Speculation: Armchair GM Thread: Post your terrible ideas here!

[Flames Fanatic]

I think Pavelski costs more than that OKG. I like the idea for the same reasons I like the idea of Carter.

That being said, I would totally stack the top line. Pavelski causing havok and tipping pucks in, Monahan in the slot shooting and Gaudreau doing silky passes? Yes please.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Considering Treliving is in on everything and anything that's made available, you know he's in on this one.

We don't have a third to offer up. A 4th, 5th or a 4th next year I'm okay with paying to get our guy, if Tre thinks Bishop is 'our guy'.

If he is, then I think Calgary needs to bring back Johnson as the familiar face.

Couldn't we offer up the 3rd we would be using to resign Elliott?

 

[Calculon]

During a radio hit on Edmonton’s TSN 1260 20 minutes or so after his Bishop tweet, it was suggested to LeBrun that the Calgary Flames might be wise to make the call to the Kings about the veteran goaltender.

“Yeah,” agreed LeBrun. “I don’t know who has called for sure, but if I had to guess and guess with a bit of reason I think Calgary or Dallas – either one of them if not both – would be among the teams that at least said, ‘Hey, if you’re doing anything with this guy before July 1, let us know.’ That would make sense.

“Calgary, as you know, actually traded for Ben Bishop tentatively last June at the draft and the deal fell through for a number of reasons. So there has been interest there in the past.

“But I think for L.A. too it’s nice to have Carolina and Chicago set the market for a pending UFA goalie, right. Getting a third round pick with no conditions attached late last week was pretty sweet for Chicago, I’d say.

“And I get it. I don’t blame the Hurricanes. They’re hoping that having two months to sign someone is enough time to convince them to sign, and not go to market. But Chicago is getting that draft pick regardless of whether Darling signs with Carolina or not.

“I don’t know if Rob Blake and the L.A. Kings can get the same certainty in a Bishop deal, but it certainly doesn’t hurt having the market established earlier.”

Giving up a third or any pick really for Bishops rights would be an absolute waste. Might as well just sign Elliott then.

But if the Flames do end up signing Bishop to an anchor contract, they should be looking at Rittich as the backup. No better way to insulate a rookie than having him play behind a 60+ game starter. Moreover, at some point the Flames actually have to start graduating prospects instead of burying them in the minors forever and ever and ever. Also, there probably isn't enough cap space to sink 6M+ into Bishop and another 1.5M+ for a veteran backup.

 

[Volica]

Giving up a third or any pick really for Bishops rights would be an absolute waste. Might as well just sign Elliott then.

But if the Flames do end up signing Bishop to an anchor contract, they should be looking at Rittich as the backup. No better way to insulate a rookie than having him play behind a 60+ game starter. Moreover, at some point the Flames actually have to start graduating prospects instead of burying them in the minors forever and ever and ever. Also, there probably isn't enough cap space to sink 6M+ into Bishop and another 1.5M+ for a veteran backup.

I'm not sure Bishop is able to command long term and anchor type money.
May as well wait for Fleury to pick up his 3rd ring and then offer a late pick for him to only have to worry about paying major $ on a short term.

 

[Calculon]

If multiple teams are after Bishop, I could see that pushing a contract into anchor territory.

So I'd agree then, going after Fleury in that case would be the better fit. Two years is a lot better and safer than five or six.

Ideal scenario though would be the Penguins souring on Murray given his injury history and deciding to move him instead of Fleury. Think the Flames have the pieces, particularly futures, to get a deal done.

 

[Skobel24]

If multiple teams are after Bishop, I could see that pushing a contract into anchor territory.

So I'd agree then, going after Fleury in that case would be the better fit. Two years is a lot better and safer than five or six.

Ideal scenario though would be the Penguins souring on Murray given his injury history and deciding to move him instead of Fleury. Think the Flames have the pieces, particularly futures, to get a deal done.

With the way Fleury has been playing, I'm starting to reach a point where I'd be okay with him here.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Offer a third for rights to Bishop and Iginla.

Two birds, one stone. Amirite?

 

[Ynnek]

With the way Fleury has been playing, I'm starting to reach a point where I'd be okay with him here.

They may even keep him and trade Murray as he's injury prone but would get a pretty big return.

 

[Volica]

They may even keep him and trade Murray as he's injury prone but would get a pretty big return.

Pittsburgh will have the option to:
A) Trade Fleury for peanuts, unless there's a bidding war.
B) Lose Murray for nothing if they protect Fleury.

Unfortunately for them, they're in a tough spot.

 

[Skobel24]

Pittsburgh will have the option to:
A) Trade Fleury for peanuts, unless there's a bidding war.
B) Lose Murray for nothing if they protect Fleury.

Unfortunately for them, they're in a tough spot.

or buy Fleury out, or convince him to waive his NMC.

 

[Volica]

or buy Fleury out, or convince him to waive his NMC.

C) Lose Fleury for nothing by having him waive
D) Buy Fleury out and lose cap

More or less, their option is get something, or get nothing.

 

[Skobel24]

C) Lose Fleury for nothing by having him waive
D) Buy Fleury out and lose cap

More or less, their option is get something, or get nothing.

They will not lose Murray to the expansion. If Fleury doesn't waive and he isn't dealt, he'll be bought out. (Unless Fleury winds up injured and cannot be bought out, but the odds of that happening are slim at best).

 

[Volica]

They will not lose Murray to the expansion. If Fleury doesn't waive and he isn't dealt, he'll be bought out. (Unless Fleury winds up injured and cannot be bought out, but the odds of that happening are slim at best).

Absolutely.
I doubt they'd let Murray walk with Vegas.

If I was Rutherford, I'm trying to get something for Fleury. I don't care if it's a 3rd, 4th, conditional 7th, prospect, bag of pucks... I don't want to spend cap for nothing; and I don't want to lose him for nothing either.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Fleury doesn't exactly have a clean medical history on his side either. I fully expect Murray is their guy going forward.

I haven't thought Fleury would be a horrible option, and the way he's playing certainly makes him look more appealing after a down year. I would rather give up minimal assets for Fleury than get Bishop for free, simply due to the term remaining versus what Bishop will get.

The question for me is, does Fleury cost more than the 3rd it would cost to sign Elliott. If so, I'd say just sign Elliott.

If you can get Fleury for that 3rd or a lesser asset, I say go for it. I still would like Treliving to also search for a long term answer at the same time. Grubauer for a fair deal is my ideal, but Dell, Raanta or Kuemper would work as well. Rolling with a Fleury - Grubauer/Dell/Raanta/Kuemper duo would be fine with me.

 

[SKRusty]

Bishop appears to be the first on Trelivings list. Wouldn't be surprised if a middling prospect like Poirier is traded for his rights. From everything Bishop has put out into the media he wants to be in Calgary.

Many out there fail to understand how important it is to Bishop to be on a contending team as the starter. From that perspective there is no better team to sign with other than the Flames. Management appears to be looking for a mentor apprentice situation for either Gillies or Rittich next season.

Bishop will sacrifice term to be on a true contender.

That said if the money is not reasonable look for Treliving may be forced to look elsewhere. Darling, Elliott, Bernier, or Ryan Miller.

 

[Mobiandi]

I wouldn't want Miller if he played for free

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I don't want Darling, I don't think he's very good. I would take Fleury, I suggested it quite a few times. I still don't think he's a huge upgrade on Elliott, but if we can deal cap to attain Fleury, it makes to much sense.

 

[Lunatik]

I don't want Darling, I don't think he's very good. I would take Fleury, I suggested it quite a few times. I still don't think he's a huge upgrade on Elliott, but if we can deal cap to attain Fleury, it makes to much sense.

The Pens are likely to lose Bonino, so Stajan may be of interest to then

 

[Mobiandi]

Fleury is a stopgap goalie. He's gone from whatever team he ends up on after his contract ends. This team needs to find a permanent fox

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Fleury is a stopgap goalie. He's gone from whatever team he ends up on after his contract ends. This team needs to find a permanent fox

The idea is that Gillies is the permanent fix. This team probably wants a stop gap.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Given the unpredictability of prospects (especially goaltending prospects) I think banking on one of Gillies, Rittich, Parsons or McDonald to be the answer is the wrong move.

 

[Anglesmith]

Bishop appears to be the first on Trelivings list. Wouldn't be surprised if a middling prospect like Poirier is traded for his rights. From everything Bishop has put out into the media he wants to be in Calgary.

Many out there fail to understand how important it is to Bishop to be on a contending team as the starter. From that perspective there is no better team to sign with other than the Flames. Management appears to be looking for a mentor apprentice situation for either Gillies or Rittich next season.

Bishop will sacrifice term to be on a true contender.

That said if the money is not reasonable look for Treliving may be forced to look elsewhere. Darling, Elliott, Bernier, or Ryan Miller.

With regards to most of this post.... source?

 

[Mobiandi]

After all our next big goalie prospects that have busted over the years, I'd rather take my chances on a long term solution who already has NHL experience.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Given the unpredictability of prospects (especially goaltending prospects) I think banking on one of Gillies, Rittich, Parsons or McDonald to be the answer is the wrong move.

Bring Fleury in, if none of our prospects or young guys take any steps next year, sign MAF to an extension. Providing an opportunity for the young guys to succeed is what's important.

 

[Lunatik]

After all our next big goalie prospects that have busted over the years, I'd rather take my chances on a long term solution who already has NHL experience.

We haven't had a top end goalie prospect since Trevor Kidd though. Let's not pretend like we've had a bunch of top end goalie prospects over the years