JTech780 Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 I guess we can wait for Wotherspoon for next season? Smid, England and Ramo is as high I'd go for OEL as we have some good players coming up soon anyways. OEL is one of the best young defensemen in the game, any discussion in trading for him starts with Sam Bennett +, if it doesn't Don Maloney hangs up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 What does OEL mean? Why can't we type full words? I mean, IMO? In my opinion, people don't have to say "in my opinion" because when we make a post, it is my or your opinion unless you state otherwise in a quote. I just find it funny. I don't know if Sam Bennett is the start of any deal? He was pretty close to being a first overall that he alone could be a good chip in any deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 The fact is our defense is not so bad now but in order to improve it you need a top 4 type player. Depending on whether that player is a RHS or LHS could determine who is matched up with who in the future. In the end shuffle I want Russell on the 3rd pairing because he would make it better. I would not really want to see Bennett used in any trade before we see what he can do for us. Treliving has a number of key decisions coming up this offseason to determine what the 2015-16 team looks like. We definitely have a surplus of good forward talent to fit into the scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tincup1 Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 I think Calgary's 3rd pairing has been better of late. Diaz can skate which I think makes life easier for Engelland. Going forward, it would be nice if they could get out from under Smid's (or Engelland's) contract and maybe keep Diaz around for another year or two. Wotherspoon or someone else needs a chance to work their way into the lineup but it's tough when you have a couple $3+ million dollar contracts in the 5-7 dman position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth_henning Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 Diaz has definitely improved, but we need an upgrade to play with him. I'd be happy to keep him on the bottom pairing for a while. He's good on blue line for the PP, and despite horrible line mates has actually done quite well on the 3rd pairing. Smid and Engelland do need an upgrade. ASAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreckening Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 What does OEL mean? Why can't we type full words? I mean, IMO? In my opinion, people don't have to say "in my opinion" because when we make a post, it is my or your opinion unless you state otherwise in a quote. I just find it funny. I don't know if Sam Bennett is the start of any deal? He was pretty close to being a first overall that he alone could be a good chip in any deal. I hope you're not recommending that we consider trading Bennett. He's a blue chip prospect that we haven't really seen do anything yet. There's no way Bennett is in the discussion for any trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 What does OEL mean? Why can't we type full words? Oliver Ekman-Larsson. Too long to type. Like, RNH of the Coilers. But Smid + Engellend + Ramo for OEL, it can't possibly be Oliver Ekman-Larsson, right? No way. He must mean somebody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyromancer Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 OEL for H2S in Alberta = 10 ppm/8 hrs Occupational Exposure Limit OEL for hyphenated celebrity / sports star names = 1 ppm [Explains above] OEL for fanatical media personalities using advanced stats as gospel truth = 0 ppm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 I hope you're not recommending that we consider trading Bennett. He's a blue chip prospect that we haven't really seen do anything yet. There's no way Bennett is in the discussion for any trade. Not at all, on the contrary, I don't think Bennett is a starter for any trade talks, nor should he be in any discussions. I would even give him another full year in a Juniors to get him back to game shape. That's up to him of course, if he plays his way onto the team. But I was responding to someone else suggesting him in a deal. Ludicrous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Why would you have a problem trading Bennett for a defenseman that is suppose to be real special ? What if Bennett's shoulder become a constant problem for him, you just never know with prospects. This team has traded way good player before Brett Hull and Marty St.Louis come to mind immediately. Depends what the GM feels the bigger need is for the team. Don't get me wrong, I love that we have Bennett but we also have a lot of good forwards starting to emerge. Just asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted February 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 I hope you're not recommending that we consider trading Bennett. He's a blue chip prospect that we haven't really seen do anything yet. There's no way Bennett is in the discussion for any trade. Not at all, on the contrary, I don't think Bennett is a starter for any trade talks, nor should he be in any discussions. I would even give him another full year in a Juniors to get him back to game shape. That's up to him of course, if he plays his way onto the team. But I was responding to someone else suggesting him in a deal. Ludicrous I'll 3rd that. That would be the same as naming your unborn child before you new what sex it was. You don't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Why would you have a problem trading Bennett for a defenseman that is suppose to be real special ? What if Bennett's shoulder become a constant problem for him, you just never know with prospects. This team has traded way good player before Brett Hull and Marty St.Louis come to mind immediately. Depends what the GM feels the bigger need is for the team. Don't get me wrong, I love that we have Bennett but we also have a lot of good forwards starting to emerge. Just asking. Both Brett Hull and St Louis played some games in NHL for Flames before we traded them away. We knew what they were able to bring to the team. Bennett you are trading before he has played a game for us and on spec that his shoulder "might" be a constant problem for his career.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth_henning Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Yeah. I don't trade Bennett until we have some idea what we've got with him. Sure the shoulder COULD be an issue long-term, but he could also turn out to be as good or better than Monahan. Wouldn't you love to have two #1 centers on this team for the ffirst time ever? Yes, we need D, but do we need it this instant to make a run at the cup? Definitely no. We have time to trade, draft or sign what we need for a couple years before we're a legitimate contender. Don't trade young assets now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamespatriot Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 I'm actually getting sick and tired of Derek. He's so useless. He occasionally makes some good plays, but he is by far the weak link on this team. He's better then Chris butler, but a team bound for the play offs doesn't need a weak link like Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Both Brett Hull and St Louis played some games in NHL for Flames before we traded them away. We knew what they were able to bring to the team. Bennett you are trading before he has played a game for us and on spec that his shoulder "might" be a constant problem for his career.... It depends on the player coming back. As part of a trade for a Shea Weber/Duncan Keith he's a tradable asset. For lesser players you hesitate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 I wasn't suggesting that we trade Bennett, I was just stating that that's what it would take to get OEL (sorry I am on my phone and I am not typing his full name out, though I did just type all of this and it is way longer, huh). The fact is our defense is not so bad now but in order to improve it you need a top 4 type player. Depending on whether that player is a RHS or LHS could determine who is matched up with who in the future. In the end shuffle I want Russell on the 3rd pairing because he would make it better. I would not really want to see Bennett used in any trade before we see what he can do for us. Treliving has a number of key decisions coming up this offseason to determine what the 2015-16 team looks like. We definitely have a surplus of good forward talent to fit into the scenario. I don't get why you keep insisting that Russell should be bumped down to the 3rd pairing is having a very good year, and I would argue that he is having a better year than Wideman. Wideman is having a good offensive year but he can be a liability defensively. Russell lacks size but more than makes up for it with smarts and heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamespatriot Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 SO true. I would only trade bennet for a top ten player in the league nothing more nothing less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 I understand what you were saying, no worries. It would take using some top assets to even get a sniff at Larsson. As far as Russell goes I love the kid, all I want to see is the talent we have spread around. If you bring in someone better than Russell to shore up Wideman you make the team better. I find Wideman for whatever reason always tries to do to much and ends up running around out of position. He needs to be paired up with someone like Giordano. I get kickback from other posters when I suggest breaking up Giordano and Brodie because I think Brodie is even better on the LS as a LHS. I would love to see us find that top 4 RHS defensive stud this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 I understand what you were saying, no worries. It would take using some top assets to even get a sniff at Larsson. As far as Russell goes I love the kid, all I want to see is the talent we have spread around. If you bring in someone better than Russell to shore up Wideman you make the team better. I find Wideman for whatever reason always tries to do to much and ends up running around out of position. He needs to be paired up with someone like Giordano. I get kickback from other posters when I suggest breaking up Giordano and Brodie because I think Brodie is even better on the LS as a LHS. I would love to see us find that top 4 RHS defensive stud this offseason. You keep suggesting breaking up a top 4 set of pairings that absolutely work. You have provided no proof as to why it makes sense to split up Brodie and Gio, other than he is a LHS. He has become a premier player playing on the right side, but you want to switch him. Wideman is -1 and Russell is +9; doesn't that tell you the problem is not with the 1st or 2nd pairing? Diaz hasn't been too bad in limited games, but ideally we should concentrate on bringing in a top 4 D to replace Engelland or Smid. Top 4 would provide some insurance in case of one of our top 4 getting injured between now and the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamespatriot Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 You keep suggesting breaking up a top 4 set of pairings that absolutely work. You have provided no proof as to why it makes sense to split up Brodie and Gio, other than he is a LHS. He has become a premier player playing on the right side, but you want to switch him. Wideman is -1 and Russell is +9; doesn't that tell you the problem is not with the 1st or 2nd pairing? Diaz hasn't been too bad in limited games, but ideally we should concentrate on bringing in a top 4 D to replace Engelland or Smid. Top 4 would provide some insurance in case of one of our top 4 getting injured between now and the playoffs. This makes no sense. Brodie and Gio are now regarded as an elite defensive pairing, yet you want to break them up??? The top 4 pairings are strong, and have worked all season long. Our bottom 2 pairings have been the weak link on this team. Derek is a minus 13 on a team that is positive in goal differentials. It reflects his poor play. Smid will be an asset once he comes back, but for now I can't see the negative in playing Wotherspoon over -13 Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 This makes no sense. Brodie and Gio are now regarded as an elite defensive pairing, yet you want to break them up??? The top 4 pairings are strong, and have worked all season long. Our bottom 2 pairings have been the weak link on this team. Derek is a minus 13 on a team that is positive in goal differentials. It reflects his poor play. Smid will be an asset once he comes back, but for now I can't see the negative in playing Wotherspoon over -13 Derek Travel isn't saying anything about breaking up the D pairings. I don't know who he is responding to, but like you, he believes the the Top 4 are strong. We definitely need some size back there that can move the puck. That LA game, we got manhandled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 Travel isn't saying anything about breaking up the D pairings. I don't know who he is responding to, but like you, he believes the the Top 4 are strong. We definitely need some size back there that can move the puck. That LA game, we got manhandled. I may be mistaken but MAC has been suggesting breaking up Brodano for quite some time. Check post #201 in this thread for context. Russell may not be over 6 feet but plays tougher than Brodie and Wideman, so there's that. I think there are better options than Smid/Engelland, Smid/Diaz or Diaz/Engelland. As I said, I would want to pick up a top 4 player to add talent to the 3rd pairing and give some insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 I agree, they shouldn't split Brodie and Giordano. Russell has been just as important as the top 2 D pairings as he allows Wideman to be himself, which is why Russell probably only has 1 goal. Russell has the tools to have more goals but is playing a team game. I also agree that the 3rd pair is the weakness. If we can add a top4 I'd also agree with putting him on the 3rd pair. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth_henning Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 Add me to the concensus. Our top 4 are fine. Arguably the best top 4 in the league really when you look at the combined stats. That said, our bottom 2 is weak. Diaz is a servicable 5/6 and I'm pretty happy with his time on the PP, so I don't think there's any reason to change him. But both Engellend and Smid are liabilities. Any time they're on the ice I cringe. Engellend isn't even remarkably physical for his size. If we coud get a top 4 player to play with Diaz, we'd actually have a pretty impressive D core, and also finally have some insurrance for any injuries that may occur. Really, its the only trade target we shoud be considering either by the deadline or in the off-season. As for forwards we're well stocked. 9 players with 10+ goals this season, the second most of any team in the league. That's good depth, especially considering that Bennett and Poirier are likely added to the lineup next year. Our focus up front should be on resigning who we have (minus Bollig). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 I may be mistaken but MAC has been suggesting breaking up Brodano for quite some time. Check post #201 in this thread for context. Russell may not be over 6 feet but plays tougher than Brodie and Wideman, so there's that. I think there are better options than Smid/Engelland, Smid/Diaz or Diaz/Engelland. As I said, I would want to pick up a top 4 player to add talent to the 3rd pairing and give some insurance. Most of the off season he was. Not sure why. Giordano had a career year post 30 playing with Brodie and he has just got better. It is one of the best pairings in the NHL. Russell and Wideman were split up for part of tonight though. But Hartley out them back together in the third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now