cross16

While all pro sports do to a certain extent, I think the NHL has had the most checkered past when it comes to perspective owners and ownership in general. If a motivated billionaire with experience running a pro sports team and what looks to be a very clean past comes calling, the NHL (and really any league) isn't going to say no. sometimes the market comes second to the quality of the owner. Bettman's job is to grow the business and teams in 2 of the biggest markets in the US grows the game more than in Quebec City. I get why he doesn't want a team there.

I like Salt Lake as a market for the NHL. Be interesting to see how it goes in Utah with some of their rules/religious beliefs but it's a beautiful place and in a pretty central location. Utah Jazz have had a pretty great following for many years and are a well run club so having that owner is a good thing for the NHL. I can also understand why the NHL doesn't want to leave Phoenix. It's a great market for the NHL to be in and I think the struggles there relate more to ownership/land then they do the market. But also count me in the camp that is not for expansion. 1 more team, ok.. 2 or more than that's going to go poorly I think. What could make this work is if the NHL can re engage with the KHL, or just expand overall internationally. I think there are still quite a few players that play outside the NHL that could still play here so if the plan is to expand I think the NHL needs to reach out to the international community to try and entice more players to come to the NHL earlier.

That is the idea. I don't think the necessarily have to have won a cup but just rather have been around the league for a while. It's to bring in someone on an affordable short term deal whose been around and can help and can help play some top 4 mins so your not forcing a young player into that spot. Not interested in anyone who is going to take more than a 2 year deal to sign.

Think it depends on how you define franchise changer. I personally reserve that for a more elite category that I don't think Celebrini is in. That's like your Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, McDavid, Bedard, Hedman category. I think Cellebrini is more like Jack Hughes, Brayden Point type. Extremely talented player, can do a bit of everything, and if developed properly will settle in as a number one center. I have him a level below someone like Eichel, at least for me.

For the right return, which would be players and not just picks, yes. I think we clearly disagree on the value of mentors and/or the definition. I want a path for rookies and have said as much but I also want and see the value in making them earn it and having a good support system once they are here. IMO, that support system in place right now is not sufficient so I think outside help is needed.

So assuming Kylington is back, we playing him and Anderson 25-30 a night? Don't think your mins add up very well here. If your comfortable with those 2 being mentors sure but i wouldn't be. Both play a pretty high risk game. Agree to disagree but I think the Flames are setting themselves up for failure, both in terms of their team, goalies and players, to run back this same d core. I'm all for a high pick but I don't think this is a wise path to get there.

I've said it before but I think if you want to trade Andersson it should be done this summer. Between his age, contract, RS, I think he is someone a wide range of teams (both teams already contending and planning to do so) would be interested in. I think the potential for an increased supply of trade partners is better than the off chance you get someone to panic at the TDL (which I think is becoming less and less of a thing now anyway). He has a 6 team no move starting next year, so you run the risk of shrinking your suitors at the trade deadline. I'd be shopping him but I don't think the Flames will. I think they'll start having some discussion on a contract next year to see what his appetite is to stay and if there isn't interest than perhaps he's moved next summer but I doubt he is before that.

For sure off the ice and I think Rasmus would be too. I'm not concerned with off ice mentorship but on ice. Have someone playing with these guys that can help. Hard for guys like Weegar to play their own game and then watch a 3rd pairing guy too. I'm not concerned playing 2 rookies, if it comes to that, i just want the spots to be earned and having someone there to guide them a bit. I wouldn't be signing 2 UFAs, just the one and ideally someone that is capable of playing 18-20 mins a night. Someone who can force them to earn their way up. You mention Kunznetsov and IMO that is someone who really has to earn their way. I would not be penciling him into the lineup next year.

I don't view this as a win/loss discussion though because there isn't a dman out there, that I think would realistically sign with the flames, who is going to alter their path. It's all depth guys and the idea is to give them a veteran whose been there done that, can help with some of he highs/lows, give them tips/advice, and also shelter them a little from the mistake prone players young players tend to be. For me there is a lot of value in that. I think the Flames are going to lose a lot next season but that doesn't mean it makes sense to not support your young players. I don't really but the blocking argument either. There should be no rush to get Gurshnikov into the lineup nor Porier, let them earn it. Not to mention the Flames only have 5 NHL dmen under contract next year 2 of which are top 3 and then Hanley (age 32) Pachal (waiver claim bottom paring dman) and Miromanov (looking to be bottom pair at best). There are 2 top 4 spots available and you could argue the entire bottom pairing is open to. I don't think the flames would bat an eye at losing Hanley or Pachal given they got them both for free anyway and honestly if the Flames feel more comfortable with Hanley or Pachal playing right now over someone like a Kuznetsov that says something.

