HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
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.

Ty Rattie to the Flames

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-11-2012, 11:54 PM
  #1
RA9
Registered User
 
RA9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,141
vCash: 883
Ty Rattie to the Flames

What would it take for him to get him on the Flames? He'd be a nice RW prospect, and from what I know had great chemistry wih Barstchi on the Winterhawks.

Could he be included in a deal that sends Bouwmeester the other way if he is traded?

RA9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 11:56 PM
  #2
Phion Keneuf
Top Dawg Ent.
 
Phion Keneuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vaughan, Ontario
Country: Italy
Posts: 27,591
vCash: 500
i expect Rattie to become a top 6er, he has some greatttt skill ...would be magic with Baertschi

not sure if the Blues want J Bo at his price, but they do need someone like him (top LD)

Phion Keneuf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 11:57 PM
  #3
nik-
Registered User
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 868
vCash: 500
Trading to try and recreate junior chemistry is a bad idea, I'd rather not.

nik- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 12:13 AM
  #4
Leafs87
Mr. Steal Your Job
 
Leafs87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond Hill
Country: Romania
Posts: 4,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik- View Post
Trading to try and recreate junior chemistry is a bad idea, I'd rather not.
Sedins say hi. Also if they made the team the same year it should transfer over

Leafs87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 12:17 AM
  #5
Huntershin Karuk
Horvat is Horfat
 
Huntershin Karuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,447
vCash: 500
Sedins have played together since they were 5...hardly a comparable.

Huntershin Karuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 12:23 AM
  #6
thrillhouse99
Registered User
 
thrillhouse99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 841
vCash: 500
I can't see the point of moving a prospect just to move a prospect, if he is doing well and developing where he is at it doesn't make sense to move him.

The only way rattie gets moved is if he is part of a package in which he is not the centerpiece. That's how the flames got iginla, he was part of a package Dallas sent to get nieuwendyk.

thrillhouse99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 12:30 AM
  #7
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,232
vCash: 50
I'd do Bouwmeester for Cole and Rattie, that's about it. Blues will say they won't pay that for Jbo, so I doubt there is a deal to be made.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 12:31 AM
  #8
Phion Keneuf
Top Dawg Ent.
 
Phion Keneuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vaughan, Ontario
Country: Italy
Posts: 27,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
I'd do Bouwmeester for Cole and Rattie, that's about it. Blues will say they won't pay that for Jbo, so I doubt there is a deal to be made.
was just about to post that exact same deal saying it would be a good move for both sides lol

Phion Keneuf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 12:48 AM
  #9
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,232
vCash: 50
I agree, I think it would be a great deal for both teams. But everyone loves to hate Jbo on here, so I'll get flamed for suggesting it.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 01:20 AM
  #10
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,077
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
I agree, I think it would be a great deal for both teams. But everyone loves to hate Jbo on here, so I'll get flamed for suggesting it.
The Blues fans do not want Jbo at all. And Rattie and Cole is an over payment for Jbo he is overpaid and just not what we are looking for.

If you want Rattie Giordano better be coming back our way. He's really the only player I would package Rattie for on the Flames.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 01:35 AM
  #11
Signature
Disreputable User
 
Signature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
The Blues fans do not want Jbo at all. And Rattie and Cole is an over payment for Jbo he is overpaid and just not what we are looking for.

If you want Rattie Giordano better be coming back our way. He's really the only player I would package Rattie for on the Flames.
Which is stupid, because you'd have to package a lot for Giordano. Aside from what he's worth as a player, what he's worth to the franchise is a lot more. Giordano is one of Calgary's project players that panned out over time with much patience, and he's got a great character in the locker room as well. Rattie as a starting point is a pretty low offer in a package for Giordano - he MAY replicate top-six success with Baertschi, but it's Baertschi who looks like he'd be carrying the pair.

