Flames Defense

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Why?

You have to be willing to give it time.

I see nothing wrong with any of the pairings and the season is young.

Nobody's being gifted a spot due to lacking a better option, that's why Kylington is expendable now. He will never crack our top 6 so you should view that as a positive.

The RW needs a scorer though, is really what we've always lacked.

I'm glad it's not Lindstrom this year, he's got way more value as a 1C.

Need a selfish RW that loves to shoot and drive the net though.

Iggy, we finally have the right team build for you now. 😂😂😂

 

 

Hey man, I was trying to be positive lol.    that we me being positive ....😅

 

I wasn't going to really start dumping on them until closer to trade deadline.

 

Like you say, give it time.   They Have had a couple good games and I get why people are optimistic.

 

The thing to do isn't to compare our defensive roster to previous flames rosters.  It's to compare it with actual contenders.

You're left with Giordano as the big name, but effectively, today, no.

Tanev isn't going to be enough until he finds another gear in his 30's which maybe happens to 2% of defencemen.

Andersson and Valimaki are serviceable, neither one show signs of top 4 on a contender.    Maybe Valimaki in a few years, Outside chance.

 

I realize Klyington's not hot right now and I dunno what happens behind closed doors, but, to put a 23 year old Point-per-game AHL defenceman on waivers is pretty much insane.

You...JUST....DON'T...Doo..that...ever.  Unless you're literally stacked with superstar 20-year olds.  And we ain't.  like we don't got one.  What they should have done is left him in the AHL last two years and let him develop into the AHL's top two-way defenceman which he was well on his way to becoming.  Rather than using him as a cog on the big team doing 13 minutes of gap filling.

 

There's nothing expendable about Kylington on Any team, I think it would be a miracle if he doesn't get claimed and ...sure...60% chance he doesn't turn out.
But 40% chance this will go down as one of BT's greatest blunders ever as he continues to screw up our defence core.

And someone will say there was no way to know.

sigh

[robrob74]

22 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Hey man, I was trying to be positive lol.    that we me being positive ....😅

 

I wasn't going to really start dumping on them until closer to trade deadline.

 

Like you say, give it time.   They Have had a couple good games and I get why people are optimistic.

 

The thing to do isn't to compare our defensive roster to previous flames rosters.  It's to compare it with actual contenders.

You're left with Giordano as the big name, but effectively, today, no.

Tanev isn't going to be enough until he finds another gear in his 30's which maybe happens to 2% of defencemen.

Andersson and Valimaki are serviceable, neither one show signs of top 4 on a contender.    Maybe Valimaki in a few years, Outside chance.

 

I realize Klyington's not hot right now and I dunno what happens behind closed doors, but, to put a 23 year old Point-per-game AHL defenceman on waivers is pretty much insane.

You...JUST....DON'T...Doo..that...ever.  Unless you're literally stacked with superstar 20-year olds.  And we ain't.  like we don't got one.  What they should have done is left him in the AHL last two years and let him develop into the AHL's top two-way defenceman which he was well on his way to becoming.  Rather than using him as a cog on the big team doing 13 minutes of gap filling.

 

There's nothing expendable about Kylington on Any team, I think it would be a miracle if he doesn't get claimed and ...sure...60% chance he doesn't turn out.
But 40% chance this will go down as one of BT's greatest blunders ever as he continues to screw up our defence core.

And someone will say there was no way to know.

sigh

 

i get what you’re saying but I think you’re right on one thing, to compare to actual contenders. 
 

the thing we don’t have what they have is an actual top pair. Gio is a #2/3 and trending 2nd pair on a contender. I think Andersson is a borderline 2, but definitely a 3/4 on a contender. I think both Hanifin and Tanev are #4D on contenders, and both Nesterov and Valamaki are where they should be, while Nesterov is a 6/7.
 

But in saying this, the Pens won a cup with lesser D. Mind you they have Crosby and Malkin, and a very good top pair D guy. 
 

I think we have four 2nd pair D. Giordano is a playoff choker. Andersson is the only one that keeps the intensity, and I think Tanev will (if he stays healthy). 
 

I agree I think we really just lack a true #1D. 
 

I also agree that they’ve botched a few player’s development. Kylington, Bennett, Baertschi and maybe others. 
 

we still lack a true #1RW.

[jjgallow]

17 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

i get what you’re saying but I think you’re right on one thing, to compare to actual contenders. 
 

the thing we don’t have what they have is an actual top pair. Gio is a #2/3 and trending 2nd pair on a contender. I think Andersson is a borderline 2, but definitely a 3/4 on a contender. I think both Hanifin and Tanev are #4D on contenders, and both Nesterov and Valamaki are where they should be, while Nesterov is a 6/7.
 

But in saying this, the Pens won a cup with lesser D. Mind you they have Crosby and Malkin, and a very good top pair D guy. 
 

I think we have four 2nd pair D. Giordano is a playoff choker. Andersson is the only one that keeps the intensity, and I think Tanev will (if he stays healthy). 
 

I agree I think we really just lack a true #1D. 
 

I also agree that they’ve botched a few player’s development. Kylington, Bennett, Baertschi and maybe others. 
 

we still lack a true #1RW.

 

Completely agree, actually you summed it up far better than I did.     It's the top D that are missing.   Give us two top defencemen, one of them a RHS, and yeah our D is fine.

 

Unfortunately that is also the Hardest thing to acquire or develop.   Right up there with G, and RW, agreed there too.

 

In terms of Kylington, he has offensive potential, he even had that #1D potential had we let him marinate in the AHL a bit longer.   And, he still has top 4 potential if he's allowed to develop and get minutes.   So it's not really him that's expendable.  It's the ridiculous roles he's asked to fill which are expendable.  I would be shocked if another NHL team doesn't figure that out on waivers.

 

 

[travel_dude]

Wow, pretty negative about Andersson already.

Is he a Pietrangelo yet?  Of course not.

This is the first year where he is being used in the top 4 full time.

Not exactly bad results so far.

[jjgallow]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

Wow, pretty negative about Andersson already.

Is he a Pietrangelo yet?  Of course not.

This is the first year where he is being used in the top 4 full time.

Not exactly bad results so far.

 

Have we met?  I'm usually very positive so you'll have to excuse me  😅

 

It's actually  @conundrumed's fault, he got me going even though I knew this would be a good time to stay quiet.

 

Yeah, it's been a good start.   If this pace keeps up, then yeah we're fine.  I'll leave it there.

[robrob74]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Wow, pretty negative about Andersson already.

Is he a Pietrangelo yet?  Of course not.

This is the first year where he is being used in the top 4 full time.

Not exactly bad results so far.

I am not negative on Andersson at all. I am loving what he is doing and bringing. He isn’t a #1D. I think he’s an excellent #3 and a good #2. He has been awesome on the PP. 

Even though they’re doing well, I think they could be better, and that’s because of how they set up or where they have certain players.
 

If it were up to me I would put lindholm at the LW dot and Johnny where he is. Play Monny in front and Tkachuk below the goalie line. They’re moving it well but lack the one timer shooter. Putting Lindholm over on the left might open up Tkachuk for a shot too. 
 

but Andersson has been great! We are just talking about what we think a contender looks like. It’s not a knock on the players as much as it is how the team is built. 
 

I mean BT ignored the D for a few years. We lack high end D that usually gets teams to the promise land.

[jjgallow]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

It’s not a knock on the players as much as it is how the team is built. 

 

This.

[robrob74]

I am loving what I see from Andersson and he has probably been the best Flames player all year! I would give the nods to him, Tanev and Markstrom. Lindholm has been good, and so has Tkachuk. But they still haven’t fully taken over a game. They’ve had stretches. Johnny and Monny have been good to, mostly. 
 

but I would say beats have been the first bunch mentioned. I think it is a decent sign for a team that has been slow out of the gates. Usually it is only Bennett skating in the first handful of games. 

[conundrumed]

27 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Have we met?  I'm usually very positive so you'll have to excuse me  😅

 

It's actually  @conundrumed's fault, he got me going even though I knew this would be a good time to stay quiet.

 

Yeah, it's been a good start.   If this pace keeps up, then yeah we're fine.  I'll leave it there.

😂

[sak22]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I mean BT ignored the D for a few years. We lack high end D that usually gets teams to the promise land.

He didn't draft one in 2018 and 2019, but tell me who would be a top 4 and a difference maker right now that we could've drafted, and ignore the beaten to death Hamonic trade.  He had no chance on Heiskenen, Makar or Dahlin, even if he didn't make the Hamilton or Hamonic trades he had no chance on Hughes, Werenski or Provorov.  So what, don't draft Sam Bennett and take Hadyn Fleury instead, take Sergachev instead of Tkachuk, no thanks.  But again who were the high end d that he inherited, the guys drafted in the 2008-2012 are the guys in their primes right now.  Those years produced Brodie and Kulak, and thats it.  But lets blame all the defense issues on BT.  

[robrob74]

57 minutes ago, sak22 said:

He didn't draft one in 2018 and 2019, but tell me who would be a top 4 and a difference maker right now that we could've drafted, and ignore the beaten to death Hamonic trade.  He had no chance on Heiskenen, Makar or Dahlin, even if he didn't make the Hamilton or Hamonic trades he had no chance on Hughes, Werenski or Provorov.  So what, don't draft Sam Bennett and take Hadyn Fleury instead, take Sergachev instead of Tkachuk, no thanks.  But again who were the high end d that he inherited, the guys drafted in the 2008-2012 are the guys in their primes right now.  Those years produced Brodie and Kulak, and thats it.  But lets blame all the defense issues on BT.  

 

well, there’s also not doing the total rebuild the way some have thought we should have, or how some other teams have. Sure it hasn’t worked for the Oilers or the Sabres. But we were in that position in those rebuild years where we should have been bad enough to draft those players you talked about. You’re cherry picking draft years here as well. There were other times they missed out on drafting players, or trading picks when they should keep them. 
 

a few on here think we should have gone a different rebuild instead of trying to hop a few steps. We missed on Bennett (a poor draft year anyway) but hit on Tkachuk. 
I get what you’re saying but there’s a reason teams tank. Heiskanen was a top 3 or 4 pick. Some are high picks others not as high. 
 

that’s your and other’s opinions on how to build a contender but only a few of us believe otherwise. 
 

we got a good one in Andersson, got a good one in Brodie but let him go. Probably should have kept Hamilton. It cost us the opportunity at a true #1C, but that is hindsight. 

[sak22]

16 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

well, there’s also not doing the total rebuild the way some have thought we should have, or how some other teams have. Sure it hasn’t worked for the Oilers or the Sabres. But we were in that position in those rebuild years where we should have been bad enough to draft those players you talked about. You’re cherry picking draft years here as well. There were other times they missed out on drafting players, or trading picks when they should keep them. 
 

a few on here think we should have gone a different rebuild instead of trying to hop a few steps. We missed on Bennett (a poor draft year anyway) but hit on Tkachuk. 
I get what you’re saying but there’s a reason teams tank. Heiskanen was a top 3 or 4 pick. Some are high picks others not as high. 
 

that’s your and other’s opinions on how to build a contender but only a few of us believe otherwise. 
 

we got a good one in Andersson, got a good one in Brodie but let him go. Probably should have kept Hamilton. It cost us the opportunity at a true #1C, but that is hindsight. 

Well, list the stars on our backend we missed out on?  Honestly, why is this solely on BT, Feaster picked 5 times in the first round.  Zero defenseman.  Tampa won with a core that mainly consisted of players drafted before Treliving was even a GM, same with St. Louis and Washington.  I agree with some of the picks traded, but look at the 2017-2019 drafts and find the players picked outside of the first round and let me know which ones in 2021 push us over the top.  What's the point of caring about draft picks, when you lack the patience for their development.  We have 3 defenseman that are under 25, yet all seem to be at their peak according to some.

 

Also Heiskanen was a top 3 pick, but Dallas was a team that already had a good young defenseman in Klingberg and a high scoring duo of forwards.  They hit on a lottery ball, no strategic tank there, pure luck.  Like many fringe playoff teams have endured lately.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, sak22 said:

 ignore the beaten to death Hamonic trade.  

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, sak22 said:

He didn't draft one in 2018 and 2019, but tell me who would be a top 4 and a difference maker right now that we could've drafted, and ignore the beaten to death Hamonic trade.  He had no chance on Heiskenen, Makar or Dahlin, even if he didn't make the Hamilton or Hamonic trades he had no chance on Hughes, Werenski or Provorov.  So what, don't draft Sam Bennett and take Hadyn Fleury instead, take Sergachev instead of Tkachuk, no thanks.  But again who were the high end d that he inherited, the guys drafted in the 2008-2012 are the guys in their primes right now.  Those years produced Brodie and Kulak, and thats it.  But lets blame all the defense issues on BT.  

 

We KNOW that it is hard/impossible to acquire top line defencemen, I Entirely agree with you because that is Exactly the Point we are Making with all due respect.   The only person you need to explain this to is BT, who apparently thought they grew on trees.

 

 

Here's the problem, ignoring the Hamilton trade (I'll assume this is what you mean) is literally impossible, and ignoring it is the Only way of defending BT, but that's literally to live in an alternate reality.

 

As mentioned above, we Only needed 2 top defencemen.  Otherwise, yeah, we're good.

 

We...

 

Literally...

 

Had two to 1Ds.

 

And not just Any 1D  We had Hamiltion and FOX, who are RHS, the Hardest position to fill.

 

 

This was never about how to "find" a 1D.    We Had them lol.  We.  Were Good To Go.

 

All we needed was one more LHS 1D, and that IS attainable.  

 

 

Also, we Literally had Giordano, Brodie, Gaudreau in their Prime.   Plus Two RHS D, pretty much most valuable position in hockey.   Did we have bargaining chips for Heskenenen, Makar, Dahlin...or a draft upgrade?

 

Hellz yes we did.

 

We were Completely set up to have two top D right now.  Three if we wanted (I would have prefered this)   Instead we got Nothing for all our most valuable assets, and traded away BOTH of our RHS 1D like no team ever has before.

 

We went from having a complete rebuild, to being a new rebuild.

 

 

I can only think of one "quick fix" to this:    Somehow move BT to a contender, and do a trade with him for their defencemen.

 

 

 

That...my friend, is why we are SOL and we can't just "ignore" having Two top defencemen because ignoring that is what got us here in the first place.

 

 

p.s...with regards to "we didn't know Fox was that good".... Everyone knew Fox was that good.   And even if unsure, you just...Don't trade that position EVER lol, unless for Huge payout.     Skip forward to now, we're putting Kylington on waivers.  BT is Still doing it, he's learned zero.

[jjgallow]

Whoosh I'm hot lol...I need to step away.

 

Here's the thing...I agree with everyone who says it's unrealistic to acquire two #1 Ds.

 

Acquiring your top line of defencemen is maybe the Primary reason for doing a rebuild.

 

We did our rebuild.   We got the Ds.

 

And.....

 

 

 

So ....we.... really... kinda...need another rebuild.  And some kind of way to stop BT from trading the rebuild away next time (I have an idea for that).

[robrob74]

I agree on Fox, he needed to be a deal on its own. I get there’s no signing here, but get what he was worth. I would’ve dealt directly with NYR. 
 

that trade was near fair without him in it, and an overpayment with him. I actually thought it was Carolina who needed to add, especially if Fox was in the deal. 
 

I get it, it is beaten to death! 
 

Speaking of bearing a trade to death, I just read an old article on SN about why Gilmour was traded. He opened up and the arbitrator awarded in favour of Gilmour and it pissed Riser off so he dealt him. 

Gilmour just had a few points and then was going to go play for team Canada. It sounds like he was pretty hurt and excited to almost have a dynasty. Too bad we didn’t keep Cliff. 
 

someone just said trade the GM and then get him to trade their best. Similar idea but... 

[rocketdoctor]

JJ (Mr Negative 😛 ) still beating the Fox trade to death.  

 

We never had Fox.  Yes we drafted him  (3rd round btw - so lots of other teams never saw this potential 1D - hindsight is such a wonderful thing) but he was not going to sign here.  Move on, BT was never going to get a D1 return for Fox before he could have walked away from us anyway.

 

If Hamilton was so good why were so many people down on him when he was on our team.  As I recall he was a defensive liability, took silly penalties, played soft but was offensively good.  I'll take Lindholm's versatility and points over Hamilton everyday of the week.

 

 

 

 

[conundrumed]

Is it just me that has a wildly variant view of a 1D in the NHL when Hamilton is mentioned as one of them?

[conundrumed]

Revisiting the Canes trade:

Would I:

Lindholm for Hamilton? 100%

Ferland and a 3rd (which Fox would have become) for Hanifin? 100%.

Would you rather have what we sent still?

That trade was a win.

We got the best player in Lindholm, hands down. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Revisiting the Canes trade:

Would I:

Lindholm for Hamilton? 100%

Ferland and a 3rd (which Fox would have become) for Hanifin? 100%.

Would you rather have what we sent still?

That trade was a win.

We got the best player in Lindholm, hands down. 

 

We were not going anywhere with Hammy.

With the great defense that CAR has, they are still just a middling team.

Ferland was a tragedy waiting to happen.

I'm okay with losing those two.

 

We could have signed Fox, if he wanted to play here.

It became apparent he wasn't in the months leading up to the trade.

Trading Hammy for Lindholm alone solves no problems.

Hanifin  gets us closer to a balanced D.

 

 

 

[cross16]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Revisiting the Canes trade:

Would I:

Lindholm for Hamilton? 100%

Ferland and a 3rd (which Fox would have become) for Hanifin? 100%.

Would you rather have what we sent still?

That trade was a win.

We got the best player in Lindholm, hands down. 

 

 

I don't think the win-lose component is that important. If we really want to keep score I actually think it was a really fair trade where both teams got what they wanted. 

 

The only thing that I think people continue to miss in this deal, and what drives me crazy when people say Fox shouldn't have been in the deal, is ignoring the impact of contracts. Hamilton is probably going to sign for almost what Hanifin and Lindholm make combined. The contract value that Lindholm and Hanifin provide the Flames is easily worth the 2 2nds that Fox netted the Canes when they dealt him. 

 

It also ignores that the trade had to happen. Fox wasn't signing here and it's been pretty well documented that Hamilton wasn't happy here either.  In a perfect world, heck ya give me Hamilton and Fox over Lindholm and Hanifin but perfect worlds rarely exist. 

[robrob74]

29 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

I don't think the win-lose component is that important. If we really want to keep score I actually think it was a really fair trade where both teams got what they wanted. 

 

The only thing that I think people continue to miss in this deal, and what drives me crazy when people say Fox shouldn't have been in the deal, is ignoring the impact of contracts. Hamilton is probably going to sign for almost what Hanifin and Lindholm make combined. The contract value that Lindholm and Hanifin provide the Flames is easily worth the 2 2nds that Fox netted the Canes when they dealt him. 

 

It also ignores that the trade had to happen. Fox wasn't signing here and it's been pretty well documented that Hamilton wasn't happy here either.  In a perfect world, heck ya give me Hamilton and Fox over Lindholm and Hanifin but perfect worlds rarely exist. 

 

well, to be fair, their contracts were what they were worth at the time they signed them. They were both average players at the time. Lindholm didn’t pan out until he played with the Flames. Maybe that’s usage and being a team player. Hanifin also is bout right and maybe even overpriced for what he provides. He’s an average 4th D probably making about .5-1.0M too much. There’s nothing special about him. 
 

there was no indication that Lindholm was becoming this player when we got him. If there was, he’d have held out for more money.

[cross16]

5 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

well, to be fair, their contracts were what they were worth at the time they signed them. They were both average players at the time. Lindholm didn’t pan out until he played with the Flames. Maybe that’s usage and being a team player. Hanifin also is bout right and maybe even overpriced for what he provides. He’s an average 4th D probably making about .5-1.0M too much. There’s nothing special about him. 
 

there was no indication that Lindholm was becoming this player when we got him. If there was, he’d have held out for more money.

 

I'm sorry this makes no sense to me. They traded for 2 guys who were under the age of 24, top 5 picks and there was no indication they could get better? There is no credit to the organization for locking up 2 young players long term that had talent which turned into good contracts? They could have easily bridged them. 

 

It's fair to say that Lindholm exceeded expectations to a certain degree, but that doesn't diminish the fact they acquired a lot of cost certainty in the deal. 

[JTech780]

Calgary got a number 1 two way center (small sample size warning), and a defenseman who led the team in ice time last year, both making under $5m. Both of whom, as Cross said, were under 24 years old and were top 5 picks. What exactly is the issue with that trade? 

 

They gave up a defenseman, who IMO is largely over rated, and by all accounts wasn't a fit in the locker room, a 3rd line winger with serious injury issues and a prospect who was never going to sign in Calgary.

 

I would say it was very good asset management by Treliving, especially because after this season Carolina probably won't have any of the players they acquired in the organization, and Calgary will still have two high value assets on cost effective contracts.

[robrob74]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm sorry this makes no sense to me. They traded for 2 guys who were under the age of 24, top 5 picks and there was no indication they could get better? There is no credit to the organization for locking up 2 young players long term that had talent which turned into good contracts? They could have easily bridged them. 

 

It's fair to say that Lindholm exceeded expectations to a certain degree, but that doesn't diminish the fact they acquired a lot of cost certainty in the deal. 

 

 

No No, I am saying at the time they had average numbers in their careers. There was no lock for them to play at higher levels. Bennett is a top 5 pick too, and is he going to get better? Maybe, but not on the Flames. Hanifin is still a very average defensemen. He's not the kind of D that you're going to win a cup with. 

 

I didn't say that they didn't acquire any cost certainty. All I said was that to be fair that they were players that had average numbers. All of the talk from reporters were that Hanifin sucks and it was a dumb idea to trade for him and Lindholm could improve, but has shown to be average in his career to that point. Which meant that he hadn't reached expectations. THat's all I was implying. BT made a good bet on their contracts, more so on Lindholms. I still don't really like Hanifin. He plays fine, but I'd be happier if he was just a little bit cheaper for what he brings. He has a decent first pass but tends to make errors that even though he's a great skater, he can't skate himself out of. Maybe he still has room to improve. It just hasn't shown so far.