Flames Defense

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

On 1/25/2021 at 11:08 AM, 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

Not sure why you have written off Valimaki already, he's only played 30 games total. First rounder 16th overall and the most he gets is an outside chance?  No wonder Kylington cant crack the line up long term, he was a lowly Second rounder at 60th overall.

 

190 games in Stockton, 91 pts.  -22.  I like Kylington but he's has lots of opportunity to keep a job in the top 6.  He just hasn't.

 

 

[robrob74]

3 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

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.

 

At the time, they were average players with average numbers. And Hamilton was a #1 right shot D. It's great to look at it now and see it hindsight. But whenever we look at other trades or signings, hindsight isn't allowed? Come-on with the double standards here!

 

It's not like Lindholm was Taylor Hall at the time. 

[travel_dude]

23 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.

 

Many players with similar results were signed for more than we paid.

Reinhart was paid more and signed short term, and he's up for another raise.

We paid Ras almost as much as Hanifin, and that's for potential.

 

D get paid.  Young D get paid.

We locked up two potential break out players for less than $5m.

One is already showing that potential, and he was underused in CAR.

 

[robrob74]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Many players with similar results were signed for more than we paid.

Reinhart was paid more and signed short term, and he's up for another raise.

We paid Ras almost as much as Hanifin, and that's for potential.

 

D get paid.  Young D get paid.

We locked up two potential break out players for less than $5m.

One is already showing that potential, and he was underused in CAR.

 

 

Ya, and he was underused by the very coach that the Flames had when they traded for Lindholm. 

All I am saying is that the numbers that they were getting stats-wise is the number used to sign their contracts. In fact, I think they signed a bit higher than what they were actually worth to make up for some modest improvements. Then it turned out that Lindholm got better than what those improvements were projecting at the time. So yes, that's great! But that was probably the reason Carolina didn't keep them. They weren't willing to pay that little extra that the Flames could afford. 

 

I still don't think Hanifin is that great!. He might be playing a bit better this year. Maybe he just needed a better partner all of these years.

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

At the time, they were average players with average numbers. And Hamilton was a #1 right shot D. It's great to look at it now and see it hindsight. But whenever we look at other trades or signings, hindsight isn't allowed? Come-on with the double standards here!

 

It's not like Lindholm was Taylor Hall at the time. 

 

We traded a struggling #1D, who barely surpassed Gio in points when he was here.

He has issues in his time here.

Playing defense was one of them.

Gio managed to hit 74 points and 31, while Dougie had 39 and 40 points since he left here.

Not trashing him, just saying he wasn't the stud we are making him out to be. 

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Ya, and he was underused by the very coach that the Flames had when they traded for Lindholm. 

All I am saying is that the numbers that they were getting stats-wise is the number used to sign their contracts. In fact, I think they signed a bit higher than what they were actually worth to make up for some modest improvements. Then it turned out that Lindholm got better than what those improvements were projecting at the time. So yes, that's great! But that was probably the reason Carolina didn't keep them. They weren't willing to pay that little extra that the Flames could afford. 

 

I still don't think Hanifin is that great!. He might be playing a bit better this year. Maybe he just needed a better partner all of these years.

 

Well, I don't think we can look at salaries back then and suggest that they were overpaid.

The market was set.

Look at any top 6 C/RW re-signed back then.

[robrob74]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

We traded a struggling #1D, who barely surpassed Gio in points when he was here.

He has issues in his time here.

Playing defense was one of them.

Gio managed to hit 74 points and 31, while Dougie had 39 and 40 points since he left here.

Not trashing him, just saying he wasn't the stud we are making him out to be. 

 

 

I get that. But at the time, top pair D were/are worth a lot. THey're very rarely available. What he does after he leaves calgary has nothing to do with Calgary anymore. It's what he did when he was here. Look at Subban and Weber. Everyone thought the Canadiens were idiots to trade Subban for an aging Weber. Who's laughing now? 

 

I look at it this way. If Carolina knew Lindholm would turn out the way he did in Calgary, do you think they'd have traded him? I am sure they saw value in him, but I don't think they saw #1C at the time. 

 

I don't think that Marcus Naslund gets traded out of Pittsburgh if they knew what he'd become in Vancouver. The Hurricanes got what they wanted out of the deal, a top pair D. And traded a guy (Hanifin) who wasn't needed there anymore and a C who was averaging about 40 points or less per year. He had two years at 39 points and then the next two were 44 and 45 points. While he made a modest jump, it wasn't that big.

[robrob74]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Well, I don't think we can look at salaries back then and suggest that they were overpaid.

The market was set.

Look at any top 6 C/RW re-signed back then.

 

 

And that's what I am saying. He was getting paid that because he was a 2nd liner and he was averaging 2nd liner numbers. Like I edited in the last post, he scored 39, 39, 45 and 44 points. They had modest jumps, and he wasn't improving fast enough for the Hurricanes. That's all I am saying. Do I think it's great that he's on this amazing contract. YES. We will all have differing views on trades and their value. I am just saying, to make BT out to be this god for signing them to these contracts is wrong in my opinion. He signed them to what they were worth at the time of the signing, and I think were betting on some improvements. They caught one with a big jump and the other with modest top4...

 

Were they going to improve, yes. Do I think one of them is on an amazing contract, yes!

 

But also to suggest, top 5 or 6 in a draft automatically makes them amazing players is wrong. We are finding that out ourselves in Bennett, and then there's Yakupov, Puljujarvi, Hanifin, Reinhart, and so on. A few of them are good players, but 3 of them are total busts!

[cross16]

13 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

And that's what I am saying. He was getting paid that because he was a 2nd liner and he was averaging 2nd liner numbers. Like I edited in the last post, he scored 39, 39, 45 and 44 points. They had modest jumps, and he wasn't improving fast enough for the Hurricanes. That's all I am saying. Do I think it's great that he's on this amazing contract. YES. We will all have differing views on trades and their value. I am just saying, to make BT out to be this god for signing them to these contracts is wrong in my opinion. He signed them to what they were worth at the time of the signing, and I think were betting on some improvements. They caught one with a big jump and the other with modest top4...

 

Were they going to improve, yes. Do I think one of them is on an amazing contract, yes!

 

But also to suggest, top 5 or 6 in a draft automatically makes them amazing players is wrong. We are finding that out ourselves in Bennett, and then there's Yakupov, Puljujarvi, Hanifin, Reinhart, and so on. A few of them are good players, but 3 of them are total busts!

 

so literally no one is saying that, nor anyone making Treliving out to being a god  I agree that acquiring both of those players and locking them up long term was a gamble on his part as there is no way of knowing, these are people so futures are never certain, they were going to improve. It's a gamble but a pretty calculated one when you are looking at 2 players who were both top 5 picks fairly recently (at the time) and that is why draft position is relevant. There were plenty of people, even the Canes coach Brind'Amour, at the time who said that in a different situation Lindholm could blossom. It was a risk but IMO a very smart one given the pedigree and skills shown and it warranted locking them up at a fair number and one that any GM should get credit for. Many people, including some on this board, wanted to bridge them so it's also not like he made what was an obvious decision. 

 

And I only brought this into the discussion because it seems like many seem to think Adam Fox was just thrown in for the heck of it, or that his value is a big swing in the deal. Fox was worth 2 2nd rounders on his own, and I happen to believe very strongly that the cost certainty that the Flames acquired and the contract flexibility they gained, are well worth 2 2nd rounders. 

 

[robrob74]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

so literally no one is saying that, nor anyone making Treliving out to being a god  I agree that acquiring both of those players and locking them up long term was a gamble on his part as there is no way of knowing, these are people so futures are never certain, they were going to improve. It's a gamble but a pretty calculated one when you are looking at 2 players who were both top 5 picks fairly recently (at the time) and that is why draft position is relevant. There were plenty of people, even the Canes coach Brind'Amour, at the time who said that in a different situation Lindholm could blossom. It was a risk but IMO a very smart one given the pedigree and skills shown and it warranted locking them up at a fair number and one that any GM should get credit for. Many people, including some on this board, wanted to bridge them so it's also not like he made what was an obvious decision. 

 

And I only brought this into the discussion because it seems like many seem to think Adam Fox was just thrown in for the heck of it, or that his value is a big swing in the deal. Fox was worth 2 2nd rounders on his own, and I happen to believe very strongly that the cost certainty that the Flames acquired and the contract flexibility they gained, are well worth 2 2nd rounders. 

 

 

 

That is very fair. And I think it's where we really differ. Because I just think that Fox should have been traded on his own. He'd probably only get a 2nd rounder for us, but I still think that the Flames would have done decently just to get that extra pick, especially since I think they've gotten more confident in the way they were drafting. Hamilton was a good player. For some reason didn't fit in here, which I think is just because he's a strange kid, likes his alone time, but also seems very fun in Carolina. Maybe the Flames are too business-like? But I think he should still have garnered more... or got what we got what was deserved in those players all in the deal, aside from Fox... 

 

When I heard that Fox was in the deal at the time, I felt a tad gutted. All I knew were stories that he was a good D, so what do I know?  But just from all accounts, thought he should be on a deal on its own. And we now know that his projections were legitimate. 

 

Am I happy with the trade overall, Yes, I am now. I just now forget Fox being in the deal. 

 

And yes, good on BT for gambling. ANd I think that's the GM's job to. He has won and lost on his gambles, and those contracts were good ones to. They paid off, particularly Lindholm's.

[cross16]

9 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

That is very fair. And I think it's where we really differ. Because I just think that Fox should have been traded on his own. He'd probably only get a 2nd rounder for us, but I still think that the Flames would have done decently just to get that extra pick, especially since I think they've gotten more confident in the way they were drafting. Hamilton was a good player. For some reason didn't fit in here, which I think is just because he's a strange kid, likes his alone time, but also seems very fun in Carolina. Maybe the Flames are too business-like? But I think he should still have garnered more... or got what we got what was deserved in those players all in the deal, aside from Fox... 

 

When I heard that Fox was in the deal at the time, I felt a tad gutted. All I knew were stories that he was a good D, so what do I know?  But just from all accounts, thought he should be on a deal on its own. And we now know that his projections were legitimate. 

 

Am I happy with the trade overall, Yes, I am now. I just now forget Fox being in the deal. 

 

And yes, good on BT for gambling. ANd I think that's the GM's job to. He has won and lost on his gambles, and those contracts were good ones to. They paid off, particularly Lindholm's.

 

And to be fair I was really upset about the deal at the time too. I was really high on Fox, as I was Hamilton, so to lose both in 1 trade was hard. As i said if I could have it my way both of them would still be playing for the Flames and i'd undo the deal if I could. 

 

But once you analyze it I just think you realize that wasn't an option, so given all factors I think the Flames did well in the deal even if I would prefer to have both of those players instead. 

[robrob74]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

And to be fair I was really upset about the deal at the time too. I was really high on Fox, as I was Hamilton, so to lose both in 1 trade was hard. As i said if I could have it my way both of them would still be playing for the Flames and i'd undo the deal if I could. 

 

But once you analyze it I just think you realize that wasn't an option, so given all factors I think the Flames did well in the deal even if I would prefer to have both of those players instead. 

 

 

I like Lindholm and I am on the fence about Hanifin. You're right, I would prefer to have the other two, but I think Lindholm does push the forward group a little deeper. We would be a touch deeper on the backend with Fox and Hamilton. We may still not have Brodie, but it does look a little deeper on the backend if the Flames could have kept them. The Flames have done well at drafting D, all things considered. I was suggesting the other day that we went a few years without drafting one more to highlight a bit of gap. Could they have turned into high end if we drafted one? I love Andersson, so you never know. But it would have been 5/6 homegrown D...

 

Here's the D if we were able to keep all of those at the time of that deal: 

 

Giordano, Hamilton

Brodie, Fox

Valamaki, Andersson. 

[robrob74]

But now I would really think about going:

 

Giordano, Tanev - allows Gio to be a bit more offensive...

Hanifin, Andersson - Andersson has already shown he can play well with Hanifin

Valamaki, Nesterov - Valamaki seems to not quite be there, isn't playing poorly, but is just getting his feet wet. I was excited at the possibility of a Calder trophy, but he's not quite there, but has a bright future. 

 

 

[JTech780]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I get that. But at the time, top pair D were/are worth a lot. THey're very rarely available. What he does after he leaves calgary has nothing to do with Calgary anymore. It's what he did when he was here. Look at Subban and Weber. Everyone thought the Canadiens were idiots to trade Subban for an aging Weber. Who's laughing now? 

 

I look at it this way. If Carolina knew Lindholm would turn out the way he did in Calgary, do you think they'd have traded him? I am sure they saw value in him, but I don't think they saw #1C at the time. 

 

I don't think that Marcus Naslund gets traded out of Pittsburgh if they knew what he'd become in Vancouver. The Hurricanes got what they wanted out of the deal, a top pair D. And traded a guy (Hanifin) who wasn't needed there anymore and a C who was averaging about 40 points or less per year. He had two years at 39 points and then the next two were 44 and 45 points. While he made a modest jump, it wasn't that big.

 

The problem with Hamilton, is that he wasn't a number 1 defenseman, I still don't think he is, and there were a lot of questions about his attitude as Boston seemed to give up on him quickly with questions surrounding his attitude and questions around him in the locker room. Then Calgary also was looking to move on from him quickly after similar questions. So his trade value wasn't that of top pairing defenseman, it was that of a talented defenseman with defensive warts to and questions with his attitude.

 

Hamilton is also one of the players where I struggle to be fully on board with corsi and similar stats, they are great tools but only show about 10% of the full picture. Hamilton has always been an analytics darling, but the eye test never fully matched the stats. He is a good offensive defenseman who shoots the puck when ever he has a chance, but he in his time in Calgary he was a mess in the defensive end, routinely losing assignments and getting outworked along the boards. I just find that analytics unfairly punish shut down type defenseman like Tanev, but often over rate the contributions of players like Hamilton. I am not trying to take anything from analytics as I think they are a valuable resource, but I do think you need a pinch of salt when looking at them.

[jjgallow]

Great to see so much discussion on what should pretty much be one of our top 2 most important threads, and I'm sorry I lost my cool lol, although if it helped kick things off maybe it had its purpose.

 

Anyway I'm not writing off our young defencemen by any means, but there's nobody who right now would be projected to be on the first line of a contender.   That's all I'm saying.  In fact, I seem to be the only one who thinks we're writing off Kylington Far too early.   So I kind of feel I'm the only one Not writing off our young defencemen right now actually.  Kylington like Many of our young prospects was mismanaged and promoted far too early.  We'll see how things go there.

 

I see a Lot of rationalisation on here explaining moves we made etc.

 

Look here's the facts:

After our rebuild we had Two defencemen projected to be first line D on nearly any team  (Hamilton and Fox).  Plus we had Giordano and Brodie.

 

Since BT's moves the last few years, we have:

 

Zero defencemen who could play on the first line of a contender.    Zero defencemen projected to ever do so.

 

We can rationalise all we want about how we did it on purpose, how it made sense in a moment in time, but facts are facts.

[robrob74]

24 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

Great to see so much discussion on what should pretty much be one of our top 2 most important threads, and I'm sorry I lost my cool lol, although if it helped kick things off maybe it had its purpose.

 

Anyway I'm not writing off our young defencemen by any means, but there's nobody who right now would be projected to be on the first line of a contender.   That's all I'm saying.  In fact, I seem to be the only one who thinks we're writing off Kylington Far too early.   So I kind of feel I'm the only one Not writing off our young defencemen right now actually.  Kylington like Many of our young prospects was mismanaged and promoted far too early.  We'll see how things go there.

 

I see a Lot of rationalisation on here explaining moves we made etc.

 

Look here's the facts:

After our rebuild we had Two defencemen projected to be first line D on nearly any team  (Hamilton and Fox).  Plus we had Giordano and Brodie.

 

Since BT's moves the last few years, we have:

 

Zero defencemen who could play on the first line of a contender.    Zero defencemen projected to ever do so.

 

We can rationalise all we want about how we did it on purpose, how it made sense in a moment in time, but facts are facts.

 

 

I think that Kylington is a player like Kulak. He needs a refresh with another team. We will have to walk away from Kylington in order for him to move on, or be a throw in on a deal, but I think he could be good #6 on a team as-is. I think the team has done great at drafting Andersson and Valamaki, but we need to get a few more first round D to get more chances at it. AND THAT's where I say, we shouldn't be trading away our 1st and 2nd rounders because we need them to turnover the roster... Kulak needed a place to play, and I think Kylington does too. 

 

Would we like a Roman Josi? Yes, he was drafted in the 2nd round... How many more were? Our own Andersson was... I for one would have liked to draft a D in this previous draft, or a RWer, but I was hoping for another D to transition into the future. I think there were some really good D in our original draft position. Maybe they'd have only been projected as top 4 but top 4's are also a bit hard to draft. Hopefully Andersson continues to rise as Giordano did and we get a guy who is a 2/3 for a lot more years... 

