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
Notices

Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

Cal-Tor

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-28-2013, 09:53 AM
  #26
Porn*
Registered User
 
Porn*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In your nightmares
Country: Israel
Posts: 35,950
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Porn*
no thanks... colborne and biggs are two guys I wouldn't just throw in to rid ourselves of liles.

Porn* is offline  
Old
09-28-2013, 10:07 AM
  #27
Censored23
Registered User
 
Censored23's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintAnton View Post
I actually like the deal (though I'd prefer Blacker to Colbourne because of waiver issues we might run into).

Biggest problem for us accepting would be the Flames ownership saying they don't want to pay 11.3M out to someone who isn't a top 3 defense man. But that said we're going to be over 15M short of the floor next year with our 3 priority re-signings being Galiardi, Bouma, and Stajan. If we assume the plan is to let Cammy go to a contender at the deadline that contract might help us in trading him.
Careful, now...you're beginning to show symptoms of Oileritis...its a condition where both management and fans want to get rid of NHL-capable veterans in favor of rookies...and we all know how well that has worked out for Edmonton.

Censored23 is offline  
Old
09-28-2013, 10:22 AM
  #28
Sparky93
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,668
vCash: 500
Can't say I get the whole Biggs is garbage thing. He's huge, physical, 20 and transitioning to professional hockey...far from a bust IMHO. Pretty fair deal I'd say, if Colborne could get his career back on track by heading home, it would definitely tip the scales in Calgary's favor. Worst case it's garbage for garbage and the Flames buy our young prospect a little more time to develope

Sparky93 is online now  
Old
09-28-2013, 11:11 AM
  #29
SaintMorose
Registered User
 
SaintMorose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,095
vCash: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Censored23 View Post
Careful, now...you're beginning to show symptoms of Oileritis...its a condition where both management and fans want to get rid of NHL-capable veterans in favor of rookies...and we all know how well that has worked out for Edmonton.
I think the plan the to keep at least 6+ non-RFA forwards on the roster
Glencross, Stajan, Hudler, Stempniak/Cammy, Jones, McGratton, + 1 FA

so one of Stempniak or Cammy going at the deadline won't break us

SaintMorose is offline  
Old
09-28-2013, 12:19 PM
  #30
Demetric
Registered User
 
Demetric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Under a Rock
Country: Canada
Posts: 552
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KapG View Post
Of course the he flames might take a look if ee offer a first in there rofl.


But you're absolutely ****ing dreaming if you think toronto would add a first to that. ****ing calgary fans rofl.
well ****ing TO fans thinking they will get a 3rd from CGY, rotfl, thought I agree we wont get a 1st, but if you drop the 3rd from the op looks better from CGY standpoint, or change to 5th

Demetric is offline  
Old
09-28-2013, 01:11 PM
  #31
BayStreetBullies*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
Uhhh no peg. .. I mean no Liles.

Throw in a first round pick and the Flames may take a look.
Sure, you want Morgan Rielly and Frederik Gauthier while you're at it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demetric View Post
well ****ing TO fans thinking they will get a 3rd from CGY, rotfl, thought I agree we wont get a 1st, but if you drop the 3rd from the op looks better from CGY standpoint, or change to 5th
Because there's such a huge difference b/w a 3rd and 5th where this trade is concerned? Oh wait, it's the Calgary Flames. It probably means drafting the next Mark Jankowski.

BayStreetBullies* is offline  
Old
09-28-2013, 02:04 PM
  #32
CaptainCrunch67
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayStreetBullies View Post
Sure, you want Morgan Rielly and Frederik Gauthier while you're at it?
Why not the Flames don't need a guy like Liles and his contract and the Leaf's are probably pretty desperate with their cap situation. As a kicking tire move you might as well ask for them in a none serious type of way.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BayStreetBullies View Post
Because there's such a huge difference b/w a 3rd and 5th where this trade is concerned? Oh wait, it's the Calgary Flames. It probably means drafting the next Mark Jankowski.
Or maybe a Gilles or Wotherspoon, or Reinhart or Ramageor even a Bouma. All guys drafted third round or below and look to be decent hockey players.

Its doubtful that the Flames are looking to move any draft picks at all.

Unless its a package that gets a higher one back.

And its a little soon to make a judgement on Jankowski, I mean I know its what all of you cool kids like to do, but after a decent first year as a very young player making a jump from highschool to a major college program, I'm pretty happy with his progress and size gain.

CaptainCrunch67 is offline  
Old
09-28-2013, 05:10 PM
  #33
kihei
Registered User
 
kihei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,733
vCash: 0
From a Toronto standpoint, I do this. It seems fair value, and everybody in the trade might benefit from a fresh start elsewhere. Good proposal.

kihei is offline  
Old
09-28-2013, 05:25 PM
  #34
kevrondl
Registered User
 
kevrondl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oshawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 518
vCash: 500
Remove the 3rd and I'd probably do it. It just doesn't make sense for a rebuilding team to give up draft picks.

kevrondl is offline  
Old
09-28-2013, 06:20 PM
  #35
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
 
Flames Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cochrane
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,241
vCash: 1127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevrondl View Post
Remove the 3rd and I'd probably do it. It just doesn't make sense for a rebuilding team to give up draft picks.
For all the Leafs fans ******** on us about joking about adding a 1st, this.

Why do we take on Liles, whom nobody wants, for a guy who very well might be on waivers in a short while, a good prospect, and then we give up a 3rd?

Doesn't make sense for us as a rebuilding team. And call me a homer, but I really, really, really like the guys we've drafted in the third round for the past few years.

Flames Fanatic is online now  
Old
09-29-2013, 01:05 AM
  #36
EastonBlues22
Mod Supervisor
Team ϶(o)ϵ
 
EastonBlues22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,449
vCash: 500
Colborne to the Flames is a done deal.

EastonBlues22 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:14 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.