Flames Defense

[tmac70]

51 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I would argue we replaced Gaudreau with Huberdeau.. elite playmaker and line driver ..basically a bigger stronger better Johnny who can also kill penalties ..

It's Tkachuk we haven't replaced .. a PITA skilled forward that scores .. tho we did boost the defense ..  Kadri wouid fit the bill and the center hole .but it's a question now of what the contract wouid look like . He's been waiting awhile, he might just take a shorter term now.. 

I agree I think Huberdeau is a better version of Gadreau than he is a filler for Chucky. Kadri is would be a similar version yes to Chucky, the facts are he doesn't want to come here and he is going to be a huge chunk of money. If and its a big if you could get Monhan and Lucic off the books and by some divine intervention Kadri would come 8.5 - 9 for 4 years could be doable. 

[phoenix66]

46 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

I agree I think Huberdeau is a better version of Gadreau than he is a filler for Chucky. Kadri is would be a similar version yes to Chucky, the facts are he doesn't want to come here and he is going to be a huge chunk of money. If and its a big if you could get Monhan and Lucic off the books and by some divine intervention Kadri would come 8.5 - 9 for 4 years could be doable. 

I still don't buy the " doesn't want to come here " mantra .. his reasons made total sense ..  but money yes.. he does want a contender for sure , but I think the recent moves wouid have him looking at us .. I believe he still hopes Colorado, but if he'd take a shorter deal .say 5 years max to get the hit down might get it done..  word is nyi and Wash both are eyeing him as well ..

 

A big part of me hopes we can avoid the sell low on Monahan.. he is a prime candidate for a bounce back and worst case you'd get a much better return at deadline than right now 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

I would argue we replaced Gaudreau with Huberdeau.. elite playmaker and line driver ..basically a bigger stronger better Johnny who can also kill penalties ..

It's Tkachuk we haven't replaced .. a PITA skilled forward that scores .. tho we did boost the defense ..  Kadri wouid fit the bill and the center hole .but it's a question now of what the contract wouid look like . He's been waiting awhile, he might just take a shorter term now.. 

 

I would agree we replaced Gaudreau in this regard.   If he signs, that is.   That is a huge if.

 

Same position,same age, same playmaking.   Unfortunately, same playoff nonperformance.  But bigger.

 

 

Now Tkachuk, on the other hand, was the more valuable player just because of age and term.    But not someone that we need to replace directly.    Honestly this team needs another LW like it needs a hole in the head.  We'd be looking for a #1D (which we don't currently have) or a #1C (which we don't currently have) to compensate for that loss.

 

Unfortunately that kind of leaves Kadri, or multiple signings...or...possibly, John Klingberg.  But if you sign Klingberg than we would actually have too many RHS D for the first time ever lol.     Which is fine, and easily solved with a trade (easiest position to trade in the world)

 

**If you're going for it this year

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I would agree we replaced Gaudreau in this regard.   If he signs, that is.   That is a huge if.

 

Same position,same age, same playmaking.   Unfortunately, same playoff nonperformance.  But bigger.

 

 

Now Tkachuk, on the other hand, was the more valuable player just because of age and term.    But not someone that we need to replace directly.    Honestly this team needs another LW like it needs a hole in the head.  We'd be looking for a #1D (which we don't currently have) or a #1C (which we don't currently have) to compensate for that loss.

 

Unfortunately that kind of leaves Kadri, or multiple signings...or...possibly, John Klingberg.  But if you sign Klingberg than we would actually have too many RHS D for the first time ever lol.     Which is fine, and easily solved with a trade (easiest position to trade in the world)

 

**If you're going for it this year

 

Kadri would be a good choice for a 2C, if he could be had for something like $6M x 4 or 5.  He wasn't top C in COL and we don't need him to be top C here.  We need secondary scoring.  Set him up with Pelletier and Toffoli and you have a good mix of players.  That is a short term win.  But TDB, Kadri isn't settling for $6M in CGY, so we have to resolve it another way.  

 

No, we haven't replaced a RW spot of Tkachuk, but moving Mange there has the potential to replace his scoring.  He won't get the high assist rate, but it likely could mean Lindholm scores 50 and he scores 40 with Hubie potting 40 as well.  Okay, so that takes care of the top line LOL.

