Value of: MAF and Hornquist to Calgary.

Pia8988

Registered User
May 26, 2014
14,377
8,804
Flames fans start this thread then bash Pens fans based on what they assume they will want in return. LuL

Flower is playing at a Conn Smythe level but his value is **** right?

Oh and were not trading Hornqvist, end of discussion.

Yes because of age and necessity to be moved. As well goalies dont get huge returns
 

Connor

Registered User
Aug 17, 2015
1,727
124
MAF has little value because:

1. The goalie market is bad.
2. The expansion draft.
3. He is not a goalie Calgary is excited about.

Elliott's return was very very far from Brodie.

From what I remember, MAF doesn't even want to go to Calgary.

What's the Flames' next goalie option?
 

blankall

Registered User
Jul 4, 2007
14,984
5,318
I love groupthink on hf. It really is comical.
MAF has no value.....just ask the Capitals.
Guys like Hornqvist are easy to acquire......... yet very few teams have a guy like him.

The problematic group think is that fans think they can package lesser pieces into high end assets. That only happens when there's a breakdown in the locker room and someone needs to be moved immediately. Calgary's defence without Brodie is abysmal, and makes any trade a waste of time.
 

Woodrow

......
Dec 8, 2005
5,446
1,639
I think with Bishop gone and MAFs playoff performance so far that his value is as high as it could go. Could make for an interesting pre-expansion trade bonanza!!
 

Creativero

Registered User
Jul 17, 2015
895
30
I'm all for trading before the Pens go and do something stupid like try to extend his contract. Hornqvist is great but you can see his future if you see him play with any sort of injury. He's about a 3.74% decline in quickness from being useless. When's the last time the pens did a substantial contract with a player over 30 that they didn't regret?
 
Last edited:

Riptide

Registered User
Dec 29, 2011
38,887
6,520
Yukon
The problematic group think is that fans think they can package lesser pieces into high end assets. That only happens when there's a breakdown in the locker room and someone needs to be moved immediately. Calgary's defence without Brodie is abysmal, and makes any trade a waste of time.

I think that happens often enough every year to prove that this isn't correct (and I'll ignore the trade dead line deals and the obvious cap moves). Just go look at some of the moves last summer (not much of a surprise nothing outside the TD happened mid season).

- New York traded Brassard to Ottawa for Zibanejad and a 2018 2nd.
- Florida traded Kulikov, 2nd (33rd) to Buffalo for Pysyk, 2nd (38) and 3rd (89)
- Montreal trades Eller to Washington for a pair of 2nds (2017 and 18).

There's the pure hockey trades which are almost always a 1-1 deal (Jones/RyJo, Subban/Weber, etc), or like the Perron/Hagelin or Scuderi/Daley deal where one side adds slightly. Then there's other moves where GMs decide they want to change directions. Or that they want to acquire player(s) X to improve their team, and that player B is the only way to make that happen.

I'm not saying that Calgary and Brodie fit into any of these situations/scenarios, but I call BS on the idea that the only time this happens is when there's a "breakdown in the room and someone needs to be moved immediately." Because we see this happen far too often for that to be the case. GMs make moves all the time to make their team better based on what they perceive their needs to be. Sometimes these moves make a lot of sense to the fans, and other times fans are outraged at the stupidity of said move. Sometimes the fans are proven right, while other times it turns out the GM actually knows what they're doing (or just got very lucky).

But the idea that no team looking to get better ever trades a higher end player for a collection of good players (I'm not talking futures, but actual players) outside of a very specific set of circumstances is just plain false - because it simply happens far too often for that to be the case.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad