Where do you see our roster players?

[kehatch]

Treliving said one of the first things he needed to do upon arriving in Calgary was figure out where everyone fit.  Where do you see everyone fitting?  I created the following groupings for this little game:

• Core Player: These are the guys we are building around. You don't move these guys unless your are getting massive over-payment. 
• Role Player: Good players to surround your core with.  They fill a role.  You are happy to have them long term, but they could be moved if it makes the team better.  
• Filler: These are guys that fill a spot until we find better alternative.  They fill an important role so we don't have to throw a prospect or roster player in over their head, but they can be moved as soon as the alternative is available. 
• Marginal Player: This player isn't a good fit for the Flames, or is just not a very good hockey player in general.  If you are putting the player here you would like to see him moved sooner then later.  
• TBD: You haven't seen enough of this player yet to place them in one of the above groups. 

My picks below.  I didn't include prospects that have been returned to the AHL as they are obviously TBD (Ferland, Baertchi, Knight, Reinhart)

 

Core Player

• Brodie
• Gaudreau
• Giordano
• Hudler
• Monahan

Role Player

• Backlund
• Bouma
• Russell

Filler

• Byron
• Glencross
• Hiller
• Jones
• Ramo
• Raymond
• Smid
• Stajan
• Wideman

Marginal Player

• Bollig
• Diaz
• Engelland
• McGrattan
• Setoguchi

TBD

• Colborne
• Granlund
• Jooris

[DirtyDeeds]

I don't agree with some of your methodology & groupings.

 

For example Role players.. Role players can be fringe players given a specific role that contribute to the overall effectiveness of the line and team. Flames have used this definition of role player effectively over the recent years.

 

They have also given different roles to various players(Stajan for example) and it has worked. Joker would be another example.. Did not fit the #1-2 center role well until he was given the checking center role where he excelled.

 

Glencross is hardly a filler. He is doing the toughest job of our largest grouping(LW). Sure he may be ending his time with the Flames but right now, but no one else is capable of doing his present responsibilities nearly as well as he is doing.

 

Goaltending is a different animal. Hiller shouldn't be considered a filler because he is a starting goaltender on just about all teams in the league. He has done all you could ask of a quality starter considering he on a team that is ranked a non-playoff team. He has stolen games for us like his 1st star performance facing 50 shots in our win over the Blackhawks on Oct 15th. We are lucky to have him here(look at Oilers troubles finding a starter) and should be considered a "core player" until one of our prospects steps up and takes/earns the job from him.

 

As for Colbourne.. Have you not seen enough of him in the past 2 seasons to determine what he is? He has progressed in any and all roles he has been given...

[s4xon]

You're too generous with Seto.  He shouldn't even be on the list.  He won't be back with the big club.

 

I'd opt to add these two to the Role category:

 

Smid - you can't get a much better responsible 3rd pairing guy in the league.  I would have him as role player.  He's heart and soul through and through, and isn't afraid to get into the dirty areas, drop the gloves, block shots, or even attempt some offense.

 

Wideman - contract aside, he's still a viable option for a second pairing.  His offensive output is a huge boost, especially quarterbacking the second pp unit.   It'd be hard to find a suitable replacement.

 

As for the Core category, we can't justify putting our top players in there and no one else.  A core is a group you build around up, down, and throughout the lineup.  On the '04 roster, Yelle was considered to be a core guy.  He played his role well, but he was all heart and soul and was the top shot blocker on the team.  Gelinas was a core guy, and was our clutch scorer for the season.  I would consider Bouma to be a core guy.  As far as I'm concerned, he's the best 4th line center in the league.  Colborne is developing into what looks to be one of the best 3rd line centers in the league as his puck possession is top notch, and his shootout skills are very much needed.  Not yet a core player, but in a year or two, I could definitely see him as such.

 

Definitions are a little muddy.

[kehatch]

I don't agree with some of your methodology & groupings.

 

For example Role players.. Role players can be fringe players given a specific role that contribute to the overall effectiveness of the line and team. Flames have used this definition of role player effectively over the recent years.

 

They have also given different roles to various players(Stajan for example) and it has worked. Joker would be another example.. Did not fit the #1-2 center role well until he was given the checking center role where he excelled.

 

Glencross is hardly a filler. He is doing the toughest job of our largest grouping(LW). Sure he may be ending his time with the Flames but right now, but no one else is capable of doing his present responsibilities nearly as well as he is doing.

 

Goaltending is a different animal. Hiller shouldn't be considered a filler because he is a starting goaltender on just about all teams in the league. He has done all you could ask of a quality starter considering he on a team that is ranked a non-playoff team. He has stolen games for us like his 1st star performance facing 50 shots in our win over the Blackhawks on Oct 15th. We are lucky to have him here(look at Oilers troubles finding a starter) and should be considered a "core player" until one of our prospects steps up and takes/earns the job from him.

 

As for Colbourne.. Have you not seen enough of him in the past 2 seasons to determine what he is? He has progressed in any and all roles he has been given...

 

I agree with you role players don't need to be great top 9 forwards or top 4 D.  That is why Bouma is on there.  At the same time, just because a player is listed as a filler doesn't mean he is a bad player.  

 

Glencross is a pending UFA I don't see them extending.  Hiller is an older goalie that was (IMO) brought on as a stop gap until our younger guys are ready.  Stajan has already been passed on the depth chart by Backlund, Monahan, Jooris, and Granlund (plus Bennett and others are comming) so I don't see him as a long term fit.  I see them as players filling a short term role until a longer term option is available.  I don't see them as bad players.  

 

That said, the purpose of this post was to get different opinions.  If you feel Stajan, Glencross, and Hiller are role players then list them as such.  

[conundrumed]

I think it's a tough one at present kehatch. We don't really have a set team and I believe none of the "marginal" currently belong in the NHL.

 

I just hope we're real smart about how vets are exited (Glencross/Stajan) because if we end up a team with very litte vet presence I believe that really hurts a rebuild. You can coach a young player all you like, but if you don't have vets to point out your assignment's intracacies, you become the Oilers pretty fast. What's happened to Hall, RNH, Eberle and Yakupov? No vet presence to explain away the trenches.

That could easily be JH, Monahan et.al.

Easily.

Vets know when to take risks and when the opponents you're on the ice with means you have to play it safe. Sometimes you can goad a player to make him play stupid (Hall), sometimes the player loves it and elevates his game (Getzlaf).

So for me, Stajan, Glencross and Hudler become core players. They know the intimidation game and the players in the league that thrive on it and lose their senses in it. Those are building blocks for our young guys imho.

[MAC331]

I don't disagree with much of this analogy. I don't think Hudler is core, yes he is doing a good job with the youth but eventually he will bring an addition that helps build the team for the future.

All 3 TBD for me belong in the role players category.

Also I like the Hiller and Ramos tantum now and love what I see from Ramos long term, I would maybe slide him up to core.

[MAC331]

Oddly I don't think the Flames even knew what Glencross was going to bring in 2014-15 thus bringing in of Raymond. I think Glencross is nothing but filler at this point.

Injuries to Backlund, Raymond and Stajan have clouded the roles they play on this year's team. I also don't think Treliving will be in any hurry to usher them out.

[MAC331]

It should get interesting to see what Hartley does positionally as he gets everyone back playing including Backlund. I prefer Jooris at RW and if Granlund doesn't get sent back down I would see him at LW (this could be his future)

[jjgallow]

I like it.

 

Obviously there is no one list that everyone will agree on.  But I think you've done an admirable job at trying to do the impossible.

 

I agree with a fair chunk of it.

 

My biggest disagreement, as mentioned above, is Hudler.   He's not core. 

 

What makes him not core, in my mind, is frankly that we're rebuilding and he is not only the wrong age category, but he's positionally taking up valuable development minutes.    I would love for guys like Granlund, who are currently listed as "TBD", to be given more minutes to develop and hopefully make thier way into that "Core" category where we need them.

 

IMHO, his value is through the roof right now and as valuable as he is, I would trade him at the deadline in a heartbeat for a great D prospect.   Of course, we would need to pick up another mentor in the offseason.  But it doesn't have to be a PPG mentor.  There are always great mentors available in the offseason which may have lost some speed but are still serviceable and valuable in the dressing room.

[MAC331]

I agree with you to a degree but neither Glencross or Stajan have been healthy enough to be an on ice influence over the past 3 years. Hudler I agree has had a big influence on the young guys and would be hard to move but if the right trade is presented that wants him in the deal you have to pull that trigger.

Good job kehatch, good topic

[travel_dude]

Oddly I don't think the Flames even knew what Glencross was going to bring in 2014-15 thus bringing in of Raymond. I think Glencross is nothing but filler at this point.

