SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

skrollins

Member Since
Jun. 7, 2016
Favourite Team
Calgary Flames
Forum Posts
32
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 22, 2016 at 11:25 p.m.
Forum: Mock-DraftJun. 15, 2016 at 5:24 p.m.
Thread:
Sorry, have no idea why it says 76 for the 2nd Habs pick...meant to say either 45 (Minnesota's 2nd round pick) or 70 (Montreal's 3rd round pick)

Also it deleted my explanation but for more context see this:

<em>I’m very curious about Calgary. For a long time, we assumed if anyone was going to move down, it would the Oilers. The Flames might be a good bet, too. Arizona, picking right behind them, is on-record saying it wants to add defencemen. So is Buffalo — particularly on the left side. Would the Sabres want to leapfrog the Coyotes? Or is there someone further wanting to climb? Sounds like Calgary is willing to consider it.

5. Another team testing the possibility of moving up: Montreal. The Canadiens pick ninth.</em> <a href="http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-remembering-greatness/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-remembering-greatness/</a>

I only did up to 9 because I really have no idea about the draft after that.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 15, 2016 at 4:43 p.m.
Thread: Flames 16/17, new Goalies
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>IgorKutchakokov</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jawalk3</b></div><div><i>Pittsburgh won't take on kindl in a fleury trade, they're trying to free up cap space.</i></div></div>

I don't see why not. 2.04 mil cap hit for one year and done. With Fleury running off, there is no risk. And this won't be a problem come next off-season when RFA contracts of Sheary/Murray/Dumo/Pouliot kick in.</i></div></div>

Yeah the way PIT's cap is, they can get a bad contract back for Fleury for 1-2 years and still have basically the same team as this year - they don't have any important FAs to sign. It's a reasonable deal for Fleury although Flames could just as easily just put Engelland in it instead. Don't really see Florida making the Wideman deal.

Can't see Flames trading for Gaborik either. Aside from fact it's a very risky contract, Kings become thinner at wing if both him and Lucic go.

I give you a point for imagination and for actually having a reasonable Fleury deal unlike some people on here who want to trade a 1st, Backlund and/or Kylington...
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 15, 2016 at 4:24 p.m.
Thread: Flames Fluery
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Juice</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>skrollins</b></div><div><i>don't even know where to start with this..massive overpayment for Fleury to begin with (should only take a salary dump and a 2nd or two, if they ask for Backlund hang up, and Kylington, GTFO)...Okposo would take 5.5M at minimum to sign...you have them signing Lovejoy for no reason whatsoever (I guess to replace Engelland but you don't really need to...)...Colborne replacing Backlund as 3rd line center is completely, completely awful especially for 3 years/3M...Arizona is not giving you the 20th overall for Klimchuk/Wideman, no way.</i></div></div>

I tend to agree...I think MAF could be had for a pick (2nd) and prospect</i></div></div>

I think only Toronto, Carolina and Calgary are the obvious destinations for Fleury - the only ones with the clear goalie vacancy and cap space to add him. Pittsburgh doesn't have a ton of leverage. I agree, I think Fleury will get a 2nd, prospect/pick and maybe a 1-2 year bad contract for Pittsburgh.

The other thing not in Pittsburgh's favor is that Reimer, Andersen and possibly Bishop are also on the market this year.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 11, 2016 at 1:50 a.m.
Thread: Bishop, Okposo and Puljujarvi (*very improbable)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Halla</b></div><div><i>columbus doesnt pass on puljujarvi just to dump hartnell, and get a 3rd line player and fringe prospect</i></div></div>

I actually agree which is why I said this was improbable. I meant it more as, this is the only such trade that would work for Calgary, based on the rumors. As I said, Columbus at minimum would try to make Calgary take Clarkson instead. In fact I find it the most improbable part of this roster.

In all seriousness I think it would take a teams legitimate top prospect and/or taking on Clarkson in order to trade up to 3. Unfortunately Calgary can't really afford to do either (nor, I think, can Vancouver, and it would be pointless for Edmonton to do it.) I think ultimately they retain the pick, even if they plan to take Brown with a slight reach.

This roster wasn't really a serious one, just sort of my own wild dream scenario based on current rumors.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 10, 2016 at 5:54 p.m.
Thread: only plausible Wideman trade scenario i think
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>skrollins</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>skrollins</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div><i>Any takers on my proposal??</i></div></div>

if the Habs are really that desperate to move Emelin, sure.</i></div></div>

Hmm curious. I guess that means CGY is willing to part with 2 of their best prospects in exchange for approximately 7M+ in cap relief for one year. Interesting.</i></div></div>

neither of those players are "top prospects", especially not Janko

at any rate i find it an unlikely proposal</i></div></div>

Ok maybe not Matthews or Laine "Top prospects" but they are former 1st rounders and not that long ago. Anyways i know its not realistic, i'm just trying to gauge what it would cost to take expensive players with only 1 year left on their contracts, off a teams hands. Everyone is trying to get rid of those players and are willing to give picks and prospects in order to do so. If a team knows they won't be able to attract high end talent, this is the best way to use up the extra cap space they wouldn't be using anyway and in the process get picks and prospects.

