travel_dude

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.

All of this is so true. We turn F's playing with Backlund into checking players. Mangiapane had one season that all his shots went in, but couldn't keep it up. Some of our C/LW can play RW but a lot of them just move the play. I would suggest that we get Nylander just to add some scoring so we can develop a 3rd line without Backlund going forward. I tend to think we have some decent prospects that could develop into something, but we have to focus not just on maintaining but a little of playing guys where they can develop. Ad scoring in the top 6 and we aren't so desperate to keep Backlund. It's long term. We may trade him this summer or TDL, which seems to be more difficult to accept. Maybe a new GM and coach can give an honest assessment at TDL to say we need to win by losing a player. Time is right. The loss in FA is worth the possible loss in season. Back to the draft, I would be happy with a number of players. The need is not a player to come in right away.

If I recall, he played LW with Lindholm. Think it may have been Toffoli on the other side. One of the first goals they score was an amazing pass from Hubey to Lindy on a ruh. GOAL. The comments were his attempt at being funny, but it came off wrong. He was just being the usual jerk at pressers. When you have to come back and say why you pretended to not know his number, then the joke failed. My beef is more to not getting what he was seeing. The lines are broken, you don't keep doing it over and over. Coaching was as much the difference between no playoffs and getting in as goaltemding or not scoring. I can probably think of 10 games that coaching mistakes caused the loss. Inclues picking the wrong goalie when it was obvious to fans. Includes using the wrong lines at the wrong time. Whatever, we are done woth the fool. Appreciate what he was able to get out of the players in year 1. Everything else was a fail.

To add to that TC, he was good in the first 6 games before Sutter trashed the lineup and bag skated the team. Hubey with Lindholm, but hey we got scored on so time to ruin the lineup.

It doesn't take much to become dysfuntional. Coach building the bottom with his ideal players. Goalie choices that see first shot goals has players wondering why they have to score an extra 2 or 3 just to have a chance. Pissing on the young guys in front of the vets. Talking up a guy that is completely uselss and the rest are just doing their job. You can blame the GM overall for the roster available. The GM wasn't able to get the coach to use those players. Not much point in saving a roster spot for Valimaki when the coach has said he doesn't belong.

I think Weegar hit his stride at the WC. Showed what he is actually capable of. I know, different competition, but he was so poorly coached here it wasn't funny. My concern about Huska is that he leans back on Sutter type choices. Seeing he was respnsible fo the D. But anyway, I do think Weegar is likely to be our best D-man next season. He's different than Ras and Hanifin. Not that it makes us any better, but trading Hanifin probably means Weegar plays top minutes. And that we use Hanifin to get a top 6 player (my hope). It's a risk, relying on Kylington, but you manage the minutes and it shouldn't be a big issue. Bring in a 3rd pair guy that could play 2nd pairing if needed.

That shows a strong bias coloring your opinion, regarding coaching. Regardless of who we had on the team this past year, was there ever a game that you thought "genius"? I don't consider rolling 4 lines as smart if your 4th line is mostly crap. They had good games, but nowhere near 20 of them. Starting the 4th line immediately after a PP? Like you know that you have a rested player coming out. The offensive guys don't kill penalties. So, you get a top line coming out. Duh.

I see Laffy kinda like Nolan Patrick; not really a top 2 player in the draft but rated that way. I think he has a lot more to give but I think they rushed him to the NHL without some growth in the AHL first. WOuld I make a trade for him? Sure. Would I give up our best asset right now for him? Questionable.