If Blues wanted a top-pairing D for Pietrangelo, it looks like they're a little thin in the ways of offering NHL-ready/roster players in packages. IMO, the Blues aren't going to get a Suter for their Weber or Seabrook for their Keith any time soon.

Signature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 01:41 AM
  #12
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,077
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autograph View Post
Which is stupid, because you'd have to package a lot for Giordano. Aside from what he's worth as a player, what he's worth to the franchise is a lot more. Giordano is one of Calgary's project players that panned out over time with much patience, and he's got a great character in the locker room as well.

If Blues wanted a top-pairing D for Pietrangelo, it looks like they're a little thin in the ways of offering NHL-ready/roster players in packages. IMO, the Blues aren't going to get a Suter for their Weber or Seabrook for their Keith any time soon.
Most Blues fans are happy giving Cole his chance and seeing how he performs. I personally am happy to see how Cole can do with Pietrangelo. Pietrangelo is simply good enough to make a player like Cola a top pairing defenseman on one of the best defensive teams in the league. I personally see Cole as an upgrade over Cola.

The same reason you want to keep Giordano is the reason we want him. The same reason you would be willing to trade Jbow is the reason we do not want him.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 01:53 AM
  #13
Signature
Disreputable User
 
Signature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
The same reason you want to keep Giordano is the reason we want him. The same reason you would be willing to trade Jbow is the reason we do not want him.
Like all things, time is money and Giordano spent a lot of time developing in the system. Who's to say that the Blues or any other team understands that there is a certain loyalty payment just to be made off that?

Also, once again the misconception rears its head.
Once again, maybe this time even the blind referees can see this:

Calgary does not care to trade or not trade. Yes, Feaster has dangled him, but it's a GM's job to see if there is interest and properly capitalize on boom markets if they can. Right now, there's a market for big, skating top-pairing defencemen.

Calgary can keep Bouwmeester and be happy just as much as they can trade him for a good return and be happy. But Feaster is doing his job by creating possible trade avenues. This is not a case of Bouwmeester asking for a trade or hitting free agency.

Yes, his contract is not great for his play/point producing. But he is undoubtedly a top 2 defenceman, if not a great top 3. And he has the ability to produce, it just needs to be properly nurtured and coached. He has good size, great reach, great skating.

The reason Calgary wants to trade Bouwmeester is to get more cap space while hopefully receiving a good pick/prospect/roster top 3 defenceman/roster top 2 centre back.

The point is, this is a thread about Rattie. And Rattie is going to be part of a package back to Calgary if there is to be made for Bouwmeester or Giordano, and it's a diminishing return the moment Giordano's name is mentioned.

Signature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 01:59 AM
  #14
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,077
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autograph View Post
Like all things, time is money and Giordano spent a lot of time developing in the system. Who's to say that the Blues or any other team understands that there is a certain loyalty payment just to be made off that?

Also, once again the misconception rears its head.
Once again, maybe this time even the blind referees can see this:

Calgary does not care to trade or not trade. Yes, Feaster has dangled him, but it's a GM's job to see if there is interest and properly capitalize on boom markets if they can. Right now, there's a market for big, skating top-pairing defencemen.

Calgary can keep Bouwmeester and be happy just as much as they can trade him for a good return and be happy. But Feaster is doing his job by creating possible trade avenues. This is not a case of Bouwmeester asking for a trade or hitting free agency.

Yes, his contract is not great for his play/point producing. But he is undoubtedly a top 2 defenceman, if not a great top 3. And he has the ability to produce, it just needs to be properly nurtured and coached. He has good size, great reach, great skating.

The reason Calgary wants to trade Bouwmeester is to get more cap space while hopefully receiving a good pick/prospect/roster top 3 defenceman/roster top 2 centre back.

The point is, this is a thread about Rattie. And Rattie is going to be part of a package back to Calgary if there is to be made for Bouwmeester or Giordano, and it's a diminishing return the moment Giordano's name is mentioned.
We are not going to over pay for Giordano. To get Rattie it would most likely be a deal like Rattie and Cole for Giordano. If you are not willing to make a trade similar to that then there is not trade to be made to send Rattie to the Flames.

Rattie will not be packaged for Bouwmeester.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:00 AM
  #15
Northern Heat
Registered User
 
Northern Heat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs87 View Post
Sedins say hi.
.....and we kept walking, pretending we didn't hear them.

Northern Heat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:06 AM
  #16
Novacain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autograph View Post
Which is stupid, because you'd have to package a lot for Giordano. Aside from what he's worth as a player, what he's worth to the franchise is a lot more. Giordano is one of Calgary's project players that panned out over time with much patience, and he's got a great character in the locker room as well. Rattie as a starting point is a pretty low offer in a package for Giordano - he MAY replicate top-six success with Baertschi, but it's Baertschi who looks like he'd be carrying the pair.

If Blues wanted a top-pairing D for Pietrangelo, it looks like they're a little thin in the ways of offering NHL-ready/roster players in packages. IMO, the Blues aren't going to get a Suter for their Weber or Seabrook for their Keith any time soon.
This is really wrong. We have plenty pieces available to trade for a high level defensemen: I just don't consider Bouwmeester a player worth the price you'd want for him. You can spend to the max, so his contract is fine for you. For a player of his productivity on St. Louis, we'd probably want him for about half of what he makes, so that's a huge black mark against him off the bat. In theory, we would probably be willing to make the move if we had a bad contract that would expire quickly to give you some cap relief without raising ours, but we don't really have bad contracts, and haven't since we traded Boyes. So that's not an option either.

So think of this from our perspective. Why should we trade 2 guys who could and should be very valuable members of our franchise long term, for a 2/3 Defensemen (And I'm leaning closer to 3, though you are sure to disagree) who makes more money then anyone on our team by a good margin, when we are on a budget?

Novacain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:08 AM
  #17
Signature
Disreputable User
 
Signature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
We are not going to over pay for Giordano. To get Rattie it would most likely be a deal like Rattie and Cole for Giordano. If you are not willing to make a trade similar to that then there is not trade to be made to send Rattie to the Flames.

Rattie will not be packaged for Bouwmeester.
I love posters who post like they are the GMs or management of the teams they're fans of. We this, we that.

I'll make it clear ONE MORE TIME. Calgary doesn't need to trade either defenceman, at all, and the packages "in play" by you, (and not THE TEAM) aren't what Calgary could potentially get, especially from teams like Detroit and Philadelphia for the players mentioned.

Again, it's about Rattie. And it's already been established that Rattie is currently at best, a package player for something greater, unless Blues want to do a prospect swap. I don't even know why we're talking about this.

Signature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:13 AM
  #18
Novacain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autograph View Post
I love posters who post like they are the GMs or management of the teams they're fans of. We this, we that.

I'll make it clear ONE MORE TIME. Calgary doesn't need to trade either defenceman, at all, and the packages "in play" by you, (and not THE TEAM) aren't what Calgary could potentially get, especially from teams like Detroit and Philadelphia for the players mentioned.

Again, it's about Rattie. And it's already been established that Rattie is currently at best, a package player for something greater, unless Blues want to do a prospect swap. I don't even know why we're talking about this.
Because, to be clear, most of our fanbase agrees the only player on Calgary we'd be willing to trade Rattie for in a package or otherwise, is Giordano. We do not want to give up Rattie for Bouwmeester, or just about anyone else on your active roster. The need isn't there for us for anything outside of high level defensemen. We don't need wingers, and while we need a center, Backlund doesn't interest us. And the only prospect you have we'd trade him for is Sven, which is obviously a non starter.

Novacain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:18 AM
  #19
Signature
Disreputable User
 
Signature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacain View Post
This is really wrong. We have plenty pieces available to trade for a high level defensemen: I just don't consider Bouwmeester a player worth the price you'd want for him. You can spend to the max, so his contract is fine for you. For a player of his productivity on St. Louis, we'd probably want him for about half of what he makes, so that's a huge black mark against him off the bat.

So think of this from our perspective. Why should we trade 2 guys who could and should be very valuable members of our franchise long term, for a 2/3 Defensemen (And I'm leaning closer to 3, though you are sure to disagree) who makes more money then anyone on our team by a good margin, when we are on a budget?
No, you don't. For someone who's claiming to think about the money, you're sure not thinking about the money. Blues, especially because of an internal cap, have less to spend in both roster players and prospects. Not only do you run into the problem of opening holes in the roster to fill another, you can't even afford the capital expenditure needed to pay said traded player.

Just think about it. If you're ruled by an all-mighty internal cap, players like Suter, Bouwmeester, etc., all cost you three roster players in positions from your top 3 D or top 9 O JUST to balance cap. Nobody heard St. Louis making a sizable offer for Suter, even though a Suter/Pietrangelo pairing would be devastatingly good. We're talking about a team that got second place in the Western Conference and have real chances to sniff the Stanley Cup Final in 2-3 years, and they're not even willing to start spending NOW.

As for the second bolded area, it's not even an arguing point. I've never said that you should. I've never even said that you could. Other people mentioned it, other people are running away with it.

Once more, it's just about Rattie. To Calgary, I think he's worth a high second or maybe a prospect like Granlund though the Blues would most likely have to add a bit. It's about as even as it gets.

Signature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:21 AM
  #20
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,077
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autograph View Post
I love posters who post like they are the GMs or management of the teams they're fans of. We this, we that.

I'll make it clear ONE MORE TIME. Calgary doesn't need to trade either defenceman, at all, and the packages "in play" by you, (and not THE TEAM) aren't what Calgary could potentially get, especially from teams like Detroit and Philadelphia for the players mentioned.

Again, it's about Rattie. And it's already been established that Rattie is currently at best, a package player for something greater, unless Blues want to do a prospect swap. I don't even know why we're talking about this.
Your team is asking for Rattie in this value of. The Blues are not looking for prospects or picks. The Blues are looking to improve their team. The Blues are not looking to trade Rattie.

Do you understand those things? Are those things clear to you?

We are not going to give the Flames Rattie for players, picks or prospects we do not need. We are not going to move him unless we are improving our on the ice team.

Is that clear to you. I understand the Flames do not have to move a defenseman. If the Flames want to trade for Rattie though it would cost them Giordano coming the other way.

If you do not like that it's ok. I understand the Flames not wanting to give up a proven very good top pairing defenseman with a prospect as the center piece I would not want to either. But again we have no desire to trade Rattie. To get the Blues to trade Rattie it would have to make sense for the Blues. If you are not willing to offer something that makes sense that is fine.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:25 AM
  #21
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,077
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autograph View Post
No, you don't. For someone who's claiming to think about the money, you're sure not thinking about the money. Blues, especially because of an internal cap, have less to spend in both roster players and prospects. Not only do you run into the problem of opening holes in the roster to fill another, you can't even afford the capital expenditure needed to pay said traded player.

Just think about it. If you're ruled by an all-mighty internal cap, players like Suter, Bouwmeester, etc., all cost you three roster players in positions from your top 3 D or top 9 O JUST to balance cap. Nobody heard St. Louis making a sizable offer for Suter, even though a Suter/Pietrangelo pairing would be devastatingly good. We're talking about a team that got second place in the Western Conference and have real chances to sniff the Stanley Cup Final in 2-3 years, and they're not even willing to start spending NOW.

As for the second bolded area, it's not even an arguing point. I've never said that you should. I've never even said that you could. Other people mentioned it, other people are running away with it.

Once more, it's just about Rattie. To Calgary, I think he's worth a high second or maybe a prospect like Granlund though the Blues would most likely have to add a bit. It's about as even as it gets.
Rattie was a high 2nd round pick he has done nothing but improve his stock. We do not want a high 2nd or Granlund and to think we would add you must live in a fairy tale.

