kehatch
-
Posts
10,467 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by kehatch
-
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
We kind of went down this road recently in the....Ryan Francis thread. lol.
Not that either thread is more appropriate a home for it but there it is.
Essentially if you take away the high first round picks, which you shouldn't have to rely on, the Flames have:
Gaudreau.
That's it. In terms of core players, imho. And he developed in US College. But I'm not looking to go down a Pelletier bashing road if possible on this thread.
That isn't evidence.
Your making up a success criteria (number of core players drafted) then making up the data (Monahan /Tkachuk excluded. Fox / Brodie excluded. Backlund excluded. Andersson excluded. Etc). That's been done in a silo without applying the criteria to any other team. Then you take your conclusion (Flames bad at drafting) and present it as fact that can't be debated.
Fine. This is a hockey forum not a university campus. And as you pointed out, not the right thread.
-
I am not trying to be a dick. I am very comfortable with alternate views. I guess what I am asking is for a bit of evidence to back up what you are saying. The Flames are a average at general development, but well below average at developing core player? Great, you said it. Now say something to show it.
I don't see that.
The Flames starting roster will have 4 top 6 and 2 middle 6 forwards drafted and developed, that is 66% of the top 9. 50% of the D will have been drafted by the Flames. That's more then Tampa, Washington, Boston, and on par or ahead of every team that I have looked at. Based on the players on the roster, I think the Flames have been well above average in this area.
You mentioned core player development as a concern. I know we like to hate on some of our players, but compare them to their draft classes. Monahan is third in points. Gaudreau is fifth. Tkachuk is second. Backlund is thirteenth, and there aren't many above him I would want in his place. Monahan and Tkachuk are high picks, but not lottery picks. Everyone on that list has outplayed the majority of players drafted ahead of them. Those players have been asked to take on the role of a McKinnon etc, but that isn't fair Imo.
I appreciate the Flames aren't next in line for a cup. I would suggest that has more with pick selection and being a smaller market team then anything else. The inability of the GM to fill vital positions, the cap investment in the bottom 6,and the poor coaching choices certainly contribute. But I think the drafting and development has been a positive thing in Treliving tenure. And I think the player results speak to that.
-
The over-ager thing doesn't change the total number of years a player spent at each level or the fact that very few NHLer follow the lengthy development path you described. Is there a reason you specifically think Pelletier needs three seasons of pro? Most NHL players, especially first round players, don't spend that kind of time in the AHL.
I also think you need to readjust your take that the Flames are a poor development and drafting team. It used to be true, but today 50% of the roster is made up of players drafted by the team, with most of the top spots filled by them. They range from the top 6 to round 6, with various paths to the NHL, and they cover just about every position.
That is inline or ahead of all of the top teams in the NHL. We may not have quite as high of caliber of players as some of the top teams, but that is more to do with our lack of top 3 picks then anything else. It's even ahead of most teams that are fresh our of a rebuild.
I know this is the hill your likely to die on, but are you sure your not adjusting the facts to fit your narrative? Every team has a high percentage of prospects that don't turn out. It's easy to point to one or two, or open up a draft magazine and point out the Flames didn't draft the guy you had circled.
But in terms of successfully getting drafted players into impact positions in the NHL, the Flames are hitting better then most.
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
To develop the same way as Mangiapane, he would need to spend another full year in junior and then another two full years in the AHL (basically), and spend those entire three years getting first line minutes and experience.
If we're being completely realistic, while we all wish he would make an immediate NHL impact, that's actually a pretty good path.
That isn't the path that Mangiapane took. He spent three seasons in junior and one full season in the AHL. Regardless, Mangiapane is one player. Every player develops differently.
Not many go the route you described though, especially first rounders. ELCs are too valuable in a cap system, as are the RFA seasons.
Pelletier is already in his D+2 season. Your suggesting three more seasons of development before he plays. That brings him to his D+5 season. Look at a draft 4 or 5 seasons ago and peer through the players that don't have 100 or 200 NHL games played. Your not going to find too many to get excited about.
I do think it's likely Pelletier will do a year in the AHL. But given his 2019 draft and the type of game he plays I think there is a real chance he makes the team this season.
-
6 hours ago, The_People1 said:
I sorta don't buy this "revenge" signing narrative by CAR. From all accounts, CAR management were high-fiving each other after MTL "helped" the Canes get Aho under contract. Aho's deal is very fair, trending on the side of being a great deal for the team.
And so, this could be a "thank you" gift to MTL who simply needs to match and they get KK signed for one year.
Not a chance. The 20 dollar signing bonus was a clear FU message, and this doesn't help Montreal even a little. It's way too much money. Sure, it's one year, but it sets the QO value for next year.
It's sounds like the Canes have a handshake for an extension that is less then the QO. If true then this might actually make sense for the Canes (though still too much money). But that doesn't help Montreal.
This is fun summer hockey. But I hate it. These over payment offersheets set the precedent for future signings and it drives up prices. There are 30 GMs that are annoyed with this and 1 that is downright furious.
-
21 minutes ago, rocketdoctor said:
Great piece by Darren Hayes in the Athletic on our goaltending situation. The Athletic has some of the best hockey content out there.
He is suggesting that they might end up with 3 in AHL (or they try to loan one out) as they have 2 on AHL/ECHL contracts already signd up.
I haven't read the article, but I hope they don't put 3 in the AHL. It doesn't help them win games, and it doesn't help development.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, The_Snowbear said:
I Agree but the Issue Lastyear was we lacked Scoring that still hasnt been fixed were all the scoring is coming from is beyond me
Since this core came together we are in the middle of the pack in both goals for and against. Going into next season this is probably the strongest forward group, strongest goalies, and weakest D that we have had over that time.
Can our star forwards rebound? Can the young D take a step forward? Will Sutter have the impact he has had in LA and his first run in Calgary? Will Treliving make a game changing move?
Lots of questions for sure. But if things go well the team will be good. I will leave the if not for another thread.
-
36 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
While I think Dvorak would be a great add, let's not get carried away here. Eichel is a difference maker while Dvorak is a complementary piece.
Dvorak is good... arguably better than Monahan (not saying much but I mean)... and if we can swing something like Zary for Dvorak, that could make sense for both teams. ARZ wants to tank and rebuild. They get a good young piece. We get Tkachuk his London Knight Center. I think moving Lindholm back to RW makes sense but I also know we want a RHS Center in the line-up so, it's tough.
I have my issues with Monahan, but let's me fair. Excluding his rookie year, he is 26 in p/gp and 19 in g/gp among Cs with at least 200 games.
Last year he was bad, and he wasn't exactly great the season before. So I guess we will have to see if this trend continues. But he had 5 solid seasons before that and he is a bit young to think he won't get back to that.
On Dvorak, I think he costs more then Zary. Defensive centres seem to cost a bunch, and this one is on a solid contract and is young. Definitely would like to add him though.
-
The AHL is the best bet, but he is my dark horse to make the Flames.
-
There are plenty of reasons to be positive.
The first is that we have finally brought on one of the elite NHL coaches. The last time we have a competent coach we won the Western Conference, and this is a stronger roster then we had that season.
Second, this is a young team. We don't have anyone on the verge if a big regression, and we do have a bunch of young guys that could take a big step. Valimaki, Andersson, Mangiapane, and Dube top the list, but there are some dark horse that could make the team.
Third, we have cap space, assets, and are in our prime. Expect Treliving to do whatever he can to upgrade the team. If not before camp, then before the deadline.
And last, the roster additions are a step towards mitigating this team's biggest issues. A lack of effort, and a lack of identity. Between the coach and the types of players I think the Flames are going to look very different this season. I think that's going to help guys like Monahan rebound, and help the kids learn to play the game the right away.
I think by mid season fans are going to be behind this team. I get the summer frustration. Terrible season that followed a series of disappointing playoffs. We expected big change and we didn't get it. But I think they are going to be fun to watch and worth cheering for, even if their cup chances aren't where I want them to be.
-
2 hours ago, robrob74 said:
i was listening to the fan and Will Nault has been so down on Dube, thinking he hasn’t taken a step in his development and not to the speed he’d expect it to happen, not ready to be up on Dube.
i generally respect Kehatch’s opinions, well everyone’s on here for that matter…But come on! Give me a break! He’s young, is still developing and is very promising. He got thrown into a role he wasn’t ready for and to me that was lofty for where he was in his career.
start throwing stones after this year or next! Dube is on a similar path as Mange!
I wasn't throwing stones, and I didn't think my post was overly negative. I like Dube, I just didn't think he showed enough for a "pay for potential" type of deal.
But as I said, it's not a terrible overpay, and even if he doesn't take another step forward the contract isn't going to be a big deal.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, conundrumed said:
Monahan back to form helps that a lot.
I hope Sutter is good for Monahan, and I think he will be. Monahan is a good offensive centre outside of last season. But he needs to be better defensively and Sutter may help with that.
-
6 hours ago, conundrumed said:
Seems like the perfect spot to get Ruzicka started.
