Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[LouCifer]

On 11/7/2020 at 11:01 PM, robrob74 said:

 

would you do Monahan and a first or a second for Barzal? 
 

Barzal doesn’t score as many goals but it looks like he’s more of a true C where offence goes through him. He seems like a playmaker. 
 

 

Not sure about the first or second - Mony is no slouch, has good numbers, is just 26 (only 3y older than Brazil) and is already locked up for 3 more seasons on a team-friendly salary. That said, I personally wouldn’t mind tossing in ours or the Oilers’ 3rd rounder we acquired in the Lucic deal. 😉 Though, the talk has been that Barzal will get a minimum of $8mil (apparently he’s worth $10mil if not for COVID) which means we’d have to make another move. Is this likely to happen? No, but there’s a chance. 

[cross16]

On 11/7/2020 at 9:01 PM, robrob74 said:

 

would you do Monahan and a first or a second for Barzal? 
 

Barzal doesn’t score as many goals but it looks like he’s more of a true C where offence goes through him. He seems like a playmaker. 
 

 

 

in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even second guess it  

[travel_dude]

12 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Therein lies the problem, it has been so long since the Flames were dominant that the rules have changed and one can rationalize that it is no longer something to strive for.   Being the best team in the NHL wasn't any easier then.  It may have even been harder.    But sure it can be rationalized to oblivion. 

 

I think there is a universal rule in effect that any of us can, if we choose,  rationalize mediocrity at any given time.    If you factor in all he variables and  all the current factors, at any given time you should  be able to rationalize why being average is ok.   After all, average is the sum of all factors.    Millennials have mastered this.

 

The reality is that we all make a choice.  To strive for the best or to rationalize that away and justify average.

 

Every person and every organization has to make this choice.   I look forward to when the Flames handle this choice differently. 

 

 

Maybe you can evaluate the current roster during or after the coming season.

But I guess it's far easier to criticize and say they are nowhere close to being a contender.

That way you have a higher probability of being right unless the Flames happen to win the cup.

And that could even be the result of an opponent being injured (Hedman misses the SCF).

I don't think anyone here is satisfied with losing in round 1 or 2.

[Horsman1]

23 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Maybe you can evaluate the current roster during or after the coming season.

But I guess it's far easier to criticize and say they are nowhere close to being a contender.

That way you have a higher probability of being right unless the Flames happen to win the cup.

And that could even be the result of an opponent being injured (Hedman misses the SCF).

I don't think anyone here is satisfied with losing in round 1 or 2.

I don't think there's much doubt that the Flames are a contender.. they have a 

[robrob74]

12 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Therein lies the problem, it has been so long since the Flames were dominant that the rules have changed and one can rationalize that it is no longer something to strive for.   Being the best team in the NHL wasn't any easier then.  It may have even been harder.    But sure it can be rationalized to oblivion. 

 

I think there is a universal rule in effect that any of us can, if we choose,  rationalize mediocrity at any given time.    If you factor in all he variables and  all the current factors, at any given time you should  be able to rationalize why being average is ok.   After all, average is the sum of all factors.    Millennials have mastered this.

 

The reality is that we all make a choice.  To strive for the best or to rationalize that away and justify average.

 

Every person and every organization has to make this choice.   I look forward to when the Flames handle this choice differently. 

 

 

yup! I agree with the last half. The organization wants to win. Every organization does. But their bottom line is the playoffs. If they built “properly,” the team would be a perennial threat and the bottom line would raise to 2nd round, 3rd round or Cup finals. It would. We all debate that Buffalo, Edmonton and a few other organizations bottomed out but still can’t go further than us. But they also agree that we require an elite 2-way #1C, Norris level D that is better than Gio, and a #1G, plus other players that are slotted correct on each line. How do you get those almost always 3needs? By drafting high or getting lucky by drafting and developing them. 
 

I wonder if the gamble dropping in the draft twice will pay off. Is Zary better than Schneider who is projected to be a good Top4 2nd unit PP guy. Or is he better than Lapierre who we could’ve drafted at the 22 pick? 
 

I guess having extra pick(s) is worth it. 
 

For me, where are we going to get a Top4 D after Tanev’s deal ends. Is Andersson a Top2? I’d say the very least a very good Top4 on a cup contender. But someone like Schneider or whatever D that were left might have been a better long term investment. 
 

Zary could be a Backlund type and is stylistically compared to Horvat. What is the likelihood of him reaching that? His description reminds me a lot of Bennett. I guess a 3rd liner is also a decent spot to play, just not ideal in what is supposed to be a decent deep draft.

 

reading  Lapierre’s scouting report he sounds like a great talent but his injury history is concerning. I get shy they’d pass on him.

