HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   leafs/flames proposal... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=32497)

caber24 12-01-2003 11:28 AM

leafs/flames proposal...
 
well i was searching the internet for some rumours and found the spectors about the leafs possibly being interested in jarome iginla. for fun, i just thought i would propose a trade.

to calgary
nik antropov, carlo colaiacovo, darcy tucker

to toronto
jarome iginla, late pick possibly

too much/too little??

IkeaMonkey* 12-01-2003 11:30 AM

I doubt the Flames would have any interest at all in Tucker...that trade isnt that bad if you drop the calgary pick and tucker and add a toronto pick going to Calgary either 1st or 2nd...

caber24 12-01-2003 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HokEGoalie
I doubt the Flames would have any interest at all in Tucker...that trade isnt that bad if you drop the calgary pick and tucker and add a toronto pick going to Calgary either 1st or 2nd...

i would add a 2nd but not a first.. we would need the first after that trade and dealing boyes earlier.

think-blue- 12-01-2003 11:43 AM

Value aside, Can the leafs afford to give up on Colaiacovo? History tell us you need a good defense core first and foremost to win the cup. I wouldn't trade away a potential top pairing dman in Covo just yet. Id much rather the Leafs establish a core of good dmen before addressing whatever needs to be addressed up front.

Pinto 12-01-2003 11:46 AM

As a leafs fan, I'm not sure how i fell about this.

Im getting sick of this no team wants tucker bs though, hes proving his worth this season

Ajacied 12-01-2003 11:46 AM

I think it's fair valuewise, but off interest for the Flames as it does not adress their needs as much. At least, for an Iginla return, you better make sure it's helping your team in the positions you seem to lack.

To me, Colalight is the most valueble player coming back, but the Flames would never deal Iggy where a defenseman is the centerpiece. Much less when you realise he'd be behind Lydman, Regerh and Leopold and possible even Gauthier and Warrener for the next few seasons as well. The Flames would also love to fill the offensive gap Iggy is leaving as much as possible. Antropov is a decent throw in and could even be seen as the centerpiece as well, but with Reinprecht maintaining himself as a solid and legit #2, why trade for Antro? Sure he can play left wing or succeed as a checking center, but the Flames biggest needs are top flight scoring forwards, especially when dealing away Iginla.

Tucker, who I, as one of very few, do like, would not be needed in Galgary as much as he would elsewhere, and for the same reasons I explained above. Tucker's game is about grit and aggrevation, sure he can provide occasional offense but the Flames need more then just occasional or an "ok" offensive game.

But it's fair valuewise, especially when you consider how Iggi's been struggling ever since winning the Art-Ross. And even more so when you take his rediculous large contract into account. However, I expect Iggy to be dealt for offense, offense and offense and I am not sure if the Leafs have those kind of assets available if at all.

I am thinking of the likes of Havlat, Spezza, etc.. He'd probably get traded for Gagne + or Havlat +. Such a deal, but not for 2 fringe top 6 forwards who'd likely won't even match Iggy's statistics combined and for a defenseman not needed.

the future 12-01-2003 11:52 AM

if im sutter, im not gonna trade iggy for that garbage no matter how bad he's playing. the flames, if they do trade iggy, will get at least two forwards(not injury prone or mental cases) that can be impact players and sutter mentalities. i don't like the offer and seriously doubt anyone west of toronto does.

p.l.f. 12-01-2003 11:53 AM

thats a big contract to add caber.
7 million?
lord o mighty
we could fit it in next season i guess - if belfour goes

tucker would be great in calgary - dont let them phase you out on that one ;)

the offer is quite nice.
i'm sure the leafs would try to keep colaiacovo out of it

caber24 12-01-2003 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the future
if im sutter, im not gonna trade iggy for that garbage no matter how bad he's playing. the flames, if they do trade iggy, will get at least two forwards(not injury prone or mental cases) that can be impact players and sutter mentalities. i don't like the offer and seriously doubt anyone west of toronto does.

you may not like the offer but claiming it to be laughable is pathetic.

Darth Milbury 12-01-2003 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Loose Cannon
Bill Watters has stated for the record that the Leafs never bring Tucker's name into conversations. Other teams do, and frequently do, calling asking about his availability in a trade.


Yeah, and quite a few sources say otherwise. I'm not disputing that Bill Watters is a good source. But, there is evidence in the other direction.

And btw, I do believe lots of teams are calling about Tucker. I just don't believe teams are offer a lot. Tucker is an inexpensive third-liner who can step up to a second line role now and again. That is exactly the sort of commodity half the teams in the league need right now. The question is really one of what teams are offering, and I think the answer is PROBABLY not much.

NFITO 12-01-2003 12:01 PM

I actually agree fully with M=G :eek:

I think the only reason why Calgary would unload Iggy is if they can get an offer where they can retool upfront... their defense is fine (and they're not going to be able to pkg Turek in a deal with Iggy to fix their goaltending either)...

if they can get 2 quality young forwards and maybe a future prospect for Iggy, it makes sense to do... otherwise it'd probably be better just to hold on to him, since his contract expires after this season, and we're still unsure of what a new CBA could do.

and I doubt his worth is that high right now... he's a rental player who's struggling... no doubt has value, but how much? and would that be worth moving him for?

I also think that Philly seems like the best partner right now... they seem to love their pf type players, and have tons of youth in the organization.

but since Gagne is likely off the table... what about a deal around Williams and Handzus?

Williams, Handzus + Woywitka (isn't he a local boy?)
for
Iginla, Conroy?

Conroy is a UFA after this season, but might be a good fit in Philly as they go for a Cup... this deal would also cut Calgary's payroll, and give them a bit more flexibility....

maybe they can get lucky and add Turek and Esche into the deal somehow?? Hitchcock has coached him in the past in Dallas (although that probably lessens the chances).

think-blue- 12-01-2003 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Milbury
Yeah, and quite a few sources say otherwise. I'm not disputing that Bill Watters is a good source. But, there is evidence in the other direction.

And btw, I do believe lots of teams are calling about Tucker. I just don't believe teams are offer a lot. Tucker is an inexpensive third-liner who can step up to a second line role now and again. That is exactly the sort of commodity half the teams in the league need right now. The question is really one of what teams are offering, and I think the answer is PROBABLY not much.

Watters said that Brian Rolston was offered for Tucker.

Should give you an indication of what teams are willing to give up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caber24
you may not like the offer but claiming it to be laughable is pathetic.

You had to know there would be at least one leaf-hating clown open his yap in this thread.

p.l.f. 12-01-2003 12:07 PM

tucker's been great eh.
we'll need him even more now with roberts gone over a week.
i bet he'll be up there on the sundin line - and he'll score a few more.

he's not as much of a ***** this yr. either
he's only got 20 pm.
being away from his bud corson seems to have mellowed him

Darth Milbury 12-01-2003 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkBlue
Watters said that Brian Rolston was offered for Tucker.

Should give you an indication of what teams are willing to give up.



You had to know there would be at least one leaf-hating clown open his yap in this thread.

Rolston is an impending UFA. I believe that teams are offering UFAs-to-be, picks, and prospects, and not much else. But, again, that is just my guess and I am claiming absolutely no inside information at all.

think-blue- 12-01-2003 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Milbury
Rolston is an impending UFA. I believe that teams are offering UFAs-to-be, picks, and prospects, and not much else. But, again, that is just my guess and I am claiming absolutely no inside information at all.

Well, logically, the offer had to be made last year or before, when Watters was working for the team.

Darth Milbury 12-01-2003 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkBlue
Well, logically, the offer had to be made last year or before, when Watters was working for the team.


Why? Didn't you report last week that Watters had some inside information about possible Janne N. trades. I though the expectation was that he still had contacts that allowed him to have insight into current trade winds.

Also, if it is the case that the offer was made last year, don't you think Tucker's sub-par situation last year might have decreased his market value? If Tucker continued to have 50 point seasons, and high +/- ratings, I would think his trade value would be huge (given the other assets he brings to the game).

