You know, you act more like an Oiler cocknosed fan than an Av fan. Just remember, you are a local & we know where you live
- Kevin R

I just like the Drama. Since I am not emotionally invested in the Flames, I do get a kick out of watching some of the guys in my office just freak out over them as soon as any rumours or gossip comes up.

Plus Flames potentially are a team that could steal a wild card spot away from the Avs...I want to see the get better to watch better hockey here but not good enough to take a spot away from my boys

teams looking for a cap dump of their goalie to you guys...they have to take a contract back, I don't think you can just absorb 6m in a goalie without something coming off the books.

In an ideal situation I would love to see Varly and the 10th for Frolik and the 6th
But you guys will get all pissy about that
- DDM-Coga

Carly and Rantanen for Frolic and the 6th

NO to any trade involving Backlund for a goalie. Double NO to any trade for a goalie invovling our 6th. Also no to swapping Frolik for a contract dump (Callahan), he was one of our most consistent forwards last year.

Carly and Rantanen for Frolic and the 6th
- K-man25

Hands off my Rantanen. But if this draft goes sideways and Tkachuk slide to 6. I would have to think that deal could happen

teams looking for a cap dump of their goalie to you guys...they have to take a contract back, I don't think you can just absorb 6m in a goalie without something coming off the books.

In an ideal situation I would love to see Varly and the 10th for Frolik and the 6th
But you guys will get all pissy about that
- DDM-Coga

Prob something to do with no RW depth and all that. Im not as reticent to trade down picks as everyone else here seems to be though. And I think Backs is the most likely trade piece, not that it helps Colorado now too much as currently constructed.

NO to any trade involving Backlund for a goalie. Double NO to any trade for a goalie invovling our 6th. Also no to swapping Frolik for a contract dump (Callahan), he was one of our most consistent forwards last year.
- Saskabush

Depending on if MAF and Bishops cost go down, the 35 and Backs should be at least a consideration. He could very well be exposed next offseason after all.

Depending on if MAF and Bishops cost go down, the 35 and Backs should be at least a consideration. He could very well be exposed next offseason after all.
- FLflames34

If that's the price sign Reimer to a 3x4. I wouldn't trade Backs alone for MAF, it creates a big hole in our already thin forward group. We can get a goalie without giving up our best possession player. Christ I got a poop tonne of resistance trading Backs for Pulju and Hartnell but others are willing to trade him and a couple of high picks for a stop gap or a (possible) 1 year rental?

a 2nd and a b prospect should be all it takes to grab MAF, BT would be making a huge mistake to give much more than that.

I'd blow my load if BT could manage:

6th
Backlund
our 2nd
Prospect (Klimchuk,Poirier, Kulak, Wotherspoon)

for

3rd
Hartnell


and

Dallas 2nd
Prospect (klimchuk et.al)

for

MAF

I'm not opposed to trading Backlund, but we need a roster player in return to help fill the void (Hartnell's perfect for that IMO).

If that's the price sign Reimer to a 3x4. I wouldn't trade Backs alone for MAF, it creates a big hole in our already thin forward group. We can get a goalie without giving up our best possession player. Christ I got a poop tonne of resistance trading Backs for Pulju and Hartnell but others are willing to trade him and a couple of high picks for a stop gap or a (possible) 1 year rental?

a 2nd and a b prospect should be all it takes to grab MAF, BT would be making a huge mistake to give much more than that.

I'd blow my load if BT could manage:

6th
Backlund
our 2nd
Prospect (Klimchuk,Poirier, Kulak, Wotherspoon)

for

3rd
Hartnell


and

Dallas 2nd
Prospect (klimchuk et.al)

for

MAF

I'm not opposed to trading Backlund, but we need a roster player in return to help fill the void (Hartnell's perfect for that IMO).
- Saskabush

Backlund is someone who is literally the only F asset worth anything in trade + expendable, due to his great contract, possession numbers/2 way game, and (most importantly) if Janko is ready to make the club. If not, Id rather retain him, even if they likely lose him in the expansion draft.

Edit: I would rather trade cheap on Halak than pursue Remier. I just...dont...have any apprecation for any upside he may have.

Backlund is someone who is literally the only F asset worth anything in trade + expendable, due to his great contract, possession numbers/2 way game, and (most importantly) if Janko is ready to make the club. If not, Id rather retain him, even if they likely lose him in the expansion draft.

Edit: I would rather trade cheap on Halak than pursue Remier. I just...dont...have any apprecation for any upside he may have.
- FLflames34

colborne would more likely step in at centre before janko. he is a centre as well that was convert to RW.

If that's the price sign Reimer to a 3x4. I wouldn't trade Backs alone for MAF, it creates a big hole in our already thin forward group. We can get a goalie without giving up our best possession player. Christ I got a poop tonne of resistance trading Backs for Pulju and Hartnell but others are willing to trade him and a couple of high picks for a stop gap or a (possible) 1 year rental?

a 2nd and a b prospect should be all it takes to grab MAF, BT would be making a huge mistake to give much more than that.

I'd blow my load if BT could manage:

6th
Backlund
our 2nd
Prospect (Klimchuk,Poirier, Kulak, Wotherspoon)

for

3rd
Hartnell


and

Dallas 2nd
Prospect (klimchuk et.al)

for

MAF

I'm not opposed to trading Backlund, but we need a roster player in return to help fill the void (Hartnell's perfect for that IMO).
- Saskabush

You think 56th overall and Klimchuk would get MAF after Rutherford said today the ask is #6?

You think the first trade is in any way fair value? Our 2nd is 35 overall, Backlund is a complete two-way 50pt center with breakout potential that doesn't complain about being stuck lower than he should in the depth chart.

You seemed to throw an extra B level prospect in just because you're bored of typing up the same offer every day on here.

Both trades are asinine.

You think 56th overall and Klimchuk would get MAF after Rutherford said today the ask is #6?

You think the first trade is in any way fair value? Our 2nd is 35 overall, Backlund is a complete two-way 50pt center with breakout potential that doesn't complain about being stuck lower than he should in the depth chart.

You seemed to throw an extra B level prospect in just because you're bored of typing up the same offer every day on here.

Both trades are asinine.
- fry

I do think the 35 + Backs is absolutely fair value to MAF though, and at least the structure of any possible final trade. Though you responded to anothers post, do you disagree that this should be the bones of said trade? Of course JR is gonna ask for a 1st at the start. That is not what he will get.

In the end, I still think MAF is a Flame by the draft.

colborne would more likely step in at centre before janko. he is a centre as well that was convert to RW.
- numbear

I've been a Colborne hater from the start. I will concede he improved in the 2nd half, but that means nothing on playing 3C when Bennett is still growing as 2C. I also think at this point in his development it is too late to move him over and expect him to be anywhere close to Backs. I'd much rather see Janko make the team and endure growing pains in the position next yr with Colborne on his wing. In reality, I have a feeling Janko plays in the A next yr and they will shift Colborne, but if it isnt a contender year anyway, whatever I guess.

I do think the 35 + Backs is absolutely fair value to MAF though, and at least the structure of any possible final trade. Though you responded to anothers post, do you disagree that this should be the bones of said trade? Of course JR is gonna ask for a 1st at the start. That is not what he will get.

In the end, I still think MAF is a Flame by the draft.
- FLflames34

When did Backlund get involved for MAF? Why trade Backlund? Rutherford just went out and said it will take #6. BT should laugh into the phone indefinitely until Rutherford hangs up.

We could get a 1st in the 20 range for Backlund. All these offers throwing him into any offer including a player they want. We went a long time without adequate Center depth and we'd never get close again to that depth in this era if we trade a contract like Backlund.

I do think the 35 + Backs is absolutely fair value to MAF though, and at least the structure of any possible final trade. Though you responded to anothers post, do you disagree that this should be the bones of said trade? Of course JR is gonna ask for a 1st at the start. That is not what he will get.

In the end, I still think MAF is a Flame by the draft.
- FLflames34

Rutherford can say whatever he likes, but when it comes down to it he has zero leverage. In a normal market that would be a fair deal, today it isn't. 35 alone, or our two late 2nds for maf.

When did Backlund get involved for MAF? Why trade Backlund? Rutherford just went out and said it will take #6. BT should laugh into the phone indefinitely until Rutherford hangs up.

We could get a 1st in the 20 range for Backlund. All these offers throwing him into any offer including a player they want. We went a long time without adequate Center depth and we'd never get close again to that depth in this era if we trade a contract like Backlund.
- fry

Who is paying a top 20 for a defensively responsible 3C with a solid contract and some pts? Who could be exposed?
Are you projecting Calgary to protect a 3C?

Who is paying a top 20 for a defensively responsible 3C with a solid contract and some pts? Who could be exposed?
Are you projecting Calgary to protect a 3C?
- FLflames34

According to capfriendly stajan and frolik each have a modified ntc. Gio has a full ntc, and brodie has a modified ntc and a NMC. I haven't heard if modified ntc's need to be protected. So far it's just been rumoured that nmc's need to be.

Who is paying a top 20 for a defensively responsible 3C with a solid contract and some pts? Who could be exposed?
Are you projecting Calgary to protect a 3C?
- FLflames34

Boy layoff the smelling salts!

I do think the 35 + Backs is absolutely fair value to MAF though, and at least the structure of any possible final trade. Though you responded to anothers post, do you disagree that this should be the bones of said trade? Of course JR is gonna ask for a 1st at the start. That is not what he will get.

In the end, I still think MAF is a Flame by the draft.
- FLflames34

Wow! This is getting stupid!

#signreimer

Boy layoff the smelling salts!
- K-man25

So you didn't even acknowledge the main question.
Yes or no: do they protect a 3C?

Rutherford can say whatever he likes, but when it comes down to it he has zero leverage. In a normal market that would be a fair deal, today it isn't. 35 alone, or our two late 2nds for maf.
- dr_soiledpants

i hope he can squeeze the 35 and a prospect like has been mentioned. but if the absolute worst that gets done is either the 35 or the 2 late seconds, i wont be upset with it.

So you didn't even acknowledge the main question.
Yes or no: do they protect a 3C?
- FLflames34

Johnny
Mony
Bennett
Backlund
Frolik
?
?

Gio
Brodie
Dougie

Gillies

If that's the price sign Reimer to a 3x4. I wouldn't trade Backs alone for MAF, it creates a big hole in our already thin forward group. We can get a goalie without giving up our best possession player. Christ I got a poop tonne of resistance trading Backs for Pulju and Hartnell but others are willing to trade him and a couple of high picks for a stop gap or a (possible) 1 year rental?

a 2nd and a b prospect should be all it takes to grab MAF, BT would be making a huge mistake to give much more than that.

I'd blow my load if BT could manage:

6th
Backlund
our 2nd
Prospect (Klimchuk,Poirier, Kulak, Wotherspoon)

for

3rd
Hartnell


and

Dallas 2nd
Prospect (klimchuk et.al)

for

MAF

I'm not opposed to trading Backlund, but we need a roster player in return to help fill the void (Hartnell's perfect for that IMO).
- Saskabush

I like your trades but Columbus I think would be looking to unload salary as their main focus to a trade. I think more salary would have to come back to Calgary to get this deal done..... a guy Tyutin might have to be coming back with Hartnell.

If that's the price sign Reimer to a 3x4. I wouldn't trade Backs alone for MAF, it creates a big hole in our already thin forward group. We can get a goalie without giving up our best possession player. Christ I got a poop tonne of resistance trading Backs for Pulju and Hartnell but others are willing to trade him and a couple of high picks for a stop gap or a (possible) 1 year rental?

a 2nd and a b prospect should be all it takes to grab MAF, BT would be making a huge mistake to give much more than that.

I'd blow my load if BT could manage:

6th
Backlund
our 2nd
Prospect (Klimchuk,Poirier, Kulak, Wotherspoon)

for

3rd
Hartnell


and

Dallas 2nd
Prospect (klimchuk et.al)

for

MAF

I'm not opposed to trading Backlund, but we need a roster player in return to help fill the void (Hartnell's perfect for that IMO).
- Saskabush

Hartnell's contract and NMC which forces us to protect him is a no go in my opinion

Johnny
Mony
Bennett
Backlund
Frolik
?
?

Gio
Brodie
Dougie

Gillies
- dr_soiledpants

yes you protect a 3C if the player is right and the contract is also a positive

Hey lads. Just throwing this out there. Was it not reported on numerous occasions throughout the year that the flames had been scouting Bernier ? Maybe he just needs a change of scenery and would be a cheaper option than Fleury .