travel_dude

I don't care what the cost was, but who brings the bigger return if we trade one of them. I tend to agree about Hamonic being a guy you would want to keep. Tough as nails. Wlll step in when somebody pushes around our guys. Last season was not a good one for him, but I tend to chalk it up to playing for a new team and coaches that weren't the greatest for D-zone coverage, as well as a goalie that limited your options for zone exits. He can improve. He's be with a player who understands his role. I see a big turnaround for Hamonic this year.

Many people discount what Kylington is and is becoming. That's a shame. He's worked on his defensive game, which was really his only struggle. He's ripped. If he adds a bit of snarl to his game, he could be as all-round a better player than Andersson. Skates as good as Brodie. Offensive. I think the only thing he needs to work on is making smarter decisions quicker.

At the time he signed it, I felt Cha made a huge mistake. I still don;t like it. He was McDavid's winger and got paid after McDavid was signed. If Nuge gets those points totals playing with McDavid, does that mean he's a $8.5m player too, adjusted for inflation? The Oilers keep giving players huge raises and set the benchmark. It even seems to drive up the cost of D-men league wide.

I know what you are saying and pretty much agree with your number projection, assuming term. Draisaitl is actually making $8.5m. Tarasenko is $7.5m. I doubt Tkachuk would ever get $8.5m here.

Blond moment. I had originally had those two number in mind, but somehow came up with $13m. When I saw you add it up to $12m, my mind couldn't fathom it. I would expect Hanifin 5.5 and Tkachuk 6.5 both long term. Tkachuk would need to sign this season to get that.

Isn't that $13m?

Why would BT wait if he believes he's a $7m player. I can understand Tkachuk wanting to bet on himself and waiting. That could end up being worse. What you have to take into account is the increase to cap and the comps that get signed every year. Some comps: Larkin $6.1 x 5. - .76 p/gp in 2018 Hayes $5.175m x 1 - .57 p/gp in 2018 Tom Wilson $5.166m x 6 - .39 p/gp in 2018 Ehlers $6m x 7 - .78 p/p in 2017 (signed extension in his last year of ELC) Tkachuk ?? - .72 p/gp in 2018 BT's best option is to sign him now. If he doesn;t increase his numbers, he still wont be any cheaper next summer. If he explodes, then he will make a lot more. He wants to sign today for 8 years at $5m (not sure what number you are thinking) then roll out the red carpet. That is underpaying by a long shot. 4 years of free agency. That does not come cheap. It would probably work out to $500k cap increase for every year of free agency bought.

To each his own I guess. Tkachuk has played on in the hardest role for a teenager possible. Worst zone starts. Defensive role. Agitator, but to draw more penalties than taken, which he is tops in the NHL. 24 goals in 68 games. A force on the PP. He has only played 2 seasons, so that part of it should bring a little caution. But we haven't seen a sheltered player scoring against lesser competition. The comps for that type of player are difficult because most are older. If he was signed at the same time as Gaudreau for the same term, then he would have been getting about $6m. Most contracts are signed as % of cap these days (for the bigger deals), so that would be close to JH money today.

Stone has not lived up to his career year of 36 points. Rebounding to that. He wasn't good by most measures, not just points, so a better showing would be necessary for keeping him over Brodie/Hamonic on RD. There is no benefit to waiting on Tkachuk. If he doesn't improve this year, the signing will go up anyway with any cap increase. If he get 60 points, then he's going to get similar to what JH makes, adjusted for cap. This season, $6.5m is reasonable on a long term deal. Next year, he could be worth over $7m. In the end, it makes no difference to the cap when he signs. If you can cut $500k by signing early, do it.

