Confirmed Trade: [VGK/CGY/PHI] Noah Hanifin (75% retained), Mikhail Vorobyov to VGK; 2026 1st , 2025 cond. 3rd, Daniil Miromanov to CGY; 2024 5th to PHI

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,456
11,121
Hoping Vegas sucks in 2 years?

No I don’t think that team will fall off that bad.
But our new arena is done in 2027; rumour is that they want to be competitive by the opening of the new arena. This year they’re meddling, but I honestly think they’re going to start some heavy tanking over the next couple seasons.
 

Paper

Registered User
Nov 4, 2009
4,575
2,129
In the event Vegas possesses their own first (1st) round choice in the 2025 NHL Draft on March 10, 2024 AND in the event Vegas’ 2025 first (1st) round choice is NOT a top-10 pick (i.e. – picks 11 – 32 inclusive) in the 2025 NHL Draft (after the 2025 NHL draft lottery results), Vegas shall convey their own 2025 first (1st) round choice to Calgary. In the event Vegas does not possess their own first (1st) round choice in the 2025 NHL Draft due to the above noted condition(s), Vegas shall convey their own 2026 first (1st) round choice to Calgary.

Couldn't even proofread the conditions? You hope those aren't the ones on the trade papers.

Cause if you read it, although it's near gibberish, there's a big f***ing problem for the Flames.

The first sentence means the Flames get the 2025 if, and only if, the Knights have their 2025 pick on March 10, 2024, AND the pick is not top 10. Alright, fair enough.

The second sentence means the Flames get the 2026, if, and only if, the Knights don't have their 2025 pick.

That means, together, that if the Knights own their pick and it's in the top 10, the Flames get nothing lol.

They clearly f***ed up the language in the second sentence, it doesn't make sense, but if the NHL is a stickler, the Flames could be facing O'Reilly 2.0.

I'm assuming the NHL will fix it, but sucks knowing the Flames need to be babysat like this.
 

viper0220

Registered User
Oct 10, 2008
8,724
3,697
No I don’t think that team will fall off that bad.
But our new arena is done in 2027; rumour is that they want to be competitive by the opening of the new arena. This year they’re meddling, but I honestly think they’re going to start some heavy tanking over the next couple seasons.

With the players they still have there is no heavy tanking. By 2027, we may/probably have a new arena but the team will be in the same spot as it is in right now.
 

TGWL

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 28, 2011
15,174
9,968


Couldn't even proofread the conditions? You hope those aren't the ones on the trade papers.

Cause if you read it, although it's near gibberish, there's a big f***ing problem for the Flames.

The first sentence means the Flames get the 2025 if, and only if, the Knights have their 2025 pick on March 10, 2024, AND the pick is not top 10. Alright, fair enough.

The second sentence means the Flames get the 2026, if, and only if, the Knights don't have their 2025 pick.

That means, together, that if the Knights own their pick and it's in the top 10, the Flames get nothing lol.

They clearly f***ed up the language in the second sentence, it doesn't make sense, but if the NHL is a stickler, the Flames could be facing O'Reilly 2.0.

I'm assuming the NHL will fix it, but sucks knowing the Flames need to be babysat like this.
Don't worry. Vegas won't be in the bottom 10 with their 300million cap hit. It's all good.
 

joestevens29

Registered User
Apr 30, 2009
52,923
15,736
I know there are lots of complaints about the LTIR and I for one have always suggested that come playoff time you should only be able to dress 20 players for a cap that have to be under the regular season cap.

However, I did hear that Vegas was cap compliant(based on regular season cap and players dressed) at the very least against Edmonton last year in the playoffs if not the whole playoffs.
 

TheFinalWord

Registered User
Apr 25, 2005
2,185
809


Couldn't even proofread the conditions? You hope those aren't the ones on the trade papers.

Cause if you read it, although it's near gibberish, there's a big f***ing problem for the Flames.

The first sentence means the Flames get the 2025 if, and only if, the Knights have their 2025 pick on March 10, 2024, AND the pick is not top 10. Alright, fair enough.

The second sentence means the Flames get the 2026, if, and only if, the Knights don't have their 2025 pick.

That means, together, that if the Knights own their pick and it's in the top 10, the Flames get nothing lol.

They clearly f***ed up the language in the second sentence, it doesn't make sense, but if the NHL is a stickler, the Flames could be facing O'Reilly 2.0.

I'm assuming the NHL will fix it, but sucks knowing the Flames need to be babysat like this.
You're reading an article. They're writing it to try and help us pigeons understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mitts

Paper

Registered User
Nov 4, 2009
4,575
2,129
You're reading an article. They're writing it to try and help us pigeons understand.
An article from NHL.com isn't going to be using words like "convey" to help us understand. It was clearly copied from something, and like I said, I hope that isn't the trade papers lol.
 
Dec 15, 2002
29,289
8,719
I know there are lots of complaints about the LTIR and I for one have always suggested that come playoff time you should only be able to dress 20 players for a cap that have to be under the regular season cap.
I had an example up above where a team is cap compliant as of the end of the regular season, without ever using LTIR, and even has cap dollars left over, but this rule - which you and dozens of others have suggested as a "solution" - would force that team to not use players it permissibly acquired to get under this new, artificial cap.

Not to mention: the in-season cap is based on the Active Roster, which can go to as many as 23 players (and also includes anyone on IR - but IR doesn't exist in the playoffs, because there's no limit on the size of the Active Roster), and suddenly limiting it to "dress 20 players" is much more constraining.

Maybe we could find easier ways to deal with this "problem." Like, say, enforce Article 26 which already provides a means for dealing with this.
 

lettuceAA

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
643
264
Hanifan has been good for the Flames. But you can't blame a guy for choosing somewhere warm to sign his last big contract. I think Conroy's moves have been under rated, he inherited a disaster and has been moving out old UFA's for picks, prospects and young talent. They are set in goal, have a bunch of good young forwards and a bunch of cap space and flexibility the next 2 off seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted Hoffman

madmike77

Registered User
Jan 9, 2009
6,611
576
This is a pretty underwhelming return. The fact that the 1st may not even be usable until 2026 is laughable.

. What a fumble by Flames management
I don’t know you can call it a fumble. I’m sure they took the best deal available. Teams just aren’t willing to pay much for pending UFAs any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VivaLasVegas

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad