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.

[CGY] 6th, 22nd, 28th for [COL] 1st?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2013, 03:28 PM
  #1
Homegrown Kings
rangdemption song
 
Homegrown Kings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: PNW
Country: United States
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
[CGY] 6th, 22nd, 28th for [COL] 1st?

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...e-jackets.html

Quote:
The ideal scenario, in Feaster’s mind, prior to the first overall pick being announced at the Prudential Center in Newark shortly after 3 p.m. ET on Sunday would see him parlay his three first-round selections, Nos. 6, 22 and 28 for Sakic’s top pick.

“Yeah, as a matter of fact,” Feaster told reporters Tuesday when it was asked if he had already made that proposal to the Avalanche. “We’ve made no secret about the fact we would like to move up in the draft if we can.”
Apologies if there's a thread on this already, couldn't find one.

Colorado has been vocal about planning to take MacKinnon with the 1st. Do you think the value is there in this proposal, or that Colorado would bite?

Homegrown Kings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:29 PM
  #2
No Good Names Left
Registered User
 
No Good Names Left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 364
vCash: 500
Colorado already rejected this...

No Good Names Left is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:31 PM
  #3
Gary83*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan Of Every Anton View Post
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...e-jackets.html



Apologies if there's a thread on this already, couldn't find one.

Colorado has been vocal about planning to take MacKinnon with the 1st. Do you think the value is there in this proposal, or that Colorado would bite?
Bad trade for both teams. Would still be okay with Calgary making it though, but Calgary can use the depth that first round should bring. Those three firsts wouldn't necessarily make up for the impact Mackinnon could essentially bring to the Avs.

Gary83* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:32 PM
  #4
CoachBadkitten
Matt Hunwick
 
CoachBadkitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 4,869
vCash: 500
Avs said no already

CoachBadkitten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:33 PM
  #5
MR28
McDavid pls
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,273
vCash: 500
That's awful for Calgary.

MR28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:34 PM
  #6
Avs For Life
#92 #9 #29
 
Avs For Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Denver, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaaah View Post
That's awful for Calgary.
For Calgary?

We miss out on franchise player and would draft a bunch of maybes

NO from CO...of course they already said no.

Avs For Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:36 PM
  #7
Homegrown Kings
rangdemption song
 
Homegrown Kings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: PNW
Country: United States
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
Oh, guess I'm a little late, huh.

Homegrown Kings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:36 PM
  #8
tucker3434
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,542
vCash: 500
Yeah, this one's already been around once. Rumor was that it was offered and rejected about a week ago.

CO is looking for 2 or 3 plus excellent prospect. Won't get it.

tucker3434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:38 PM
  #9
MR28
McDavid pls
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avs For Life View Post
For Calgary?

We miss out on franchise player and would draft a bunch of maybes

NO from CO...of course they already said no.
A team that just gutted their roster wouldn't want 3 first round picks instead of one ?

Especially in this deep deep draft.

MR28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:40 PM
  #10
tucker3434
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaaah View Post
A team that just gutted their roster wouldn't want 3 first round picks instead of one ?

Especially in this deep deep draft.
Bad for both IMO. Calgary is likely just entering their rebuild. Those three players will be a great kickstart. They should be contributing when Cgy's trying to exit.

Colorado is trying to pull out of their rebuild. They need an elite talent that will help now.

tucker3434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:41 PM
  #11
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaaah View Post
That's awful for Calgary.
As a Flames fan I'd easily take it.

The Flames need a franchise player most of all. The #1 pick has a lot higher chance of becomming a franchise player than the #6.

It's nice to have depth, but it's a lot easier to acquire depth through free agency or trades than it is to acquire a #1 centre. The Flames don't need to fill out their entire roster via the draft.

With MacKinnon the Flames would have:

Brodie, Baertschi, and MacKinnon in place we'd be well on the way to a rebuild. The Flames would still be missing a goalie and a #1 defender.

The Flames lack of "depth" in their prospect pool is really overated too. We have: Backlund, Gadreau, Jankowski, Horak, Cundari, etc.. The Flames have plenty of prospects that are slated to become "depth" guys. It's the franchise guys we want.

blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 03:57 PM
  #12
bigbadbruins1
Registered User
 
bigbadbruins1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,678
vCash: 500
flames are better off drafting at their spots. right now they don't have much in the way of prospect depth, and I think they should fill that need first and sign vets in UFA for team leadership. Mackinnon will be great, but monahan, Nichy, or Lindholm will be great consolation prizes when you add in the possible impact of the 22 and 28 players. plus I figured they would want to wait until connor mcdavid is draft eligible to go for the #1 OV....

bigbadbruins1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:19 PM
  #13
AtlantaWhaler
Moderator
Thrash/Preds/Sabres
 
AtlantaWhaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 12,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaaah View Post
That's awful for Calgary.
Not at all. Easy no if this was/is offered for any of the first 4 picks.

AtlantaWhaler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:22 PM
  #14
trick9
Moderator
 
trick9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 50
Shame for Calgary, picking 6th. They most likely miss out on the big 5. Or some would say big 4 but Nichuskin is such a wild-card that could turn into best player of this draft.

trick9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:29 PM
  #15
YMCMBYOLO
Flames Six Show ****
 
YMCMBYOLO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Six
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,808
vCash: 879
Maybe the trade would happen only if the Tanguay/Jones trade went through.

YMCMBYOLO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:32 PM
  #16
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamesrule View Post
Maybe the trade would happen only if the Tanguay/Jones trade went through.
If the trade does happen, they'll wait for the draft to announce it, as it will make the biggest splash then. It'd be huge trolling on Feaster's part to set up a two part trade like that though.

The simple truth is that:

1) Colorado rightly realizes the #1 pick is worth a lot this year, and isn't moving it.

2) Tanguay was not worth much to begin with and had a NTC.

blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:35 PM
  #17
Nash
Registered User
 
Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,941
vCash: 500
Maybe Calgary should have lost 2 more games and they would have already been there. They went 6-5 down the stretch...why? I would have sat vets for youth and put in the backup goalie. Even one more loss puts them where Tampa is third overall. So dumb.

I know you aren't supposed to encourage tanking, but when you are that close and the playoffs are nowhere is sight, why bother with trying to win games?

Nash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:38 PM
  #18
herashak
Registered User
 
herashak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,532
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash View Post
Maybe Calgary should have lost 2 more games and they would have already been there. They went 6-5 down the stretch...why? I would have sat vets for youth and put in the backup goalie. Even one more loss puts them where Tampa is third overall. So dumb.

I know you aren't supposed to encourage tanking, but when you are that close and the playoffs are nowhere is sight, why bother with trying to win games?
they werent trying to. the roster was terrible but they played rookies who gave it there all against teams that werent playing for anything (besides the wild but the wild suck)

herashak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:42 PM
  #19
mrdonkey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash View Post
Maybe Calgary should have lost 2 more games and they would have already been there. They went 6-5 down the stretch...why? I would have sat vets for youth and put in the backup goalie. Even one more loss puts them where Tampa is third overall. So dumb.

I know you aren't supposed to encourage tanking, but when you are that close and the playoffs are nowhere is sight, why bother with trying to win games?
That's exactly what they did, and people on this board went after them saying the league should investigate for tanking and fine them draft picks. Don't you remember when people were trashing them for the lineup against Nashville?

Turns out the kids played better than the vets.

mrdonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:42 PM
  #20
DontToewzMeBro
Registered User
 
DontToewzMeBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,171
vCash: 500
Chicago offers Avs

Teravainen, Leddy, 30th, Bolland

For 1st

DontToewzMeBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:49 PM
  #21
tucker3434
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro View Post
Chicago offers Avs

Teravainen, Leddy, 30th, Bolland

For 1st
You just won the cup. You don't get a first overall too.

tucker3434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 04:50 PM
  #22
P0ckets
BB Pisses Genius
 
P0ckets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 1,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro View Post
Chicago offers Avs

Teravainen, Leddy, 30th, Bolland

For 1st
And Colorado declines...

P0ckets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 05:22 PM
  #23
hawkeyguru93
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Windsor, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Make it 6th, 22nd, Giordano and I'd probably do it.

hawkeyguru93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 05:26 PM
  #24
Nash
Registered User
 
Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdonkey View Post
That's exactly what they did, and people on this board went after them saying the league should investigate for tanking and fine them draft picks. Don't you remember when people were trashing them for the lineup against Nashville?

Turns out the kids played better than the vets.
That sucks, but if the team really went full tank, you play your fourth line in your zone while tired against the other team's best. You put out bad powerplay units and the same with the PK. It's sad that Calgary can't even fail while trying...3 picks in a great draft year still, so hopefully for their fans sake, they draft well.

Nash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 05:29 PM
  #25
North Metro Peewees
Registered User
 
North Metro Peewees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philly Stupid
Country: United States
Posts: 1,133
vCash: 500
I believe this would be a worse deal for Calgary....if as all of the experts say this is the best draft class since 2003 then consider the possibilities. The Flames could be considering a trade that in theory would be sending Jeff Carter, Mike Richards and Corey Perry to the Avs for Seth Jones or Nathan MacKinnon.

I don't care how good those two players eventually become trading three prospects who have that type of potential sets your rebuilding back 5 years.

North Metro Peewees 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 07:38 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.