Injuries to Backlund, Raymond and Stajan have clouded the roles they play on this year's team. I also don't think Treliving will be in any hurry to usher them out.

I don't see the connection between GlenX and Raymond. They play completely different styles. GlemX is the hard checking gritty, 2-way forward, while Raymond is strictly a scoring winger. Raymond was brought in to offset the loss of Cammi.

It should get interesting to see what Hartley does positionally as he gets everyone back playing including Backlund. I prefer Jooris at RW and if Granlund doesn't get sent back down I would see him at LW (this could be his future)

Backlund would replace Granlund, but go to the first line as a shutdown center, with GlenX and Jones most likely. Third line would probably be Raymond/Colborne/Granlund. Granny would likely be the first to go, over Jooris.

[MAC331]

I don't disagree with what you say regarding Glencross vs Raymond in styles of game. What I was saying is if they were to depend on Glencross for a top line spot they didn't know what he would bring after that serious injury last year. As far as I'm concerned on a good team both Glencross and Raymond are flex 2nd and 3rd line LWers.

I don't know what your observations are so far this year with Glencross but mine are he hasn't even shown up yet.

I also don't think Backlund should take Monahan's spot on the top line, Monahan is doing just fine there.

[travel_dude]

I don't disagree with what you say regarding Glencross vs Raymond in styles of game. What I was saying is if they were to depend on Glencross for a top line spot they didn't know what he would bring after that serious injury last year. As far as I'm concerned on a good team both Glencross and Raymond are flex 2nd and 3rd line LWers.

I don't know what your observations are so far this year with Glencross but mine are he hasn't even shown up yet.

I also don't think Backlund should take Monahan's spot on the top line, Monahan is doing just fine there.

Monahan got stuck on the top line due to Backlund's injury, forcing him to play a more defensive style, andnot getting sheltered at all. It's a tall task for a 2nd year player. He should be given a less defensive role, and play with Johnny and Hudler to concentrate on scoring. Leave the 2-way play and shutting down the top lines to a player like Backlund when he returns. GlenX is being forced to play a more defensive role, so he is getting less scoring chances, except when Mony has one.

Monahan is doing fine, but is that how you want to develop a top prospect? Force him into a top line situation? Or would you prefer to have your top possession player (Backlund) take that role when he returns? I would lean towards Backlund.

[kehatch]

Normally I would agree TD. But Monahan is doing better then fine playing against the other teams top line. I don't think he is ever going to be a dedicated offensive force. He will put up strong (not elite) offensive numbers while shutting the other team down. And that is a great player to have.

As long as he keeps having success I don't see any reason to shelter him. That said, when Backlund is back we will have two sharing that load.

[DirtyDeeds]

Since when is a prospect being given a defensive role against the leagues best, and doing well at it, a bad thing?

 

I don't believe what I am reading here...

[conundrumed]

Hudler I agree has had a big influence on the young guys and would be hard to move but if the right trade is presented that wants him in the deal you have to pull that trigger.

He's been in on 1/3 of our goals...

We move him because he's not the right "age group" for a rebuild?

Not sure how he'd be "hard to move". Who'd want a solid teammate that can put up points with a laser wrister and slick passing abilities with a very good contract?

He bleeds value, has a ring and comes from the tutelage of Babcock, Lidstrom, Datsyuk, Zetterberg et.al.

For a top prospect D? Bwahaha. Not on your life.

Yeah, I'm sure JH wouldn't suffer at all without Hudler...an injury to Hudler sure would be a wakeup call, good thing he also has resiliency and knows HOW to play 82+ games/yr.

[kehatch]

Hudler played on a line with Monahan all year last season mentoring him. This season he is playing with Gaudreau and doing the same. He has played with Baertschi, Granlund, and Jooris and helped them play some of their best minutes. He has put up almost a point per game this season playing RW, a position we are weak at. He led the team in points last season and is leading the forwards this season. He is the same age as Giordano. How is he note a core player?

[travel_dude]

Since when is a prospect being given a defensive role against the leagues best, and doing well at it, a bad thing?

 

I don't believe what I am reading here...

I'm not saying it is a bad thing. He is an exceptional player that can and has stepped up. That was initially due to Backlund's injury. What I am saying is that it may not be the best thing as a development tool to keep him on the first line if we have other options. The Oilers kept Draisaitl because they had no other options. I believe we have options.

[MAC331]

Hudler played on a line with Monahan all year last season mentoring him. This season he is playing with Gaudreau and doing the same. He has played with Baertschi, Granlund, and Jooris and helped them play some of their best minutes. He has put up almost a point per game this season playing RW, a position we are weak at. He led the team in points last season and is leading the forwards this season. He is the same age as Giordano. How is he note a core player?

Hudler is tradeable, quit kidding yourselves.

[kehatch]

Hudler is tradeable, quit kidding yourselves.

So is anyone. Doesn't mean we should.

[Flyerfan52]

Since when is a prospect being given a defensive role against the leagues best, and doing well at it, a bad thing?

 

I don't believe what I am reading here...

We could end up with a Couturier type. The kind goalies, D-men, team-mates love & every fan wants.

They drive stats nerds crazy(ier).

 

Can't have that!

[Da4RealDeal]

I would have to say as a forward with mentoring duties, Huder IS not replaceable. Sure there are many other players with just as much talent that have just as much to teach, and have nearly a point per game potential and will probably do the job for the same pay. BLahblAH

 

Can anyone a sure  myself and all the rest of the mob that the replacement will have chemistry with our guys.

 

What Hudler has done last year with Monahan, this year with Johny do we really want to let him go anywhere?. If you just answered yes to that give your head a shake.

 

Hudler is doing more than we could have hoped when Feaster signed him. (IMHO) 

HUDLER IS RIGHT WHERE HE SHOULD BE A SHOULD STAY FOR YEARS TO COME!!!!!!!

[Khrox]

Core Player

• Monahan
• Brodie
• Giordano
• Gaudreau
• Hudler

Role Player

• Bouma
• Glencross
• Wideman
• Russel
• Smid

Filler

• Hiller
• Ramo
• Stajan
• Engelland
• Raymond

Marginal Player

• Diaz
• Bollig
• Big Ern

TBD

• Rest of Team

 

The way I did it, Core were the guys leading the team and who will likely be leading the team in the next 2 years or so. Role Players I had guys that are great to help the core, and guys you would far rather have on your team then playing against you. Filler are guys who are here as stop-gaps while prospects develop (but doesn't necessarily stop them from potentially being a role player or core player for the future either, they just aren't there at this time), Marginal players are the guys who don't really play much or provide a whole lot, and TBD are guys who haven't quite figured out their place on the team into a more strict definition. I didn't really include guys like Backlund who have spent most the season injured.

 

Stajan is in there as Filler, he was signed to longer term because we weren't very deep in the Center category at the time (and still aren't if you make it experenced centers, where Monahan is third behind Stajan and Backlund... in his second year). But he could also easily slot in the Role Player area, if he wasn't injured for so long that is likely where he would be, but as it is he is slotting into the fourth line (though with him there our fourth line can play a few more minutes on average per game than when he was injured).

 

Colborne is in TBD not because we haven't seen him a fair bit, but because his role on the team has really been a game-to-game thing. Does he slot in Bottom-6 Center? Top 6? Winger riding shotgun with Monahan? 2-way Third line? Really, he does all of those things, sometimes multiple of those roles in the same game. And I still think he has some developing to do as well. That injury didn't help him out but I think he could still develop into someone inbetween role-player and core guy, or he could top out as a Filler player with the flames (but a rather versatile one).

 

Byron I would slot between Role-player and Filler. He plays his heart out, and plays a lot bigger (and meaner) than his size would dictate but he's yet to show whether we keep him because he is a valuable bottom-6 guy who can fill in on the second line and PP when needed (role-player) or if he is here only because we don't have anyone better at the moment for his role (Filler).

 

Jooris is in TBD mostly because he missed a few games (injury, was in AHL, and I believe a couple games as a scratch) as well as his first extended experience in the NHL. His role shifts a fair bit (not as much as Colborne but still shifts). He has played all 3 positions and everywhere from first line RW to fourth line C. Realistically I think he fits in more of a middle-6 kind of guy. The big advantage he has over some other guys is the fact that he plays a rough style of hockey and appears  to be equally comfortable in C and RW. Shows some promise on the PP and PK, but tough to say whether he is really here because he is actually better than others at his spot because of skill, or because of experience and age (he is significantly older then most our prospects at 24). This is another guy like Colborne who I would love to see develop into an in-between Role Player and Core guy.