Give up we value him much higher then that as do Blues management that is like us saying Sven is worth a mid first round pick at most currently.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:26 AM
  #22
Novacain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autograph View Post
No, you don't. For someone who's claiming to think about the money, you're sure not thinking about the money. Blues, especially because of an internal cap, have less to spend in both roster players and prospects. Not only do you run into the problem of opening holes in the roster to fill another, you can't even afford the capital expenditure needed to pay said traded player.

Just think about it. If you're ruled by an all-mighty internal cap, players like Suter, Bouwmeester, etc., all cost you three roster players in positions from your top 3 D or top 9 O JUST to balance cap. Nobody heard St. Louis making a sizable offer for Suter, even though a Suter/Pietrangelo pairing would be devastatingly good. We're talking about a team that got second place in the Western Conference and have real chances to sniff the Stanley Cup Final in 2-3 years, and they're not even willing to start spending NOW.

As for the second bolded area, it's not even an arguing point. I've never said that you should. I've never even said that you could. Other people mentioned it, other people are running away with it.

Once more, it's just about Rattie. To Calgary, I think he's worth a high second or maybe a prospect like Granlund though the Blues would most likely have to add a bit. It's about as even as it gets.
We actually did make plays for top money this year. We were in the Matt Carle running. We can spend major money on players, if it makes sense. If we couldn't, we wouldn't be involved in Bouwmeester's name at all, or Carle in the off-season or whatever. You seem to not understand "Being unwilling" and "Not finding the right deal." It's the same reason why we seem to be able to keep our top players for below market value while other teams (yours included) overspend on players in free agency.

And Rattie was a high second round pick BEFORE he dismantled the WHL. And he did that when Sven was there or not. If that's all your willing to give for him, this ends now, because the only prospect in your entire organization worth as much as him is Sven.

Novacain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:27 AM
  #23
Signature
Disreputable User
 
Signature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacain View Post
Because, to be clear, most of our fanbase agrees the only player on Calgary we'd be willing to trade Rattie for in a package or otherwise, is Giordano. We do not want to give up Rattie for Bouwmeester, or just about anyone else on your active roster. The need isn't there for us for anything outside of high level defensemen. We don't need wingers, and while we need a center, Backlund doesn't interest us. And the only prospect you have we'd trade him for is Sven, which is obviously a non starter.
See, the problem is, I don't think Rattie is that great. Baertschi has already flashed that he's very much the real deal in the big leagues. Baertschi may have essentially carried Rattie in juniors. I see Rattie as a decent 50-point option at the plateau of his career - with good health, he'll hit 60 points once or twice and the rest of the time, it's the 40-50 range for him. Or he could fall faster and flatter than Wile E. Coyote after a failed attempt at Roadrunner.

I'm sure Feaster has already looked into Rattie as a possible trade piece, but also sure that it's more of a sideline thought as opposed to the real bids he'd be receiving right now.

Signature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:29 AM
  #24
Novacain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autograph View Post
See, the problem is, I don't think Rattie is that great. Baertschi has already flashed that he's very much the real deal in the big leagues. Baertschi may have essentially carried Rattie in juniors. I see Rattie as a decent 50-point option at the plateau of his career - with good health, he'll hit 60 points once or twice and the rest of the time, it's the 40-50 range for him. Or he could fall faster and flatter than Wile E. Coyote after a failed attempt at Roadrunner.

I'm sure Feaster has already looked into Rattie as a possible trade piece, but also sure that it's more of a sideline thought as opposed to the real bids he'd be receiving right now.
You do realize Rattie was putting in above a point per game when Sven wasn't on the team, rgiht? He was still top level without him? Just making sure.

Novacain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:39 AM
  #25
nik-
Registered User
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 868
vCash: 500
Rattie is pretty overrated because of his stats. I'd pretty pretty unhappy if he was the main prospect coming to the Flames in any deal.

nik- 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 01:36 PM.

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.