Major wall of text incoming! Sorry!
Hamilton: 30 points
Lindholm+Hanifin: 31 points
“Isn’t even close” seems like hyperbole, it’s only a one point difference!
EDIT: but what you’re not considering - Dougie’s doing it at a fraction of the cost!
Lindholm: 4.85
Hanifin: 4.95
Total: 9.80
Hamilton: 5.75
Hamilton vs Lindholm + Hanifin ratio = 58.67%
OFF TO AN EARLY LEAD!
30 points / 58.67% = approximately 51 points. The Flames combo 20 points under based on your approach!
Cmon. Look at his production last year and you know theyre having a rough year so far. That’s a convenient sample size to use for this argument. He’s a complimentary player with guys who aren’t playing well.
Dougie is also unlikely to be such a high scoring guy consistently as well. Maybe goals, but pts overall is a crapshoot playing with us.
Last season (2018-2019):
Lindholm: 78
Hanifin: 33
Hamilton: 39
Hamilton vs Lindholm + Hanifin ratio = 35.14% (lower than salary ratio)
WIN!
Couple of problems here, IMO.
One is the thinking that there has to be a winner and a loser in every trade. The other is, how are we judging winning and losing?
First of all, there is literally no way to ever know if Lindholm would have "blossomed" if he stayed in Carolina. Never will be, either. Hell, there's no way to know if *anything* would have worked out the same way for either team if the trade was never made. I prefer to look at all transactions as part of the "team building" process. In that sense, both Carolina and Calgary got quantifiably better as a result of the trade. In that sense, I'd consider it even.
If you're asking me if I'd do it again, even knowing everything I know, I would. And the reason is Noah Hanifin. IMO, he'll never be anything more than a third-pairing d-man and he'll never QB a No. 1 power-play unit, so he's massively overpaid at $5 million. If you factor in that he's basically a replacement-level player (we lose nothing playing Haydn Fleury in his spot), I think Carolina got the best of the deal.
I totally agree. There can be more than one winner, just as there can be more than one loser. It's not black and white and in all honesty, what GM in general goes out and tries to make a deal where he himself loses the deal? None really. Winning and losing in such an event as a trade is not always black and white. In fact, there's more than one way to define a win. GMs come together to make a deal where they walk away a winner. Even if a GM walks away seemingly with less value than the other GM, the GM still went to the table to field a move that would win in some form of category. For instance, GM moves that can be viewed as winning/losing. That's kinda why I always spend time trying to research the other side of the story to understand the basics. There must be a way for both teams to walk away with the ability they both walked away better off than before.
- All in for new hope (ie: CBJ last season) - I would say they lost a ton of assets, but the swagger and renewed hope part was successful.
- Change of scenery uplift, better roster fit/roster needs, player contract status concerns (ie: Calgary/Carolina and Calgary/Boston for Hamilton). I think both were wins for both teams who chanced walking into the seasons after the trade with less to show on their roster by keeping their guy, than if they had fielded a move with another club.
- Something for nothing/Forced hands/change of scenery (ie: Fox to NYR, Calgary/Vancouver Baertschi/Anderson). Team gets a higher quality talent on their roster which isn't a distraction and also avoids the player tanking their own value further for the organization controlling their rights.
Not to be mean to you guys or anything, but your original core wasn't getting the job done. So Hanifin and Lindholm was shipped out so that you could replace the core with a new group led by Aho. In that sense, your management identified that more mediocrity was expected from the core at the time of the trade, decided to make the decision to take three steps back so that you could avoid the inevitable dead end down the path the org was walking. Value aside, that's a success. Value included, your org didn't bleed significant value which is also a success. Fit wise, Dougie is a gem, though he walked in free agency, I have no doubt Ferland helped to instill the new attitude that coach Rob wanted to instill and the assets you acquired in the Fox deal are far less disgruntled than he and the players there before him. Again, that's a win.
Flames rounded out the roster and the cap structure allows us to extend our contention window than by keeping our original pieces. Win.
Yah, I get that part and agree. Just the times I've seen him, he seems to be making the same sort of mistakes and plays I saw with Carolina. He's facing a bit tougher competition now as a 2nd pairing guy, but I didn't see a legit step forward. As you said though, he is still young for an NHL defenseman.
I don't think he's changed too much from his Carolina days. That being said, how much could he truly change if he is still playing under Peters? Different silks, same system, similar deployment. In a few months, it'll be interesting to see where he's at now that he's playing in a different system under Geoff Ward.
Lindholm's transformation on the other hand likely has to do with the fact he received something in Calgary he had not received in Carolina for a long time. Stability. Rather than bouncing up and down the lineup as needed in Carolina, he earned a permanent spot alongside JG and Mony. I think he could potentially have spiked in production in Carolina if he was afforded such a luxury as well. Not to make fun of your roster or anything, but in Calgary, prior to the trade with you guys, we did the same thing by bouncing guys up and down the line up and noted poor results as well. It was only after the trade with you guys that we found a synergy that afforded us a luxury to not have to bounce guys like Alex Chiasson from the 4th line to the 1st line to fill a RW hole. I do believe I recall certain Canes fans making similar comments when the trade went down about how there would be a lot of regret as Lindholm would jump purely based on a more stable deployment environment.
Fox?
I kid. I kid.
Two years from now though it wouldn’t surprise me. He’s already throwing passes as well as Dougie does on the pp (maybe better which is saying something) and overall is more mobile. Small sample of a rookie year but Fox right now has the tools to be talked about as the best player in the deal moving forward. He definitely has the game breaker thing going on too.
I don't know about kidding, there's definitely super star potential from Adam Fox. For a while, I kept getting annoyed that some of the Flames posters were hype-training him like mad. But the more I watched his game the more I realized he was damn good and definitely should not have been a 3rd round pick. Add also the fact that he's achieving these things while skating isn't considered a great strength for him. If he spent a ton of time working on his skating with a skating coach... he could take his game to the next level.
re: Hanifin's salary
I've watched a few Calgary games this year and last, and I have to say I'm on the side of those who don't really see a fundamentally different player from his time with Carolina. which would make him still pretty much a young ball of fairly capable hockey play-doh that you hope will eventually be molded into an impact contributor. one of these days, anyway.
and yeah, I think in today's NHL he's probably worth his contract, given his age and the "capabilities" he possesses (avoiding the word 'skill' here by choice). but just because he might be worth his $4.95M AAV, doesn't mean he's the best allocation of said $4.95M AAV. especially for Carolina. and making those sorts of decisions, about how best to allocate cap space, is probably the #1 impetus behind the Canes pursuing this deal in the first place.
until I learn otherwise, I think moving on from Hanifin for a better defenseman fit was the primary goal of the trade, and Lindholm was the price of doing business and getting back Hamilton, a roster player with a ready-made role in Ferland, and a hotshot prospect in Fox.
That's fair. I didn't see a fundamentally different player from Canes Hanifin to Flames Hanifin. But he's also playing in the same system as in Carolina and I don't know if that was the main reason. I also from time to time can't help but think he's miscast. I think there was some contingent that felt he would develop into a Bouwmeester type player, but when I watch him, I can't help but think Brodie on LD under Gulutzan at times. I don't know if I'm on the right track or not, but much of what I've noted about Hanifin in his time with the Canes and even previous to that is that he seems like he'd be a superior rover than systems robot... but I don't make those decisions.
Yep, and a lot of us feared this. That said, if he was never going to sign here, 2 2nds is pretty good for a guy that we would’ve lost for free the next year. Not to mention, on the day of the trade I think plenty of people would’ve preferred 2 2nds to Fox anyway given the uncertainty.
For that reason I think it’s unfair to count the player Fox is now and becomes as a part of the “return” for Lindholm and Hanifin. I think you have to count the 2 2nds we got for him, regardless of how good he ended up being.
I think Flames fans did the same. We paid a 3rd to draft him, but when the rumors seemed like he wasn't going to sign with us anyways, we considered it a sunk cost of a 3rd that we could derive no value from ourselves, so it was great that we could toss him into a trade and "receive" value essentially equal to or in excess of what we paid to acquire him. Signing Fox was likely an impossibility for you guys, so replacing his name under the Canes banner (as an impossibility) with the picks is very fair and valid IMO.
I think it will be interesting if when people look back at the trade, that the Rangers were the team that “won”.
I was fine with the two seconds, it was making the most of a bad situation. He’s already worth more but still it was better than nothing and we may get a player or two that wears the uniform at least. I agree I’m fine with just adding the picks into the trade when reviewing it.
I guess sooner or later someone will try to spin a one sided win for someone. But with the opportunity cost, Fox's intent, opportunities we could afford Fox etc. both the Flames and Canes weren't going to get from Fox what NYR has already gotten out of him. Furthermore, both clubs got more than the cost of acquisition, that's a solid win for all 3 clubs.
Given how things worked out, I'd say both teams "won" the trade, though Calgary came out better overall simply because two of the pieces Carolina acquired are no longer on the team, and it's possible that with a little more research, that could have been avoided (possibly by asking for other pieces than Ferland/Fox).
