Official Sam Bennett Discussion Thread

[Khrox]

Poirier is not even close to the same type of player as Baillie.  Poirier is a slightly undersized power forward, pesky Doug Gilmour typre guy.  He has blazing speed and a wicked shot.  He is tough.  

 

Poirier will get his time to shine.  He has just part of a season at the pro level and was already a points leader on the baby Flames.

This coming off surgery and no camp.  No way the Flames give up on him in a few short years after being drafted.  How many years did we have Backlund before he was trusted.  Sven was an example of how to end up being traded, not because he didn't show promise.

 

I'm with you on this one. I don't see the Flames giving up on him (especially not this early). He is showing promise and has adapted to the pro game really well. Just because he hasn't played his rookie season in his first 2 years since being drafted (1 year he spent back in Juniors, so only 1 year pro), doesn't mean he is on his last leg. 1 year pro with no record of attitude issues. Baer got traded at the tail end of his ELC (year 3) of being pro, reportedly had attitude issues and was refusing to re-sign/wanted out of Calgary (if he was willing to re-sign I figure we probably would have toughed it out another contract). Poirier has some ways to go still, but he should be one of the first 2 call-ups this season and likely a regular if injuries occur or possibly next season.

[The_People1]

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/olympics/calgary-flames-sam-bennett-bulks-up-after-big-league-baptism

 

A good Sam Bennett article.

• He has put on "8 to 10 pounds" of muscle over the summer and weights in at 190 lb to start training camp 
• He's switched numbers from 63 to 93
• Bob Hartley says he wants Sam Bennett to play Center
• He's gone from 18-years of age to 19-years of age

[MAC331]

I'm with you on this one. I don't see the Flames giving up on him (especially not this early). He is showing promise and has adapted to the pro game really well. Just because he hasn't played his rookie season in his first 2 years since being drafted (1 year he spent back in Juniors, so only 1 year pro), doesn't mean he is on his last leg. 1 year pro with no record of attitude issues. Baer got traded at the tail end of his ELC (year 3) of being pro, reportedly had attitude issues and was refusing to re-sign/wanted out of Calgary (if he was willing to re-sign I figure we probably would have toughed it out another contract). Poirier has some ways to go still, but he should be one of the first 2 call-ups this season and likely a regular if injuries occur or possibly next season.

Poirier sounds like someone who should play with Bennett and put Ferland on the LW.

[The_People1]

So considering the comments made by Hartley to play Bennett at Center, i think that rules out Bennett on Backlund's wing, at least to start the season.  It's looking increasingly likely that Bennett will be on a line with someone like Frolik on the RW and maybe Ferland, Raymond, Colborne, or Byron at LW.

 

Gaudreau - Monahan - Hudler

Bouma - Backlund - Jones

Ferland - Bennett - Frolik

Bollig - Stajan - Jooris

x: Raymond, Colborne, Byron, Poirier, etc

[travel_dude]

So considering the comments made by Hartley to play Bennett at Center, i think that rules out Bennett on Backlund's wing, at least to start the season.  It's looking increasingly likely that Bennett will be on a line with someone like Frolik on the RW and maybe Ferland, Raymond, Colborne, or Byron at LW.

 

Gaudreau - Monahan - Hudler

Bouma - Backlund - Jones

Ferland - Bennett - Frolik

Bollig - Stajan - Jooris

x: Raymond, Colborne, Byron, Poirier, etc

 

I think those could work quite well, except maybe that you put Colborne instead of Bollig....There, you now have 4 lines that can score or prevent goals.  

[robrob1974]

Poirier sounds like someone who should play with Bennett and put Ferland on the LW.

I think with the depth on the club there's no need to rush him in, even if it means one or two more years in the AHL. The thing about depth and building a team right is not having to rush kids in.

Of course there are exceptions in Monahan and Bennett, but we know what happens when we rush kids. Look at Baertschi and Backlund. Bouncing around the two leagues is tough to handle for some players.

Maybe Poirier plays one more year, but playing him with Bennett and Ferland would be great in the future.

[MAC331]

I think with the depth on the club there's no need to rush him in, even if it means one or two more years in the AHL. The thing about depth and building a team right is not having to rush kids in.

Of course there are exceptions in Monahan and Bennett, but we know what happens when we rush kids. Look at Baertschi and Backlund. Bouncing around the two leagues is tough to handle for some players.

Maybe Poirier plays one more year, but playing him with Bennett and Ferland would be great in the future.

In a way I believe any player has to give the organization "the reason" to bring him onto the team. I am likely one who thought Baertschi wasn't good enough. I also think it took Backlund a long time because he wasn't what anyone expected either. he wasn't going to be a prolific scorer and he was lousy on defense. Sutter kept sending him back and playing him 4th line until defense got drilled into him. we are the benefactor of all those boot camp lessons.

[cross16]

So considering the comments made by Hartley to play Bennett at Center, i think that rules out Bennett on Backlund's wing, at least to start the season.  It's looking increasingly likely that Bennett will be on a line with someone like Frolik on the RW and maybe Ferland, Raymond, Colborne, or Byron at LW.

 

Gaudreau - Monahan - Hudler

Bouma - Backlund - Jones

Ferland - Bennett - Frolik

Bollig - Stajan - Jooris

x: Raymond, Colborne, Byron, Poirier, etc

 

Thats what I would start camp with. I think you can rotate in several players like Raymond with Ferland and Colborne with Jooris as well to give them a chance but I think those lines offer you the best balance. On paper at least.

 

Poirier IMO would neeed a VERY strong camp to make this team. Nothing against him at all i just think he can use some more time in the AHL and now that the Flames have some solid RW depth there is no need to rush him. He had a great start and end to his first pro season, but in the middle he struggled so i think there is still opporutnity for him to take a step at the AHL level. Given he's likely the best option on the farm for RW, maybe even LW, I suspect you'll see him in an injury situation so its not like he won't see the NHL at all this year but on the team, he'd need a stellar camp IMO.

[robrob1974]

I agree with you to a point.

Bennett had pedigree and being a top pick there's a reason he was touted highly.

Baertschi was told he was the next one and replacing iginla. I wonder what he would've been like had a different approach been taken. It could've forced him to develop differently.

Bennett and Monahan come in with all around skill sets. I think keeping Backlund in one spot to develop would've been better for him and concentrate on all parts of his game. But then, as some suggest, he had to find a niche to keep him on the flames.

Personally, I am all for developing the player right. If Bennett had to do more time I would've been okay with that. I think Hartley likes him enough to keep him because Bennetts attitude yells, "play me! I will do whatever it takes!"

[travel_dude]

I agree with you to a point.

Bennett had pedigree and being a top pick there's a reason he was touted highly.

Baertschi was told he was the next one and replacing iginla. I wonder what he would've been like had a different approach been taken. It could've forced him to develop differently.

Bennett and Monahan come in with all around skill sets. I think keeping Backlund in one spot to develop would've been better for him and concentrate on all parts of his game. But then, as some suggest, he had to find a niche to keep him on the flames.

Personally, I am all for developing the player right. If Bennett had to do more time I would've been okay with that. I think Hartley likes him enough to keep him because Bennetts attitude yells, "play me! I will do whatever it takes!"

 

He is in the same boat as Monahan was; too young for the AHL so it's NHL or junior.  He would be ok developing in junior skills-wise, but I think it would play on Sam's mind too much.  He wants to win the rookie award or at least the rookie scoring title.  

[robrob1974]

I agree.

[Khrox]

He is in the same boat as Monahan was; too young for the AHL so it's NHL or junior.  He would be ok developing in junior skills-wise, but I think it would play on Sam's mind too much.  He wants to win the rookie award or at least the rookie scoring title.  

 

 

It'll still be tough though. Odds are we see Bennett, McDavid, Eichel and possibly Sam Reinhart in the discussion this year (and that is not counting any surprises).

[zima]

When we hung onto backs it was because we had nothing we dumped Sven because we have better players Im saying if Poirier can not push in the next few yrs he will be traded because we have a full system in quality players not like a few yrs back when we had to hang on to the little we had. Saying that I think Poirier will push out a granlund or Jooris maybe even a Colburn we only have so many spots some one has to go to make room for better quality players that is the business Im afread

[cccsberg]

I think with the depth on the club there's no need to rush him in, even if it means one or two more years in the AHL. The thing about depth and building a team right is not having to rush kids in.

Of course there are exceptions in Monahan and Bennett, but we know what happens when we rush kids. Look at Baertschi and Backlund. Bouncing around the two leagues is tough to handle for some players.

Maybe Poirier plays one more year, but playing him with Bennett and Ferland would be great in the future.

Its amusing (frustrating for players) how for some kids like Monahan, Bennett and Gaudreau they are exceptions and able to jump right in (sort of...) whereas others should not be rushed and an extra 2-3 seasons in Junior/AHL is "needed" before they get their chance.  I'm betting that its not as clear-cut as many think and given the chance others would also succeed early in a protected role.  

 

In any case most of the prospects won't get their chance this year because of the overload of players, until some bodies are moved out via trade or injuries....

[kehatch]

When we hung onto backs it was because we had nothing we dumped Sven because we have better players Im saying if Poirier can not push in the next few yrs he will be traded because we have a full system in quality players not like a few yrs back when we had to hang on to the little we had. Saying that I think Poirier will push out a granlund or Jooris maybe even a Colburn we only have so many spots some one has to go to make room for better quality players that is the business Im afread

Your assumption on why we kept Backlund and traded Baertschi aren't entirely accurate. The fact there is competition isn't reason enough to sell low on one of our top prospects.

Your also missing a critical point. Teams don't win with great players. They win with great players that are supplemented by other good to great players on value contracts. The best way to get those are with your prospects. Poirier is leading the pack of the next wave of prospects.

Any prospect could be traded for the right return. But I think trading Poirier is very u likely at this point.

[cross16]

Also i would add the organization didn't dump Sven, he demanded a trade. Organization has publically said they wanted to keep him but he told them he wouldn't re-sign.

[The_People1]

Montreal has always been rumoured to be very high on Poirier, who was born and raised in Montreal.  If the Flames want to make Poirier available, then i would look at the Habs for the best possible deal.

 

Maybe we can ask for Devante Smith-Pelly + 1st round pick 2016 (which looks like a late first round pick this year).

[travel_dude]

Montreal has always been rumoured to be very high on Poirier, who was born and raised in Montreal.  If the Flames want to make Poirier available, then i would look at the Habs for the best possible deal.

 

Maybe we can ask for Devante Smith-Pelly + 1st round pick 2016 (which looks like a late first round pick this year).

I'm not that big on DSP.  His numbers speak no more than Byron's or Jooris', so I am not about to package Poirier for a late 1st and a bottom 6 guy.

 

We need to have a home run on RW to balance out the top 6.  Hudler is there for the time being, but I look to Poirier to be the next great RW'er for the Flames.  He will take time to get there, but maybe not much more than a full year in the NHL.  Keep him in the AHL until there is a vacancy in the top 9.  He has to earn it, but I don't want to think about him sitting on the 4th line.

[cross16]

I'm not sure why we are even discussing trading Porier? His stock is up since he's been drafted and he had a solid start to his pro career in the AHL last year. Even if he didn't make the team out of training camp this year I wouldn't be talking about dealing him at all, especially when you consdier that 2 out of the Flames top 3 RWs (Hudler and Jones) are FA following the season.

 

I miss the days when people understood that rookies take time. Now it seems like people give First round picks 2 training camps to make it and suddenly if they don't they are busts. Let's be patient.

[cccsberg]

I'm not that big on DSP.  His numbers speak no more than Byron's or Jooris', so I am not about to package Poirier for a late 1st and a bottom 6 guy.

 

We need to have a home run on RW to balance out the top 6.  Hudler is there for the time being, but I look to Poirier to be the next great RW'er for the Flames.  He will take time to get there, but maybe not much more than a full year in the NHL.  Keep him in the AHL until there is a vacancy in the top 9.  He has to earn it, but I don't want to think about him sitting on the 4th line.

Agree fully.  Poirier is our next great Top6 RW and we should not even be considering trading him.  That's nuts.  He's fast, great scoring and plays with an edge.  What's not to like?  He's like a carbon copy of Bennett but on the wing, perhaps slightly less skill but more speed.  

[kehatch]

I'm not sure why we are even discussing trading Porier? His stock is up since he's been drafted and he had a solid start to his pro career in the AHL last year. Even if he didn't make the team out of training camp this year I wouldn't be talking about dealing him at all, especially when you consdier that 2 out of the Flames top 3 RWs (Hudler and Jones) are FA following the season.

I miss the days when people understood that rookies take time. Now it seems like people give First round picks 2 training camps to make it and suddenly if they don't they are busts. Let's be patient.

I totally agree. Prospects need to continue to flow through an organization to win cups and to keep them competitive long term.

Barring a return we can't turn down I don't see any reason to trade Poirier. We have a full roster going into camp. We don't have a back log of prospects in the position. The prospect looks like a great long term fit.

[robrob1974]

Agree fully.  Poirier is our next great Top6 RW and we should not even be considering trading him.  That's nuts.  He's fast, great scoring and plays with an edge.  What's not to like?  He's like a carbon copy of Bennett but on the wing, perhaps slightly less skill but more speed.  

 

A part of being patient is also allowing the player to mature. His skills might be ready, but mind might not be. Yes Poirier looked a bit like a deer in headlights in his call-ups last season, but that's just a young player realizing the stage he's on and that part of his mind will catch up to his skill game. 

We cannot give up on Poirier, and some say he'll be ready by this season and I say, if he's not and even still needs next year, it's ok. It's all a part of development. So what if he makes it when he's 22 or 23 or 24. I know it's pushing it (exaggerating on age), but it doesn't mean you give up on the kid.

 

I like what (I think it was) Cross said about why can't we just learn to be patient with prospects instead of rushing them in. It's good to have high expectations, but I think good expectations are improving each year and a prospect will be ready when they're ready. 

 

CCC, I mean that different players have different pedigrees, different maturity levels and different skill sets with different development curves. How many prospects can we take on the team and slowly shelter them while they develop? I was listening to either the Fan or the TSN 1040 and one of the commentators were talking to an ex player and talking about how the NHL is NOT a development league. Sheltering is all good sometimes, especially if you're in a full rebuild and a very empty roster, but not when you're fighting for playoffs. 

 

It's exactly why they didn't play Wotherspoon. They could play him in year one of the rebuild, because they could live with the mistakes as he's learning, but in a playoff hunt, you can't live with the same mistakes because they can cost the team the playoff spot. We cannot take players in and shelter them until they make an impact. The NHL is not a development league. 

[cccsberg]

A part of being patient is also allowing the player to mature. His skills might be ready, but mind might not be. Yes Poirier looked a bit like a deer in headlights in his call-ups last season, but that's just a young player realizing the stage he's on and that part of his mind will catch up to his skill game. 

We cannot give up on Poirier, and some say he'll be ready by this season and I say, if he's not and even still needs next year, it's ok. It's all a part of development. So what if he makes it when he's 22 or 23 or 24. I know it's pushing it (exaggerating on age), but it doesn't mean you give up on the kid.

 

I like what (I think it was) Cross said about why can't we just learn to be patient with prospects instead of rushing them in. It's good to have high expectations, but I think good expectations are improving each year and a prospect will be ready when they're ready. 

 

CCC, I mean that different players have different pedigrees, different maturity levels and different skill sets with different development curves. How many prospects can we take on the team and slowly shelter them while they develop? I was listening to either the Fan or the TSN 1040 and one of the commentators were talking to an ex player and talking about how the NHL is NOT a development league. Sheltering is all good sometimes, especially if you're in a full rebuild and a very empty roster, but not when you're fighting for playoffs. 

 

It's exactly why they didn't play Wotherspoon. They could play him in year one of the rebuild, because they could live with the mistakes as he's learning, but in a playoff hunt, you can't live with the same mistakes because they can cost the team the playoff spot. We cannot take players in and shelter them until they make an impact. The NHL is not a development league. 

I fully agree the NHL is not a development league and shouldn't be treated as one.   At the same time, I wonder if some players get held back from getting their shot because of limited roster spots even if technically on the ice, they "earned it".  

 

Let's look at three 'failed' prospects recently for the Flames: Reinhart, Hanowski and Baertschi.  

 

Reinhart had a great year two years ago but didn't distinguish himself when called up to the NHL.  He may have been just as good as a couple players on the team but couldn't displace them (their contracts) and never stuck. Last year my impression was he had a hard time mentally, not sticking in the MHL then seeing others pass him by.  He finally came around mid-season but by then he had lost his place in the pecking order.

 

Hanowski had some chances with the Flames and offensively was not bad.  The knock on him was always skating and it didn't improve substantially and over a couple seasons little changed.  I think he stagnated, and was never able to get over that last hump.

 

Baertschi had some early, unrealistic expectations thrown his way then a dose of tough love, neither of which he seemed to handle well (i.e dogging Penticton tourney...).  Mentally he struggled until finally he just wanted out and a fresh start somewhere else.  

 

So, having gone through this I would say all three could be NHL players, but each had issues mentally handling the challenges (i.e. confidence).  Sheltering them can shield them from harsher treatment but you are probably correct in saying the AHL may be a better place till they get that confidence., even if they have the skill to play at this level.  As a fan that's the frustrating part, seeing guys who have the skill but don't fully realize it themselves...  So it is, a tough league with a lot more challenges than skating, shooting and etc on the ice... 

[MAC331]

I fully agree the NHL is not a development league and shouldn't be treated as one.   At the same time, I wonder if some players get held back from getting their shot because of limited roster spots even if technically on the ice, they "earned it".  

 

Let's look at three 'failed' prospects recently for the Flames: Reinhart, Hanowski and Baertschi.  

 

Reinhart had a great year two years ago but didn't distinguish himself when called up to the NHL.  He may have been just as good as a couple players on the team but couldn't displace them (their contracts) and never stuck. Last year my impression was he had a hard time mentally, not sticking in the MHL then seeing others pass him by.  He finally came around mid-season but by then he had lost his place in the pecking order.

 

Hanowski had some chances with the Flames and offensively was not bad.  The knock on him was always skating and it didn't improve substantially and over a couple seasons little changed.  I think he stagnated, and was never able to get over that last hump.

 

Baertschi had some early, unrealistic expectations thrown his way then a dose of tough love, neither of which he seemed to handle well (i.e dogging Penticton tourney...).  Mentally he struggled until finally he just wanted out and a fresh start somewhere else.  

 

So, having gone through this I would say all three could be NHL players, but each had issues mentally handling the challenges (i.e. confidence).  Sheltering them can shield them from harsher treatment but you are probably correct in saying the AHL may be a better place till they get that confidence., even if they have the skill to play at this level.  As a fan that's the frustrating part, seeing guys who have the skill but don't fully realize it themselves...  So it is, a tough league with a lot more challenges than skating, shooting and etc on the ice... 

 

Just my thoughts on these 3 players. Reinhart as a C really had no spot and with the trade for Shore we got a bigger player that can play C and RW. It is not un-customary for GM's to trade a player to provide him a better opportunity to play elsewhere. Hanoski was never good enough on his skates and Jooris ran with the opportunity. Now we have better stock than Hanoski.

Baertschi I don't think was ever as good as billed and as time went by people within the organization realized it. No loss IMO.

[travel_dude]

I fully agree the NHL is not a development league and shouldn't be treated as one.   At the same time, I wonder if some players get held back from getting their shot because of limited roster spots even if technically on the ice, they "earned it".  

 

Let's look at three 'failed' prospects recently for the Flames: Reinhart, Hanowski and Baertschi.  

 

Reinhart had a great year two years ago but didn't distinguish himself when called up to the NHL.  He may have been just as good as a couple players on the team but couldn't displace them (their contracts) and never stuck. Last year my impression was he had a hard time mentally, not sticking in the MHL then seeing others pass him by.  He finally came around mid-season but by then he had lost his place in the pecking order.

 

Hanowski had some chances with the Flames and offensively was not bad.  The knock on him was always skating and it didn't improve substantially and over a couple seasons little changed.  I think he stagnated, and was never able to get over that last hump.

 

Baertschi had some early, unrealistic expectations thrown his way then a dose of tough love, neither of which he seemed to handle well (i.e dogging Penticton tourney...).  Mentally he struggled until finally he just wanted out and a fresh start somewhere else.  

 

So, having gone through this I would say all three could be NHL players, but each had issues mentally handling the challenges (i.e. confidence).  Sheltering them can shield them from harsher treatment but you are probably correct in saying the AHL may be a better place till they get that confidence., even if they have the skill to play at this level.  As a fan that's the frustrating part, seeing guys who have the skill but don't fully realize it themselves...  So it is, a tough league with a lot more challenges than skating, shooting and etc on the ice... 

 

Reinhart had a good year and a few meh years in the AHL.  He strikes me as a player that will only be good in the AHL, and could possibly be a defensive specialist in the NHL without putting up more than a dozen points at best.

 

Hanowski does not have the goods to make it to the next level.  His skating is sub-par, even for the AHL.

 

Baertschi has the skills to be an offensive 2nd line winger.  He didn't match the Flames mindset, since he couldn't play well enough without the puck.  He would fit on the Oilers.  And likely score about 50 points.  He was rushed to the point where he felt he could take the next step, but he was being groomed the way Detroit does it.  He couldn't wait that long, and was soured by the Burke comments and by how he felt that was aped by Bob Hartley.