I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
Poile went with the NJ's offer on Subban since it was the only one that didn't include retention. Did he foresee a possible roster deadlock and bought himself some space to work with? Will he retain on Turris or just hold on to him as depth and expose him at the expansion draft? Either way, retention is doable imo. Let's assume we re-sign both Granlund (6M) and Smith (3.5M) in this scenario. (If it makes you guys who don't believe we resign them digest this easier, consider them as codenames for top6 and top9 forwards and what their caphits may look like)
After filling other expiring roster spots with youngsters, counting Santini cap hit (1.4M / 0.34M) at NHL level and including this retention, we still have around 3M to play with next year. This allows us to either sign/trade for a 3rd pair veteran dman.
We currently have 2.5M in free cap space, so something has to be worked out. Either we make additional moves, add some value to the trade via picks/prospects or increase Turris retention to 1M (which is the highest I would go with these presented numbers) for you to retain either Frolik or Hamonic to make it work for us.
I obviously don't know what the long term plans are and how much cap space Poile wants to save for extensions. Fabbro and Saros needs to be resigned next year, but at the same time Bonino's contract expires. Ekholm and Forsberg are UFA in three years. That's gonna take an additional 6M. Hopefully cap increase covers (most of) that.
As others have pointed out, the deadlock situation has probably decreased Turris's trade value significantly and it's hard to tell what it is. I think it's quite obvious we're not getting any long term assets (outside cap savings of course), thought. What else is obvious is that we're not making any decisions, so I think it's pointless to try to find the exact deal/value to satisfy two fans or fanbases. I think the foundation of the deal is what makes for better speculation and this seems like a great one for us. Trading from a position of strength to address weaker areas.
I might get skewered by my own fan base of whom many do not want anything to do with Turris, but my thoughts are along the lines that Turris can bounce back if his usage is revised and his line mates are modified. Maybe playing closer to home helps too, whatever. Whether that means Calgary can do it, I'm not totally sure, but I do think he would be a fit in our middle 6.
I've been intrigued by a Turris swap for a RHS middle 6 option since even before the Neal trade much to the chagrin of some of my fellow Flames fans. I did assume he could sorta play some RW, but if your comments are correct, he's a centre through and through and isn't a good wing conversion candidate (even if temporary?). I would like to clarify some of your concerns though.
NSH cap:
- OUT 5.25 (assumption retention to 5.25)
- IN 8.15
- Difference: 2.9
This might be a wee bit higher than what you have available at the moment ($2.5 mil cap space I believe?), so a scrub contract may need to come back to the Flames to balance things out for this season. Both Frolik and Hamonic are expiring, so the concerns about cap space in future years isn't a huge concern unless you specifically want to try and re-sign them. On the Flames side though, we already have a Lucic at 5.25 AAV. Our concerns are having another boat anchor contract if this gambit fails (so extra retention would be awesome) but obviously, why would Poile start a charity for us? And if Turris doesn't bounce back we lose big time, but you guys are free and clear. I think that would be the major part of the considerations for the remaining value balancing, but I'm glad the concept seems to have enough of a foundation to consider. If the balancing part never seems to make sense, then the deal doesn't make sense. That's fine. It just seems kinda fun to see if there's something conceptually that might be workable.
Sold. I think you better give Turris 2nd-line or better wingers and not count on him playing RW at all, though. With that caveat, he can be effective. With less... he gets iffy.
We do have around $3M in cap space, but this deal might tip a little past what we can handle there. Worth pursuing whatever tweaks are needed to balance it out, though.
The Flames do have a ton of centres that can swing wing, so I ultimately still think he's somewhat of a fit. I'm also sorta envisioning an idea where Turris on the Flames would be be playing 2 or 3C in a sort of lower end pseudo version of the Anisimov situation in Chicago a few years back. As long as his wingers are above average, he will survive just fine. He'd probably be separated from Lindholm who is our only other top 5 RHS, so I'm mainly assuming Turris would play with Backlund (LW in international tournaments) and Tkachuk (LW/RW) and Turris/Backlund would take turns taking face offs on their strong side. Worst case scenario, he is shuffled down to the line below in a 2A/2B set up with guys like Mangiapane and Czarnik without miscasting in a checking role like he (sorta?) currently is in Nashville (no offense; pun not intended).
I understand the Flames side to argue it has a reasonable enough foundation to be contemplated by Flames fans if Nashville can kick in enough incentive for us to take the longer term risk, but with Nashville, I don't know whether the idea even fits beyond surface stuff. My understanding so far is:
Nashville:
- Moves a reasonably talented but excessive/redundant option in Turris and unlocks his cap long term IF the cost makes sense.
- Frolik is a better wing fit for LW or RW to what Turris can offer for "less cap" and expires after this season giving long term flexibility?
- Hamonic is a useful piece for the current season. He is UFA after this season like Frolik so again there's long term flexibility?
What I don't know is:
- Does it bother you guys that you could end up with nothing left on your roster from the trade after this season? Or is that actually a benefit? (ie: Allows prospect graduation)
- It seems that you guys are somewhat comfortable with the concept at 5.25. What if we pushed our luck and tried to get retention closer to something around 1-1.5 mil AAV? Is that too close to a deal breaker assuming the retention is 4.5 seasons?
- Flames are also interested in possibly moving a guy like Jankowski who is reasonably acceptable as a LW, but very meh as a centre. Flames have way too many damn LW (JG, Tkachuk, Bennett, Mangiapane, Dube etc.). Could adding a guy make sense in making the deal slightly bigger? What about Bennett? Or is LW a non positional need for you guys?