The big Russian D sounds intriguing, scouting report says Makhamadullin could end up a very good, all-situations minutes D who’d slot as a #2-#3 D. Building a team from D out tells me a player like him would’ve been ideal as a transition from Giordano and possibly Hanifin. If Hanifin doesn’t start showing more improvements I feel like he is a poster boy for what this organization aspires to be, mediocre. He has the tools but seems like a player who goes with through the motions instead of seizing the moment and pushing the envelope. If he can’t push forward, Mak could’ve been the perfect succession plan for the future. 
 

Right now we have three Top 6C’s. We do need a succession plan to Backlund so I can see Zary as a good option there. 
 

talk of Lindholm going C tells me that they’re looking for the long term solution, plus they don’t see Bennett as that. 
 

what is more important, D or C? 
 

right now, we lack true impact in those words positions. A RW would have been nice too, as I don’t see one of those in the pipeline set to come to the team in 3-4 years either.

Perreault might have been a good pick in the 22 spot too, as we will need a RHS/RW or C. We keep saying go BPA but when does handedness become a problem/priority? I think when the cost is higher, in trade, regardless of position. 

Regardless, looking at some of the scouting reports on picks made around the original 19th overall and afterwards, it looks like a half decent gamble, just a question now is whether they made the right pick. I just think long term need BT might be off the mark on this. 
 

If we keep Monahan and Lindholm as top6 C, where will Zary play? I guess the need is there as it is in 3-5 years until he gets there. It just looks to me like BT is ok with having holes in important positions, that includes the future top4 D.

 

I guess  he is banking on Mackey. 
For me, small isn’t a problem in today’s nhl, it is a problem when the majority of all of the top prospects and around a third or more of your whole team is. In a long playoff, it wears more on smaller bodies than bigger ones. 

[travel_dude]

If you are talking D, the Flames have a number of prospects and young players that are excelling.

Poirier - over a p/gp in the Q.

Kinnvall (R) - 40 points in 51 games last year and 11 points in 8 games this year in the SHL.

While Poirier has a lot to learn, he has the offense part figured out.

Kinnvall is excelling in a league that produces top players.

 

People tend to forget how young Ras and Valimaki are, by NHL standards.

On a good team they are at least top 4.

Playing with a decent partner, I even expect Hanifin to take some steps.

Getting 2nd and 3rd pairing guys to fill the roster is not as difficult.

 

There is a tradeoff between bigger players and smaller skill guys.

The big guys take more hits.

The smaller guys expose slower big players.

Dallas went to the SCF becuase of goatending and mobile D.

The lost because they weren't able to defend against waves of offense.

That consisted of 9 forwards 6'0" or less.

 

[sak22]

59 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

For me, small isn’t a problem in today’s nhl, it is a problem when the majority of all of the top prospects and around a third or more of your whole team is. In a long playoff, it wears more on smaller bodies than bigger ones. 

Tell that to Tampa, Tampa's forward group that they played during the playoffs averaged out to about 6lbs less than the average of the Flames forward group.  We make Dube and Mangiapane out to be tiny, they are the 2nd and 3rd lightest Flames forwards but would be 5th and 6th on the Lightning.  The Lightning also had to run through Columbus, Boston and the Islanders who are some of the harder teams to play in the east.  For perspective Barzal is listed as only 3 lbs heavier than Mangiapane, so I don't think size is a big issue here.

 

[Horsman1]

it's not so much the size of the players.. more it's the fight in them that's lacking... We have a complete team which is more then the rest of the league can say but.. we play fragile

this I blame on the coaching.. not the players.. It might just seem like it and not really true but.. as Long as Treliving has been here.. I hear more about sheltering players than anytime over the last 50 odd years i've been a fan

 

 

[jjgallow]

11 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Maybe you can evaluate the current roster during or after the coming season.

But I guess it's far easier to criticize and say they are nowhere close to being a contender.

That way you have a higher probability of being right unless the Flames happen to win the cup.

And that could even be the result of an opponent being injured (Hedman misses the SCF).

I don't think anyone here is satisfied with losing in round 1 or 2.

 

I will admit, you are right that it's easier to criticize.  That's true.

 

And yes the arguements I'm making have a higher probability of being right than constructive ones.

 

But honestly even if we went halfway deep into the playoffs I think that would take my arguement away entirely.   They wouldn't have to win the cup to do that.

 

In that sense, the problem is exactly as you stated....to predict that the Flames will disappoint has Way too high a probability of being right.

I put that on BT.  

[travel_dude]

11 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I will admit, you are right that it's easier to criticize.  That's true.

 

And yes the arguements I'm making have a higher probability of being right than constructive ones.

 

But honestly even if we went halfway deep into the playoffs I think that would take my arguement away entirely.   They wouldn't have to win the cup to do that.

 

In that sense, the problem is exactly as you stated....to predict that the Flames will disappoint has Way too high a probability of being right.

I put that on BT.  

 

The criticism of the top line is valid.

An "expiring" blueline is a little harder to gauge.

We lacked a decent shutdown top pairing minutes guy.

Hamonic would have been the closest thing, as Gio is more of a cross between offense and defense.

Gio, in my mind, was a big disappointment this year's playoffs.

He was okay against a neutered WPG team, but was oberwhelmed against Dallas.

And when we needed Tkachuk's line to step up, he was concussed.

 

The hardest thing to predict is where a team is when healthy.

Had we not lost Tkachuk, did we have enough to compete against VGK?

I can't tell.

Different teams and style.

Top line or Tkachuk's line could have well lit up VGK.

I have my doubt that we would have beat them, but I think that's more on our defense.

 

Let me circle back to my point.

I can't tell you whether (Tanev + Valimaki + Nesterov + Markstrom + Leivo + Simon + Nordstrom) - (Talbot + Brodie + Gus + Forbort + Janko + Rieder) is better or worse.

We were lacking a defenseman's defenseman.

Goaltending let us down at a key point, but the D had a part to play in it.

Almost half of each player's points were on the PP.

Some were almost entirely on the PP.

Even Bennet had 4 or his 8 points on the PP.

The difficult thing to determine is whether we addressed the deficiencies that lead to our defeat.

Regular season may help answer that, but playoffs can just be wrong seeding early on.

We have to have a backup plan since things change and there is no time to react.

Tkachuk goes down and we have no 2nd line threat.

Gio struggles and there is nobody to take those minutes.

 

 

 

 

[redfire11]

A question?

Could BT sign Kylington to a 1m contract 2020 season and then a week later extend his contract for the 21/22 seasons for lets say 2m each. That would get him signed this year to keep us under the cap and commit to him for a longer period.  

[travel_dude]

48 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

A question?

Could BT sign Kylington to a 1m contract 2020 season and then a week later extend his contract for the 21/22 seasons for lets say 2m each. That would get him signed this year to keep us under the cap and commit to him for a longer period.  

 

He's a fringe players right now for the Flames.

If they want to keep him under control, they can just offer him a 2 year deal.

 

So, let's say for sake of argument they can do as you suggest.

Why does it make sense to re-sign a guy without knowing if he will even takes steps.

And you are doing that for an AAV of $2m.

They kept Mangiapane at one year and they pretty much knew he would have a breakout year.

He was still just making minimum.

 

 

No idea about when they can re-sign him.

The league and PA might frown on it due to cap circumvention and not fairly negotiating.

[jjgallow]

7 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

The hardest thing to predict is where a team is when healthy.

 

 

Another hard thing to predict is when (if ever) any team Will be fully healthy.   If you have to max out every single player in your line scenarios to make it look like a decent team, well, imho that's not good.    Unless you have someone in the pipeline you can call on.  Which we don't.

 

The Tkachuk concussion was a big blow, that's for sure.  Maybe, one could argue, that was a bit of extra bad luck.

 

One could also argue that it wasn't his first concussion, that we maybe played him too much, too young, and maybe considering he has a concussion history we took too long to get him out of the playoffs (nobody knows exactly where he got the concussion, only that it was several games earlier and he continued to play).  

 

I won't make that arguement here but I am just generally going to say that mismanagement of assets goes far and wide, from trades to acquisitions to our handling of injuries and,

 

yeah.

 

BT

[Sarasti]

On 11/7/2020 at 9:01 PM, robrob74 said:

 

would you do Monahan and a first or a second for Barzal? 
 

Barzal doesn’t score as many goals but it looks like he’s more of a true C where offence goes through him. He seems like a playmaker. 
 

 

 

I would do Monahan and a second for Barzal in a heartbeat.

 

I see Barzal as a true #1C and believe he will be a perennial PPG guy in his prime.

His offense has been slightly stifled playing in Trotz's system so I believe he is just scratching the surface offensively.

[travel_dude]

21 hours ago, jjgallow said:

Another hard thing to predict is when (if ever) any team Will be fully healthy.   If you have to max out every single player in your line scenarios to make it look like a decent team, well, imho that's not good.    Unless you have someone in the pipeline you can call on.  Which we don't.

 

We didn't max out on players this season, whether we had an overall healthly team or not.

Top line underperformed.

Top pairing underperformed.

4 line a mess at times, two players struggled to score and keep the puck out of our net.

Lucic got to the point of retiring.

Hamonic a defensive liability.

 

All that and we were climbing the standings.

 

What is in the pipeline?

Depends what the timetable is, doesn't it.

One year (this season) - decent 2 way C/RW and a small player that has done nothing but score at every next level

Two years - undersized LW who is 100% compete, smaller RW who has could be a sleeper and one offensive D-man 

Three years - Zary, Pettersen, Wolf

 

While none of these scream starting lineup, our roster is not built to only compete for a year or two.

Need guys to step up to take over for Gio and Backlund, but potential is there. 

[jjgallow]

On 11/11/2020 at 3:46 PM, travel_dude said:

 

We didn't max out on players this season, whether we had an overall healthly team or not.

Top line underperformed.  

Top pairing underperformed.   Or, the top line/pairing had career years the previous season.  This last season their numbers are more typical.

4 line a mess at times, two players struggled to score and keep the puck out of our net.   Nobody to call up.  Not last year and not this year.

Lucic got to the point of retiring.  Expected given his wear and tear.   Not going to reverse.  

Hamonic a defensive liability.   We knew this when BT acquired him.  Not likely to improve.

 

All that and we were climbing the standings.   If middle of the pack is climbing I guess.... it certainly wasn't a year on year improvement not should we expect next year to be.

 

What is in the pipeline?  Not much, my more pessimistic breakdown below.  I see zero "can't miss" players.    I see some maybe's.   Out of all the Maybe's you listed we can assume one in five make an impact.  That's nowhere near enough to replenish.  Keep in mind the current core degrades with each passing year.

Depends what the timetable is, doesn't it.   I think it depends on the GM.  I'm a pretty patient guy.   No problems waiting but there's been nothing to wait for other than BT's exit.

One year (this season) - decent 2 way C/RW and a small player that has done nothing but score at every next level   Neither of them are going to have any significant impact this year, if either of them make the lineup.  Every team has a young small skilled forward.  One in 100 end up being Gaudreau.

Two years - undersized LW who is 100% compete, smaller RW who has could be a sleeper and one offensive D-man  Same as above imho.

Three years - Zary, Pettersen, Wolf    Maybe we see one of these reach potential.

 

While none of these scream starting lineup, our roster is not built to only compete for a year or two.

Need guys to step up to take over for Gio and Backlund, but potential is there.   We've traded these guys away.

 

So, my response is more pessimistic.  I wasn't sure whether to respond, whether it would be constructive.   It's not constructive.   but I've replied.

 

Here's the thing.   I think you are basing "underperformance" off a single season where multiple players on the Flames had Career years, and it still wasn't enough to stop us from absolute playoff embarrassment.     What we saw this last season was more typical production for them.  Most of them, in fact, are in decline now.

 

I also don't think it was all about the first line.    I think it had a lot more to do with D and goaltending.   D especially.    

 

Gio, Brodie, others all had career years.  You do that and it cascades to the first line's performance.     To see that level of performance from the aging D was unexpected.    And to see it level off this year, was expected.     The only player who could have perhaps compensated for some of it was Hamilton.  As you know we have a thread on that.

 

It's not all negative.   Night is darkest before the dawn, and all.   But it's night.  Pretty confident about that.

[Horsman1]

On 11/12/2020 at 8:53 PM, jjgallow said:

 

So, my response is more pessimistic.  I wasn't sure whether to respond, whether it would be constructive.   It's not constructive.   but I've replied.

 

Here's the thing.   I think you are basing "underperformance" off a single season where multiple players on the Flames had Career years, and it still wasn't enough to stop us from absolute playoff embarrassment.     What we saw this last season was more typical production for them.  Most of them, in fact, are in decline now.

 

I also don't think it was all about the first line.    I think it had a lot more to do with D and goaltending.   D especially.    

 

Gio, Brodie, others all had career years.  You do that and it cascades to the first line's performance.     To see that level of performance from the aging D was unexpected.    And to see it level off this year, was expected.     The only player who could have perhaps compensated for some of it was Hamilton.  As you know we have a thread on that.

