Proposal: CGY/EDM

KevinRedkey

12/18/23 and beyond!
Jan 22, 2010
9,916
4,850
Oilers lose, maybe throw in Bennett

This is closer IMO. Similar tot he Leafs/Avs trade, but not quite as lopsided IMO.

I still wouldn't do it if I were the Oilers though. They need the offense RNH provides.
 

DFF

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
22,330
6,579
Oilers lose, maybe throw in Bennett
Bennett will never be a thrown in to any deal
I understand why the oilers can't or don't want to trade rnh for Brodie. They can't play with just 2fwds
 

ThreeOfAPerfectPair

Registered User
Oct 26, 2017
7,173
8,988
Edmonton
T.J. Brodie for Ryan Nugent-Hopkins..

Both teams address an area of need. Flames: 2C. Oilers: Top-4 D.

Yes? No?

H3dQuwE.png
 

Mazatt

Registered User
Apr 30, 2019
2,819
2,085
Bruh what the f*** that's terrible value for Nugent Hopkins. How can Flames fans think this shit be fair?
 

blankall

Registered User
Jul 4, 2007
14,993
5,330
I think you Flames have will have to temper expectations slightly. Brodie is not bringing a player like Nuge back.

If it was a year later, and Nuge made it clear he was not signing with the Oilers, there might be a deal.
 
Sep 13, 2009
2,350
161
Brodie is a 30 year old impending UFA.

How about no.

You realize they are only 3 years apart in age right? Brodie is 29, Nuge 26. Both are also pending UFAs; Brodie in '20, Nuge in '21.

Bottom line is Oilers need D just as bad as another F, maybe even moreso.
 
Sep 13, 2009
2,350
161
I think you Flames have will have to temper expectations slightly. Brodie is not bringing a player like Nuge back.

If it was a year later, and Nuge made it clear he was not signing with the Oilers, there might be a deal.

You don't think a top-4 D - on a sweetheart contract no less - capable of playing on the top pair is bringing back a 2C? I respectfully disagree. He was almost traded for one (Kadri) a few days ago. Maybe if he was a cap dump, then yes.
 

iCanada

Registered User
Feb 6, 2010
19,236
19,015
Edmonton
T.J. Brodie for Ryan Nugent-Hopkins..

Both teams address an area of need. Flames: 2C. Oilers: Top-4 D.

Yes? No?

No. We dont need top 4 D, we have 4 of those. We need a number 1, but.... Brodie is not that.

We need quality forwards much much more. Maybe if you took Lucic or added something significant. This is awful for Edmonton.
 

Mazatt

Registered User
Apr 30, 2019
2,819
2,085
You don't think a top-4 D - on a sweetheart contract no less - capable of playing on the top pair is bringing back a 2C? I respectfully disagree. He was almost traded for one (Kadri) a few days ago. Maybe if he was a cap dump, then yes.
Woah woah woah. WOAH. We only knew that Brodie was involved in a deal that also involved Kadri. It is not known if it was one for one. Being on a sweetheart deal means jackall when it's 1 year for a top 4 d-man that can't really carry his own weight defensively. If you compared that to Barrie who is the main driver of his parings, and they needed a 3C to get Kerfoot while also retaining 50% on barrie, yeah, these eals are nowhere similar.
 
Sep 13, 2009
2,350
161
No. We dont need top 4 D, we have 4 of those. We need a number 1, but.... Brodie is not that.

We need quality forwards much much more. Maybe if you took Lucic or added something significant. This is awful for Edmonton.

You have 4 top-4 D? :skeptic:

Fine, we'll take Lucic. You take Neal.

Capisce?
 
Last edited:

Mazatt

Registered User
Apr 30, 2019
2,819
2,085
How so? Neal is signed for longer at the same cap hit, and Lucic scored more last year.
Paying more money for someone who has a worse chance at bouncing back compared to Neal, and Lucic has to be protected in the expansion draft. It's just all around bad for the Flames. Those 5 or so points Lucic has on Neal means shit when they're both awful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nanuuk

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad