CamPopplestone
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2017
- 2,515
- 2,898
Proposal: Järnkrok to Calgary
- Thread starter CamPopplestone
- Start date
- Status
JoeSakic13
Registered User
I mean you had me intrigued by the umlaut, but this seems like a massive overpayment
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
We have no interest in Monahan to be honest. Our hope is to move Jarnkrok at 50% for a 2nd round pick. If we need to take Monahan on (even at 50% retention), I would want more value than conditional picks and a 6th round pick on its own is not going to cut it.
Dumping Monahan's contract is going to cost a decent amount, even with retention. Half the reason he's in the Flames lineup is because he makes so much and they can't just bury him.
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
Monahan at $3.5M is not bad value IMO. Plus then Seattle could retain and flip him next or even this year.
JoeSakic13
Registered User
Oh I agree. I just think a change of climate could very well revive Monahan’s game. Likely not to the level he was at, but definitely could to a level higher than Järnkrok.
I think that getting rid of Monahan should be done in a deal to at least return a guy with upside. Whereas Järnkrok being brought in should be for a prospect and/or draft picks.
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
Or Monahan could struggle even more on a bad team like the Kraken and have no value at next years TDL. We have enough bottom-6 players as it is and have no desire to take on Monahan.
well isn't that a Pessimistic view. If that does happen it is one and done year, not much risk IMO and you can't steal second with your foot on first.
Ledge And Dairy
Registered User
Zero chance Calgary retains on Monahan and pays to move him
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
When you have a bottom-3 team in the league, you do not bet on a struggling player to turn it around. Thats not being pessimistic in my opinion, just pragmatic. I want to take guaranteed picks/prospects. Not gamble on buying more lottery tickets because I am poor..
You said you hope Jankrok gets a 2nd on his own, would it not be better to take Monahan at a reduced rate and an extra pick on top of that? It's like someone giving you a lotto ticket that has a 50/50 chance of cashing in. Hell even if 20% chance of catching in I would do that.
Edit: Feel like due to my location I should specify. I am not a Flames fan.
I would agree, however if they are I would think the player they acquire would have to have no salary next season to try and free up as much space as possible next season while going for it this year
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
What is the extra pick? I am confused.
Do you mean Jarnkrok (2M) = 2nd + Monahan (3.5M x 2) + conditionals is fair?
I certainly don't think so. The most attractive piece in that deal for me is a 1st round pick in 2023. And that is contingent on the Flames winning the cup. I wouldn't even do this deal even if you took that conditional out and put another guaranteed 2nd round pick in its place. This may not be a reflection on how Monahan's value is but more to do with how the value is to the Kraken and where he would fit on the roster. We have way too many bottom-6 forwards already.
your first post said the hope was to get a 2nd for Jankrok. Everything is just gravy after that than IMO
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
Figgy44
A toast of purple gato for the memories
- Dec 15, 2014
- 13,888
- 9,202
I don't know if Flames can fit Jarnkrok at 50% at the TDL without moving cap. But that price does sounds reasonable.
Err... I don't think it'll cost as much as most think it would. Last I checked, he has a 2/3 buyout per cap friendly. If Seattle acquired him at 50% and he was not someone they wanted to continue with, then the buyout is pretty cheap this off season.
Flames buying out Monahan this off season and saving 4 mil cap next season ($2.375), but 2 mil cap extra the season after that is more likely than them paying a ransom to trade him.
I'm not trying to say Seattle fans must change their mind and accept Monahan. I'm just saying that I feel the criticisms and costs mentioned to take Monahan are a bit unfair.
Fair, but if that's the case, my understanding Monahan can be bought out this off season at 2/3 rate according to cap friendly. Unless I misunderstand how buy outs work when a player is retained, I think this would mean that the portion that the Kraken have would constitute 2 mil ish savings ($1.2 mil ish hit), then a 1 mil cap extra the season after that? This alternative to Seattle sticking with Monahan for one more season seems like it isn't as detrimental as some are making it out to be.
If that's the case, could not a conditional pick be put in place that is based on total games played by Monahan?
A few Flames fans though are a little worried that trading Monahan may disrupt the room (ie: bother the team for them to fall apart this season and/or cause Gaudreau to not want to re-sign with the Flames). There's this weird little facet where some of us Flames fans believe trading Monahan to Seattle is doing him a solid, plus also giving him the best chance to rebound. This would help to keep the room and Gaudreau to not be completely annoyed at management if they move Monahan.
The Flames need to move one of Monahan or Lucic to make cap space to acquire insurance against their Achilles heel, a top 6 C. However, the reality also seems to be that for any top 6 C available, most of them likely will not be interested (or have already hinted they are not interested) in waiving to go to Calgary. So we potentially won't need to trade either of them to make room to fit a top 6 C contract.
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
I get why the Flames may want to move on. Makes sense to me and thanks for giving more context.
But why are the costs for taking on Monahan unfair? He has played no better than a bottom-6 F while being paid like a top-6 forward. By retaining and making his effective salary 3.5M makes him easier to take on and some team may be willing to take a chance there but I would rather use that cap space to get a real top-6 F in FA or take on pure cap dumps on expiring contracts for draft picks.
