What Prospect Would You Use As Trade Bait?

[CraigsList]

Forgive me for another thread, but this one was also thread worthy:

In a lot of my proposals, and many teams wanting Sven Baertschi, what other players are teams interested in from us besides Sven? I think Johnny G. would be off the table, and if we add Sven Baertschi to the players we don't want to trade, who would be the next prospect that teams would want from the Flames?

The only one I could think of is Morgan Klimchuk.

Click to read more...

 

[Anglesmith]

What this boils down to right now, for me at least, is the question of which prospects do we think currently are showing a value to other teams which is greater than their true worth?

Bill Arnold could be one, though, as could potentially Kenny Agostino. Both of those guys finished the year pretty well, but could arguably be disposable in our organization (no offence to either, I like them both as players).

 

[InfinityIggy]

Baertschi seems like the easy candidate, I agree I could see them dangling Klimchuk as well.

 

[Mr Lebowski]

I could see Ryan Culkin and Brett Kulak being moved, one of them

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Are the Flames really in a position to be moving prospects?

I say no.

That said, for a clear upgrade of course anyone is moveable.

 

[Anglesmith]

Baertschi seems like the easy candidate, I agree I could see them dangling Klimchuk as well.

I disagree that Baertschi is an easy candidate, because I think that right now it would be extremely difficult to get fair value for him.

 

[DCDM]

Jankowski.

 

[CraigsList]

I think we need to trade one of our prospects for another prospect to help our RW/D depth, because those are major, major weaknesses.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/calgary_flames/

 

[Calculon]

Trade bait for what exactly?

The Flames need all the prospects they can get if they ever hope to be successful. Now is not the time to be dangling prospects unless it's a prospect for prospect deal where they're dealing from a position of strength to address a position of weakness, e.g. Baertschi for Larsson.But even then, there's no urgency to make a deal now.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I do not want to trade Sven, unless we get a dman of equal potential which is very unlikely at this time given his current value. I would be pissed if we traded Klimchuk, it's my personal belief that he's going to be a top line player and I think he will be more productive than Poirier, while Poirier has more intangibles. I think Byron is available for sure, and possibly one of Kulak or Culkin.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Trade bait for what exactly?

The Flames need all the prospects they can get if they ever hope to be successful. Now is not the time to be dangling prospects unless it's a prospect for prospect deal where they're dealing from a position of strength to address a position of weakness, e.g. Baertschi for Larsson.But even then, there's no urgency to make a deal now.

Only thing I'll say to this is that if Larsson has a big season next year which is absolutely possible, his value will skyrocket very quickly. Now may be the perfect time to strike a deal.

 

[CraigsList]

Trade bait for what exactly?

The Flames need all the prospects they can get if they ever hope to be successful. Now is not the time to be dangling prospects unless it's a prospect for prospect deal where they're dealing from a position of strength to address a position of weakness, e.g. Baertschi for Larsson.But even then, there's no urgency to make a deal now.

I probably should put Trait Bait/Prospect for prospect.

I would be down to trade Morgan Klimchuk for Scott Mayfield of the Islanders. They are both 7.0 ranked on hockeysfuture, fair value for both teams.

However, there is just something about Morgan that doesn't want me to get rid of him. He has a sniper of a shot, probably could replace Glencross' roster spot. More of a reason why I would rather draft a center than Dal Colle, because I think Klimchuk and Dal Colle are the same.

 

[TheClassicK*]

I don't know if there's a big history of 'prospect for prospect' trades, that involve teams exchanging one of their important prospects. I certainly don't remember many teams benefiting from key acquirements from that type of trades, because it's usually a minor-leaguer for a minor-leaguer.

When you want to acquire an important prospect from another team, the only type of player that other team is looking for is probably an already-proven NHL player.

 

[Anglesmith]

I don't know if there's a big history of 'prospect for prospect' trades, that involve teams exchanging one of their important prospects. I certainly don't remember many teams benefiting from key acquirements from that type of trades, because it's usually a minor-leaguer for a minor-leaguer.

When you want to acquire an important prospect from another team, the only type of player that other team is looking for is probably an already-proven NHL player.

Kassian for Hodgson comes to mind as kind of a lateral trade. Johnson for Stewart. Those aren't really prospects so much as emerging players, though.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Aulie for Aston.

 

[TheClassicK*]

Kassian for Hodgson comes to mind as kind of a lateral trade. Johnson for Stewart. Those aren't really prospects so much as emerging players, though.

Yeah, the Hodgson trade is quite an important one I guess. Although the Johnson trade did involve Shattenkirk as well.

Aulie for Ashton too yup. I can't remember anything else, it just seems like teams don't like to make those kind of trades.

 

[Anglesmith]

Yeah, the Hodgson trade is quite an important one I guess. Although the Johnson trade did involve Shattenkirk as well.

Aulie for Ashton too yup. I can't remember anything else, it just seems like teams don't like to make those kind of trades.

The younger the prospects in question, the higher the risk. If you trade away a guy who goes on to be a star, and get back a guy who never plays an NHL game, you have major egg on your face as a GM. If you wait a couple years and they're both at least breaking into the league, it's a little more palatable of a risk.

Raycroft for Rask- does that count?

 

[takehisheadoff]

Jankowski.

Yeah maybe to Toronto if Rob Ford takes over as GM.

 

[Anglesmith]

Jankowski's another one who we're not going to get good value for, but who could end up being valuable at a later date. Why trade him?

 

[12]

In a package for a young defenceman I'd trade Granlund. His value is pretty high right now, and ultimately he doesn't seem like an irreplaceable player.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Trust me I don't wanna move him, but would guys move Granlund for Chiasson? I think Chiasson could be had, I'd love to get him. If not, I really hope we land Hayes!

 

[FLAMES666]

I can't believe people are suggesting Granlund. I honestly can't think of the last prospect that has shown such promise while developing in the farm as he has. Granlund is a 2nd round pick who has over exceeded expectations (by me anyway) This team ran into a hole for trading away 2nd rounders like candy the last 10 years and now that we see prospects that are turning into great players chosen in these rounds we want to trade them???

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Flames top 15 prospects (these are my rankings)

1) Monahan
2) Gaudreau
3) Baertschi
4) Poirier
5) Granlund
6) Reinhart
7) Gillies
8) Jankowski
9) Klimchuk
10) Wotherspoon
11) Sieloff
12) Arnold
13) Knight
14) Ortio
15) Ferland

We have a severe lack of top D talent, considering we are rebuilding it's an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm by no means advocating "let's move Granlund". But to not explore our options for a player of equivalent value at another position of need, does not make sense to me. We need to look at all avenues, some of our prospects will be moved no matter how much we like them.

 

[Taranis]

I think ideally we need two top four prospects and somehow obtain a top pairing d-man for us to become balanced. I can totally see one of Sven/Johnny/Granlund/Klimchuk being traded to achieve part of this goal, with the rest through the draft.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I think ideally we need two top four prospects and somehow obtain a top pairing d-man for us to become balanced. I can totally see one of Sven/Johnny/Granlund/Klimchuk being traded to achieve part of this goal, with the rest through the draft.

I'm gonna throw Reinhart's name in there, not as trade bait necessarily but as a LW prospect. You can't play 5 LW's all on the same club, and all those guys have NHL potential. Down the middle to, we have Monahan, Backlund, then guys like Arnold and Knight, plus Colborne, Reinhart and Granlund can play center to. We have Jankowski, then one of Draisiatl, Dal Colle or Bennett from this year. It's a good problem to have, but being that we're lacking on the backend, the math doesn't add up and you have to think that one of these guys will be moved.