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.

Flames offer all three first rounders to Avalanche

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-16-2013, 12:12 PM
  #126
Hockey Ninja
Go Flames Go!
 
Hockey Ninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 416
vCash: 500
Not shocking that the Avs turned it down. Jones is pretty much exactly what they need. I'd rather start the rebuild with 3 first round picks than one, even though that one is likely to be the best player from this draft.

Hockey Ninja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 12:12 PM
  #127
palefire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmellOfVictory View Post
Going by specific picks isn't right; it should be anything at/below those picks for a certain range (e.g. that pick and up to 5 players back). You're never going to find consensus between teams on who should be picked at #22 or #28, so going with the guys that a single team chose that year isn't accurate.
Your instinct for skepticism is good, but note that looking at the specific picks across a range of years (which is what I did) serves essentially the same purpose as looking at a range of picks in a specific year.

palefire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 12:20 PM
  #128
OnTheBrink
Registered User
 
OnTheBrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 4,463
vCash: 524
Flames should offer FLA 6th+ 28th + Gaudreau +67 for the 2nd overall.

or

6th + 28th + Cammy + 67th for 2nd overall.

OnTheBrink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 12:36 PM
  #129
TheNudge
Registered User
 
TheNudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,003
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to TheNudge
In one of my keeper league I was offer


to me: 3rd overall + 21 +30

To him: 1st overall


I turn it down and traded an to 2nd overall and grab Douin who I wanted. Who would have taken that deal ? Did I do the right thing ?

TheNudge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 12:49 PM
  #130
S E P H
@Krzysztof_WHL
 
S E P H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Avs Country!
Country: Poland
Posts: 8,030
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
You're overrating the value of the 1st, in my opinion.
In any draft sure, but not in one if the most hyped drafts since 2003 or 2008 where the top 2-4 players could be classified as franchise players. Overpayment is a must.

S E P H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 01:13 PM
  #131
Muffin
Avalanche Flavoured
 
Muffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iFan View Post
I've never heard this... It's trading back 5 spots and getting 2 more 1st round draft picks in a deep draft, I'm not saying the Avs should do it as I think they could use Jones a lot. HF has always overrated and valued top picks and prospects over proven solid NHL players.
Trading back 20th to 26th is not the same as trading back 1st to 6th

Muffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 01:18 PM
  #132
RA9
Registered User
 
RA9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheBrink View Post
Flames should offer FLA 6th+ 28th + Gaudreau +67 for the 2nd overall.

or

6th + 28th + Cammy + 67th for 2nd overall.
**** no to the first one.

RA9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 01:41 PM
  #133
hughdreamz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 1,534
vCash: 500
Lets look at a little history...

Patrick Kane for Sam Gagner, Max Pacioretty, Nick petrecki?

Stamkos for Boedker, Eberle, and Tikhonov?

Tavares for Scott Glenie, Jordan Schroeder, and Dylan Olsen?

Taylor Hall for Burmistrov, Tinordi, and Coyle?

Nugent-Hopkins for Couterier, Biggs and Phillips?

Yakupov for Pouliot, Maatta, and Skjei?

Plus you take in the fact that Calgary was the one that forced Colorado to sign O'Reilly to a 5 and now 6 million dollar contract? Screw Calgary and their 3 picks.

hughdreamz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 01:46 PM
  #134
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughdreamz View Post
Lets look at a little history...

Patrick Kane for Sam Gagner, Max Pacioretty, Nick petrecki?

Stamkos for Boedker, Eberle, and Tikhonov?

Tavares for Scott Glenie, Jordan Schroeder, and Dylan Olsen?

Taylor Hall for Burmistrov, Tinordi, and Coyle?

Nugent-Hopkins for Couterier, Biggs and Phillips?

Yakupov for Pouliot, Maatta, and Skjei?

Plus you take in the fact that Calgary was the one that forced Colorado to sign O'Reilly to a 5 and now 6 million dollar contract? Screw Calgary and their 3 picks.
You have most 6 picks wrong(all besides 2007) and are posting 8th(in their respective draft years)

2008 - Nikita Filitov
2009 - Oliver Ekman-Larsson
2010 - Brett Connolly
2011 - Mika Zibanejad
2012 - Hampus Lindholm

But your point still stands

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 01:56 PM
  #135
FlyingW
Registered User
 
FlyingW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 94
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof Daddy View Post
It's a solid offer IMO, unfortunately for you guys the last thing FLA needs is more picks. That said, with all the talent down the middle in this draft you guys should just take Lindholm @ 6, then trade 22 and 28 to move up to 12 (I legitimately think PHX would consider) and nab whomever is left from Horvat/Lazar. Might cost a bit more, but I think a cash strapped team could always use an extra 1st.
How about Jets 13th for the 22nd, 28th

FlyingW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:01 PM
  #136
Ewan McGregor*
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,410
vCash: 50
I'd prefer to stick with the 3 first rounders.

Ewan McGregor* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:02 PM
  #137
InfinityIggy
Moderator
No Longer Flammable
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,850
vCash: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by S E P H View Post
In any draft sure, but not in one if the most hyped drafts since 2003 or 2008 where the top 2-4 players could be classified as franchise players. Overpayment is a must.
Uhm if there a 2-4 franchise players in the draft that makes the 1st overall less valuable not more valuable. Normally you have to pick 1st to get a franchise guy.

