Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Calgary/Nashville

Keenan87

Registered User
Nov 10, 2008
327
366
Viqsi said:
...the Flames fans here are going to absolutely eat you alive.

Nashville absolutely would take that. With adds as needed.
Click to expand...

I am also a Flames fan. Not entirely sure why this is not a fair deal. There is no way Monahan is getting 82 points without Gaudreau if that is the big reasoning. Forsberg is feisty and can actually create his own offense.

For Nashville, this deal gives them a terrific center depth with Johansson, Monahan, and Turris.
 
Viqsi

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,776
31,195
40N 83W (approx)
Keenan87 said:
I am also a Flames fan. Not entirely sure why this is not a fair deal. There is no way Monahan is getting 82 points without Gaudreau if that is the big reasoning. Forsberg is feisty and can actually create his own offense.

For Nashville, this deal gives them a terrific center depth with Johansson, Monahan, and Turris.
Click to expand...
Even given that possibility, it's center-for-winger. Specifically, it's Calgary's #1C - and it's in exchange for a LW going to a team that already has Gaudreau and Matthew Tkachuk at that position. Who's going to play in Monahan's place?

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this happen. I don't want to be trying to talk folks out of this. But it's just not reasonable for Calgary, and that's an essential prerequisite (as much as I would want to believe otherwise).
 

Keenan87

Registered User
Nov 10, 2008
327
366
Viqsi said:
Even given that possibility, it's center-for-winger. Specifically, it's Calgary's #1C - and it's in exchange for a LW going to a team that already has Gaudreau and Matthew Tkachuk at that position. Who's going to play in Monahan's place?

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this happen. I don't want to be trying to talk folks out of this. But it's just not reasonable for Calgary, and that's an essential prerequisite (as much as I would want to believe otherwise).
Click to expand...

According to Bill Peters, Lindholm may play center full-time next season and Tkachuk can move to the RW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImNeverWrong

Bond

Registered User
May 10, 2012
3,909
2,794
Keenan87 said:
I am also a Flames fan. Not entirely sure why this is not a fair deal. There is no way Monahan is getting 82 points without Gaudreau if that is the big reasoning. Forsberg is feisty and can actually create his own offense.

For Nashville, this deal gives them a terrific center depth with Johansson, Monahan, and Turris.
Click to expand...

Wrecks the Flames center depth for another high-end LW. Is the plan to have Backlund as our #1 center with someone on their off wing?

Wouldn't want to do it as a Flames fan. Sends us right back to searching for a center.
 
Viqsi

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,776
31,195
40N 83W (approx)
Keenan87 said:
According to Bill Peters, Lindholm may play center full-time next season and Tkachuk can move to the RW.
Click to expand...
...Part of me wants to argue with this as being reckless on the part of the Flames, but the rest of me is screaming "SHUT UP, SHUT UP, THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY GO FOR IT". :scared:
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeauxPreds1
WTFMAN99

WTFMAN99

Registered User
Jun 17, 2009
33,033
11,037
Think it just destroys the centre depth of Calgary too much.

Maybe something like Turris and Forsberg for Neal and Monahan?
 
willb892

willb892

Registered User
Apr 20, 2017
11
3
Lethbridge, Alberta
Flames fan here, and I'm not entirely opposed to that trade. If I'm Calgary, I would maybe try to ask for a middle-round draft pick to supplement the deal, but otherwise its actually a pretty fair deal.

However, that does leave Calgary with a large gap at Centre, and would probably bump Tkachuk down the depth chart, which isn't really necessary.

Value-wise, its a decent deal. Needs-wise, its a needless risk for Calgary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viqsi
Porter Stoutheart

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,907
11,298
As much as we need a #2C, this isn't the way we'd go about getting one. Either UFA or in a trade for a D makes more sense. This would just accentuate the need on the wings. Dunno who is better between FF9 and Monahan overall, but it sounds like it's not something that fits the rosters for either team.
 
treple13

treple13

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
2,820
1,504
Flames are already strong on the wings and a bit weaker at centre. This doesn't help that.
 

chubeyr

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
483
34
DominikBokkFan said:
Any Flames fans taht says no to this should question their fan status.
Click to expand...

Who is our top line center then? Where is Forsberg playing? On the third line?

Please understand all fans, I am not complaining about trade value here or the players involved.

Terrible fit for Calgary.

I dislike Monahan for many reasons but all players on the top line in Calgary had career years. Yes we sucked in the playoffs. When it matters.

Who is replacing Monahan at center? Lindholm? Sure Monahan went cold towards the end of the season but have you looked at what Lindholm did the last 20 or 30 games. It is much worse!

Monahan is not a center that drives the play. Yet he is our best option on the team. If we are trading him it is for an upgrade at center, not on the wing.

Calgary does not do this trade because we lose our top line center for a top line left winger that will play on the third line.

Even if Forsberg played on our top line it just means an 8 million dollar player will be playing on the third line with checkers. Waste of money.

I am sure both fan bases are upset about early exits from the playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treple13

Bond

Registered User
May 10, 2012
3,909
2,794
DominikBokkFan said:
Any Flames fans taht says no to this should question their fan status.
Click to expand...

Lol. You want change for the sake of change regardless of team need, structure, or value.

If this happened, it would have to be involved with trading Gaudreau or Tkachuk for a center. I have yet too see a trade proposal that makes sense for both teams that would accomplish this and make the Flames better.
 
DFF

DFF

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
22,312
6,565
Deal ...where do I sign

The Flames need to move on from Monahan and Gaudreau combo
 
crackdown44

crackdown44

Cold milk cools down hot food
Dec 1, 2017
4,495
5,521
I think Forsberg is a hair better than Monahan but trading our 1C for a guy that might be our third best left winger doesn’t really make sense either
 

FameFlame069

Registered User
Oct 2, 2017
2,992
546
Keenan87 said:
To Calgary:
Filip Forsberg

To Nashville:
Sean Monahan

Both teams had a disappointing playoffs. Why not make a big change and maybe that helps?
Click to expand...

Are you expecting Backlund to be the 1C or Lindy? Cause I wouldn't go near FF for Moneyhands with a ten foot pole
 
Bjornar Moxnes

Bjornar Moxnes

Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
Oct 16, 2016
11,498
3,960
Troms og Finnmark
Forsberg is a RHS, and while it is true he's a sniper, he's also an excellent transition player. He played RW and C before the NHL. He's better 5on5 on the RW anyways, which the Flames massively need. On the PP play him on the left side for his one timers (Which again Nsahville doesn't utilize). Flames absolutely should accept this trade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom