The idea of a Granlund for Coyle type of trade would intrigue me... but that's about it.
- jtommyt

Agreed! Like I said it's all about the return.

Not sure how Granlund can be considered expendable. I understand as it stands he is behind Mony, Backlund, Stajan on the depth chart, but this is not a player we should be in a rush to get rid of. Look at Detroit. Numerous guys sat behind the studs developing and then were able to fill holes when the time came.

HOLD ON TO PROSPECTS!
- IggyOnly

Expendable was the wrong word on my part. I mean that he is an asset that can be converted to try to fill a positional need of similar caliber. I don't see where he will fit into the Flames going forward.

As it stands he is behind Monahan , Backlund and Stajan on the depth chart. So he is not going to get the minutes there to show what he can do. To truly benefit from what he can bring, he needs to be in one of those roles, and even I think that 3rd line is not using him to his potential. But he will not be ahead of Monahan and Backlund. As for the 3rd line, while I agree that Stajan is a stop gap, and help with the veteran presence as Monahan and Backlund continue to develop, I believe that we have other centers that are better suited to that role in Reinhart, Knight, and coming in with Jankowski at some point. To use Granlund here does not allow the Flames to benefit from all he can bring.

It isn't a case of "giving up" on Granlund. It is converting him into a different prospect that would fit an actual positional need. Such as a power forward right winger. And to get a high caliber winger like that we need to give up another high caliber prospect. If moving him brings in an Etem or a Coyle or a Mantha as part of the trade then it is definitely worth it. It is not a step back, it is a step to fill the needs.

As for the Detroit example, it does not apply here. And that is because of the age of players. In Detroit they had Datsyuk and Zetterberg wait and develop behind Yzermand and Fedorov. But there is a significant age difference between those players. So when one group started to decline due to age, the new group was ready. With the Flames, other than Stajan which I addressed above, the current top two centers in Monahan and Backlund are in the same age category. It is not the same thing.

Especially if they would have to take on a bad contract as well so that they can get that second.

Wideman's contract may be bad, but it isn't bad to the Flames. He can still play, and they do need to make the cap floor.
- dal_johnson

Is Wideman's contract even that bad???

Looking at what some NHL d-men make I dont think so.

Especially if the Flames retain some salary.

A signed Wideman for half his contract value is worth a first round pick IMO

I think adding Granlund is a tad to much for this trade in my eyes. I'd rather see him packaged to get Coyle.

- Saskabush

Coyle may be a better option. I do like him as well.

I was using the Anaheim possibility as it also meant that in addition to Etem, getting another higher first round pick. The Ottawa pick that Anaheim has would currently be 10th overall.

Is Wideman's contract even that bad???

Looking at what some NHL d-men make I dont think so.

Especially if the Flames retain some salary.

A signed Wideman for half his contract value is worth a first round pick IMO
- The-O-G

I agree. Retaining some of his salary to increase the return would be great. It also further benefits the Flames as it helps to meet the Cap Floor next season.

Is Wideman's contract even that bad???

Looking at what some NHL d-men make I dont think so.

Especially if the Flames retain some salary.

A signed Wideman for half his contract value is worth a first round pick IMO
- The-O-G

You're bang on fine sir!

I hate all the trade Granlund talk. What's to say he's better than Coyle? As far as the centre thing goes, move him to the wing.

What about Wideman at half salary towards say Dallas, Detroit, or Minnesota.

All are pushing on the Wildcard bubble and their powerplays are in the bottom half of the league. Wideman definitely improves that area of their teams.

Maybe Minnesota will part with Coyle in that regards as part of a deal.

So it's been 2 and half weeks and no game day blog??? Wtf!

Is Wideman's contract even that bad???

Looking at what some NHL d-men make I dont think so.

Especially if the Flames retain some salary.

A signed Wideman for half his contract value is worth a first round pick IMO
- The-O-G

I dont get the talk that its a bad contract. Wideman is a solid #3 and very good #2 IMO. At 4mil he is a bargain. If brings back only a 1st, I dont trade him unless its a top 5 pick. He is one of the top D scorers over the last few years, blocks shots and has generally improved his D game over the years. He seems off right now but he may still be injured or recovering.

I dont get the talk that its a bad contract. Wideman is a solid #3 and very good #2 IMO. At 4mil he is a bargain. If brings back only a 1st, I dont trade him unless its a top 5 pick. He is one of the top D scorers over the last few years, blocks shots and has generally improved his D game over the years. He seems off right now but he may still be injured or recovering.
- TandA4Flames

I thought Wideman was 5.25? But I still get your point.

I hate all the trade Granlund talk. What's to say he's better than Coyle? As far as the centre thing goes, move him to the wing.
- whipper334

So where does he play on the wing?

He would be a small to mid sized left handed shot. So would he be above Baertschi, Gaudreau, Poirier, Klimchuk, Glencross? There is also Hudler being smaller and on the right side.

It is the same situation there. Many options that I'm not sure where he would slot in. And I see more potential in those prospects (Glencross obviously not a prospect) then I do in Granlund.

It isn't necessarily about him being better than Coyle, or Etem. He might end up being that way. It is about filling the need of the Flames organization for a Right shot, Right wing with size. A power forward. Assets / prospects of equal caliber but a better fit positionally.

Keeping many similar sized players of the same skill set sounds like a team to the North.

I dont get the talk that its a bad contract. Wideman is a solid #3 and very good #2 IMO. At 4mil he is a bargain. If brings back only a 1st, I dont trade him unless its a top 5 pick. He is one of the top D scorers over the last few years, blocks shots and has generally improved his D game over the years. He seems off right now but he may still be injured or recovering.
- TandA4Flames

At 4 mil he would be a bargain. Unfortunately, his contract is 5.25 for 3 more years after this one.

So where does he play on the wing?

He would be a small to mid sized left handed shot. So would he be above Baertschi, Gaudreau, Poirier, Klimchuk, Glencross? There is also Hudler being smaller and on the right side.

It is the same situation there. Many options that I'm not sure where he would slot in. And I see more potential in those prospects (Glencross obviously not a prospect) then I do in Granlund.

It isn't necessarily about him being better than Coyle, or Etem. He might end up being that way. It is about filling the need of the Flames organization for a Right shot, Right wing with size. A power forward. Assets / prospects of equal caliber but a better fit positionally.

Keeping many similar sized players of the same skill set sounds like a team to the North.
- dal_johnson

I think I would keep Granlund over Baert. I understand what you're saying but think Granlund is going to surprise.

So where does he play on the wing?

He would be a small to mid sized left handed shot. So would he be above Baertschi, Gaudreau, Poirier, Klimchuk, Glencross? There is also Hudler being smaller and on the right side.

It is the same situation there. Many options that I'm not sure where he would slot in. And I see more potential in those prospects (Glencross obviously not a prospect) then I do in Granlund.

It isn't necessarily about him being better than Coyle, or Etem. He might end up being that way. It is about filling the need of the Flames organization for a Right shot, Right wing with size. A power forward. Assets / prospects of equal caliber but a better fit positionally.

Keeping many similar sized players of the same skill set sounds like a team to the North.
- dal_johnson

I do understand where your coming from but my biggest concern in the "before" and "after" each other stuff. They are young prospects. There is no before/after in regards to where they place on the Flames line depth chart. Any one of those players mentioned could be a bust (included but not likely, Mony). I think it's key to forget the idea that one guy is better than another until they actually get up here for a year or two.

So should he be above any of those guys you mentioned? No, but he also shouldn't be compared to them.

At 4 mil he would be a bargain. Unfortunately, his contract is 5.25 for 3 more years after this one.
- IggyOnly

Late!

I dont get the talk that its a bad contract. Wideman is a solid #3 and very good #2 IMO. At 4mil he is a bargain. If brings back only a 1st, I dont trade him unless its a top 5 pick. He is one of the top D scorers over the last few years, blocks shots and has generally improved his D game over the years. He seems off right now but he may still be injured or recovering.
- TandA4Flames

Wideman is 5.25 mil a year, and Currently he is behind Giordano, Brodie, and Russell. And there needs to be spots for Seilof, Wotherspoon, and Kanzig to develop somewhere. I recognize his ability and skill, but lately it seems that Russell brings the exact same benefits at half the price.

So convert the asset that he is to something else the Flames could use. There is no way he is worth a top 5 pick. I just don't see that happening. But I don't want a bottom 5 pick for him either. Look to the mid round picks in Detroit, Columbus, Dallas, or Minnesota.

Late!
- whipper334

You were here 4 years late, let's call it a wash?

Wideman is 5.25 mil a year, and Currently he is behind Giordano, Brodie, and Russell. And there needs to be spots for Seilof, Wotherspoon, and Kanzig to develop somewhere. I recognize his ability and skill, but lately it seems that Russell brings the exact same benefits at half the price.

So convert the asset that he is to something else the Flames could use. There is no way he is worth a top 5 pick. I just don't see that happening. But I don't want a bottom 5 pick for him either. Look to the mid round picks in Detroit, Columbus, Dallas, or Minnesota.
- dal_johnson

Okay Dad, you're starting to mumble.

I thought Wideman was 5.25? But I still get your point.
- whipper334

He is. I was just saying if we retained salary he should be worth a poop load.

You were here 4 years late, let's call it a wash?
- IggyOnly

So you never met Whipper333 then...

He is. I was just saying if we retained salary he should be worth a poop load.
- TandA4Flames

Fair enough.

I think I would keep Granlund over Baert. I understand what you're saying but think Granlund is going to surprise.
- whipper334

Dammit Whip, lay off Baertschi!

I do understand where your coming from but my biggest concern in the "before" and "after" each other stuff. They are young prospects. There is no before/after in regards to where they place on the Flames line depth chart. Any one of those players mentioned could be a bust (included but not likely, Mony). I think it's key to forget the idea that one guy is better than another until they actually get up here for a year or two.

So should he be above any of those guys you mentioned? No, but he also shouldn't be compared to them.
- IggyOnly

Very true. Granlund may end up slotting in above those other prospects. It is just a case of converting an area that we have many options in, into an area that we lack the depth in. Granlund may not be the player, maybe it will be Baertschi. He is the example I am using. The Flames have many mid / small sizes skilled forwards that are left handed shots. They lack in the right side and with size. If they can convert one of these assets then do so. It isn't giving up on him or saying he won't make it. It is filling a different need and recognizeing that in order to get the caliber of prospect you want in that area then you have to give up something of caliber that we have depth in.

I also am not a fan of converting centers to wingers. I think that it underutilizes their potential. It puts a hinderence on them that doesn't allow the organization to fully benefit from what they can bring. To me this is exactly what Tyler Seguin was in Boston (yes there may have been off ice issues). But He was never going to slot in above Krejci and Bergeron, and using him on the wing didn't bring the Bruins all he could offer. So they converted that asset to fit the needs of their organization.

Dammit Whip, lay off Baertschi!
- TandA4Flames