IMO, Calgary seems to have "won the trade" because all of the concerns we had about the trade evaporated and the pieces were a perfect fit. The Canes on the other hand (forgive me if I'm wrong on this option) are shifting significantly in their identity and are going through a 3 steps back approach to avoid a dead end path. As such, the current state of your roster as of now vs when the trade happened could be argued straight up as a step back and with more question marks with the pieces you have acquired since, people get nervous. They want the sure thing, not necessarily some maybe. That being said, after chatting with you guys, it seems the majority of you guys all align in the way you contemplate the win criteria and thus the majority of you guys are all happy with the trade and wouldn't be interested in a mulligan. That's a win.
In some senses, it's like... trading in that sports car for the minivan because it's far more practical and beneficial to the family unit after a little one is born. Some may view it that losing the sports car is a major loss and the minivan doesn't even stack up to how you used the sports car before. But once your team settles in with the new identity, that minivan is gonna be a game changer.... and vice versa for the group that settles in with the sports car.
Depends how you look at it from ours and the Rangers point of view. If is indeed as reported and Fox only had eyes for the Rangers, they essentially paid 2 2nds for this year of Adam Fox, a good middle pairing defenseman on a team that likely won’t make the playoffs. If that’s the case I think we won.
But I think the greater point is, if Fox was truly never going to play for us, or for Calgary, then it really doesn’t matter how good a player he ends up being. As a prospect at the time he was worth... just right there around 2 2nds. And if he really only wanted to play for one team, it’s negligible whether we trade him to NYR for 2 2nds or Calgary trades him to NYR and throws two 2 2nds into our deal.
That said, on the day of the deal I think if it were 2 2nds instead of the name “Adam Fox” many would’ve viewed the trade even more favorably for Carolina. I remember many basically saying “oh well he won’t sign there anyway so he’s basically a non-asset”, and the first half of that ended up being true.
I... have never ever contemplated Adam Fox as a rental. That's a really damn good way to look at it. I totally agree.
I'm going to take the opportunity to go on a mini-rant, but I'm not necessarily directing it at anyone in this discussion. I absolutely loathe the way HF generally evaluates trades. I'm a very mild-mannered poster, but seeing the terms "win" and "fleece" in this context annoys me greatly. Trades aren't zero sum. A good trade for one side does not equal a bad trade for the other. You have to isolate both sides and then evaluate. It should be two separarte discussions; is each team better off having made the move or would the status quo have been the way to go? Yet, fans are so concerned about optics and I think have this weird desire to call GMs dumb that it all gets lumped together.
The Flames made a great trade for a player that they felt was expendable, another that they perhaps didn't want to commit to and a prospect that they felt wouldn't sign. How the Flames made out is really irrelevant to the Carolina perspective. Flip it around and I found the Fenton bashing to be over the top. Niederreiter for Rask was a great trade for Waddell, but that doesn't mean it was equally as awful for Minnesota. The logic behind that deal was reasonable. It just hasn't worked out up to this point.
Bruv, you preaching to the choir. Yours ain't no rant. It's musical practice.
That being said, Imma be devil's advocate for a second. There's definitely some trades that the risk/reward doesn't make any damn sense. Those are the typical fleecing and winning comments. Like... the Hall/Larsson trade for instance. The idea made sense, but the value and risk that Edmonton took back made no sense.
The Rask/NN trade maybe could have made sense, but I have never heard any explanation from Fenton/management/ownership that makes any sense in terms of how they approached it.
Consider something like the Neal and Lucic trade. Treliving spent a ton of time after that trade explaining the trade. Even if we fans in general still don't agree with his reasoning, at least we know he didn't blindly jump into an idiotic trade and at least spent time to hesitate and contemplate prior to taking the plunge. Benning and Fenton on the other hand always seemed completely clueless/misguided when they tried to explain a bunch of the reasoning for their off the board sort of approach. Treliving's explanation was akin to him trading a project sports car for a truck that could break down at any moment. A few of us could see where he was coming from, but disagreed. Benning and Fenton on occasion are the types of guys who would justify buying a car because the console and steering wheel was cuter than the other cars.
I know I'm not a big content contributor (sorry, I'm working on that), but I just wanted to say that discussions here like that started a couple pages back with
@Fig's post, is what I love about HF as opposed to other places (and YES, I'm aware these discussions are unicorn-like around HF in general). I, for one, appreciate it.
Thanks
. I appreciate it. You guys have been awesome. I'm really thankful you guys entertained my giant walls of curiosity and hopefully I didn't annoy any of you guys with my drivel. I am a bit of a nerd, so I love doing some of these types deep evaluative discussions when it has to do with the Flames. I'm happy to have these conversations any time.
I always try to have a balanced approach and good understanding of both sides of the situation/story. You guys have been great with adding your opinions. I've learned quite a bit from your guy's perspective.
Don't worry about having a ton of content to contribute. I'm sure there's posters out there that wish reading some of my posts wasn't like trying to cram for an exam.
Sorry for the wall of text again! It's been an awesome discussion!
