Monahan, Gaudreau, and Bennet all might get there one day but aren’t at the level of those guys yet. So it’s for sure not an immediate need. But I’d argue if you added a Kessel to that mix, and, say a Franson on the backend, this team would go from an over-achieving playoff bubble team to a solid playoff, maybe even challenging Anaheim for the division team.

        Fixing just the D holes alone wouldn’t put them in that category yet. But I’m also perfectly happy to wait and see if they get their on their own (assuming the D issues do get resolved). Was just thinking Kessel would fast track it if he can be had for a package that doesn’t cost 1 of them. It’s rare a talent like that is actually available.

  • everton fc

    Players that interest this fan, and could have a good run here in Calgary:

    DEFENCE:
    Roman Polak
    Kevin Connauton
    Jeff Petry
    Andrej Sekera
    Joe Morrow
    Conor Allen
    Dylan McIlrath (maybe)
    Robert Bortuzzo
    Brad Dummoulin
    Keith Yandle
    Robert Hagg (Philly)

    OFFENCE:
    Phil Kessel (with Bennett centering… Hmmm…)
    Jiri Tlusty (Replaces Glencross)

  • Matty Franchise Jr

    We need to develop the centres we have, and I think they have great potential to be a star centre in the NHL.

    The Flames need a 3-4 Dman to play with Russel. Let Wideman play on the last pair and play the PP and PK.

    The only way I would make a trade is for that D-man

    • piscera.infada

      Sorry, I had to re-write a portion of that. I wasn’t talking about “stars” per say, I was speaking more to elite goal scorers and point producers. Again, from a team building standpoint, I’d much rather try to make a team where the sum of its parts perennially produce, as opposed to a team where one (or two) lines produce, and everyone else just kind of gets dragged along.

      The question I’m asking, is do we think Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett, etc. can get to that 2, 30+ goal scorers, 2 60-70+ point guys? Or, do you need to bring in 35+ goal Kessel and everything else that goes along with his game, and contract?

      That’s not to say that if you end up with an elite goal scorer, you toss them away. I’m just unsure as to how aggressively you really need to pursue them–save for the teams that look like they have absolutely no one who can put the puck in the net.

      • Burnward

        I think this team’s cap flexibility allows them to pursue it. If you take Glencross’ roster spot and insert a guy like Kessel there…they get a lot scarier.

        • piscera.infada

          Where’s the cap flexibility in year(s) 5,6,7 of Kessel? Likewise with O’Reilly? At least with O’Reilly, he’s younger and you’re paying for elite production years that seem to line-up well with the team’s competitive “window”.

          Look, I’m not arguing that Kessel can’t score and wouldn’t make the team dangerous, but you can get right back into cap-jail very, very quickly when you make moves thinking “oh, 8 million dollars for the next 8 years, no big deal”. Just my take though.

          • Burnward

            I agree. But you won’t have a lot of 8-million guys. Stajan, Glencross, Jones, Wideman scheduled to come off the books over the next couple years, Brodie locked down. Still 15 million or so at the moment.

            I think it could be done.

          • piscera.infada

            You’re correct, they’ll be off the books. Again, they’ll need someone to replace those players, and in all honesty, you’re hoping someone like Poirier and a young defenseman in the system have established themselves enough to earn a raise. Then, you’re going to want some flexibility to address any deficiencies that crop up while you’re a “contender” (or else, you may not be a “contender” for long).

            Look, I can see a deal like what you’re proposing happen. Now just doesn’t seem to be the time. Too much is in flux, there are still a lot of question marks that should be addressed with far greater urgency then adding a top-6 winger. In my opinion, of course.

          • everton fc

            Jooris or Arnold or Byron can replace Stajan. Kessel, Ferland, perhaps Granlund may be able to replace on the right side. Ditto Byron, if he can learn to finish. Of course, if you re-sign Jones for cheap, you might retain him. He’s been good, when healthy. We may have one of the most under-rated 3rd lines in the league in Bouma-Backlund-Jones.

            We really need defencive depth. Sekera would be good here. Our depth on the farm, outside the still unproven Wotherspoon, is visually frightening. Seiloff may be a bust. Culkin may be okay, Kulak may take time… After that, we have nothing, really.

          • JMK

            I’ve high hopes for Hickey albeit further down the road. Mattson or Rafikov could turn out too already playing against men. Mattson was fairly highly rated for the draft at some points last season.

  • Matty Franchise Jr

    I like the ROR to Calgary idea…given his ridiculous contract, his huge skill set as a centre and the Flames cap space I think he can be obtained without giving away the farm….BB/BT let’s get creative. A team with ROR’s ability at centre is exactly what the Flames need in this rebuild…..

    on a related note the Hockey News is saying the Flames are pursuing an ROR trade aggressively…

  • everton fc

    How about a pure scorer? Like a Cammalleri type player. I feel like d has improved and actually feel ok with the play of Diaz. Oh, and please stop letting GlenX handle d-zone exits. Seems to get stuck along the boards 100% of the time.

  • Burnward

    Also…should note, I was wrong about ROR’s contract status. He’s UFA after next season. So, no guaranteed raise…but he can walk.

    If they can negotiate a decent extension at say…5.5-6.0 over 5. That’s totally acceptable.

    That kind of changes things for me. Interesting.

  • Ken V.

    Personally, I think if we feel we are going to make any kind of push we consider bringing in Jagr if the return is Glencross and a late pick. He loves to play on the boards which fits our style of offensive zone play and just adding another great character guy that can show just how long you can play in the NHL if you work hard and enjoy the game. His work ethic at his age will leave an impression on these guys no doubt.

  • Toofun

    It’s been said before but I’ll repeat it again bluntly. The biggest bang for the buck trade the Flames need to do this year is one that gets Engalland off the ice.

  • everton fc

    Not sure why you guys love Kessel so much, yeah he can score but what else….

    Is he good in the room?No idea, doesn’t seem like it though, seems like a bad influence for laziness)

    Is he in shape? ummm no, he’s fat. Imagine what he could do if he was in shape. won’t happen though

    Does he work hard? always first off in practice

    Does he score goals? Yes

    Is he coachable? No, several coaches have said the same.

    Verdict…We do not want

      • Rockmorton65

        True. But the last thing the Flames system needs is a Kovalchuk type player who stands at centre while his linemates play shorthanded in their own zone.

      • Southern_Point

        Yup I’d prefer to outscore the other team every night. In the pursuit of this I’m not to concerned about whether or not Phil Kessel looks like a plumber.

        We don’t have the assets to pick him up though. It wouldn’t be worth it and I think we would be better served picking up a top 4 d-man. Jeff Petry in particular.

        • mattyc

          Yeah – there’s no way we have the appetite to move the pieces we’d need to move for Kessel.

          Kinda silly to suggest you wouldn’t want an Ovechkin, Kessel, Kovalchuk etc. because they have some flaws. Being bad defensively is a relative thing: If you still score more than the opposition with them on the ice, you’re winning.

          • mattyc

            Almost like you are talking about +/- Matty.
            (Such an unsophisticated stat for an advanced stat snob….)

            Kessel has never had a plus year as a Leaf , currently sits at -20.

            Ovy……..he is in a +/- league of his own…

            I hope you were just making a funny.

            WW

        • everton fc

          Kessel’s interviews of late seem to speak to his actually caring. I think he’d buy into what’s going on here. He doesn’t need to be “the guy” – we have Gio, Brodie, Monahan, Hudler in particular, Gaudreau… He’s just another piece here.

          I think he’s a 30 goal scorer, and we need that. 27 is young. He’s been durable his whole career, for the most part.

          If you could get a top-4 d-man as well (Sekera really interest me) we have all the pieces we need until the older guys start falling off the books.

          Kessel and Sekera could easily be parts of a rebuild. But I don’t know the cap implications moving forward, say, three years??

    • Nick24

      More than anything I think Kessel is a product of his environment. If you insulated him with the right people I don’t think his attitude would be an issue.

      As for his level of fitness, people need to lay off. He is one of the fastest players in the league. Everyone has different body types, and some people are just bigger than others. No one rags on Byfuglien for his size. Not sure why people hate Kessel so much.

  • Derzie

    Since the cap is not a concern for the Flames and they are not spending like drunken sailors on shore leave, we the fans should not look at dollars right now.

    We need improvements (FA/Trades) and we need them to be constant (draft picks/development). ROR is a good player, all baggage aside. It comes down to what we give up to get him, not how much he costs. Same with a player like Kessel (although he wouldn’t fit Hartleys 2-way system).

    Also, when talking centers I think we need to tread lightly as Bennett may be something really special. Monahan is already tracking to be a star and Sam may be even better. Anything we do should not impact their growth in a negative way

    • everton fc

      Agreed. And you didn’t have to even mention Granlund and Arnold, both ready, though Granlund will either get moved to the wing, or to another team at some point.

      Which is why I am interested in at least discussing Kessel. Perhaps he can rebound here. On a line with Bennett – man, that’s exciting to think about. Is he really that bad defencively? Can you imagine Poirier-Bennett-Kessel? That’s pretty good “on paper”.

  • stumblintrucker

    I live in TO and although the Leafs are in fire sale mode there seems to be teams circling Winnik. There was talk that the Leafs were looking for a prospect and a second or third. Although I don’t think they will get all that I do think someone will part with a second or third to get him.
    I would do like you said and offer a late round pick and keep your fingers crossed that no one else offers more and not stress when they do. He is solid depth.