Noah Hanifin and Matthew Tkachuk. The two big challenges for BT this summer. Hoping for less than $13m for the pair, both signed long term. We need a goalie next season, so the cap will be a bit tight. Assuming that Ras can take a big step this season, Stone is the likely first victim for a trade or buyout. Buyout next summer is only $1.16m, but it's not desirable. A trade makes sense. If Stone rebounds this year to overtake Hamonic or Brodie, then a trade doesn't make sense. Somehow I doubt Stone rebounds. As it stands today, we have $19m for 19/20. If the cap increases to 81m, then we have $21m with 9F and 4D and 1 backup goalie. Subtract $13m for Hanifin/Tkachuk. Lazar and Hathaway (or replacements) $2m Ras and Kulak (or equivalent) for $2m. 13th F for $0.8m Leaves us with $3.2m with 13F 6D and 1G. No Bennett signed. No extra D signed. No goalie signed. We can't cut costs on Tkachuk. Hanifin will get $5m minimum, unless a bridge deal is possible and then it's still around $3.5m. Unless we have two goalies that can share the load (Rittich and Gillies), we have to shell out for a starter. Stone being traded is almost a necessity. Next most likely is Frolik. After that there is only Brodie and Hamonic, of which we have a bigger need for a RHS D-man.

What we saw last year was the worst possible result. Had we made the playoffs, Smith was not hot. Neither were the other two. For me, the reasonable ask is that a goalie can play 50 or so games and go into the playoffs healthy. Yes, he needs to be pre-injury Smith the good, not Smith post injury.

Just to be clear, 100+ games for a team. That's roughly 18 games of playoffs plus a full season. The 2017 Oilers played 95 games, and they lost in the 2nd round. Talbot was healthy for 95 games. Yes, they overplayed him, but that's also kind of the point. They had nobody else Bring it to the Flames. Can Smith be healthy the entire season and playoffs if he only plays 55 games. Not overplayed. Not brought back right after he has a minor tweak. Can he be given the last few games off before the playoffs to ensure he can be ready to play each and every game. If the answer is no, then we do not have a starter. I get that every goalie may have a freak accident at some point. This should not be a yearly occurance.

Sometimes you have a player that just doesn't fit or live up to the hype. If he's not able to make it here, I somehow doubt he will elsewhere. Think Yakapov. Looked like first line material until he was forced to adapt his game to the NHL. I'm not saying Bennett is a bust. I'm expecting him to change his game. It hasn't been solid. If he does that. If he admits to himself that he's he not applying the effort in the right way. If he can take constructive criticism from the coaches. If he can play as part of a line and not try to be the guy. He needs to look at guys that weren't naturally talented as a junior, like Ryan. See what it is that they do. Watch guys like Tkachuk who aren't fast. See how they use their body. Watch small guys like JH. See how they pass when they are being lined up for a hit. Watch guys like Monahan. Guys that release quickly.

I'm not sold on any combo. I do think Ryan's game matches Bennett. Both are N/S players. Ryan played on a sheltered line, as did Bennett. Maybe Lindholm does fit with Bennett's skill set. It's really hard to tell with the way Bennett has progressed. You could then have two options at center, Ryan or Lindholm. Saying that, the logical assumption is that you play your prized players in top positions. While they value Bennett highly, he's yet to take any real steps forward, stats wise. He hasn't become a go-to C for winning draws. He hasn't been scoring in bunches in a sheltered role. He isn't drawing penalties more than taking them. Give him Frolik or Backlund. If it's Backlund, then Lindholm is the RW. Not sure he's done enough to justify that. If it's Frolik, then Ryan is most likely his C. I see that as a good fit. Frolik has looked good with Frolik in the past.

Maybe the age thing is a thing, but JH played in college, not in a stepping stone league like the CHL. He played against "men", so he has that experience, but college is 40 games played mostly on the weekend. The first year in the NHL is all that really matters. The who you play with is only important when you are comparing higher point totals. With Brouwer it could have meant a drop of 20 points. With Neal and a healthy Monahan, it could mean an increase of 15-20. Playing with Matt Martin over Marleau could have meant a decrease of 15 points. That's the point. If you throw out the linemate factor, then you have a 84 versus 69 point season to compare. Yes, I like Marner, but I can;t say he is better or as good yet. I would trade for him, but maybe not to play the top line. With Bennett, I don't think it had as much impact. He hasn't shown us he is a 44 point guy capable of 60. Not yet. He needs to figure out the game. He needs to stop thinking he's a one man line. I hope that they break the player down and rebuild him with the right guys. Maybe that's Janko and Ryan or maybe Ryan and Frolik.

I think you may be kidding yourself about Marner. He played with Kadri and Marleau. JH has played with a plethora of wingers that don't measure up to Marleau. Played with an injured Monahan and an anemic PP and still managed 84 points. I would give Marner the edge in goal scoring ability, but only because JH has a lousy breakaway move.

IT's one of those situations that we could have found out a great deal more last season. Lack was supposed to be the backup but was never used and by the time he was, he was so bad it hurt us. He started 2 games. Plan B. Bring up Rittich but refuse to play him very much either, even when he was showing he could win. So, here we are a year later. Same two goalies with same lack of information. Smith hasn;t managed to play more than 55 games in the last 3 years, and has never played more than 61. No playoffs to gauge his extended season durability. Rittich played some good hockey but we didn;t get to see him handle more than a game per week until Smith was injured. If there wasn;t a question in nets, I would say we were a contender. We may still be, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. They may not be any readily available solutions out there, but our plan is no different than it was last year, just a year older. BT doesn;t seem to be a guy that takes big risks without plan B's, but it seems like he has this year. I will cheer for whomever our goalie is on any given night. I hope Rittich is a diamond and Gillies takes big steps this season. There. I'm done.

You kinda missed my point. I was talking against tanking. Tree years in a row of doingit and we might have ended up with McDavid, may have landed Matthews or Laine (if we were dead last of where WPG ended up) and might have got Dahlin. It doesn;t address nets. It doesn't fix the backend. We end up with some really good pieces, but would still need to make trades of quality for quality. I like the changes that have been made. I think we missed the boat on goaltending, but that's about it. I like our prospects. Maybe they aren't true bluechip, but they aren;t head cases either.

Better, but is it enough? Add them both to a good team and you have something. Or add them to a team that manages assets well, and continues to add during the peak of those players. The Flames from 2017/18 with those players is decidely better and could be considered close to being a serious contender. Those players without Hamilton or Tkachuk is better, but you need to have more than 2 good D-men.

But no Lindholm. You get the gist. Tanking in one year might get you a great player, but you almost have to tank for the perfect two years to have a chance for a cup, if tanking does more than it did in EDM. Tank for McDavid. Tank for Laine. Tank for Dahlin. Hope that you have enough players to contend. Eventually.

The funny thing is that if we tanked and won the lotto in 2015, we would not have Dougie. We also would not have Barzal. Possibly no Andersson. We would have Gio, Brodie and who on defense. That doesn't resemble the start of a cup winner. It also changes the what-ifs for the next years. No Tkachuk?

I got the impression that he has shifted from bridge deal to long term deal. I thought we would see it within days of the Bruyout. I expect since it happened that BT is trying to model out a longer term deal, and how it impacts the cap over the years when player deals end. He's working the deal with the framework of the Tkachuk deal.

TSN says they are contenders. They have a couple really good pieces towards building a contender. If they had defense better than meh, they might have won a round last year. Now they have an older Marleau and Tavares. Lost JVR and Bozak. I like some of their prospects. Winning the cup is all about timing and who you match up in the early rounds. WASH got it right in spite of themselves. They barely got by CBJ, but their biggest hurdle was getting past PITTS. Mental thing. You can be a mediocre talented team and win based on aggression and work ethic. Or you can win on the back of one player, almost always a goalie. Every year the league changes just a little, so there is no magic formula. You can suggest that having a 1st overall is the reason, but it's more just coincidence. You don't need one to be a contender.

Do you just say that because you don't know yourself? I follow the Heat games and people that cover/analyze their play. So, I do have an idea. Out of curiosity, what are you basing your opinion of Gillies? I'm not trashing the kid, just being realistic. He needs time in the AHL to develop. He's just not NHL ready. What we saw in NHL games was what he was like in the AHL. Show that you play consistently, from start to finish. Show that he can light it up in the AHL. Those should be the first steps towards a starter role.

Well, we are going to find out what we have in Rittich fairly early in the season. As for Gillies, I would like to see him develop into a consistent starter in Stockton before we make any kind of move to bring him in. But that's just me. We may have no choice. Rittich may not show up good in camp. Smith could have a season ending injury. My point about Gillies is that he's been wildly inconsistent in the AHL. 18-14-1 in his first full year. 17-16-3 in his last season. I won't point to his GAA or his SA%, because that doesn't show enough. He's won games where he looked really good. He's lost games where he looked really bad. Peaks and valleys, but I am more concerned with the valleys. Need to see that flatten out.