Our bottom 6 is going to look fine in my opinion. A few good additions and some kids that can fill gaps. Same with the bottom 2 pairs, though we could use an addition on the right side.
The concerns I have are top 6 scoring (particularly at C), top pairing, and to a lesser extent goal.
-
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:
Would you do a Dube for Scott Mayfield trade? Mayfield would give us something we haven't had since Derek Engellend... that tough 3rd pair stay at home RD. Fights, hits, and does all that good stuff. We will need it for Sutter hockey.
I don't see Dube getting traded. This is an overpay based on current performance, and is a contract based on potential. I think that makes Dube worth more to the Flames then other teams. Besides trading a guy after inking him to a 3 year deal doesn't happen often.
-
1
-
-
I am on the minority, but I don't care for the a
Dube deal. It's not terrible, and if he progresses it could be a value deal on year 2 and 3, but if he doesn't it's an overpay.
I haven't loved his progression, so that likely hampers my enthusiasm. I would have preferred a smaller one year deal.
-
These types of conversations are relevant in terms of "should we mix up the core". But they aren't relevant in terms of "should we rebuild".
It was during Sutters term as a GM. At that point the Flames hadn't made the playoffs in forever and our core was all past their best before date. Our refusal to rebuild then just devalued our assets and extended the rebuild. The Flames also were so desperate to make the playoffs we were trading assets for non futures, trading futures, and taking on bad contracts that would make the rebuild more difficult.
It isn't relevant now though.
I understand the conversation, the Flames don't appear good enough to contend and there aren't any realistic options to bridge that gap beyond a rebuild.
But the Flames have made the playoffs 4 of the last 7 seasons without missing the playoffs in consecutive seasons. We won a conference once, and have a core that is all in their prime. That doesn't even factor in the reality of a new arena.
Doing a full rebuild isn't even a question penciled in on the corner of someone's notebook. If Treliving went to the ownership with a rebuild plan they would fire him as soon as he sobered up. It can't, won't, and will not happen. And that's not a Flames thing. It's true for every team in the NHL, and every other professional sports team for that matter.
If the Flames finish bottom 5 a couple of seasons in a row, or something equally dire, then it's a conversation. Right now it's a debate on if Batman could beat up Mighty Mouse. Enjoy it if you want to, but don't expect to come up with anything useful.
-
12 hours ago, robrob74 said:
All they have to do is extend the team's rights for 1 or 2 years after their college eligibility is completed. Like, they can't just sign with just anyone after the college is up. For the full season they're out. And then who ever they sign with must give up a draft pick to the team they sign a player from. Like, how Fox was traded to the Rangers. The team signing has to give the team the draft pick back.
That would require a separate set of rules for US and Canadian players.
I get the concern. I don't like losing drafted players because they get to be free agents before playing a single game.
But those rules exist for a reason, and they are used all of the time for players in all leagues. It's not about the Fox/Gaudreau players. It's for the smaller profile players when their drafting team chooses not to sign them. It's a mechanism for them to be able to sign somewhere else.
We don't see it in high profile players in the CHL because they sign a contract right away. Makes sense for the player and team that are both looking for security. But you can't sign an NCAA player until they leave school, and if they stay the entire 4 years they are a free agent. The CHL player could have also not signed a contract for 4 years and got the same opportunity.
I can't see the NHL PA signing off on special rules for college players, nor do I think they should sign off on them. I wish there was a mechanism to make a player team commitment that didn't violate NCAA rules though.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Horsman1 said:
unfortunately.. we rarely have a roster spot open for a rookie unless through injury.. Too many 3/4line players signed to contracts..doesn't give much hope to give er hell during pre -season knowing that ultimately.. Yer goin down
That isn't true though. 20/21 was Valimaki, 19/20 was Dube, 18/19 was Mangiapane and Andersson, 17/18 was Jankowski, 16/17 was Tkachuk, etc. In the last 5 years the Flames have played 18 different rookies almost 600 games with an average of 1 top 4D/9F graduating a season.
-
16 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
I feel if US College (and Canadian Juniors for that matter), if they don't sign or refuse to sign, then they must go back into the draft and their rights now belong to a new team for 3-years.
The issue isn't the NHL rules. The issue is the NCAA rules that prevent a prospect from signing a contract. A player from any league can sit out long enough and sign where they want.
-
1 hour ago, conundrumed said:
He does that every year. Perhaps he tried to make moves but didn't like the ask/return.
Can't win them all. He got better depth at G and bottom lines. Coleman's a good add.
