kehatch
-
Posts
10,467 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by kehatch
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
47 minutes ago, rickross said:
You can’t consider the Sutter impact without the negatives. He’s not for every player, his coaching methods can do good for some players while harming others. Offensive players who thrive off of goal scoring and play making might have to mute their instincts to fit into his system. It’s not exactly ideal.
He could be impacting the types of players we acquire via free agency or draft. We could have had some deals fall through because the player(s) refused to play for a coach like Sutter? Who knows, Sutter success always comes with a price
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.
-
2 hours ago, The_People1 said:
I fully agree.
Sadly they married Hanifin with Tanev and I think that's what we are going to see to start the season.
And since Sutter likes his veteran D, we could see Zadorov-Andersson second pairing.
I'm shocked we haven't brought Stone back yet. He did well under Sutter and Sutter played him a lot down the stretch. If he comes back then,
Valimaki - Stone third pair.
I actually really like Hanifin-Tanev / Zadarov-Andersson / Valamaki-Whomever.
-
2 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:
Oh yeah, I get that, but we can't pretend that they've got an exceptional record when it comes to development. I'm not convinced that the best place for Sam Bennett was ever in between Brouwer and Bouma, and yet, there he was. Then he was put on the wing, and then on his off wing, etc... highest draft pick in Flames history.
I know that they're not all like that, and I know that other teams miss as well - but I don't have a lot of faith in their development, and I also don't have a lot of faith in Darryl Sutter when it comes to the younger players.
Love.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:
I always get nervous around this time of year... I am hopeful that Pelletier, Zary, and eventually Coronato aren't on the Jankowski/Bennett development path. I'm not overly optimistic, however.
Love.
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.
-
34 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
I agree with everything here.
I'm just saying, having that pending UFA label hanging over his head all season... Let's avoid this. If we can get back immediate help in a Gaudreau trade, then do it. Doesn't have to be futures. It can be a hockey trade. Main point is, we can't lose him for nothing.
We already lost Giordano for nothing because we thought we could make a run for the playoffs, for example.
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.
-
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:
THe GM is not that dumb.
He probably even has a offers in the wings, should it go south.
You know he would have had that discussion with teams calling about him.
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)?
-
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:
As a PP QB he makes sense, but I worry about his ability to defend.
He's not as bad as Kylington, but still an adventure.
Is that what we want to complete the transition from Gio?
Zadorov and Gustafsson both a little questionable on defense?
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.
-
6 hours ago, jjgallow said:
Just this yes, and thank you kehatch I appreciate that. This is really what I was trying to show. And I do actually believe goalie scouting is improving (it gets easier when the NHL pretty much made it impossible for normal size goalies to compete).
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.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, rocketdoctor said:
Hmm really?
Recent years goalies taken in round 1
2020 - Askarov 11th
2019 - Knight 13th
2018 - None
2017 - Jake Oetteinger 26th
2016 - None
2015 - Samsonov 22nd
2014 - None
2013 - None
2012 - Vasilevskey 19th Subban 24th
2011 - None
2010 - Campbell 11th
2009 - none
2008 - Pickard 18th
2007 - none
2006 - Bernier
2005 - Price 5th
2004 - Montoya 6th
2003 - Fleury 1st
2002 - Lehoten 2nd
2001 - Leclaire 8th
2000 - DiPietro 1st
3 goalies won Stanley cups in that list and Bernier did not play a game as a back up to Quick.
Of the 15 goalies listed
Elite
Fleury
Vasilevsky
Price
Good
Lehoten
Okay
Bernier
Campbell
Meh
DiPietro
Leclarie
Montoya
Pickard
Subban
Too early
Knight
Askarov
Oettinger
Samsonov
3 eltie goalies taken in the 1st round in the last 21 years!! The other 29 teams are obviously doing something just as wrong as the Flames are.
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.
-
2
-
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.
-
4 hours ago, conundrumed said:
But you alluded to the new hires interfering with Wolf's development.
Is it Flames development, or is it a struggle to find who might get far enough to be one of the world's top 75 goalies?
Only Nashville has truly been a goalie factory in this league.
Most other teams have to buy a goalie.
This isn't isolated to, "the Flames don't know how to".
An 18yo goalie has already developed, the only hope is to see the attributes and hope that they continue to improve. But as they move up leagues, the game in front of them improves. A few can handle it, but most can't.
You can only scout a checklist, angles, puck-tracking, mobility, athleticism, rebound control and attitude.
Not really fair to blame the system when most goalies either improve little or can't adjust to a faster, harder game.
That's more on the individual.
Why whine about Brossoit? It's not like he's great, he's an average backup.
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.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, travel_dude said:
BT suggesting that work is not done with the team.
Obviously won't say what that means.
Mentions only 5 D and what they can bring.
Seems to still have faith in Valimaki.
Wouldn't surprise me if he signed another top 4 D.
Losing Gio a big blow to the defense.
Saying all that, we still have a few holes.
Loss of scoring from the D.
Some nice defensive guys added for depth, but still lack scoring.
We're tougher to play against, but 1-0 and 2-1 games should be the fall back plan, not the goal.
At least IHOP.
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.
-
36 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:
Good work out of Talbot. His last 2 appearances were solid. He looks like he’s ready for the regular season. When’s his first start? Can’t imagine they let him sit the first 5 games until the b2b in SJ, maybe at home against LA.
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
-
10 hours ago, robrob74 said:
https://eyesonisles.com/2019/09/20/new-york-islanders-travis-hamonic-trade-worked/amp/
this is what kind of pisses me off about these kinds of trades. I like Hamonic but we give up a first pair D and possibly another yet more. I get it is hindsight and it expedited the rebuild a bit.
but just a year or two before that we gave up the same and missed out on a first line C.
For me, my philosophy is build through the draft. The way it looks is that we may have to give up a pick to get rid of a contract or two to get cap compliant.
i am obviously frustrated with the state of the team. I am not quite sold that the team is a 2nd overall or Division winner.
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.
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
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.