kehatch

I like Vlader as a back up as well and I hope the Flames stick with him (I think they will). But I don't love the idea of Vlader / Wolf if Markstrom gets hurt. I won't be surprised if they find a veteran back up for Wolf in the AHL. It's a bit more assurance if there is an injury, it gives Wolf another resource to help him acclimate to being a pro, and it's a guy you don't mind sitting more often then not because you don't need to worry about development. Maybe that is supposed to be Werner. I can't say I know much about him but a scan of the stat sheet doesn't make me confident. But I have never seen him play so that might not be a fair assessment.

The most likely scenario is Parsons goes to the ECHL. He needs a season with a lot of starts, not time sitting in the bench. It won't shock me to see the Flames bring in a vet to play BU in the AHL. Wolf needs a mentor, and the Flames need an option of Markstrom gets hurt and I can't see them comfortable with any combination of Vlader, Fox, Parsons, Werner in the NHL. I hope by mid season they will be. But given Parsons issues to date, Wolf's first year in the AHL, and Vlader lack of NHL experience I think they would like another option.

I have spent too many off seasons getting hung up on lines and pairings, only to have reality set in come October. There are too many unknowns. Chemistry, off season development, health, additional moves, etc. That said, I don't think the Flames can be too top heavy on D. Hanafin and Tanev were great together, and Zadarovs D first style let's Andersson be more offensive, something he didn't do when paired with Giordano. But who knows. Valimaki may come in with 10 points of more muscle and ready to make an impact. Andersson might be traded. Stone might get signed. Lots of possibilities.

On paper Tkachuk is a Sutter guy. Good defensively, physical, gets into the tough spaces, plays either wing. But I don't know how well Sutter gets on with the 'instigator' types. Look at Dustin Brown in LA. 16-min / 30-point guy under Sutter, but a 19-min / 55-point guy under everyone else. I still think Tkachuk can do well under Sutter. He finished the season on a terror and he has all of the right tools. Tkachuk has the capacity to have an Iginla level impact due to his full skill set. But between the drop in ice time, some of the rumors, its going to be interesting to see how things work out.

That is true for every coach, but I agree with you. I am trying to see what players are (so far) having a positive effect under Sutter, and which ones a negative effect. Based on half of a season, I am worried about Tkachuk and Valamaki under Sutter but I think Monahan and Hanafin will do well (for example). I am also curious to see the impact on the prospects. Sutter has the reputation of relying on Veterans, but he has done well coaching rookies as well. Toffoli, Muzzin, Forbort, Pearson, etc in LA. Phaneuf, Gio, Regher, etc in Calgary. I think Pelletier (for example) could do very well under Sutter, and as early as this season.

The Flames made a few moves this summer. Giordano is out while Zadarov and Coleman are in. There were also some tweaks to the depth positions, including brining on a new BU goalie. However, beyond losing Giordano the core is pretty much intact (so far). The big impact (IMO) is having Sutter for a full season. Out of interest, I took a quick look at the remaining players to see the splits pre and post Sutter arrival last season. Increase in Ice Time: Ritchie, Lucic, Backlund, Hanafin, and Tanev saw their ice time go up. Ritchie went from having 3 GP to being a roster regular. Decrease in Ice Time: Tkachuk, Lindholm, Monahan, Mangiapane, Gaudreau, Valamaki, and Andersson all saw a drop in ice time. Lindholm and Tkachuk lost almost 3 minutes a night. Power Play Time: Hanafin got a big bump in PP time. Andersson, Gaudreau, Lindholm, Monahan, and Tkachuk all saw a drop in PP time. Penalty Kill Time: Monahan got some PK time under Sutter. There were a few other shifts, but nothing substantial. Offensive Production: Hanafin, Ritchie, Dube, and Tkachuk saw some offensive uptick under Sutter. Andersson, Valamaki, and Monahan saw their production go down. Tough to tell if any of these trends continue over a full season. Seeing Sutter increase the role of some of the bangers and vets is no surprise. Neither is seeing the drop in time for some of the younger guys. But I did find a few things interesting: He seemed to really like Hanafin. The decrease to ice time to the top forwards is more a reflection of Sutter running 4 lines and messing with the PP time. For example, Lindholm lost almost 3 minutes in ice time, but he still led the forwards in ice time under Sutter and didn't see a big impact to his ES time. The impact to Tkachuk was real though as he saw a reduction in EV time, and he dropped relative to the other forwards. Monahan saw a bit of a decrease in ice time, but that was likely due to his injury as well as the general drop in top forward time. Sutter seemed to trust him giving him more defensive responsibility. That, and the injury, likely contributed to his offense dropping under Sutter.

I actually really like Hanifin-Tanev / Zadarov-Andersson / Valamaki-Whomever.

I think the Flames have been pretty good recently. They have had guys make the NHL right away and other whom have taken the long road, and generally they have had success with both. There are certainly misses, but that's true for any club. The hit rate has been pretty good, especially since the 2015 draft class.

Most of the Flames top players were drafted and developed by the team.

Agree with Cross. Kylington probably isn't getting claimed, at least early in the season when the waiver wire is packed. He reminds me of Chris Butler a bit. He is... Fine. Not physical, limited offensive accuman, okay defence but he doesn't make up for his occasional brain fart with a string of great shifts or some big points. He is fast, but he either needs to be more consistent or excel in a part of his game to justify the NHL spot. Maybe he will pull a Kulak and find another level. But right now he is replacement level, and his potential doesn't justify holding a spot. At least in my opinion.

I have no issues with trading Gaudreau in a hockey trade. Especially if the team is happy with Tkachuk long term. Most of our best players are at LW, and that is a problem. Those two are already our highest paid players, and both are due an extension next season. Mangipane is also due a big raise next season, and Lucic's 5+ million will still be on the books. Next season we could end up with 35% of our cap dedicated to left wingers, and none of them are named Marchand, Kucherov, Pastrnak, Ovechkin, Kane, etc. That's kind of crazy. The problem is, how do you make a Gaudreau hockey trade in August that improves your team short and long term? The Flames biggest issue is going to be to find scoring. I don't see a scenario where we can afford to trade Gaudreau, but maybe I am just not missing it. I agree losing Gaudreau for nothing isn't ideal, but I am not sure the Flames see it that way. Treliving is in win now mode. Teams go to the nth hour all of the time with their stars knowing the gamble is they could lose the player for nothing. Sometimes they do. I just don't know why the Flames would be any different.

If Gaudreau doesn't sign an extension his pending UFA status will follow him all season. Between that, a Sutter system, and a general lack of scoring on this team he could very well end up in the 60 point range again which will limit his negotiating value. The Flames know what they have with him. He has played every season for them. This extension isn't going to be about last season only. If Gaudreau is interested in staying in Calgary signing an extension makes sense for both the player and the team. RE trading him for futures, that is very unlikely. A cap team, with stars in their prime, isn't trading their best offensive player for futures. Especially when they are already tight on scoring. Not in August. Maybe at the draft as part of a play for another acquisition, but not now. If he is traded it will most likely be a hockey trade, but from all the chatter the objective is an extension so I think that's unlikely.

I think they will sign Gaudreau to an extension. But I am not as confident as you are there is a plan B if things go south. It's certainly possible, but I think it's more likely they are gambling on an extension. The Flames lack scoring all ready and they can't afford to trade away our best offensive player as a contingency, not without throwing away the season. What I do think is possible is that other moves are on hold pending the extension. Would trading Monahan (for example) impact the Gaudreau negotiations? Does the extension potentially impact what moves they want to make (specifically the final dollar figure, but also potentially an overall direction)?

I don't think Gustafsson is the answer. He had 0 PP goals last season despite getting over 2-min per night, and his defensive game isn't strong enough for a team that is going to have to win 2 to 1 a lot of nights. I would love to see the Flames bring on another D that can play both 5 on 5 and on the PP, but I don't think we can afford a PP specialist. Especially one that hasn't been scoring in a couple of seasons. I don't think Zadorov has questionable defense though. He was on a bad Chicago team and he is still young, so he had the occasionally bad shift. But overall I think he is a defensively focused and capable player. I could be wrong though.

Also to be fair, three of those goalies were drafted in the top 5. Any player drafted in the top 5 has a good chance of turning into an NHL player. There are also not often goalies in any draft year that justify a high pick like that. When they are in the draft, they get picked and often turn out. I don't think its a mystery. The higher you draft the better chance you have of getting the best player. That is true of all positions. Goalies are a bit of a mystery come draft day since they generally take longer to develop and they are impacted so much by the team in front of them. That lack of confidence causes many teams to avoid high picks on goalies. But getting the first goalie in the draft (regardless of pick number) means you had your pick of the bunch.

