Flames Defense

[MAC331]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

Agree with what you say.  Engelland is as close to a Regher as you can get, but isn't as effective as Brodie and Gio.  His lack of speed makes him vulnerable to speedy teams.  Yokipakka is a fine 3rd pair guy, and Kulak s close to that.  What is left is not top 4, except Hamilton.  Wideman or Engelland in the top 4 scares me.  Do you want Brodie to have to cover Engelland both offensively and getting back on a transition play?  I would love to have another top 4 LD to balance it out.  Not suggesting Russell would be any better.  But we can't argue that Wideman is that calibre either.  He's lost a step.  

 

You always fail to mention Engelland's strengths and one of those is when to get back on defense and be in good position to defend. I don't see where his partner has to cover up for him, I see this more with Hamilton than Engelland. We are not marching to the SC so I see no reason to not let Jokipakka and Kulak gain the experience they are at this level.

[The_People1]

4 hours ago, MAC331 said:

What is the definition of this true "shut down" defenseman you speak of ? the game has changed and defensemen only have so many mechanisms they can use to defend the front of your net anymore. Today they have to angle offensive players away from the net, clear away the puck fast to the boards and know when to get back and set up to do steps 1 and 2. I think we actually one more defensemen like the ones we have in Giordano, Brodie, Hamilton, Jokipakka and Kulak. Quickness and smarts are the new mantra for defensemen.

 

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't' agree with the notion the Flames lack a "shutdown" dman. Did the Pens have one? Do the Blackhawks really have one? IMO Brodie and Gio are as good a shutdown pairing you will find, and Brodie is IMO a shutdown dman. I think the idea of a Robyn Regher like Shutdown dman is dead in this league.

 

To name names, some of the best "shut down" Dmen in the NHL are probably Seabrook, Hamonic, McDonagh, Josi, Vlasic,... Yes the Regher types are extinct but even in the modern age, there's still room for D who go out and close a game.

 

Brodano got eaten alive by McDavid in both Oiler games.  Hamilton is a pylon at critical times. The depth is not great and not established.  

 

I haven't seen enough of Trouba to judge but just throwing out an idea that we could benefit from adding a defensive dman who can play big minutes and has speed to go along with size.  If Trouba is this Dman then we should consider it because we can't expect to progress in the standings allowing the most goals in the league.

[cross16]

So you don't put Brodie in that same category as those guys? I would highly disagree with that and most of the new metrics will back me up. Brodie is a top end shutdown dman IMO. I think your reading too much into 1 game and forgetting how good Brodie and Gio have been the last few years. 

 

I dont disagre with adding to the D core and the flames do need a more stable top 4 option. I'd love Trouba but I would never trade Gio, Brodie or Hamilton for him.  

[The_People1]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

So you don't put Brodie in that same category as those guys? I would highly disagree with that and most of the new metrics will back me up. Brodie is a top end shutdown dman IMO. I think your reading too much into 1 game and forgetting how good Brodie and Gio have been the last few years. 

 

I dont disagre with adding to the D core and the flames do need a more stable top 4 option. I'd love Trouba but I would never trade Gio, Brodie or Hamilton for him.  

 

I don't put Brodie into that category.  

 

I am perhaps reading too much into one stat and that is the team's overall goals against.  We changed the coach and the goalies thinking that's the fix and it wasn't.   It's too early to panic, sure.  Just something to keep an eye on I guess.

[cross16]

And don't get me wrong i do think the flames are going to need to improve their D core. They need more 4-6 and that will be a priority this season and off season IMO. This isn't a "finished" D core by any means but I do think it's better than they've shown. 

[conundrumed]

41 minutes ago, cross16 said:

And don't get me wrong i do think the flames are going to need to improve their D core. They need more 4-6 and that will be a priority this season and off season IMO. This isn't a "finished" D core by any means but I do think it's better than they've shown. 

I agree to a point, the point being looking at Hickey, Mattson, Kylington etc.

I hope we can grow from within.

I'd hate Wideman's $5 plus to turn into another paying gig for a dman.

For all of the moaning and complaining about D and G.

Why don't we talk about the lobotomy we call our forward ranks?

As I said before, if Stajan is your best player, you're likely 1-4, and 1-5 is coming up fast.

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, MAC331 said:

You always fail to mention Engelland's strengths and one of those is when to get back on defense and be in good position to defend. I don't see where his partner has to cover up for him, I see this more with Hamilton than Engelland. We are not marching to the SC so I see no reason to not let Jokipakka and Kulak gain the experience they are at this level.

 

My problem with Engelland is his speed, or lack of it.  His other positives are weighed down by that negative.  

[cross16]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I agree to a point, the point being looking at Hickey, Mattson, Kylington etc.

I hope we can grow from within.

I'd hate Wideman's $5 plus to turn into another paying gig for a dman.

For all of the moaning and complaining about D and G.

Why don't we talk about the lobotomy we call our forward ranks?

As I said before, if Stajan is your best player, you're likely 1-4, and 1-5 is coming up fast.

 

I hope for internal growth too but you are waiting 2-3 years for most of those guys and I'm not waiting that long. Could be bottom pairing options but not top 4. 

I think the forward are not as bad as you think. Need a bit of work but let's wait till Johnny, Mony, and Bennett settle down before we rip too hard on the forward. Talent is there but it's very green. Talent really isn't there on D. 

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

My problem with Engelland is his speed, or lack of it.  His other positives are weighed down by that negative.  

I just got through pointing out to you he uses his smarts to get back and play positionally well because he knows he doesn't have speed. Lame statement.

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't put Brodie into that category.  

 

I am perhaps reading too much into one stat and that is the team's overall goals against.  We changed the coach and the goalies thinking that's the fix and it wasn't.   It's too early to panic, sure.  Just something to keep an eye on I guess.

 

I've never put Brodie into that category either.  I like Brodie, I think he's a core defenceman.   But he's not proof that our defence is great.

 

Giordano is "slumping" as some here are saying.  All I will say about that is Gio just turned 33, he has some serious miles, and we can expect more "slumping" in the years ahead from him.  This was not unforseen but for some reason this kind of thing always seems to come as an unplanned shock.

 

Hamilton is not developing the way we would hope.   I believe he was a great acquisition, but I am not convinced we have a development plan for him.  I am almost certain we don't, actually.

 

So that leaves...  yeah let's not go there with Wideman.

[The_People1]

6 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I've never put Brodie into that category either.  I like Brodie, I think he's a core defenceman.   But he's not proof that our defence is great.

 

Giordano is "slumping" as some here are saying.  All I will say about that is Gio just turned 33, he has some serious miles, and we can expect more "slumping" in the years ahead from him.  This was not unforseen but for some reason this kind of things always seems to come as an unplanned shock.

 

Hamilton is not developing the way we would hope.   I believe he was a great acquisition, but I am not convinced we have a development plan for him.  I am almost certain we don't, actually.

 

So that leaves...  yeah let's not go there with Wideman.

 

Ya Brodie is a great player but he defends with offense, if that makes sense.

 

One thing I'll say about Wideman is that benching him was a gutsy move considering he is a $5-mil guy.  We certainly wouldn't have seen the from a Hartley Flames because Hartley plays favorites.   It seems GG is willing to sit players,  even veterans, when they suck.  

 

The tin foil hat in me thinks he was asked to waive his NMC and he refused.  So we are going to sit him in his contract year.  Make it very difficult for him to get another contract after this one since he won't get to play to prove himself.  I'm I thinking too much?  I hope not.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

I hope for internal growth too but you are waiting 2-3 years for most of those guys and I'm not waiting that long. Could be bottom pairing options but not top 4. 

I think the forward are not as bad as you think. Need a bit of work but let's wait till Johnny, Mony, and Bennett settle down before we rip too hard on the forward. Talent is there but it's very green. Talent really isn't there on D. 

 

True.  Though, I think the only prospect with a high likelihood to become a top pairing D is Hickey.  I think he's smart enough and a good enough skater.  Safe to say he will make the NHL and have a good career.

 

Other than that,  ya there is no top 4 in the system.  Not Kylington nor Andersson at this point.   I just don't see it.  Those guys will be bottom pairing if they do get here.  I know it's a reach but if this season goes to the capper and the Jets are Division leaders with a serious chance to challenge for the Cup,  then I'm all for moving Giordano for Trouba.  Given they want Giordano of course.

 

But let's not think about that because we will be playoff bound this season...

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

True.  Though, I think the only prospect with a high likelihood to become a top pairing D is Hickey.  I think he's smart enough and a good enough skater.  Safe to say he will make the NHL and have a good career.

 

Other than that,  ya there is no top 4 in the system.  Not Kylington nor Andersson at this point.   I just don't see it.  Those guys will be bottom pairing if they do get here.  I know it's a reach but if this season goes to the capper and the Jets are Division leaders with a serious chance to challenge for the Cup,  then I'm all for moving Giordano for Trouba.  Given they want Giordano of course.

 

But let's not think about that because we will be playoff bound this season...

 

I hold out a small amount of hope for Andersson, but not enough to change anything because it would be several years away.

 

A rebuild really should start with defence.

 

We did it backwards.

 

It's the one thing, unfortunately, that we share with the Oilers.

[conundrumed]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I hope for internal growth too but you are waiting 2-3 years for most of those guys and I'm not waiting that long. Could be bottom pairing options but not top 4. 

 

I agree but would only go max 2 yrs on mercenaries.

[MAC331]

8 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I agree but would only go max 2 yrs on mercenaries.

I'm not sure I agree with every assessment cross puts on here regarding certain players. The transition of our defensive pipeline has started already this season, maybe even started at the end of last season. I don't think any team ever has 6 AS defensemen playing on the ice, 2 or 3 reliable ones with your AS should be the goal. You have to give players like Jokipakka, Kulak, Wotherspoon and perhaps Morrison this year the NHL exposure and experience if you ever want to depend on them. The ones such as Kylington, Andersson and Hickey may be 2 to 3 years away however the team is likely looking for these types to replace the likes of Giordano and Brodie eventually.

[MAC331]

10 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I hold out a small amount of hope for Andersson, but not enough to change anything because it would be several years away.

 

A rebuild really should start with defence.

 

We did it backwards.

 

It's the one thing, unfortunately, that we share with the Oilers.

We needed Centers and top Centers and that is what we drafted. Centers are the backbone of your team. Defensemen we had and good ones so I disagree that our rebuild took the wrong route.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

We needed Centers and top Centers and that is what we drafted. Centers are the backbone of your team. Defensemen we had and good ones so I disagree that our rebuild took the wrong route.

 

So, this has been (in the past) a very well-covered topic that's resulted in many fine pages of debate on here

 

However, it's more of the finer points that are debated.   Nobody thinks, in hindsight, that it was good to start off targeting centers rather than going BPA.

 

The reason, is the lag of development time.  Yes,  Iggy needed a Center.  But there wasn't a single center in that draft that would have been relevant to him, given the time it would take them to develop.

 

More importantly, Defencemen and goalies have, by far, the longest development time.   By far.   You won't really see the fruits of a rebuild, until these players mature.  Thus, addressing them as an afterthought in a rebuild isn't a fantastic idea.

 

Most see our first real "Rebuild" acquisition as the 2012 draft, where we went 14th overall and were finally cognisant of the path we needed to take.  Or so we thought.

 

2012 was mostly a Defenceman draft, and one that would have been very easy to move up in.   But we needed a center for Iggie.  So we actually traded down, and went with a highly questionable, long-term-project center.   How long did they think Iggy was going to live for?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2012e.html

 

 

All is not lost.  We could still acquire a serious Defenceman pipeline.  But it would cost a lot more now, than it would have then.

 

 

My 2 cents on what I wanted to happen in 2012:

 

2012 was seen as a very weak draft then, and even for several years after.  Looking at it now, it wasn't a weak draft at all.  It was a defenceman draft.  And they just take a lot longer to emerge.    It was extremely easy to move up in that draft, or even acquire additional first round picks.

 

IMHO, that should have been the start of out rebuild.  Upgrading our 14th overall to the top 10, and acquiring an additional top 10.

 

It would have had almost zero impact on the Flames story from then until now.  Zero.   Very similar everything.   Except, just now, those two picks would likely be emerging as our top line on Defence.

 

That is how this story should have unfolded, in my eyes.

 

[Heartbreaker]

9 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

My 2 cents on what I wanted to happen in 2012:

 

2012 was seen as a very weak draft then, and even for several years after.  Looking at it now, it wasn't a weak draft at all.  It was a defenceman draft.  And they just take a lot longer to emerge.    It was extremely easy to move up in that draft, or even acquire additional first round picks.

 

IMHO, that should have been the start of out rebuild.  Upgrading our 14th overall to the top 10, and acquiring an additional top 10.

 

It would have had almost zero impact on the Flames story from then until now.  Zero.   Very similar everything.   Except, just now, those two picks would likely be emerging as our top line on Defence.

 

That is how this story should have unfolded, in my eyes.

 

I'm not going to disagree with you, as such, but I wonder, what are the trades that they would have made at the time to accommodate your position? 

 

Love. 

[MAC331]

37 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

So, this has been (in the past) a very well-covered topic that's resulted in many fine pages of debate on here

 

However, it's more of the finer points that are debated.   Nobody thinks, in hindsight, that it was good to start off targeting centers rather than going BPA.

 

The reason, is the lag of development time.  Yes,  Iggy needed a Center.  But there wasn't a single center in that draft that would have been relevant to him, given the time it would take them to develop.

 

More importantly, Defencemen and goalies have, by far, the longest development time.   By far.   You won't really see the fruits of a rebuild, until these players mature.  Thus, addressing them as an afterthought in a rebuild isn't a fantastic idea.

 

Most see our first real "Rebuild" acquisition as the 2012 draft, where we went 14th overall and were finally cognisant of the path we needed to take.  Or so we thought.

 

2012 was mostly a Defenceman draft, and one that would have been very easy to move up in.   But we needed a center for Iggie.  So we actually traded down, and went with a highly questionable, long-term-project center.   How long did they think Iggy was going to live for?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2012e.html

 

 

All is not lost.  We could still acquire a serious Defenceman pipeline.  But it would cost a lot more now, than it would have then.

 

 

My 2 cents on what I wanted to happen in 2012:

 

2012 was seen as a very weak draft then, and even for several years after.  Looking at it now, it wasn't a weak draft at all.  It was a defenceman draft.  And they just take a lot longer to emerge.    It was extremely easy to move up in that draft, or even acquire additional first round picks.

 

IMHO, that should have been the start of out rebuild.  Upgrading our 14th overall to the top 10, and acquiring an additional top 10.

 

It would have had almost zero impact on the Flames story from then until now.  Zero.   Very similar everything.   Except, just now, those two picks would likely be emerging as our top line on Defence.

 

That is how this story should have unfolded, in my eyes.

 

You sure love to live in the past don't you ? Any draft is primarily the opportunity to build your pipeline and it's a numbers games for actually getting any quality players for your NHL team. Some hit the jack pot when drafting in the top round getting an immediate impact player but until lately with the changes to the game not even then did this happen. I don't think anything surrounding the draft from 2012 had anything to do with Iginla.

Yes defensemen do take the longest to develop however forwards are the most plentiful and you can trade forwards to get defensemen. I don't think there is any precise formula other than always trying to build quality into your entire system. Trades evolve out of opportunistic circumstances usually and you can only make them if you have the parts your trade partner is seeking.

I see a lot of current quality in the Flames system due to our recent drafts and I hope this continues under BT because it sure didn't under the 4 before him.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

I'm not going to disagree with you, as such, but I wonder, what are the trades that they would have made at the time to accommodate your position? 

 

Love. 

 

Fair enough.   As in, what trading pieces did we have which would have been inconsequential in the long run?   I agree, it sounds like a paradox.   But we had two things in our favour which we could have but didn't capitalise on:

 

1.  The perceived weakness in the 2012 draft

2.  We had a Lot of trading pieces back then that we were reluctant to let go, because of our rebuild denial.   We ended up holding on too long, and getting a lot less for them.

 

Some of our trading pieces:

 

1.  Iginla (and a 2nd round pick).    We were right to trade him, but wrong to trade him for spare parts.  

     To save time:

    http://thehockeywriters.com/a-look-at-the-jarome-iginla-trade-three-years-later/

 

    Iginla was the kind of player you expect a top 10 draft pick for in return.  Maybe not on his own, maybe as a package.  

    But that should have been the price, rather than spare parts and late picks.

   

     For the record, I disagree with the writer that we were wrong to trade Iggy.  We Needed to trade him.  

     Even if it was for nothing (which is exactly what it looks like now).

 

     What did we get out of the trade?   We got Sean Monahan.  We got Sam Bennett.    We got a rebuild that we needed.

 

     But we could have actually Gotten something of value for Iggy too.   

 

     As an example:  We could have traded Iggy, and our 2nd round pick (Patrick Sieloff) for a top 10 2012 pick.

 

     We probably would have still ended up with Monahan/Bennett.    But we would have actually gotten a core player directly back for Iginla too.

 

 

2.  Sven Baertschi.    It was already painfully obvious that the Flames and Beartschi had issues with each other.  

                               Which I still don't get, because he's doing ok now.

                                   Baertschi was worth a fortune at the time.  Easily a top 10 pick on his own.  

                                   But LW isn't exactly where you want to start a rebuild anyway...it was never meant to be.

 

                                 We held on too long.  When we knew it wasn't working, at least here.  

                                 Instead of swapping troubled players, we could have just cut our losses and had a top 10 pick (defenceman).    

 

3.   Jay Bouwmeester.     Again, instead of acquiring quality in return, we pieced him out for spare parts.  We got no core players out of this.  

                                        Bouwmeester could have upgraded our 14th overall into a top 10, and So much more.  

                                       Players like this should not be pieced out.

                                       Would have preferred quality over quantity in this trade.

 

I could go on, but I think that's enough.

 

Essentially, it's a combination of holding onto the past too long, then piecing it out for less than its worth, and trading for short term solutions.  
Quantity of quality.  Building an army of mediocre prospects rather than having the foresight to go for the bluechips.

 

 

 

[jjgallow]

20 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

You sure love to live in the past don't you ?

 

I just don't love to repeat it.

[cross16]

JJ  you are really overestimating how easy it would be to acquire a top 10 pick. In the last 10 drafts a team has traded into the top 10 1 time using picks. 5 other teams managed to trade into the top 10 with players but in order to do that it was the likes of Phil Kessell, Bobby Ryan, Cody Schneider, Jordan stall and Jeff Carter that were traded and even then in the case of Kessell, Ryan the teams gave up first rounders not knowing they would be top ten picks. Igninlas value was not as high as the those guys so I don't think he would have a top ten pick. Keep in mind typically rebuilding or struggle teams hold top ten picks and they are going to give up first rounders for thirty plus players. I fully agree they didn't get enough for iginla and it set the rebuild back by waiting to trade him but let's not overrate the impact it out would have had today. 

 

Top ten picks have become extremely difficult to acquire. The only player they dealt I need the last ten years who arguably should have returned a pick that high is phaneuf. 

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

I just don't love to repeat it.

Welcome to the world of sports, mistakes are made all the time by even the best GMs, nobody bats 1000.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Fair enough.   As in, what trading pieces did we have which would have been inconsequential in the long run?   I agree, it sounds like a paradox.   But we had two things in our favour which we could have but didn't capitalise on:

 

1.  The perceived weakness in the 2012 draft

2.  We had a Lot of trading pieces back then that we were reluctant to let go, because of our rebuild denial.   We ended up holding on too long, and getting a lot less for them.

 

Some of our trading pieces:

 

1.  Iginla (and a 2nd round pick).    We were right to trade him, but wrong to trade him for spare parts.  

     To save time:

    http://thehockeywriters.com/a-look-at-the-jarome-iginla-trade-three-years-later/

 

    Iginla was the kind of player you expect a top 10 draft pick for in return.  Maybe not on his own, maybe as a package.  

    But that should have been the price, rather than spare parts and late picks.

   

     For the record, I disagree with the writer that we were wrong to trade Iggy.  We Needed to trade him.  

     Even if it was for nothing (which is exactly what it looks like now).

 

     What did we get out of the trade?   We got Sean Monahan.  We got Sam Bennett.    We got a rebuild that we needed.

 

     But we could have actually Gotten something of value for Iggy too.   

 

     As an example:  We could have traded Iggy, and our 2nd round pick (Patrick Sieloff) for a top 10 2012 pick.

 

     We probably would have still ended up with Monahan/Bennett.    But we would have actually gotten a core player directly back for Iginla too.

 

 

2.  Sven Baertschi.    It was already painfully obvious that the Flames and Beartschi had issues with each other.  

                               Which I still don't get, because he's doing ok now.

                                   Baertschi was worth a fortune at the time.  Easily a top 10 pick on his own.  

                                   But LW isn't exactly where you want to start a rebuild anyway...it was never meant to be.

 

                                 We held on too long.  When we knew it wasn't working, at least here.  

                                 Instead of swapping troubled players, we could have just cut our losses and had a top 10 pick (defenceman).    

 

3.   Jay Bouwmeester.     Again, instead of acquiring quality in return, we pieced him out for spare parts.  We got no core players out of this.  

                                        Bouwmeester could have upgraded our 14th overall into a top 10, and So much more.  

                                       Players like this should not be pieced out.

                                       Would have preferred quality over quantity in this trade.

 

I could go on, but I think that's enough.

 

Essentially, it's a combination of holding onto the past too long, then piecing it out for less than its worth, and trading for short term solutions.  
Quantity of quality.  Building an army of mediocre prospects rather than having the foresight to go for the bluechips.

 

 

 

All pure speculation on our part.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

JJ  you are really overestimating how easy it would be to acquire a top 10 pick. In the last 10 drafts a team has traded into the top 10 1 time using picks. 5 other teams managed to trade into the top 10 with players but in order to do that it was the likes of Phil Kessell, Bobby Ryan, Cody Schneider, Jordan stall and Jeff Carter that were traded and even then in the case of Kessell, Ryan the teams gave up first rounders not knowing they would be top ten picks. Igninlas value was not as high as the those guys so I don't think he would have a top ten pick. Keep in mind typically rebuilding or struggle teams hold top ten picks and they are going to give up first rounders for thirty plus players. I fully agree they didn't get enough for iginla and it set the rebuild back by waiting to trade him but let's not overrate the impact it out would have had today. 

 

Top ten picks have become extremely difficult to acquire. The only player they dealt I need the last ten years who arguably should have returned a pick that high is phaneuf. 

 

Hey cross, I agree with about 70% of this....so that's something.  I gave 3 examples (when two were needed), if you disagree with one of those (Iginla), that's not the end of the world.  

 

Did we have what it took to upgrade our 14th overall?  I think you would agree that we did.  Or, simply draft Olli Maatta, etc.  That, in itself, would have made a massive difference for the fortunes of this team.  Maybe not then, or even last year.  But now, it would just be kicking in.

 

 

The 2nd top 10 pick is just icing on the cake, ensuring an almost perfect rebuild core.   Even if I'm wrong about it, upgrading our 14th would have made a massive difference.  

 

At that time, in a 2011 re-draft, Beartschi would have gone top 5 (in what was considered a stronger draft).  End of story....disagree with Iggy, it was still possible.

 

I DO agree with you that top 10 picks are currently very hard to acquire, but that' due to about 3-4 very strong drafts in a row.  2012 was not seen that way, and Staal wasn't exactly traded one for one with that pick.   It was just one component of a larger deal.  Also, top 10 was just a figure.  11th would have been just as good too.  And we had lots of players with Varlamov's value or greater.    There were options.

http://www.prosportstransactions.com/hockey/DraftTrades/Years/2012.htm

 

I agree about the last few years of drafts.  But 2012 wasn't like that.  There was nothing stopping it from being like 2008:

http://www.prosportstransactions.com/hockey/DraftTrades/Years/2008.htm