Which I think the Flames are and should be. "looking for" can be debated and is everywhere so rather than go down that path I think the reality is there is little the Flames can do this off season to get out of the bottom 10. They are not a good team and I don't see much that can happen between now and next fall that's going to change their fortunes. There are some solid UFA dman available but now one that IMO anyway, is going to take this D core from bottom of the league to even average. My focus is on what's best for the young players.

I agree and would just add while Wolf is a big factor I also don't think you set up young players well for success by just tossing them into the deep end without help. Really none of the young dmen we have really profile as top 4 options, maybe have a 4/5 in there, so asking at least 1 of them to play 2nd pair is asking too much and IMO is not a good development model either. Need a stabilizing presence back there to help both Wolf and the young d they want to see develop. It's not even a given Kylington will be back.

im not sure why you are framing this as one vs the other because you need both. Trying to prioritize one over the other makes no sense to me and is just foolish. No team has nor will they, build a team like that All I have said and all I will contend is giving up 2-3 assets to move up 10ish spots in the draft, and not into a range where you are likely to draft an elite player, is not smart and I wouldn’t do it. I’d use that asset to address other needs because I think the odds are just as good and maybe better if adding to the core. I don’t have an issue with the idea of scorched earth or a rebuild but it sure be nice if it was based on more realism than what’s argued here. If you want the ducks model fine but just acknowledge it’s been 6 years. Are they close? Not imo. Same thing for Detroit are they close? Does Detroit look like a team on the verge of being special? Despite what some want to believe there is no blueprint on how to do this because too many variables are outside of your control

obviously a really poorly played game by pretty much everyone. Sure the Kadri line had some points but they weren’t good defensively nor in transition. this is a team that is just playing out the season. I didn’t think they could get to the Top 8 but that’s looking very possible now.

He hardly played with Barkov

Ducks have drafted in the top 10 for the last 5 drafts and twice in the top 3. This isn’t starting with Carlson, nor is it close to being finished. the next example is using one of the top 5 prospects we’ve ever seen. We’re going to give Chicago credit for that timing? Same team who 2 years earlier gave up a top 10 pick for Seth Jones? Your timelines and perspectives/examples are all over the place to it’s not an argument worth continuing. End of the day 10 picks in the first round is not worth the assets to me unless it’s an Unusually strong draft and this year isn’t that. Top 10 pick then I'm listening.

I think only if you can get into the top 8 and then it still varies greatly by draft. Yes the odds get better but not by enough to warrant giving up 3-4 assets to do it. if your target i ls quality in a rebuild then fine but then be prepared to it to take 5 plus years. Your likely gonna miss on someone and even if you don’t the depth won’t be there in a rebuild I want to accumulate assets because the strong rebuilds are the ones that become asset rich.

I agree but this helps the quantity argument more. Trying to move up and limiting your ammo is a more quick turn around move.

Good news all around. I wondered if they might push him pro but I think another NCAA season is much better. still an intriguing prospect for me. When he’s good, he can be very good

Shane Wright was never billed, at least by anyone credible, as a franchise center though. Cellebrini is. Those guys almost never slide

I actually don't think there is a player on the roster for the Flames right now that would net a top 10 pick in trade. Maybe, maybe Andersson and even then i'm pretty skeptical.

Technically yes but they would be ineligible for playoffs. You'd also enter into potential complications with trading players during this current league year as opposed to the next one. Long story short, technically possible but not logistically possible or likely. Nothing really to gain from either side.

Well to be clear i'm referring to franchise altering picks. I think the idea being pushed here is the Flames should be acquiring picks and those picks could alter the franchise. That IMO is a mostly unrealistic goal. I do think Vegas is an outlier, but the possibility does remain to make franchise altering trades which is why an asset accumulation approach is my preferred method. If you have attractive assets to sell you can be part of trades when those players are available, like Vegas did.

I agree we are saying similar things. Think we differ on the ease of acquiring top 10 picks. I think it's unlikely and you seem to believe it's expected. Of course great if you can but I don't see it as a likely option for the Flames, again unless we are talking about future picks but there is a luck element to that too.

right but that didn’t involve a top 10 pick. point being even if yoj can trade for a top 10 pick it’s almost never been a franchise altering trade.

I'm not suggesting an either or approach, i'm suggesting an asset accumulation approach. I think a successful rebuild/retool re defines your core but also builds you up to be an asset rich franchise. Really that should be the end goal. Could be scenarios where a 1 to 1 trade works, could be scenarios where a many to 1 approach works but the name of the game for me is asset accumulation. So when it comes to Andersson specifically someone who can probably land you multiple good assets, I'd questions the logic of putting it all in 1 basket unless the asset is truly worth it. End of the day if you want franchise altering picks you are going to have to be bad enough to get them, or get lucky. I think if your plan is to trade for them, your plan is flawed to begin with.