Speculation: Armchair GM Thread - 2019/20 Season

[Lunatik]

I didn’t say we did, I said we MAY have. We don’t know.

I said Fig said we did, not you and you said we may have had the best offer. My point is best offer =/= a deal in place, they are two very different things.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I said Fig said we did, not you and you said we may have had the best offer. My point is best offer =/= a deal in place, they are two very different things.

Yes, and my point is you don't know if we had a deal in place or not.

 

[Fig]

No, Treliving refused to put Valimaki or Andersson on the table, that is why Vegas got Stone. The only rumors we had a deal in place were from that reddit "insider"

Semantics bruv.

It seemed like we were in the mix and near the top, but no one cares about an also ran. Only the stud that crosses the finish line first. Rumors or whatnot, Maloney seemed to think we had the top offer until Branstromm was made available.

 

[Lunatik]

Yes, and my point is you don't know if we had a deal in place or not.

Considering Treliving was mad over the Minnesota deal, but not this one, I would say it is a pretty safe bet there was no deal in place.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Considering Treliving was mad over the Minnesota deal, but not this one, I would say it is a pretty safe bet there was no deal in place.

That seems like quite the reach to me. Treliving (and any GM) probably gets outbid, all the time, frequently. He is one of the most active GMs in the league from everything we've ever heard about how he operates. As Fig pointed out, it's semantics. He wasn't suggesting there was a deal with the ink about to try, he suggested that we got out-bid on a deal.

 

[Fig]

Considering Treliving was mad over the Minnesota deal, but not this one, I would say it is a pretty safe bet there was no deal in place.

I dunno man. I feel like our org likes to do dual sided deals during the TDL and it's a thing that started with Burke. Theory wise, it's plausible that Maloney could have been working on a hail Mary deal with Ottawa that surprisingly got close, while Treliving was working the Minny deal personally that ended up reaching an agreement, but also a situation that blew up the deal?

 

[Lunatik]

That seems like quite the reach to me. Treliving (and any GM) probably gets outbid, all the time, frequently. He is one of the most active GMs in the league from everything we've ever heard about how he operates. As Fig pointed out, it's semantics. He wasn't suggesting there was a deal with the ink about to try, he suggested that we got out-bid on a deal.

It's a reach to think that he was "white hot" over a Zucker deal he thought was done, but not mad at all over a Stone deal he thought was done?

It's not semantics, it's basic f***ing English.

If someone says something, I take what they say as what they say. To say it's semantics because I take what is said for what it actually says, is complete and utter f***ing bullshit.

 

[InfinityIggy]

It's a reach to think that he was "white hot" over a Zucker deal he thought was done, but not mad at all over a Stone deal he thought was done?

It's not semantics, it's basic ****ing English.

If someone says something, I take what they say as what they say. To say it's semantics because I take what is said for what it actually says, is complete and utter ****ing bull****.

If that is your stance you might want to note that Fig stated 'had a deal in place', not 'done deal'. These are not the same.

 

[Lunatik]

If that is your stance you might want to note that Fig stated 'had a deal in place', not 'done deal'. These are not the same.

Well no shit, a done deal would be sent to the league

 

[InfinityIggy]

Well no ****, a done deal would be sent to the league

Right, like perhaps the Zucker deal lol?

 

[Lunatik]

Right, like perhaps the Zucker deal lol?

It's been said it was never sent to the league

 

[Volica]

Does anyone actually recall the VP DM interview where he was talking about the Stone deal they thought they had completed? I thought that was his wording?
Have to think it was Kylington + 1st or something of the sort, and Vegas just came in and ponied up with a Brannstrom deal.

 

[InfinityIggy]

It's been said it was never sent to the league

First I have heard of that.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Does anyone actually recall the VP DM interview where he was talking about the Stone deal they thought they had completed? I thought that was his wording?
Have to think it was Kylington + 1st or something of the sort, and Vegas just came in and ponied up with a Brannstrom deal.

Rumour I read somewhere had it starting out as a 1st and Andersson or Valimaki, then turned into Andersson and Valimaki.