 

I think that's really where all of the talk has come from... Talking about how we get to a top pair D, how we lost one, and how do we draft or trade for them? 

 

It's either instant gratification - Hamilton which cost us a lot, or it is a slower build? Either way we got here, we got two serviceable players and something out of Ferland... I think Ferland could have been worth more, but in the end he needed to change his game from a rough guy to a guy who has hands and some finesse. Which he did have. Poor kid though... 

 

I've really started to lean toward using draft picks to draft players and now hate trading them away. The organization has been decent recently in the draft. I'd just like them to start expanding their player type a bit more. They find NHLers, but seem to be a certain type that we have too many of lately. Either that, they need to start investing in development more, or figure out ways to keep some players developing. It's on the players, but also on the team... I dont get why players like Bennett, Kylington and other stunt in their development, while others like Dube, Andersson and Mangiapane prosper... I have a feeling it is their drive... or lacktherof. But also, they got time in the AHL, while Kyller and Benny probably could have used more or some time there. 

[travel_dude]

57 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I think that Kylington is a player like Kulak. He needs a refresh with another team. We will have to walk away from Kylington in order for him to move on, or be a throw in on a deal, but I think he could be good #6 on a team as-is. I think the team has done great at drafting Andersson and Valamaki, but we need to get a few more first round D to get more chances at it. AND THAT's where I say, we shouldn't be trading away our 1st and 2nd rounders because we need them to turnover the roster... 

 

Would we like a Roman Josi? Yes, he was drafted in the 2nd round... How many more were? Our own Andersson was... I for one would have liked to draft a D in this previous draft, or a RWer, but I was hoping for another D to transition into the future. Hopefully Andersson continues to rise as Giordano did and we get a guy who is a 2/3 for a lot more years... 

 

I think that's really where all of the talk has come from... It's either instant gratification - Hamilton which cost us a lot, or a slower build? Either way we got here, we got two serviceable players and something out of Ferland... I think Ferland could have been worth more, but needed to change his game from a rough guy to a guy who has hands. Which he did have. Poor kid... 

 

There's never any guarantee that a drafted D will become that #1 for you.

Ras was a offensive machine in junior.

He's also been solid on the D side of things since he got here.

Kulak was not a top player here, and while I would have like to keep him, he isn't a big loss.

Many of those guys out there in drafts or in FA.

 

Really what we have is a few years before we know what players will be.

Kylington could figure it out, but he needs to be consistent.

He didn't have much of a chance at camp, but he needs to show up in practice.

At this point, he may be a #7, but that's a testament to who is above him.

Ras and Hanifin have room to grow.

First year Hanifin doesn't have leg irons attached to him; Tanev affords him stability.

Or Ras gives him a solid defensive player to pair with. 

 

Fox, if you believe that he was ever going to play as a Flames, could have looked as good here or fade into just an offensive player.

As a Ranger, he's afforded top PP time.

In a deep defense, would he get that here?

Or on most teams?

I'm not saying he's crap, but you have to look at the big picture.

A lot of points (13) scored on the PP last year and 4 out of 5 this year.

 

[robrob74]

18 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

There's never any guarantee that a drafted D will become that #1 for you.

Ras was a offensive machine in junior.

He's also been solid on the D side of things since he got here.

Kulak was not a top player here, and while I would have like to keep him, he isn't a big loss.

Many of those guys out there in drafts or in FA.

 

Really what we have is a few years before we know what players will be.

Kylington could figure it out, but he needs to be consistent.

He didn't have much of a chance at camp, but he needs to show up in practice.

At this point, he may be a #7, but that's a testament to who is above him.

Ras and Hanifin have room to grow.

First year Hanifin doesn't have leg irons attached to him; Tanev affords him stability.

Or Ras gives him a solid defensive player to pair with. 

 

Fox, if you believe that he was ever going to play as a Flames, could have looked as good here or fade into just an offensive player.

As a Ranger, he's afforded top PP time.

In a deep defense, would he get that here?

Or on most teams?

I'm not saying he's crap, but you have to look at the big picture.

A lot of points (13) scored on the PP last year and 4 out of 5 this year.

 

 

yup! I don’t think Fox was ever coming here. But I will leave it at I just think a separate deal was what was needed, others see it as a good add to the deal. 
 

