travel_dude

Tkachuk was not a setup guy. All he had to do was hit Gaudreau with a breakaway pass from a standstill, pass from behind the net to Johnny, while the rest of the time he was Satoshi Nakamoto disturbing, pouncing on rebounds, and sitting on his off wing looking for a one-timer. It was up to Gaudreau or Lindholm to set him up. What was Huberdeau set up with? A more likely puck distributor and a collection of RHS depth guys. The only games he played LW were at the start and at the end. Lacklustre number? I wonder why. How often had he played RW in the past? I would suggest little to none.

I'm thinking Simashev

Certainly a revisionist version of history. You do remember how long Sutter was here with Bennett? About a month. And it was Gaudreau first, followed by Tkachuk followed by Monahan trade/Kadri signing. After the 5 wins in 6 games to start the season, the problems started. You can easily blame poor coaching decisions like playing a top LW on RW or blame the poor goaltending or blame the individual players or prospects, but I don't think you can say it's all on one player. I LOL'd about the Oilers offering DS a stint. Too funny. That is a team run by one player. The GM gets players he suggests. The lines are decided by CMD. The minutes are based on CMD. It's harly a team.

What 3 are they? Weegar? Seriously? $6+M for a top D when the top paid ones will be over 12M? Hubey may fall off his game about the same time Gaudreau does. I doubt it's anytime sooner than the end of season 4 (5th as a Flame). At that time, big deal, you trade him and pay the price, like Monahan. Or retain half. Similar to a buyout but half the length of time. I doubt he blocks the trade, if it's not a bottom feeder. It will be a pain but if they tool correctly, he's more like a Jordan Staal or Blake Wheeler. Potential to still hit 80 points.

TRo quote someone.... "another LHS forward, just what the Flames need". LOL

Those that choose to blames BT will find every possible excuse to do so. 90-100% of coach firings are because they failed to meet expectations. Creating a toxic environment is a firing offense regardless of results. So, in reasons why Sutter was fired 50% toxic, 35% performance, and 15% player whining. A brialliant hockey mind adapts to the teams being played and the on ice events. Rolling 4 lines is what a stopwatch can do. Sub par performance by a line or a player should result in a change. Change a player to get away from his strengths. Sit young players that had a bad game and throw them on the 4th line. A rebuild is very unlikely even though that is the only thing you want to see. Lots of picks. Lots of tracking junior or Euro careers. Meanwhile, we structured the team to turn pver player when they hit a certain age. All but Backlund and Markstrom are in the 2-3 years out stage. We have been talking about trading out Backlund and Tanev and somewhat Toffoli for ages. Get the best return for an older player that is a supplemental player. Or in Tanev's case one that is starting to get more injuries. But if one single player is rumored to want to move back to the USA, it's a pandemic. Sutter hocket sucked the life out of this team. The only happy ones managed to have career seasons. Toffoli who never played top line. Zadorov who played closer to his original expectations. Funny how Gudbranson didn't sign even though he "loved" Sutter. Sutter was as much of a jerk about Guddy's tongue being split in half. Compared the injury to stitching up a cow's tongue. You can be a prick and win games. Being a prick and not getting results is a waste of time.

I think you could trade Hanifin to VAN for at least their 1st. No need to trade the best D we have. If you get 7 years out of Weegar, that is likely better quality minutes than you get in the same time with Hanifin. So, Hanifin for 1st + Hoglander or Kravtsov. Maybe an added piece from them. Has to be willing to sign, which maybe isn't going to happen. The other thought is Hanifin for 8th. Maybe they would add something. Or 10th + Blais or Kapanen. Or 12th + Maccelli or Crouse.

If it's Hanifin they want, it would have to start with Lundell IMHO. Duclair would be a nice addition but I don't think he thrives unless we have a speedy/decent C to go with Hubey. I'm not as negaitve about our coming season, but it is key that they move forwatd the right way.

Really, if Duclair is a target, then they should be offering no more than Backlund. Duclair is often injured, and not exactly a good contract term remaining. If you want to be bold, then Hanifin and Backlund for Duclair, Lundell and Michael Benning. No picks involved.

There may be a bit of Sutter no-Sutter stuff going on, though I don't think that is the reason why Backlund wants out. He thinks he belongs on the top line, though he never was able to elevate his game to top line material. He thinks he's the captain due to seniority. Like it's a union. So, my reaction to Backlund is thanks, but it's time for you to move regardless. As you said, he's had his playoffs here and hasn't done anything more than acted a bit tougher. I think Lindholm should be a 5 year deal, but that may not be what the owners/GM want. Should have started with that, so that any long term offer (7 max IMHO) would be lower AAV. They are already maxing out on the offer. I get it, come in strong with your top offer. I never agreed with that idea. Who wants to stay. Never should have got to the point where players are "publicly" asking for a trade. Lindholm, should we decide to trade him, should get the most, but it should be for a younger, less proven C. You don't give up your top C for less. He may not be an Eichel, but he's never had a big (possibly) career ending injury. He is not at risk of having a botched surgery. SHould be a similar return. Nobody coming back over the age of 24. Hanifin should have a bunch of suitors and while I was hot to trade him, I think he has a lot of value. He wants a trade so buh bye. Reward his loyalty by trading him to Arizona. Toffoli is questionable. I don't know if I truly believe he wants out or just wants more clarity. His fave coach was fired and replaced with the A/coaches and the old guard is now in charge of the GM area. If you make other moves, you see what the team is starting to look like and make the decision then. If you know he won't re-sign, then you size up the offers and make the move. Or you hold on till TDL. Keeping Backlund till TDL would be a huge mistake. He's gonna kill the room. If Toffoli is the same way or is still vocal, then same for him.

Solid news is better than rumors.

Maybe. It seems like some analysts just dump on the team. Wonder what the Insidrrr says.

On the third hand, the team was made by another person, so you need to see what a new direction looks like. If Love was so tuned to Sutter, then it makes sense they didn't want to go there. I don't think Huska was the best choice, but we dragged it out too long to have a good choice.

Unfortunately, now we have to listen to a rumor monger for what the Flames are planning on doing. I hope that the real decisions are made the same way they used to; quietly. I am sure that some of the players look at Huska and think Sutter hockey. Or that CGY cheaped out and went internal. Hopefully that is not close to true and that they really are just waiting to see what direction the team is going.

Who knows how much Connie was involved. As a big part of the team, he is involved in initial signings. But I digress. As long as you get par value or higher for those guys, the new guys would not have issues. They want to win not just tread water. Lindholm is the only real loss and finding a new 1C is imperitive. It likely means dealing a winger or two. Again, as long as you move forwrd, all is fine.

Maybe part of those come to pass. No point in Jenner. Konecny is middle 20's. Savard is a slightly younger Tanev that we could trade. Lindholm gets you young pieces if you trade Hanifin for a F.

When you don't promote directly, you run the risk of PO'ing the person. Circling back to him is kinda an insult. Also, he would have to wait at a minimum 2 years to get the chance for HC here.

On the surface. I don't have a problem with the 16th pick. Dionico seems a bit low rated, considering his output so far.

I think he was happier being close to his family and not having to play in the hole of Ohio.

I'm sorry, but I felt that Lucic was the worst player on the team almost every single game he played last year. Did he make some good plays? Sure. At $1M I would have callled out his play. His salary wasn't my issue other than forcing us to trade a 1st to get rid of Monahan. The NMC caused more problems. Again, this just comes down to gifting a player a spot for 82 games.

My bet is any team that is making a cup run sits his butt on the bench or eating popcorn for 99% of the games. Most 4th lines make mincemeat out of his play. SO, with that, VAN makes sense because they can use the (tanking) help. I'm not being mean here, just saying that the Lucic from 2 years ago was a lot more than the Lucic from last season. And that was with the cherleader coach playing him more last season.

So you are saying rebuild. That's fine, but never happening. I would think we make some actual hockey trades, and the ones that return a pick so be it. Toffoli - seems to age like a fine wine, so I would re-sign him Tanev - warning signals, but we don't have a replacement; trade at TDL is we are a bubble team Hanifin - well, this should be a hockey trade to get a winger or a top pick and prospect. It's going to be 2024 draft pick, so keep that in mind. Can't be lotto protected. The bonus is really cap space. Backlund - this has to be a trade unless we sign for 2 years. We can't sign long term. And he performs a function we need to be replacing. Zadorov - pretty neutral on trading him. He's not a great defender so it depends what the rest of the D looks like. Vladar/Markstrom - pretty much have to make a choice and go all in. As much as it makes sense to run 3 goalies by rotation to the AHL, this just delays the inevitable. We would end up trading a guy with little value. There are capable backups available every year, so if you can't run the remaining goalies for 82 games, then get a backup.

As much as I hate to lose a good C, this one probably makes the most sense. Not really one sided. Not really a rebuild trade, but it makes the draft that much more important. Can't have B2B picks and get it wrong by reaching unless that guy fell due to a limited tourney. This would be the fist major test for Connie; what do you do with players like Lindholm. His age would best be served by a 5 year deal here. Ot trade him to a team that is close that a player like that becomes the leader. My beef has always been who the heck are we signing and why? Maybe it was all on BT or maybe we just didn't identify talent very well. Iggy helps add some creds to the team, but it comes down to scouting. The smartest guy in the room has to make the right choices considering the team play and the coaching style. That's for trades and UFA's. The scouting just has to be a good judge of talent that can be maximized. 3 years down the road (as you suggested) the best talents need to work out the kinks. Even the top 10 have things they need to fix.

Let's hope the dumb ones stay dumb throughout the coure of the next 5 years.

They sure hate Simashev and Misty.