Proposal: Rasmus Andersson to Utah

Who win?


  • Total voters
    90

Bond

Registered User
May 10, 2012
4,397
3,323
I'd do it. I think he worth a 10-15ish pick, so balance seems fair to move up
 

A1LeafNation

Good, is simply not good enough!
Oct 17, 2010
27,818
17,962
Better to trade Andersson now because the way Flames are trending, his production/age (trade value) only going to get less desirable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rt

Ledge And Dairy

Registered User
Better to trade Andersson now because the way Flames are trending, his production/age (trade value) only going to get less desirable.
I don't agree with that. Calgary's powerplay was abysmal last season, hanging around 12-13% until we acquired Kuzmenko (like he only played 29 games and finished 3rd in PP goals and 5th in PP points for Calgary :laugh:). Andersson was still recovering from his car accident for a good portion of this season and should definitely bounce back next year production wise. His defensive game will probably be more exposed without Hanifin and Tanev but I highly doubt he becomes less desirable

Andersen does not have that value

2 late rangers pick does not get you 28th
What is your math here? First statement makes it sound like you think Calgary wins this trade and 2nd statement makes it sound like Utah is fleecing Calgary
 

Figgy44

A toast of purple gato for the memories
Dec 15, 2014
13,892
9,202
This trade concept makes a lot of sense if Ras wants out and Calgary goes full rebuild. But if not and Calgary is retooling, I don't know if ownership would agree to this trade.

The fact the 2nd round picks are in later years and pick from the Flames is this year might be overlooked from the value POV by some posters.

I don't know if it's dead even and who is ahead or behind, but it's really damn close. The Soderstrom suggestion is legit as well. It just has some other potential non-value snags that might kill the deal.

Woof. This is a tough one. Good job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nanuuk and rt

Bond

Registered User
May 10, 2012
4,397
3,323
This trade concept makes a lot of sense if Ras wants out and Calgary goes full rebuild. But if not and Calgary is retooling, I don't know if ownership would agree to this trade.

The fact the 2nd round picks are in later years and pick from the Flames is this year might be overlooked from the value POV by some posters.

I don't know if it's dead even and who is ahead or behind, but it's really damn close. The Soderstrom suggestion is legit as well. It just has some other potential non-value snags that might kill the deal.

Woof. This is a tough one. Good job.
Conroy did mention he wants another top 15 pick. Andersson is probably the only player on the roster that can get one
 

rt

Clean Hits on Substack
This trade concept makes a lot of sense if Ras wants out and Calgary goes full rebuild. But if not and Calgary is retooling, I don't know if ownership would agree to this trade.

The fact the 2nd round picks are in later years and pick from the Flames is this year might be overlooked from the value POV by some posters.

I don't know if it's dead even and who is ahead or behind, but it's really damn close. The Soderstrom suggestion is legit as well. It just has some other potential non-value snags that might kill the deal.

Woof. This is a tough one. Good job.
Thanks man!
 
  • Like
Reactions: H3ckt1k and Figgy44

Djp

Registered User
Jul 28, 2012
24,667
6,022
Alexandria, VA
I don't agree with that. Calgary's powerplay was abysmal last season, hanging around 12-13% until we acquired Kuzmenko (like he only played 29 games and finished 3rd in PP goals and 5th in PP points for Calgary :laugh:). Andersson was still recovering from his car accident for a good portion of this season and should definitely bounce back next year production wise. His defensive game will probably be more exposed without Hanifin and Tanev but I highly doubt he becomes less desirable


What is your math here? First statement makes it sound like you think Calgary wins this trade and 2nd statement makes it sound like Utah is fleecing Calgary


6OA + FLA 2nd =Anderssen+13OA+CGY 2nd
 

Ledge And Dairy

Registered User
Fine..I though they were low terns

Still the original offer made was garbage. Anderssen does not have that value with 2yrs left.

Thrn it's still something like 6 for Andersen and their 1st with some ads.
Andersson is worth around 10th-15th OA by himself. There is no world where 6th OA is worth Andersson + 9th OA
 

Nanuuk

Registered User
Nov 16, 2013
2,733
1,343
Calgary, Alberta
I believe Calgary could part with Andersson and still have a good d corps before they go UFA shopping.

The unknown, at the moment, besides potential UFA's being signed, is whether Oliver Kylington re-signs.

I believe he can be a top 4 d-man. Trade Andersson, slide Weegar back to his natural position and you might see something like this.

Kylington/Weegar
Bahl/Miromanov
Solovyov/Pachal
Hanley

If they add a UFA, say Pesce, someone on the left side gets bumped as Weegar could go back to LD.

Anyway, the trade proposal is not a bad one at all in my view. Pretty fair for both sides.
 

Double Dion

Jets fan 28/06/2014
Feb 9, 2011
11,779
4,557
To CGY
6th Overall
‘25 NYR 2nd
‘26 NYR 2nd

To UTA
Andersson
28th Overall
I'd do it. I might be in the minority as usual, but I think we get a top 3 pick in 2025 if we drop either Andersson or Weegar.

Conroy did mention he wants another top 15 pick. Andersson is probably the only player on the roster that can get one
Wolf I think would too, but we shouldn't be trading him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bond

Drake1588

UNATCO
Sponsor
Jul 2, 2002
30,263
2,913
Northern Virginia
Good proposal. Value is good to excellent, and it allows Calgary one more high pick to use on Iginla or whoever else.

The issue is simply whether the Flames are fine with a genuine rebuilding move or want players who can contribute today. They've made statements suggesting they are in a rebuilding sort of mood, finally. Whether it's true or not is unclear. This trade doesn't try to split the baby at all. It's unequivocal. I don't know if Conroy is there yet. I think they might equivocate a little while longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Figgy44

Ad

Ad

Ad