 

If Kylington (or Hanifin) could be used to get a C like Dvorak, then we have a 2C.  Younger than Kadri and cheaper.  If we can trade future considerations or a lesser prospect to Vegas for Roy, then we have another option and still have all the D.  Only Valimaki and Mackie are really excess that we can't afford.  Perhaps we use Valimaki to get Dvorak.  That is less of an impact on our D.  If we go into the season and we find Kylington is more valuable to us than Hanifin, we do an in-season trade.  RD are rated higher, so we might only get a solid 3rd pair RD out of the deal.  Or we get a solid RW.  

 

[jjgallow]

57 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Kadri would be a good choice for a 2C, if he could be had for something like $6M x 4 or 5.  He wasn't top C in COL and we don't need him to be top C here.  We need secondary scoring.  Set him up with Pelletier and Toffoli and you have a good mix of players.  That is a short term win.  But TDB, Kadri isn't settling for $6M in CGY, so we have to resolve it another way.  

 

No, we haven't replaced a RW spot of Tkachuk, but moving Mange there has the potential to replace his scoring.  He won't get the high assist rate, but it likely could mean Lindholm scores 50 and he scores 40 with Hubie potting 40 as well.  Okay, so that takes care of the top line LOL.

 

If Kylington (or Hanifin) could be used to get a C like Dvorak, then we have a 2C.  Younger than Kadri and cheaper.  If we can trade future considerations or a lesser prospect to Vegas for Roy, then we have another option and still have all the D.  Only Valimaki and Mackie are really excess that we can't afford.  Perhaps we use Valimaki to get Dvorak.  That is less of an impact on our D.  If we go into the season and we find Kylington is more valuable to us than Hanifin, we do an in-season trade.  RD are rated higher, so we might only get a solid 3rd pair RD out of the deal.  Or we get a solid RW.  

 

 

This seems like a decent plan but you're essentially saying we just replace Tkachuk by shuffling forwards around (as if we have forwards that can replace Takchuk), and then the huge holes that this leaves can be plugged by gutting (trading) our defence.

 

Just to be clear, say we succeed with the above and somehow replace Tkachuk without any meaningful subtractions elsewhere.   That brings us back to the level of a team that got absolutely pummelled in the playoffs.   Destroyed.   That's all this does.  And I might add, the #1 reason for this was not defensive excess, it was defensive shortcomings.

 

I won't lie, Treliving is very likely to try this since I don't expect him to learn anything from getting absolutely obliterated in the playoffs in the worst possible way because we didn't have any D.  He too believes we have excess on D lol.   Weegar does help, yes.   But to a point of excess?  I'm not seeing that.

 

I don't mean to be overly negative but there is some math involved in the loss of Tkachuk (for sake of arguement instead of Gaudreau), and no matter how you shuffle current players that math doesn't really change.   So yes, you did conclude that a trade must be involved from an area where we have excess, to make the math work.

 

The problem that I have with this is that you're assuming defense is where we can just draw from, like we have some kind of excess here, despite the actual pumelling we received in the playoffs which clearly demonstrated this not to be the case.   

 

 

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

This seems like a decent plan but you're essentially saying we just replace Tkachuk by shuffling forwards around (as if we have forwards that can replace Takchuk), and then the huge holes that this leaves can be plugged by gutting (trading) our defence.

 

Just to be clear, say we succeed with the above and somehow replace Tkachuk.   That brings us back to the level of a team that got absolutely pummelled in the playoffs.   Destroyed.   That's all this does.  And I might add, the #1 reason for this was not defensive excess, it was defensive shortcomings.

 

I won't lie, Treliving is very likely to try this since I don't expect him to learn anything from getting absolutely obliterated in the playoffs in the worst possible way because we didn't have any D.  He too believes we have excess on D lol.

 

I don't mean to be overly negative but there is some math involved in the loss of Tkachuk (for sake of arguement instead of Gaudreau), and no matter how you shuffle current players that math doesn't really change.   So yes, you did conclude that a trade must be involved from an area where we have excess, to make the math work.

 

The problem that I have with this is that you're assuming defense is where we can just draw from, like we have some kind of excess here, despite the actual pumelling we received in the playoffs which clearly demonstrated this not to be the case.   

 

 

 

We didn't have the depth on D that we do now.  Even though you point the finger at D being the cause, it was a lot more than that.  Tanev taken out of the equation changes us to a 5 man group.  But I point to bigger issues with the forward group in the loss to EDM.  We lost one game from a poor performance by a 4th line.  We barely won a game from a team so pumped by a ton of goals that they wet the bed on keeping the puck out of our end.  We lose a clincher by a poorly ruled goal being waved off.  One game was a complete shambles for officiating.  