 

[Rubi]

In what fantasy world do the Flames end up with Hall without trading one of their core players for him? Can someone please explain? And if they can do this, how can they afford him? Can someone please explain?

 

[Ace Rimmer]

In what fantasy world do the Flames end up with Hall without trading one of their core players for him? Can someone please explain? And if they can do this, how can they afford him? Can someone please explain?

As I read it earlier, they'll somehow convince New Jersey to take all the guys we hate (Bennett, Jankowski) in a package and add a 1st.

 

[Rubi]

As I read it earlier, they'll somehow convince New Jersey to take all the guys we hate (Bennett, Jankowski) in a package and add a 1st.

Will they take Lucic too??

 

[Baxterman]

In what fantasy world do the Flames end up with Hall without trading one of their core players for him? Can someone please explain? And if they can do this, how can they afford him? Can someone please explain?

I think the world is one in which Hall is a UFA at the end of the year.

Is there a lot of examples where an upcoming UFA is traded for a younger, equal value player on a good deal? Because if we are trading a core piece then Jersey is getting a younger, better contract player that is either equal (Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk) or a slight drop off (Lindholm).

A Hall trade doesn't work because we already have too many LHS LW's and we have no way of affording his deal going forward.

 

[Fig]

Rumour I read somewhere had it starting out as a 1st and Andersson or Valimaki, then turned into Andersson and Valimaki.

I heard they wanted Andersson or Valimaki involved but Treliving was insistent that both those guys not be moved in a such a trade. Both doesn't make sense for the Flames for reasons other than value. One of them and a 1st perhaps makes sense. Kylington + 1st and a plus if necessary also makes more sense, but we don't know what was discussed. I also can't imagine such a discussion didn't have other players involved due to cap implications (ie: Frolik etc. possibly even Neal)

The end deal with VGK was them shipping out: Branstromm (2017 15th OA) + Lindberg (2010 2nd rounder 57 OA) + 2020 2nd rounder (late?) which is IMO within the same range of what we paid for Dougie Hamilton's rights (likely with quiet conditions that we would be able to extend him).

Valimaki is within the same range as Branstromm value wise and Andersson I presume had risen his stock into the late 1st to mid 1st range at that time. Even if the value makes sense, it doesn't make sense fit wise for the Flames. Andersson is especially valuable for us due to the lack of any decent RHD pipeline and the Brodie/Hamonic/Stone age/contract situation.



Pure conjecture at this point: Timeline wise at the TDL, if it really was Frolik + 1st for Zucker which is still a RW move but lesser, I could maybe see a tie up with certain assets that kinda got in the way of both deals because Stone is a RW move as well. Now that I kinda did a little overview... I wonder....

- Maybe the Zucker deal was already on the table much earlier, but we decided to see what was going on for Stone.
- Maybe we offered 4 quarters and a dime for the deal and were waiting on a tie up to get rid of some salary to make it work out so it pushed closer to the deadline 11th hour. (ie: financing + inspection condition plus condition of a home buying deal to sell a home by a certain date to consummate deal). Ottawa perhaps not happy to take on salary and perhaps take on talent which would hurt their tank?
- VGK offered a a 50 cent piece and two quarters at the 10th hour and decided to navigate the cap issues in the off season rather than at the TDL, so because their deal with Ottawa was easy and down and dirty, Ottawa did that deal. (ie: Financing or home selling condition only, no home selling condition so deal is more certain)
- Backup plan for Zucker + 1st was ready to go at the 11th hour, but someone may have let it slip that if the VGK deal didn't go through, Minny deal was ready to go and it got back to Minny (could be as innocent as a "Hey, are you and Calgary consummating a deal before TDL end?") so Fenton flipped out because info got out, stating that he wouldn't consummate the deal or would contact HQ to cancel pre-existing filed papers, thereby canceling the deal and Calgary not bothering to file papers on their side?

So if I tie the two deals together: 1st + Frolik was maybe part of the initial negotiations for the package to Ottawa? We know that Valimaki and Andersson were discussed but were impasse points at certain points in time, so likely were not available.

So what's the plus? If I were to attempt to deduce...