InfinityIggy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:04 PM
  #138
AlowlyMcOilersfan
Comrade
 
AlowlyMcOilersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,528
vCash: 50
I think Calgary will trade up, just not that high.

AlowlyMcOilersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:04 PM
  #139
Freudian
Clearly deranged
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 37,761
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfinityIggy View Post
Uhm if there a 2-4 franchise players in the draft that makes the 1st overall less valuable not more valuable. Normally you have to pick 1st to get a franchise guy.
I would argue that it makes the #2-4 picks more valuable more than it would make the #1 pick less valuable. As illustrated by Friedman on Hotstove:

"It sounds like Colorado, Florida, Tampa and Nashville are not willing to move. If anywhere very small parts at all. The team people are focusing on is Carolina at number five. There is a belief that Hurricanes will move that pick, I think Edmonton has talked to them, if the offer is good enough."

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:12 PM
  #140
Poundcake
Esquire
 
Poundcake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 14,545
vCash: 50
Frastrr must have been trolling himself for those edmonton 1st overall comments, plus he's got jank and hank so he's set anyways

Poundcake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:15 PM
  #141
InfinityIggy
Moderator
No Longer Flammable
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,850
vCash: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheBrink View Post
Flames should offer FLA 6th+ 28th + Gaudreau +67 for the 2nd overall.

or

6th + 28th + Cammy + 67th for 2nd overall.
Id do that one, not comfortable giving up Johnny Hockey though.

InfinityIggy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:20 PM
  #142
Avs_19
Peter the Great
 
Avs_19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,066
vCash: 500
Glad the Avs turned it down. I wouldn't do it even if Johnny Smurf was in the deal as well.

Avs_19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:26 PM
  #143
Crisp Breakout
Registered User
 
Crisp Breakout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 5,237
vCash: 500
I can't imagine dealing that pick unless there is a proven top pairing defenseman under the age of 25 coming back. That said, I fully expect to retain the pick. Seth Jones and Mackinnon both have higher potential than anything we could possibly get back in a trade.

Crisp Breakout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:29 PM
  #144
Brian Boyle
ZibaneFAM
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Playing video games
Country: United States
Posts: 61,803
vCash: 50
Brennan Klak ‏@nhlupdate 27s
No chance of Colorado moving first overall if they don't get back a young, established player they can add to their core.

__________________
Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:31 PM
  #145
hughdreamz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 1,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
You have most 6 picks wrong(all besides 2007) and are posting 8th(in their respective draft years)

2008 - Nikita Filitov
2009 - Oliver Ekman-Larsson
2010 - Brett Connolly
2011 - Mika Zibanejad
2012 - Hampus Lindholm

But your point still stands
Oops well I'm an idiot anyways.

hughdreamz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:44 PM
  #146
EHCler
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Germany
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
I understand Calgary. While they definitly can use various pieces, they need a new face to the franchise, so it makes full sense to go after MacKinnon.

That would give that team a huge boost. The Flames most likely will still need a few years to retool.

EHCler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:52 PM
  #147
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EHCler View Post
I understand Calgary. While they definitly can use various pieces, they need a new face to the franchise, so it makes full sense to go after MacKinnon.

That would give that team a huge boost. The Flames most likely will still need a few years to retool.
I'm assuming that Feaster was going after MacKinnon. MacKinnon-Baertschi would be a great place to start a rebuild from.

You can pick up complimentary playes like second liners in trades or via free agency. It's the top line centres and #1 d-men who are the hardest to acquire.

Solid move by Feaster, I'm assuming a similar offer will be made to Florida, if it hasn't already.

blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:54 PM
  #148
bananaz
Registered User
 
bananaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,074
vCash: 500
The trade makes sense from Calgary's point of view. They would instantly get a franchise player to rejuvenate the team for next season. Sure, having the extra picks would add depth, but quite frankly those players would not be on the same level as a Mackinnon. Colorado with the easy pass.

I do still see Feaster trying to aggressively move up; centre depth has long been this organizations weak spot and it seems the Flames have targeted 2 excellent players in Mackinnon and Barkov. I dont see Feaster getting a 1-3 pick but 4/5 is a definite possibility.

bananaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:58 PM
  #149
Pure
Registered User
 
Pure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmellOfVictory View Post
Going by specific picks isn't right; it should be anything at/below those picks for a certain range (e.g. that pick and up to 5 players back). You're never going to find consensus between teams on who should be picked at #22 or #28, so going with the guys that a single team chose that year isn't accurate.
Yes but you can only pick 1 player with each pick so having a range doesn't make sense either.

Anyways, I would never do this trade. Quality > quantity.

Pure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 02:59 PM
  #150
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,474
vCash: 50
The value is fine, but it's more of just a statement to get attention as opposed to looking at what a team needs. What does that trade do for Colorado? Nothing. If they're going to move the pick it will be to get a player or players that can help them now as well as a pick or picks.

It's just a trade offer to get fans and media talking, but not the right offer to get a deal done.

m9 is online now   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 04:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

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.