I am like everyone on here that are Flames fans, I want the Flames to be the best team in the league. We all just debate how to get there. Lately, we’ve seen being the best doesn’t last very long. So I will settle for being one of the best on a consistent basis. 
 

I think we’ve taken a step with Markstrom, we just need more time with this D core and hope it is also a bit better than last year. 

I hope Valamaki can improve. He should. I see how good Tanev has been and just hope he stays healthy.

 

[sak22]

50 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

yup! I don’t think Fox was ever coming here. But I will leave it at I just think a separate deal was what was needed, others see it as a good add to the deal. 
 

I am like everyone on here that are Flames fans, I want the Flames to be the best team in the league. We all just debate how to get there. Lately, we’ve seen being the best doesn’t last very long. So I will settle for being one of the best on a consistent basis. 
 

I think we’ve taken a step with Markstrom, we just need more time with this D core and hope it is also a bit better than last year. 

I hope Valamaki can improve. He should. I see how good Tanev has been and just hope he stays healthy.

 

Keep in mind, there are plenty of teams who have had college draft picks lost to free agency.  I would bet on 100% of those teams tried moving those at some point when it was obvious they weren't going to sign, and like you hate throwing away picks for rentals its even worse if it is just to have a conversation.  With Fox there wasn't really any noise prior to the trade that he wouldn't sign in Calgary, but it was evident after and even more whispers after on him waiting out to UFA, given the noise around that your dealing with slim pickings.  Teams aren't risking top 100 picks on players who have made their intentions clear.  Which brings to the Rangers, they made the deal when they did for really 2 reasons, 1) they had the draft capital to risk, 2) they wanted him in the lineup that year.  Those are things that can't be banked on.  Carolina took the gamble and tried to convince him, but got lucky that the Rangers wanted him asap.  The same deal may or may not have been on the table, but if it was it has no impact on the current roster and the defensive depth which was the main point of criticism.

[conundrumed]

JJ, look at contenders and tell me all of their 1st line dmen are 1-2 dmen. They aren't.

 

[jjgallow]

8 hours ago, conundrumed said:

JJ, look at contenders and tell me all of their 1st line dmen are 1-2 dmen. They aren't.

 

Hedman, Sergachev and Shattenkirk?    Sure, Shattenkirk is a bit of a stretch but the first two sure aren't.

 

they have D on their last line that would put Valimaki/Anderrson to shame.    No disrespect.

 

Then the year before that it was the Blues and well...do we even need to go there lol.

 

Sure if you've got an Ovechkin or a Crosby then maybe you can get by with a little less, but quite frankly neither of those franchises have the number of cups they should have with those guys, and yeah there's a reason for that.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

9 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Hedman, Sergachev and Shattenkirk?    Sure, Shattenkirk is a bit of a stretch but the first two sure aren't.

 

they have D on their last line that would put Valimaki/Anderrson to shame.    No disrespect.

 

Then the year before that it was the Blues and well...do we even need to go there lol.

 

Sure if you've got an Ovechkin or a Crosby then maybe you can get by with a little less, but quite frankly neither of those franchises have the number of cups they should have with those guys, and yeah there's a reason for that.

BS. Its nothing but disrespect.

Their bottom 4 (taxi included) are Ruuta, Foote, Schenn, and Borgman.  I dont know their bottom 4 too well but I would take Ras and Val over any of them.  

 

Besides, theres 3 new bodies in the top 6 including Val this year coming from different systems and different partners. There was a limited camp and no pre season games, maybe we could keep from writing them off for a little while yet.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

BS. Its nothing but disrespect.

Their bottom 4 (taxi included) are Ruuta, Foote, Schenn, and Borgman.  I dont know their bottom 4 too well but I would take Ras and Val over any of them.  

 

Besides, theres 3 new bodies in the top 6 including Val this year coming from different systems and different partners. There was a limited camp and no pre season games, maybe we could keep from writing them off for a little while yet.

 

Hey man I love that you get worked up about this stuff cause I do too, but honestly it's not disrespect, just facts.

 

Disrespect would be me saying "blah blah I could play better than Valimaki" which there's that type out there but that ain't what this is.

 

Callan Foote.

[JTech780]

[cross16]

1 minute ago, JTech780 said:

 

Your discovery of the gif function is one of my favorite things about this place right now