Essentially buying picks and prospects. The Bickell situation in Chicago, the Wideman one in Calgary. Vanek is Minny. If a team has the money to keep these guys on the roster as depth players and money isn't a problem for the owner, this is a brilliant idea. One that the Leafs are currently doing pretty much. Shanahan would be doing it more if only they had more cap space to do it.

So to make it clearer at what i'm trying to get at instead of Janko and Poirier, what about 2017 1st rounder and a 2018 1st rounder (lottery protected)? Both Janko and Poirier were 1st rounders and since they are protected they'd be 16th at best which is pretty much where Janko and Poirier got drafted so the value is pretty close.

So its not because i'm desperate to trade Emelin, its because i want fix your cap problem in exchange for picks/prospects. Our team would still be able to make the playoffs if Price stays healthy so the only thing we would be sacrificing is not going out and getting a Okposo or a Backes etc for one year and spending that money next year instead.</i></div></div>

I've done several rosters based on different options for Wideman, Bouma and Stajan (buyout, trade, remain on roster) and ultimately I don't think the Flames are quite desperate enough for cap space to include a 1st. They might dangle the 2017 1st in a different deal but not purely for cap space. It'll be very tight but I've found there are ways they can fulfill their needs - albeit perhaps not that efficiently, but plausibly - by only trading Engelland, for instance.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 10, 2016 at 2:20 a.m.
Thread: only plausible Wideman trade scenario i think
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>wabit</b></div><div><i>Vanek + Kuemper for Wideman + 2nd. If Vanek agrees to go to Flames (unlikely) and the Wild trade one of Brodin/Spurgeon/Dumba.

Doubt you'll get Okposo for that price, someone will stupidly overpay him.</i></div></div>

Quite probable re: Okposo. It was kind of an experiment to see if Flames could afford to add one more top six.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Hotshot74</b></div><div><i>And I don't think your getting Johnny and Mony for less then 7 so add another 1.5 to ur cap number atleast</i></div></div>

Yeah, they will be within 6.5-7 each. Other rosters I've done have had Johnny at 7.1; I could see him as high as 7.5. The important broad strokes of Flames offseason are A. Whitch goalies they get, B. Which top six winger(s) they get., and C, enabling the first two, which salary dumps they're able to do. Oh, and I guess that whole coach thing too.

One thing Flames have going for them with Johnny is that I think I read he's not eligible for offer sheets. Monahan is though.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 8, 2016 at 4:04 p.m.
Thread: Trade for 3OA
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>trdeJong</b></div><div><i>I believe the NHL has stated that NMC's are void in the expansion draft (if or when) - only players safe are ones protected or with 2 years or less as pro's.... So lets hope the NHL approves expansion for both Quebec and Vegas this year as waiting 1-3 years would expose more of our young players....

As for this team... I'm going with BurnEmUp - trading up should cost 1 or 2 2nd round picks or maybe a really late 1st.... That being said the second tear in this years draft (picks 4-7) is not that bad... Not 100% sold on the value of the 2 Fins... If Calgary can get Tkachuk / Dubois / Nylander / or Juolevi I will be happy... Both the Fins are playing with men and thus there development is closer to peaking while all 4 I listed have lots of upside!

Calgary should keep there picks this year... Stock the cupboards and look to get ride of some bad contracts and 2017 UFA's while bringing in some 2016 UFA to fill in our weak spots... RW and Goal...</i></div></div>

When discussing trading up, it's important to note that no team in the top 10 has traded up since Toronto traded up from 7 to 5 in 2008. There's a reason for this - teams have realized that the typical tier drop after 1-3 and sometimes 4-5 is almost never a good gamble for a few extra picks in the 2nd and 3rd. Therefore if Calgary were to trade up from 6 to 3 I think the deal would have to be more complex than just throwing in a few 2nds and 3rds. True, that's generally how trade-ups work, but in the mid-round 1st and later, when the tiers become more of a wash and it's a better gamble to just stockpile picks.

Actually, all reports are that NMCs are NOT void in the expansion draft, in fact they are automatically protected in the draft and even worse take up one of your protected slots. It was negotiated with the PA. The only NMCs exempt from this are ones that are impending free agents at time of the draft (ie. Wideman).
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 8, 2016 at 3:50 p.m.
Thread: go treliving!
Even with goalie market flooded I think you'd be pretty lucky to get Reimer for 3.6. Probably add around a million to that cap hit (Niemi went for $4.5 per last year.)

Re: the Pronger thing - it seems to be a popular option on here, evidently based on the notion Arizona would rather pay a guy to actually play. But here's the key fact people miss - Pronger's ACTUAL SALARY for his final year is just $575K. It's why they traded for that deal, so they could get to the floor without actually paying what the cap hit implied. (It's also why his contract is even still in effect, since it was one of the now-banned cap cheat deals). Wideman, on the other hand, has an actual salary of $6M in 2017. So Arizona would be doing Calgary a favour in that deal, not the other way around. I wouldn't call it impossible but improbable; Flames likely would have to throw something in.