Taking a chance on Monahan is not the direction I want to go in because it does not guarantee anything to us. The conditionals are nice ofcourse, but they are exactly that. i.e conditionals.
Last edited:
zar
Bleed Blue
You aren’t giving them anything for Jarkrok?
It would cost way more than a 2nd to dump 50% of Monahan’s contract. The guy is straight up garbage. I know that +/- is not a great measuring stick but the guy is -15 on a team with a +61 goal differential.
It would cost way more than a 2nd to dump 50% of Monahan’s contract. The guy is straight up garbage. I know that +/- is not a great measuring stick but the guy is -15 on a team with a +61 goal differential.
Figgy44
A toast of purple gato for the memories
- Dec 15, 2014
- 13,888
- 9,202
Sorry, that comment was to the other poster who claimed the cost to trade Monahan would cost a decent amount, even with retention. It was not in regards to the trade proposal in OP or your comments about the cost you'd want to bear to take on Monahan.
That being said the cost in OP seems unnecessarily high:
You can essentially split the trade into:
Jarnkrok for 2nd
Monahan at 50% free
PLUS
Conditional pick 6th round; upgraded to 3rd if we reach conference finals; upgraded to 2nd if cup finals; upgraded to top 10 protected 1st if we win cup.
The conditions on the pick have nothing to do with Monahan at all. The trade is literally designed for the Kraken to take Monahan for free at 50% and inexplicably upgrades the pick for free almost as if under the assumption that somehow Jarnkrok over Monahan might push the Flames over the top. This conditional pick might make sense if the Flames nab a bonafide top 6 C which no offense, Jarnkrok isn't the type of guy I'd want to put such conditions on.
Monahan at 50% for one season isn't negative value. Zero maybe, but not negative to the point of a 2023 6th potentially upgrading to a 2023 first IMO. If that's what Seattle wants for that situation, OK fine. Then Flames should not push that portion of the trade.
The conditions could maybe make sense if not already having the portion of Jarnkrok for a 2nd and Monahan retained. But that's not what was suggested. If open to it, the Flames should go with the proposed simplified the deal and look at alternatives for addressing Monahan instead.
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
I do think there are teams out there that could take a chance with Monahan @ 50% for free. Just makes no sense from a Kraken POV though. Francis has said that the wants to weaponize his cap space (still remains to be seen), but taking on Monahan (even for free) would not align with that.
Even at 50%, it would still cost $2 mil total to buyout Monahan or $6 mil total to keep him on the roster the next 2 years. Usually the cost to dump a contract is a mixture of actual salary paid and cap hit length.
Now if Seattle thinks Monahan could bounce back it's a different story, but if they see him as a pure cap dump it's going to cost closer to a 1st.
Figgy44
A toast of purple gato for the memories
- Dec 15, 2014
- 13,888
- 9,202
That's fair.
I just want to toss out one of the considerations out there that in Calgary, Monahan is in a situation where he often is on the same line as some other very slow skaters (ie: Lucic, Ritchie, Richardson, Lewis etc.). This is causing extra strain on that line when Monahan isn't too speedy himself/recovering from his surgeries. A few Flames fans have been happy with Monahan's improvement in his role, but feel that his recovery to a top 6 player (if it every happens) would get in the way of the very narrow window of contention (Sutter's expected coaching duration and Gaudreau's expiring contract). We do think that Monahan would do significantly better with speedy line mates, but that's not something we can offer.
But that's also why we considered Seattle a good landing spot for him. You guys have forwards that are faster than many of those we deploy on our bottom 6 and there'd be less pressure to bounce back. Monahan would have a much higher chance of bouncing back in that environment. Evaluation wise, it wasn't just looking at a team with cap space and trying to dump. Most times we are careful in considering where Monahan may bounce back. Ottawa is the other team that we think he'd have the highest chance of rebounding and being in a good environment.
But back on topic, it seems like dropping the Monahan portion make sense. Flames are definitely interested in Jarnkrok and it's a bonus he's a Swede and Lindholm's cousin.
Monahan has one season after this one, so it's closer to 1.25 seasons, not a full 2 season.
Also, not that it's a perfect comparison (and honestly one that most people hate), but Marleau buyout is one that is often used. That one was basically a first to buy out. For Monahan's scenario, if he's deemed a pure cap dump, then I can see the cost close to a 1st to do it at full value, but definitely not over that.
But I think quite a few of us Flames fans disagree that he's a pure buyout candidate and his buyout is cheaper than Marleau's so we don't think we'd want to venture too far past a 2nd for the cost of moving Monahan. Fair if other teams don't want to touch that though.
Last edited:
zar
Bleed Blue
Volica
Papa Shango
- May 15, 2012
- 21,725
- 11,427
Zero chance Flames retain much of anything on Monahan, let alone use assets to dump him. Contract isn’t buyout proof, and only a year left. There are, apparently, teams that view him as a bounce back; but I think it’s a summer move.
I’d do Jankrok straight, no retention needed.
I’d do Jankrok straight, no retention needed.
- Status