 

The two guys that moved on were non factors in the series, except in game 1.

[jjgallow]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

We didn't have the depth on D that we do now.  Even though you point the finger at D being the cause, it was a lot more than that.  Tanev taken out of the equation changes us to a 5 man group.  But I point to bigger issues with the forward group in the loss to EDM.  We lost one game from a poor performance by a 4th line.  We barely won a game from a team so pumped by a ton of goals that they wet the bed on keeping the puck out of our end.  We lose a clincher by a poorly ruled goal being waved off.  One game was a complete shambles for officiating.  

 

The two guys that moved on were non factors in the series, except in game 1.

 

Yes all of that is also true bit we're not talking about barely losing.  We're talking about getting our azzes handed to us by a team that got their azzes subsequently handed to them.

 

We're talking about just barely edging out the worst team in the playoffs (Dallas).

 

In a contract year for our 2 best players, mind you.

 

We got one nice addition on defense,  which will help compensate for Tanev getting older and more injured.

 

We're not a defensive powerhouse because of that,  we are a huge defensive liability with, yes,additional issues.

 

Honestly for all the talk about Kadri, someone like Klingberg would have been a much better fit and yes....

 

Yes then...with Klingberg on the roster, your plan of shedding one D in a trade for a forward I might support.  But I still don't think it would fully replace Tkachuk and really, even with Tkachuk, we are short a couple stars from being a contender

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yes all of that is also true bit we're not talking about barely losing.  We're talking about getting our azzes handed to us by a team that got their azzes subsequently handed to them.

 

We're talking about just barely edging out the worst team in the playoffs (Dallas).

 

In a contract year for our 2 best players, mind you.

 

We got one nice addition on defense,  which will help compensate for Tanev getting older and more injured.

 

We're not a defensive powerhouse because of that,  we are a huge defensive liability with, yes,additional issues.

 

Honestly for all the talk about Kadri, someone like Klingberg would have been a much better fit and yes....

 

Yes then...with Klingberg on the roster, your plan of shedding one D in a trade for a forward I might support.  But I still don't think it would fully replace Tkachuk and really, even with Tkachuk, we are short a couple stars from being a contender

 

Must have missed the azzes handed to us part.  Blown out in one game and lost close games the rest of the way.  If you like, the game 1 win is about the same as the game 2 loss.  An incredibly stupid sequence of calls where we go from a PP to shorthanded on a nothing play from a ref looking to even it up. 

 

First series was a goaltending show and a gong show from one of our supposed best players. 

 

If your idea is to play power vs power, then your top line better be better than a consistent minus in games.  Gaudreau had 3 points in the final 4 games and Tkachuk 1.  That's pretty telling, considering we lost mostly 1 goal games.    

[bosn111]

JJ, the surplus D comment is the fact that we have 9 D signed to NHL contracts who all require waivers plus Kylington to be signed who would also need to clear waivers in order to be assigned to the AHL team. Gilbert is a 2 way contract and likely clears waivers. Mackey might clear waivers or might get claimed, likely equal odds.

 

Kylington, after last season, would 100% get claimed on waivers. Valimaki likely 80% claimed, possibly higher. Meloche likely claimed from waivers as well.

 

You, like many others, hate losing assets for nothing. So at this time, in order to avoid losing D to waivers, they should be traded instead.

 

If you trade Valimaki, Kylington, even Mackey and get back Waiver exempt D like those I mentioned yesterday, Thompson etc, then you are in a better spot, especially if it is a package deal using Monahan, Dube, Lucic and/or Hanifin to also upgrade our FW lines.

 

That would be good asset management. Valimaki likely needs to be traded, he was already annoyed at the team this year, so fresh start elsewhere. Kylington or Hanifin should be traded, they fill similar roles. Hanifin more trusted in multiple situations, Kylington still growing his game and likely higher offensively. Mackey is either alternating 6/7 D with Meloche or gets traded.

 

 I don’t think anyone is looking to just gut the D to benefit the Fwds, but we can’t let 2-3 go on waivers with no return.

[cross16]

Good graphic that highlights a major problem for the Flames in the playoffs. Key for the Oilers was forcing turnovers and exploiting the Flames off the rush. Graphic shows this. 

 

You'll also see how Weegar should be a big boost in this area. 

 

 

[travel_dude]

Thanks Bosn for getting back on track.  What you stated is succinct.  We have excess in one place and not enough middle 6 in others.  And we have a lack of middle 6, other than hoping young talent can stick and be positive contributors.

[jjgallow]

3 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

JJ, the surplus D comment is the fact that we have 9 D signed to NHL contracts who all require waivers plus Kylington to be signed who would also need to clear waivers in order to be assigned to the AHL team. Gilbert is a 2 way contract and likely clears waivers. Mackey might clear waivers or might get claimed, likely equal odds.

 

Kylington, after last season, would 100% get claimed on waivers. Valimaki likely 80% claimed, possibly higher. Meloche likely claimed from waivers as well.

 

You, like many others, hate losing assets for nothing. So at this time, in order to avoid losing D to waivers, they should be traded instead.

 

If you trade Valimaki, Kylington, even Mackey and get back Waiver exempt D like those I mentioned yesterday, Thompson etc, then you are in a better spot, especially if it is a package deal using Monahan, Dube, Lucic and/or Hanifin to also upgrade our FW lines.

 

That would be good asset management. Valimaki likely needs to be traded, he was already annoyed at the team this year, so fresh start elsewhere. Kylington or Hanifin should be traded, they fill similar roles. Hanifin more trusted in multiple situations, Kylington still growing his game and likely higher offensively. Mackey is either alternating 6/7 D with Meloche or gets traded.

 

 I don’t think anyone is looking to just gut the D to benefit the Fwds, but we can’t let 2-3 go on waivers with no return.

 

I see now, thank you.

 

Why would we send Kylington to the AHL though?   Do we know if Tanev will start the season?

 

I missed the part about waiver issues.   So in that case yes, the very first D I'd want to trade would in fact be Hanifin.   No idea what the return would be.    All I know is that somehow we need to come out of it with better D than we have now.  But I know that doesn't solve the issue.

 

What happens if we bring in Klingberg?  We would almost need to if we trade away Hanifin.

 

I can see the context better now but I still don't see how we are currently in a position to upgrade our forward line with what we have at D, unless we bring in Klingberg.

 

 

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Good graphic that highlights a major problem for the Flames in the playoffs. Key for the Oilers was forcing turnovers and exploiting the Flames off the rush. Graphic shows this. 

 

You'll also see how Weegar should be a big boost in this area. 

 

 

 

It's an interesting chart.  I would assume that Ras is the guy middle left and Hanifin is middle.  Only Kylington had a successful break up number, but was high risk.  

[bosn111]

Weegar / Andersson 

Hanifin / Tanev

Zadorov / Meloche 

Mackey

 

or 

 

Weegar / Andersson 

Kylington / Tanev 

Zadorov / Meloche

Mackey

 

Or

 

Hanifin / Andersson 

Zadorov / Weegar

Kylington / Tanev

Meloche

 

Klingberg is RD and would improve the D, but doesn’t help the left side. The only RD that Klingberg really replaces would be Meloche.

 

If you get Klingberg then likely 

 

Weegar / Andersson 

Hanifin or Kylington / Tanev 

Zadorov / Klingberg 

Meloche

 

So you are still trading at least 2 LD, 3 if you sign Klingberg.

 

 

[cross16]

Klingberg really isn't a fit or need anymore and they don't really have the cap space to sign him anyway. 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Klingberg really isn't a fit or need anymore and they don't really have the cap space to sign him anyway. 

 

Keep in mind Weegar can play left.

 

Depends on your objective.   If going for a big playoff run next year, he may be although not on the surface.  Yes you'd probably end up trading one of the other RD if he was acquired.  Admittedly this is also hard because Weegar has no term and thus little value until that changes.  And would suck to lose Rasmus.    But the bottom line is if we really want to make up for Tkachuk/Gaudreau on the ice next season, we need to bring in another big name to make the math work.   Without downgrading what is already inadequate defense.

 

I was just playing devils advocate to begin with.   What the Flames need are draft picks imho.

[travel_dude]

37 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Keep in mind Weegar can play left.

 

Depends on your objective.   If going for a big playoff run next year, he may be although not on the surface.  Yes you'd probably end up trading one of the other RD if he was acquired.  Admittedly this is also hard because Weegar has no term and thus little value until that changes.  And would suck to lose Rasmus.    But the bottom line is if we really want to make up for Tkachuk/Gaudreau on the ice next season, we need to bring in another big name to make the math work.   Without downgrading what is already inadequate defense.

 

I was just playing devils advocate to begin with.   What the Flames need are draft picks imho.

 

Both Weeger and Hubie are high value assets signed or unsigned.  Considering the return that lesser players brought in TDL trades.  The intent obviously is to re-sign them.       

[jjgallow]

4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Both Weeger and Hubie are high value assets signed or unsigned.  Considering the return that lesser players brought in TDL trades.  The intent obviously is to re-sign them.       

fingers crossed

[travel_dude]

8 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

fingers crossed

 

The point is we traded one expiring asset that didn't want to be here for two very valuable assets.

Even if they don't sign, we likely get a haul greater than what we were seeing for Tkachuk.

 

 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

The point is we traded one expiring asset that didn't want to be here for two very valuable expiring assets one of which just said he's dreamed of playing for Montreal his whole life just as he was traded here.

Even if they don't sign, we likely get a haul greater than what we were seeing for Tkachuk.

 

 

I added the part in bold above.

 

I also don't think to expect much for trading guys with no term at the tdl, already tried that with Iggy.   If the return was that great we coulda/woulda/shoulda done it with Gaudreau/Tkachuk already.    And if we think we've learned our lessen from that and will now handle it really well....  BT is still here.

 

..

ok ok..

 

But even I have to put a disclaimer...  if you ignore term, it was a great, great trade.   I'm not so optimistic for the tdl, but if they do sign here it will actually be a great trade.

 

If.

[rocketdoctor]

6 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

I also don't think to expect much for trading guys with no term at the tdl, already tried that with Iggy.   If the return was that great we coulda/woulda/shoulda done it with Gaudreau/Tkachuk already.    And if we think we've learned our lessen from that and will now handle it really well....  BT is still here.

 

 

 

Massive difference was Iggy was already past his prime and hunting for a cup.  These 2 would be sort after at TDL for any contender and if we retained 25/50% salary even more so.

 

However I am more optimistic and I think we will end up signing both.

 

With regard to trading Gaudreau/Tkackuk at TDL, BT would have been lynched. You don't do that when sat in 1st in your divisison and having a great year and have possbilbilty of making some noise in the playoffs.  Yes, we were not good in round 2 but until you get to the playoffs you don't know how your team is going to react and Sutter is on the right track when he preaches learning how to win in the playoffs.   Your argument in other threads about trading the 2 of them after the lockdown playoffs is valid but that is ancient history and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Actually you are on to a good thing - becasue only 1/32 can ever win Lord Stanley so you can pan BT Flames etc as much as you want and nearly always be right! 

 

Anyhow we know with Sutter and BT in place there will be no tank for Bedard.   So I guess we just got to get on the bandwagon and support them.  Sure as hell been an interesting off season and given us plenty to talk about and I don't think we are done yet.

 

 

 

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I added the part in bold above.

 

I also don't think to expect much for trading guys with no term at the tdl, already tried that with Iggy.   If the return was that great we coulda/woulda/shoulda done it with Gaudreau/Tkachuk already.    And if we think we've learned our lessen from that and will now handle it really well....  BT is still here.

 

..

ok ok..

 

But even I have to put a disclaimer...  if you ignore term, it was a great, great trade.   I'm not so optimistic for the tdl, but if they do sign here it will actually be a great trade.

 

If.

 

Every year players without term are traded at TDL.

 

Here's some recent ones:

 

MARCH 21: Colorado Avalanche acquire forward Artturi Lehkonen from the Montreal Canadiens in exchange for defenseman Justin Barron and a second-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft.

 

MARCH 21: Minnesota Wild acquire goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury from the Chicago Blackhawks in exchange for a conditional first-round pick in the 2022 Draft.

 

MARCH 20: Toronto Maple Leafs acquire defenseman Mark Giordano and forward Colin Blackwell from the Seattle Kraken in exchange for a second-round pick in the 2022 NHL Draft, a second-round pick in the 2023 NHL Draft and a third-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft.

 

MARCH 19: Florida Panthers acquire forwards Claude Giroux, Connor Bunnaman and German Rubtsov, and a fifth-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft from the Philadelphia Flyers in exchange for forward Owen Tippett, a first-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft or 2025 NHL Draft, and a third-round pick in the 2023 NHL Draft. 

 

MARCH 19: Boston Bruins acquire defenseman Hampus Lindholm from the Anaheim Ducks in exchange for defensemen John Moore and Urho Vaakanainen and three NHL Draft picks.