 

Hiller and Ramo are both in Filler. If either (or both) stick around a little bit longer rI wouldn't be upset, but realistically they are both here for the year and next to allow Gillies and Ortio some time to continue developing. Our eggs appear to be in the Ortio/Gillies basket and it is unlikely that we trade for or sign a younger (25-27) starting goalie which also leads me to think Hiller and Ramo are both filler until one of our big-2 goalie prospects are ready to go.

 

Raymond, Engelland were signings based on filling a likely hole in the gap. Raymond was less of an issue than we thought as our young guys have proven when they got the call up, but Engelland I still think is a better choice for a 6 D who can be scratched without hurting development of over a guy like Wotherspoon or Seiloff who I think are guys who are better suited for 3-4 slot (and at this point Wideman and Russel have done a far better job of that than most people expected them to do).

 

The 3 guys in Marginal are guys we could lose and not really "lose" anything, though it sucks because I still really like Grats and couldn't name a guy better than him we could really play as often as he does without seriously hurting confidence or development. And with his year last year I would rather keep him than Bollig, though Bollig I believe has the higher potential - but that isn't saying a whole lot.

[CheersMan]

Interesting exercise, and here is my 2 cents worth.  I removed the grouping "Marginal Player" as I don't see any players on this team meeting the criteria.  The other hiccup here is that no player by definition would be higher than "role player", as most of us would trade any player if it improves the team.  Maybe we should agree on the grouping definition first before BT takes this to heart.  LOL.

 

 

 

 

Treliving said one of the first things he needed to do upon arriving in Calgary was figure out where everyone fit.  Where do you see everyone fitting?  I created the following groupings for this little game:

• Core Player: These are the guys we are building around. You don't move these guys unless your are getting massive over-payment. 
• Role Player: Good players to surround your core with.  They fill a role.  You are happy to have them long term, but they could be moved if it makes the team better.  
• Filler: These are guys that fill a spot until we find better alternative.  They fill an important role so we don't have to throw a prospect or roster player in over their head, but they can be moved as soon as the alternative is available. 
• Marginal Player: This player isn't a good fit for the Flames, or is just not a very good hockey player in general.  If you are putting the player here you would like to see him moved sooner then later.  
• TBD: You haven't seen enough of this player yet to place them in one of the above groups. 

My picks below.  I didn't include prospects that have been returned to the AHL as they are obviously TBD (Ferland, Baertchi, Knight, Reinhart)

[robrob1974]

I like it.

Obviously there is no one list that everyone will agree on. But I think you've done an admirable job at trying to do the impossible.

I agree with a fair chunk of it.

My biggest disagreement, as mentioned above, is Hudler. He's not core.

What makes him not core, in my mind, is frankly that we're rebuilding and he is not only the wrong age category, but he's positionally taking up valuable development minutes. I would love for guys like Granlund, who are currently listed as "TBD", to be given more minutes to develop and hopefully make thier way into that "Core" category where we need them.

IMHO, his value is through the roof right now and as valuable as he is, I would trade him at the deadline in a heartbeat for a great D prospect. Of course, we would need to pick up another mentor in the offseason. But it doesn't have to be a PPG mentor. There are always great mentors available in the offseason which may have lost some speed but are still serviceable and valuable in the dressing room.

I have to disagree with you on Hudler taking up space. He is valuable because he makes room for other players on the ice. He allows players like Monahan ( last year) to play his game and mentors the youth like he has Gaudreau this year.

I wonder where they'd be without Hudler?

I personally think Hudler was one of the best signings Feaster had made, along with hiring Hartley. Hudler is almost like a player coach right now.

I will say it again, coming from the Detroit organization, Hudler brings the experience of being a true pro as well as a winning attitude, that's on top of his unbelievable skill.

He has been asked to do a lot. Any other player could have walked and turned his back on this situation. When he was signed he was sold the idea that the team was always looking towards the playoffs. Or it could have been the money? I say he is worth every penny.

Maybe he is not a core piece to some, but he definitely isn't taking ice away from our youth. He is being a positive role model. Something this teAm has lacked over the last ten years; Someone to mimic consistency.

I think Hudler can be a core player for the next 3-5 years. If he still has game, keep him as long as we can. Having positive leaders isn't a bad thing.

We know Monahan will grow into that. It's just not wise to place him in that role so young. I can see him easing into it within that 3-5 years, more so in 3 years.