Tucker, right now, is probably not a whole lot more than a very good third line forward. he does have market value. But, PROBABLY (again, caveat here is that I have no inside information whatosoever) not a guy who is going to command a huge return in a deal.

kolanos 12-01-2003 12:19 PM

Who honestly thinks Sutter would touch this deal?

caber24 12-01-2003 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modano = God
I think it's fair valuewise, but off interest for the Flames as it does not adress their needs as much. At least, for an Iginla return, you better make sure it's helping your team in the positions you seem to lack.

To me, Colalight is the most valueble player coming back, but the Flames would never deal Iggy where a defenseman is the centerpiece. Much less when you realise he'd be behind Lydman, Regerh and Leopold and possible even Gauthier and Warrener for the next few seasons as well. The Flames would also love to fill the offensive gap Iggy is leaving as much as possible. Antropov is a decent throw in and could even be seen as the centerpiece as well, but with Reinprecht maintaining himself as a solid and legit #2, why trade for Antro? Sure he can play left wing or succeed as a checking center, but the Flames biggest needs are top flight scoring forwards, especially when dealing away Iginla.

Tucker, who I, as one of very few, do like, would not be needed in Galgary as much as he would elsewhere, and for the same reasons I explained above. Tucker's game is about grit and aggrevation, sure he can provide occasional offense but the Flames need more then just occasional or an "ok" offensive game.

But it's fair valuewise, especially when you consider how Iggi's been struggling ever since winning the Art-Ross. And even more so when you take his rediculous large contract into account. However, I expect Iggy to be dealt for offense, offense and offense and I am not sure if the Leafs have those kind of assets available if at all.

I am thinking of the likes of Havlat, Spezza, etc.. He'd probably get traded for Gagne + or Havlat +. Such a deal, but not for 2 fringe top 6 forwards who'd likely won't even match Iggy's statistics combined and for a defenseman not needed.

nice response.. i can undertand where you are coming from in terms of the center piece.

Ozy_Flame 12-01-2003 12:55 PM

No dice on this deal. Our right wing would look absolutely pathetic, Antropov would be behind Reinprecht and possibly Conroy, and Coliacovo would be buried on the Flames blueline, especially when we just drafted two potentially hot prospects in Phaneuf and Ramholt. What would our top line look like, McAmmond - Reinprecht - Kobasew? Oh god, yuck.

I say we just lay out the bottom line; there should be no premier defenseman or blueline prospects coming to Calgary in an Iginla trade - it should all be offense, as M=G put it.

Flames Draft Watcher 12-01-2003 01:02 PM

Agreed with the consensus Flames fan opinion on this thread. We just don't need any defense. We're fine as is this year and we've got Phaneuf and Ramholt in the pipeline.

The only way I can see Iginla going is if we get back multiple young scoring forwards.

Teh_Flames 12-01-2003 01:19 PM

Darcy Tucker? Are you on crack? Jarome isn't going anywhere.

Pinto 12-01-2003 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teh_Flames
Darcy Tucker? Are you on crack? Jarome isn't going anywhere.

maybe you should read the other part of the proposal ;)

Bicycle Repairman 12-01-2003 01:23 PM

Toronto and Calgary are bad trade partners. Both sides want to hang onto their respective youngsters. While can I see Iginla being moved, it certainly won't be to the Blue and White.

loveshack2 12-01-2003 02:10 PM

I think the value is there, the exact players may not be palatable to some but Id be surprised if the Flames could more for Iggy, strictly from a trade value standpoint of course. Value aside, I wouldnt touch that deal if Im the Leafs.


No question Iginla is a great player but when you already have Sundin, Nolan, Mogilny, Nieuwendyk and Roberts up front it doesnt make any sense. Especially when it means giving up your #1 prospect and possibly another 1st or 2nd round pick as well.


The Leafs are looking for defensemen, they have one of the better forward units in the league, they dont need to trade for any and certainly not at the expense of futures that could be used to get a defenseman later on.

ATG 12-01-2003 04:39 PM

All that for a one year wonder Pass


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.