 

MARCH 18: Tampa Bay Lightning acquire forward Brandon Hagel, fourth-round pick in the 2022 NHL Draft and and a fourth-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft from the Chicago Blackhawks in exchange for forwards Boris Katchouk, Taylor Raddysh and two conditional first-round picks. 

 

MARCH 16: Florida Panthers acquire defenseman Ben Chiarot from the Montreal Canadiens in exchange for forward prospect Ty Smilanic, a first-round pick in the 2023 NHL Draft, and a fourth-round pick in the 2022 NHL Draft.

 

That's just this year and the biggest returns.  No 115 point players there.  Seriously, you are comparing the return on Iggy by a lame GM?  

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Every year players without term are traded at TDL.

 

Here's some recent ones:

 

MARCH 21: Colorado Avalanche acquire forward Artturi Lehkonen from the Montreal Canadiens in exchange for defenseman Justin Barron and a second-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft.

 

MARCH 21: Minnesota Wild acquire goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury from the Chicago Blackhawks in exchange for a conditional first-round pick in the 2022 Draft.

 

MARCH 20: Toronto Maple Leafs acquire defenseman Mark Giordano and forward Colin Blackwell from the Seattle Kraken in exchange for a second-round pick in the 2022 NHL Draft, a second-round pick in the 2023 NHL Draft and a third-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft.

 

MARCH 19: Florida Panthers acquire forwards Claude Giroux, Connor Bunnaman and German Rubtsov, and a fifth-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft from the Philadelphia Flyers in exchange for forward Owen Tippett, a first-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft or 2025 NHL Draft, and a third-round pick in the 2023 NHL Draft. 

 

MARCH 19: Boston Bruins acquire defenseman Hampus Lindholm from the Anaheim Ducks in exchange for defensemen John Moore and Urho Vaakanainen and three NHL Draft picks.

 

MARCH 18: Tampa Bay Lightning acquire forward Brandon Hagel, fourth-round pick in the 2022 NHL Draft and and a fourth-round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft from the Chicago Blackhawks in exchange for forwards Boris Katchouk, Taylor Raddysh and two conditional first-round picks. 

 

MARCH 16: Florida Panthers acquire defenseman Ben Chiarot from the Montreal Canadiens in exchange for forward prospect Ty Smilanic, a first-round pick in the 2023 NHL Draft, and a fourth-round pick in the 2022 NHL Draft.

 

That's just this year and the biggest returns.  No 115 point players there.  Seriously, you are comparing the return on Iggy by a lame GM?  

 

The reason there's no 115 point players is because if your player has 115 points you are likely in contention,  and we already know how BT would play that out because he has shown us.

 

If your team is struggling then you sell at the tdl. 

 

To give you an idea I would expect wr should have gotten about 3-4 first rounders for Tkachuk at bare minimum or equivalent prospects, had we not let his term run out.

 

I guess we will see how it plays.  But at some point, tough decisions need to be made and that has not been a Forte of BT

[phoenix66]

12 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I would agree we replaced Gaudreau in this regard.   If he signs, that is.   That is a huge if.

 

Same position,same age, same playmaking.   Unfortunately, same playoff nonperformance.  But bigger.

 

 

Now Tkachuk, on the other hand, was the more valuable player just because of age and term.    But not someone that we need to replace directly.    Honestly this team needs another LW like it needs a hole in the head.  We'd be looking for a #1D (which we don't currently have) or a #1C (which we don't currently have) to compensate for that loss.

 

Unfortunately that kind of leaves Kadri, or multiple signings...or...possibly, John Klingberg.  But if you sign Klingberg than we would actually have too many RHS D for the first time ever lol.     Which is fine, and easily solved with a trade (easiest position to trade in the world)

 

**If you're going for it this year

I think you might be underating Weegar a bit .. he's a def #1 

[Sarasti]

6 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

The reason there's no 115 point players is because if your player has 115 points you are likely in contention,  and we already know how BT would play that out because he has shown us.

 

If your team is struggling then you sell at the tdl. 

 

To give you an idea I would expect wr should have gotten about 3-4 first rounders for Tkachuk at bare minimum or equivalent prospects, had we not let his term run out.

 

I guess we will see how it plays.  But at some point, tough decisions need to be made and that has not been a Forte of BT

 

If Huberdeau and Weegar aren't going to resign and BT knows this for sure he will deal them by the deadline.

I sincerely doubt he would make the same mistake two seasons in a row.