D leaves something to be desired. Need younger players to take another good step.
Different and short offseason, maybe moves will be made into the season.
Agree. Goalie is theoretically better, but that assumes Vlader does well. D got worse, but lots of opportunity for young guys to step up to balance that out. Wing is a fair bit better with Coleman and some Sutter guys, but still weak on right. Same issues at C as before, though we can hope Monahan is better.
-
15 minutes ago, conundrumed said:
It's almost time to get the PTOs in place and find out which plugs will keep our ELCs in the A.
Keep wondering if Phillips will ever get a look.
Would've been nice for BT to accomplish more this off-season, but the devil's in the details I guess.
Phillips might be a tough sell. He makes Gaudreau look big, but he doesn't have the offensive toolkit to play in the top 6. I hope to be wrong with Phillips, but I don't know if we have an NHL player in him. But there are definitely a few young guys I hope get a long look.
Gawdin is a competent 4 line C, though his upside is limited. Zary or Pelletier could be a dark horse to make the team, but the safe bet is for them to start in the AHL.
Ruzicka would be my summer picks of an ELC to make the team. He led the AHL club in scoring in his sophomore season, and looked decent in a brief call up.
But if you expand the list beyond ELCs and instead look at low priced rookies the two guys I think should make an impact this season are Vlader and Mackey. Vlader is likely the backup, and Mackay I think has a lot of upside and shoes he is NHL ready when called up last season. You could put Kylington on that list, but I have never been a big Kylington fan.
And of course you still have Valimaki who is younger then the two D above, though he is already a proven NHL player.
-
3 hours ago, jjgallow said:
I apolgize if it rubbed you the wrong way, to be honest this was an attempt to be positive which is why I tried to keep it mostly focused on Francis. Admittedly it's not my strength.
It isn't about being rubbed in any way (that sounds awkward). The conversation is just going in circles. All good.
-
I am going to exit the conversation. JJ, you are operating under the presumption that the Flames have drafted poorly over the last 5 drafts and I don't agree with you. I will agree to disagree. Everything else is just noise based on that individual take.
-
20 minutes ago, sak22 said:
I don't imagine, people always use the best case scenario in these what if's. If Backlund isn't around does Tkachuk become what he is? I still don't know if Bennett becomes anything significant, whereas Tkachuk became an all-star, where his development may have changed if he never played with someone like Backlund. It's not hard to imagine a #4 pick not living up to his draft position because there is usually 1 or 2 top 5 picks every year, just unfortunate it happens the only time the Flames picked there.
Exactly. Most teams develop in cycles.
If you have a team capable of being competitive then you invest in being competitive for as long as you can. You hope you get a deep run or three during this time, and if things go very well a cup.
When that isn't an option anymore, you spend your assets on as many picks and prospects as you can get, and you hope like crazy you pick high in a draft that has the caliber of prospects you need.
But once those prospects are ready to join the team you surround them with the type of players you need to instill the right culture, including the demand to win. The combination of the evolving prospects combined with the support players makes you competitive, so you start investing in being competitive again.
Guys like Backlund show players the right way to play, and they are able to take the tough minutes to shelter players that might need it. I would have loved if Bennett would have taken Backlund job. He had 6 years to do it. But gifting Bennett the job and enduring a long bunch of losses while he figures it out, if he figures it out, isn't how you develop a team full of good players.
2021 Offseason Thread
in Flames Talk
Posted
I have been saying it all summer, but the Flames have been an average team for 7 seasons. The transactions this off season haven't done enough to move the needle. The only trump card that the Flames have is a full season under Daryl Sutter. Nearly every transaction this summer has been about building a team for Sutter, and I am okay with that. Between Coleman, Richardson, Lewis, Pitlick, and Zadarov this will be a much more 'Sutter like' team come October. Keep em coming as far as I am concerned.
I get the concerns with us filling depth spots with vets instead of youth. But this is a fourth line guy on a 1-year minimum wage salary. If he is preventing one of the kids from making the team then that player is probably better off in the AHL. Gawdin and Ruzicka are the guys impacted by this and both are probably better off top 6 in the AHL instead of fourth line in the NHL. They will get some games when there is an injury.
Some will mention Phillips, but I don't see him making the team out of camp unless he is lights out. The guy is smaller then Gaudreau and hasn't cracked the PPG marker in the AHL. He was good last season, but most of his points were early. I like the prospect and he may be an NHLer as early as this season, but he needs to take another step in the AHL before he is in serious contention for an NHL spot, at least in my opinion. If he is lights out at camp then Richardson isn't going to keep him from making the team.