Good data. But to be fair, 4 out of 11 picks translating to starting goalies (3 elite) is very good.

Starting goalies with a SC since the cap was introduced, draft position included: Vasilevskiy (19) Binnington (88) Holtby (93) Fleury (1) Murray (83) Crawford (52) Quick (72) Thomas (217) Niemi (Undrafted) Osgood (54) Giguere (13) Ward (25) A third of them are first round picks, with half of them selected in the first two rounds. Drafting a goalie in the first or second round certainly helps, but it isn't essential. More notable to me is that nearly every goalie on the list was drafted and developed by the team they won the cup on.

The Flames had a couple of players take step a step forward last season, signed Mackay, had a strong 21 draft, and didn't really see anyone depart / take a step back / etc. It was a short season so I take it for what it is. But guys like Phillips, Mackay, Zary, Wolf, Coronato, etc are worth getting excited for. I also think we have a few guys like Ruzika, Pelletier, Poirier, etc who have a really good chance of playing.

I don't think it's accurate that only Nashville has been successful developing goalies. If my memory serves, you have to go back to Tim Thomas in Boston as the last time the starting goalie for the Stanley Cup champions wasn't drafted by the winning team. I agree that the Flames are not the only team that struggles in this area. I also agree that great goalies have been found outside of the draft. But I do think great teams often have goalies that came through their system. That all said, I don't think it's all about the Flames failure to develop goalies. Injuries have impacted some of best prospects (Gilles, Parsons), some just didn't pan out (Irving), and we haven't been stacked enough in the prospect pool to draft goalies higher up in the draft. The Flames going in on players like Rittich, Berra, etc is a reaction to not having NHL ready goalie prospects, not the cause.

It looks like BT is build a team around his coach with the addition of a big D and defensive physical wingers. I think the changes he made will be bigger in practice then they are on paper due to this mixing up our DNA. But I agree work still needs to be done. We are weak down the middle and we need another upgrade at D. I also think we need to mix up the forward core by moving one of Tkachuk, Monahan, Gaudreau. I would love to see the Eichel move made with one of those players (prefer Monahan) out. Adding Ritchie or one more crasher would help fit the Sutter system. I would also love to see an upgrade on D. That's a lot to ask with limited cap and without selling the farm, but that's my wish list.

Two seasons ago we had a revolving door at the starter position with David Rittich as the only plan B (short or long term). We now have a legitimate proven starter that we know can handle the workload, and we have some legitimate potential in both the BU spot and in the AHL. I can't say Markstrom (and his contract) is the first goalie I would pick when scanning the 32 starting goalies, and I don't think we have a sure thing available if Markstrom goes down. But I do think BT has adequately addressed the position.

I think you have to go with Rittich. I get wanting to manage his load and getting Talbot in a game. But part of moving away from Smith was to show Rittich he is the guy. Tough to stay with that message if you don't start him after a two day break following a shutout.

Good news for sure. Got better every game. As for starts, I guess that will depend on how Rittich is playing and how many starts the org has planned for Talbot. If the are looking at more of a 1A 1B scenario then I agree against LA, and maybe even against Vancouver game 2. But if they are giving Rittich the chance to be a legitimate starter, and he is playing well, my guess is game 6 against San Jose

The Flames did build through the draft. The vast majority of our players were drafted and developed by the Flames. But you can't do it exclusively. There comes a time when you give up futures to win now. Otherwise you never win. The Flames gave up too much in the Hamonic deal for sure. But trading away picks to make the team better at that stage in the build made sense.

I would have liked to see Gilles get a full start. Coming in for the last half is hard on a goalie. That said, Gilles just doesn't look right. It doesn't look like rust or nerves, it looks like he doesn't have the basic fundamentals. He isn't tracking the puck at all, his judgment is poor, his five hole is massive, and somehow he manages to look small despite his size. I don't know how they give him more time. They have two more throw away games, then two where they need to start taking things seriously. Talbot needs one of the throw aways and your would think they want to give Zagidulin a game to help his development and do some assessment. You would have to think Zag is the first call up if we have an injury so he needs a game. That leaves rotation as Talbot, Zag, Talbot, Rittich. It might change a bit, but unless they let Gilles split next game with Talbot then I think he is done as a Flame.