Worth mentioning:

Value wise:
- Kylington (likely Ottawa wanted dman, he has value and could be moved over V/A)
- Jankowski (worth something, also included in Kadri deal rumor so we know was a loose asset)
- Brodie (Kadri deal rumor, so loose asset, brings him closer to home in Ontario + very likely required to help to make the cap work for a Stone extension)
- Bennett (Impasse?)

No one else seems like players that Flames want to move, or players that Ottawa might be interested in acquiring.

Educated guess:

Main offer: 1st + Frolik + Brodie OR more perhaps likely Kylington + Frolik + Brodie (Reasonable value plus cap space out for Calgary, but not the higher tier futures desired by Ottawa) + maybe Janko if needed to seal the deal? (4 quarters and a dime)

Other:
Fantenberg deal could make sense depth wise if both Brodie AND Kylington are involved in the deal. We'd need him for LD depth and we'd have Prout for RD depth.

FOR

Stone + 2 scrub contracts (I think VGK actually took on 1 scrub contract in their deal with Stone).

CAP
Flames in: Stone (assume identical 9.5 mil AAV deal)
Flames out: 4.3 + 4.65 = 8.95 (Maybe even Janko out at 1.675) = 10.6 mil

Ottawa in: 10.6 = not ideal
Ottawa out: 3.5 mil (Stone pre-extension)

Actual Ottawa cap:
Ottawa in: ELC + League min = <2mil
Ottawa out: 3.5 mil.


Parallel universe:

Flames:

- If no buyout Stone: 10.6 mil cap enough for no buyout savings + 9.5 mil AAV Stone.
- Mango + Tkachuk sign for same contracts, below should be cap compliant.

JG - Mony - Stone
Tkachuk - Backlund - Lindholm
Mango - Ryan - Neal
Bennett - Dube - Czarnik

Gio - Hamonic
Hanifin - Andersson
Valimaki- Stone

Prout
(Assume no Kylington)

 

[Fig]

I think the world is one in which Hall is a UFA at the end of the year.

Is there a lot of examples where an upcoming UFA is traded for a younger, equal value player on a good deal? Because if we are trading a core piece then Jersey is getting a younger, better contract player that is either equal (Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk) or a slight drop off (Lindholm).

A Hall trade doesn't work because we already have too many LHS LW's and we have no way of affording his deal going forward.

A Brodie + Frolik + Czarnik out seems to support a 9.5 mil AAV with cap to spare, but no damn clue how to fit the Valimaki and Andersson raises longer term without Janko + Bennett and maybe Neal out as well.

But after my previous mental gymnastics post... it seems any 9.5 mil contract can fit reasonably OK.

 

[crackdown44]

A Brodie + Frolik + Czarnik out seems to support a 9.5 mil AAV with cap to spare, but no damn clue how to fit the Valimaki and Andersson raises longer term without Janko + Bennett and maybe Neal out as well.

But after my previous mental gymnastics post... it seems any 9.5 mil contract can fit reasonably OK.

You still need to replace two more rostered players if you’re trading those guys though. You can only go as low as league minimum and those guys usually aren’t very effective

 

[Fig]

You still need to replace two more rostered players if you’re trading those guys though. You can only go as low as league minimum and those guys usually aren’t very effective

I did say I wasn't totally sure how it all fitted together. It's tight but seemingly doable, but I also agree that it's not ideal nor sustainable because the blue line and goalie will need salary cap perhaps more than what the increase in cap and movement of cap will be.

Easy answer, move on from Sam Bennett and 2.6 mil is enough for two ELC/league minimum. But it doesn't answer Valimaki/Andersson/Rittich/Talbot portion.

There's also the argument that with a top heavy roster, you don't need to rely on depth as much. But I feel like you're the type who is totally on board with Treliving operating in a way where he loves his depth vs a top heavy roster.

 

[GAMO1992]

Why don't we just use Kylington as our missing forward? Kids got INSANE offensive instincts, put him with Chucky-Backs and watch them tear it up!

 

[super6646]

First I have heard of that.

It apparently was but wasn’t processed properly/on time.

 

[super6646]

Double post.