HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Buffalo/Calgary

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-02-2011, 01:38 PM
  #26
Lunatik*
 
Lunatik*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by static80 View Post
Agree here.
The Sabres will most likely re-sign Stafford for his last season as an RFA to a 1 year deal again.

Connolly and Montador will fetch 2nd round picks (the going rate for help of their skill sets come deadline time), 31st to 44th pick, nothing above the 44th will get either of these guys and Montador may have the outside chance of fetching a very late 1st rounder (27th to 30th overall) given his performance not only this season, but since he has been with the Sabres.
just curious... why would a team out of the playoffs trade a 2nd for Connolly or Montador?... the pick will be 40th at best and that's if a team fails to make the playoffs

as for the rumored deal... not a chance Calgary does this unless that pick is a 1st and the conditional from the Flames is low

Lunatik* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:40 PM
  #27
airlouche
Registered User
 
airlouche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Laval
Country: Canada
Posts: 768
vCash: 500
This is well beyond ridiculous.

airlouche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:41 PM
  #28
Zman5778
Registered User
 
Zman5778's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cressona/Reading, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,770
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Zman5778 Send a message via MSN to Zman5778 Send a message via Yahoo to Zman5778
From a Buffalo POV:


Buffalo is already thin at C. Why on earth would we trade away a center and not get one center back?


I understand that the trade, talent-wise, very much favors Buffalo. However, it still doesn't make any sense from a Buffalo POV.

Shipping out a C and not getting one back? Not going to happen.

Zman5778 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:41 PM
  #29
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatik View Post
just curious... why would a team out of the playoffs trade a 2nd for Connolly or Montador?... the pick will be 40th at best and that's if a team fails to make the playoffs

as for the rumored deal... not a chance Calgary does this unless that pick is a 1st and the conditional from the Flames is low
Teams in the playoffs own multiple 2nd rounders.
Chicago for instance.

It's all a matter of need for the team looking to garner the services of the player(s).
There are teams heading into the playoffs that would like to have Connolly or Montador's services, some will have the 2nd rounder available I am sure.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:43 PM
  #30
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zman5778 View Post
From a Buffalo POV:


Buffalo is already thin at C. Why on earth would we trade away a center and not get one center back?


I understand that the trade, talent-wise, very much favors Buffalo. However, it still doesn't make any sense from a Buffalo POV.

Shipping out a C and not getting one back? Not going to happen.
Shipping out Connolly does put a heavy dent in our center depth, this is true.
But in the end, Buffalo's youth is pulling their weight as of now.
Connolly can be moved, and a playoff team in need of the type of services will most likely be willing to part with a pick or 2 for him.

Same as Montador.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:43 PM
  #31
Confound
-Vindicated-
 
Confound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 17,640
vCash: 500
Wow why would the Flames even consider this.....

Confound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:44 PM
  #32
Lunatik*
 
Lunatik*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo87 View Post
Glencross puts up 15-20 goals a season? He has put up 15 goals once (exactly 15 once and on pace for 15-20 this year) and has never hit 20 goals. Stafford has hit 15+ goals twice, 20 goals once, and already has 15 goals this year. Not to mention Stafford is 3 years younger and their TOI over the last few seasons is pretty close to even, and Stafford has played more than his fair share in the bottom 6.
Glencross has 15 goals twice actually... in 07/08 he had 6 with Columbus and 9 with Edmonton... then he put up 15 again in 09/10... and is on pace for 20 this season (well like 19.56 or something to be exact)... I wouldn't go as far as saying Glencross > Connolly... because I think Connolly is a little better because of his skill level... however I'm not sure the difference is in value is even worth discussing

Lunatik* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:49 PM
  #33
sabresEH
Registered User
 
sabresEH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatik View Post
Glencross has 15 goals twice actually... in 07/08 he had 6 with Columbus and 9 with Edmonton... then he put up 15 again in 09/10... and is on pace for 20 this season (well like 19.56 or something to be exact)... I wouldn't go as far as saying Glencross > Connolly... because I think Connolly is a little better because of his skill level... however I'm not sure the difference is in value is even worth discussing
I hope by Connolly u meant Stafford. Cause even a struggling Connolly is better than Glencross. As far as Glencross vs Stafford, I dont know why Calgary fans wouldnt want Stafford over him. Younger bigger and more skilled. 15 goals in 31 games. Over a full season thats just under 40. But you can keep ur 20 goal man. Also Stafford has played some LW this year and could probably do so in Calgary.

sabresEH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:51 PM
  #34
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,595
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BewareoftheBear View Post
Wow why would the Flames even consider this.....
Jay Feaster doing wood alcohol shooters is about the only way.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:55 PM
  #35
cardiffgiant
Race to the bottom!
 
cardiffgiant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 1,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Fanatic View Post
We'll agree to disagree. Half of a good season for Stafford doesn't have me forgetting his inconsistencies and lazy play from last year. I remember full well when most Buffalo fans were willing to see him traded.
That's like remembering what you had for breakfast. There are plenty of Buffalo fans that aren't sold on this season being evidence that Stafford has finally matured. The 3 times that I recall seeing Stafford play like he cared were the year that he cracked the lineup, his last contract year, and this contract year.


Last edited by cardiffgiant: 02-02-2011 at 02:01 PM.
cardiffgiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 02:48 PM
  #36
Ron Barr
Doing it to Death
 
Ron Barr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bdddddddet
Posts: 5,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Fanatic View Post
Glencross>/=Stafford
lol.

Ron Barr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 02:54 PM
  #37
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,145
vCash: 500
Man 7 piece trade and every last part of it makes no sense... just what the hell?

SteenMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 03:20 PM
  #38
madmike77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,592
vCash: 500
That looks like an absolutely awful trade for the Flames.

madmike77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 03:39 PM
  #39
straka91*
 
straka91*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,499
vCash: 500
Not the worst deal possible. But bad none the less.

straka91* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 03:42 PM
  #40
Better Call Saul
Registered User
 
Better Call Saul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Fanatic View Post
Glencross>/=Stafford

Better Call Saul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 03:45 PM
  #41
TheDoctor10
Bigger on the inside
 
TheDoctor10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,069
vCash: 500
So the Flames trade one half of their shutdown D pairing, Iginla's best linemate, our best PK forward AND a draft pick so we can get a healthy scratch D-man, a centre with no history of being healthy, and Drew Stafford?

Hell to the no.

TheDoctor10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 03:57 PM
  #42
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,230
vCash: 500
I think Stafford and even Conolly are both pieces I, as a Flames fan, would be interested in.

I don't think it's as lopsided as other posters are making it out to be. Conolly is an upgrade on any centre Calgary currently has. Stafford is also a pretty solid 2nd line winger. I think a deal could be worked out with some tweaking of the oringial deal....maybe take out Rivet, Tanguay, and the pick and send Stajan back instead.

I think the bigger issue here is the chemistry. This is a major move. Why would the Flames make it with the recent success they've had.

blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 04:03 PM
  #43
Flames Fanatic
Truculent Fan
 
Flames Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,045
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabathia View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Barr View Post
lol.
Laugh if you want. To the Flames though, Glencross is worth just as much if not more. He's a local favorite due to his time that he spends as a chuckwagon aid at the Stampede and his very likeable nature.

Throw in the fact that half a season of success in Buffalo does not equal several years of success playing for Calgary, I bet I'm not the only Flames fan who would say that Glencross is worth as much to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardiffgiant View Post
That's like remembering what you had for breakfast. There are plenty of Buffalo fans that aren't sold on this season being evidence that Stafford has finally matured. The 3 times that I recall seeing Stafford play like he cared were the year that he cracked the lineup, his last contract year, and this contract year.
I'm glad there is at least a single Buffalo fan who understands where I'm coming from. I've jumped onto too many hype bandwagons for flash in a pan type numbers.

Flames Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 04:37 PM
  #44
iggyman12
Registered User
 
iggyman12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 457
vCash: 500
A big HELL NO from the Flames

iggyman12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 05:14 PM
  #45
will8200
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2
vCash: 500
I think that you all have no idea what your even talking about lol. First off none of you have any idea as to what is good and what isn't, half of you are probably saying no because other people are lol, and none of you make a GM's salary. If this deal goes through Feaster is clearly doing it for a reason.

And the fact that it's coming from EK is very improbable. Why don't we all just be Flames fan's and stick with our club regardless or what they do, and if they make the playoff's or not who cares there is always another season, I'm a flames fan for life and will stick by them through thick and thin, maybe you should sit back relax and do the same

will8200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 05:29 PM
  #46
DropIt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Red Deer, AB
Posts: 1,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Fanatic View Post
Laugh if you want. To the Flames though, Glencross is worth just as much if not more. He's a local favorite due to his time that he spends as a chuckwagon aid at the Stampede and his very likeable nature.

Throw in the fact that half a season of success in Buffalo does not equal several years of success playing for Calgary, I bet I'm not the only Flames fan who would say that Glencross is worth as much to us.
hope your not too attatched... he wont be back next Season and i would move him for stafford straight across at this point if we werent on this hot streak. he is a smart, fast pker but otherwise lazy. he will fetch us our needed second rounder and will become an afterthought

DropIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 05:34 PM
  #47
Ruman Ndur
Registered User
 
Ruman Ndur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 99
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo87 View Post
Glencross puts up 15-20 goals a season? He has put up 15 goals once (exactly 15 once and on pace for 15-20 this year) and has never hit 20 goals. Stafford has hit 15+ goals twice, 20 goals once, and already has 15 goals this year. Not to mention Stafford is 3 years younger and their TOI over the last few seasons is pretty close to even, and Stafford has played more than his fair share in the bottom 6.
I'm not sure why Glencross and Stafford are being compared as Glencross would be a rental. So Stafford is more valuable as he'd be under Calgary's control after this season.

Quote:
At the end of the day this is a Stafford and a pick for Regehr trade as all the other players are to be UFAs come July 1. However, this could also be viewed as one person said to me "as a shake=up deal which could help each team get just enough momentum to make it to the playoffs."
Also, in the deal on the site there is a pick from Buffalo to Calgary, and a conditional from Calgary to Buffalo.

Ruman Ndur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 05:38 PM
  #48
sabresandcanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,791
vCash: 500
These two teams really ought not to be making major moves given the fact they are both playing well at the moment. Calgary looks like a playoff team and Buffalo, given their awful start, is still very much alive.

I don't think RR would be a good fit in Buffalo...He doesn't have the foot speed to play the way Ruff wants the D to play. As a Vancouver fan I get to see RR get burned by superior speed all too often...He is a good player, but not in Buffalo.

The others just make no sense...But hey, its Eklund.

I'd rather keep Stafford at this point.

sabresandcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 05:45 PM
  #49
OneMoreAstronaut
Reduce chainsaw size
 
OneMoreAstronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,509
vCash: 50
Flames get hosed in the proposed deal. If Sutter was still GM though, there would be a strong possibility of it going down...

OneMoreAstronaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 05:48 PM
  #50
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman Ndur View Post
I'm not sure why Glencross and Stafford are being compared as Glencross would be a rental. So Stafford is more valuable as he'd be under Calgary's control after this season.



Also, in the deal on the site there is a pick from Buffalo to Calgary, and a conditional from Calgary to Buffalo.
I wouldn't mind getting Regher at all on Buffalo.
With the impending departure of Montador at the deadline, Buffalo is going to need someone, and a player of Regher's caliber is just what we need. Either as a partner for Myers (preferrably) or Leopold.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.