 

It's not all negative.   Night is darkest before the dawn, and all.   But it's night.  Pretty confident about that.

for as long as hockey has beenn played.. , There is no secret formula to winning the cup.. Every year a different team wins.. and when by chance a team wins multiple cups in a row.. it's with different players in different circumstances.. Sooooooo.. The goal is to be competitive and give your self a chance to compete.. and play entertaining hockey for the fans.. Are we competitive?? mostly// yes.. Are we entertaining?? That's debatable.. are we more competitive than entertaining?? Yes!!! thererin lies the problem.. Entertain the fans.. Get them behind you and you can have the world in your hand

 

[jjgallow]

38 minutes ago, Horsman1 said:

for as long as hockey has beenn played.. , There is no secret formula to winning the cup.. Every year a different team wins.. and when by chance a team wins multiple cups in a row.. it's with different players in different circumstances.. Sooooooo.. The goal is to be competitive and give your self a chance to compete.. and play entertaining hockey for the fans.. Are we competitive?? mostly// yes.. Are we entertaining?? That's debatable.. are we more competitive than entertaining?? Yes!!! thererin lies the problem.. Entertain the fans.. Get them behind you and you can have the world in your hand

 

I can't say that I agree, and that's a pretty massive understatement.    But I will give you, I think the Flames organisation agrees with this and I think BT executes like this.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, Horsman1 said:

for as long as hockey has beenn played.. , There is no secret formula to winning the cup.. Every year a different team wins.. and when by chance a team wins multiple cups in a row.. it's with different players in different circumstances.. Sooooooo.. The goal is to be competitive and give your self a chance to compete.. and play entertaining hockey for the fans.. Are we competitive?? mostly// yes.. Are we entertaining?? That's debatable.. are we more competitive than entertaining?? Yes!!! thererin lies the problem.. Entertain the fans.. Get them behind you and you can have the world in your hand

 

 

i actually think that the big difference is having a competitive core, or a good mix of compete through the line up. The Flames haven’t had that at all as so far, every playoffs they’ve been in, especially recently, there have only been 3 or 4 guys pulling the weight. None of the first line has done that. I don’t think getting points is the same. The top guys are able to get points when playing bad, but in the process still aren’t being difference makers. They’re losing these series as a full team, but I think the first line or top lines need to set the tone or just look engaged, which they just don’t. That’s even with Tkachuk playing (against the Avs, and was pretty quiet in game 1 vs Stars).

[robrob74]

I think it’s one thing to lose in the playoffs but compete, and another thing to lose and not compete at all. If the team played their hearts out and lost i would still be proud, regardless of the round, but the biggest difference is how they play.

 

BT has built a team that is skilled, but a team that lacks full compete. You can only blame youth and playoff experience for so long.

 

you guys might be right, having a small team might not be the problem as I see it is. But I think that one thing is a few of the guys tend to play different (smaller) against bigger teams. Some guys try to prove they can play up to it, thus taking them off their games, others cradle. They haven’t found the right mix yet, or the guys to allow players like Johnny to feel big enough. 
 

and it’s not like Mang and Dube didn’t try, but it’s bad when it’s just them, Benny and Lucic who try...

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, Horsman1 said:

for as long as hockey has beenn played.. , There is no secret formula to winning the cup.. Every year a different team wins.. and when by chance a team wins multiple cups in a row.. it's with different players in different circumstances.. Sooooooo.. The goal is to be competitive and give your self a chance to compete.. and play entertaining hockey for the fans.. Are we competitive?? mostly// yes.. Are we entertaining?? That's debatable.. are we more competitive than entertaining?? Yes!!! thererin lies the problem.. Entertain the fans.. Get them behind you and you can have the world in your hand

 

 

There is no "secret" formula because the formula is actually pretty obvious.  Every team is trying to acquire all the best players/coaches with the best team chemistry and system that suits its players.

[Horsman1]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

There is no "secret" formula because the formula is actually pretty obvious.  Every team is trying to acquire all the best players/coaches with the best team chemistry and system that suits its players.

see you've fallen for the trap.. the real formula is.. build a team to compete in the regular season to get as high up in the standings as you can.. don't waste cap space.. instead.. use it at trade deadline to build a team capable of playing playoff hockey. you need two distinct teams every season and if you waste cap space and have no flexibility to build your playoff team.. you're screwed

[travel_dude]

On 11/12/2020 at 8:53 PM, jjgallow said:

 

So, my response is more pessimistic.  I wasn't sure whether to respond, whether it would be constructive.   It's not constructive.   but I've replied.

 

Here's the thing.   I think you are basing "underperformance" off a single season where multiple players on the Flames had Career years, and it still wasn't enough to stop us from absolute playoff embarrassment.     What we saw this last season was more typical production for them.  Most of them, in fact, are in decline now.

 

I also don't think it was all about the first line.    I think it had a lot more to do with D and goaltending.   D especially.    

 

Gio, Brodie, others all had career years.  You do that and it cascades to the first line's performance.     To see that level of performance from the aging D was unexpected.    And to see it level off this year, was expected.     The only player who could have perhaps compensated for some of it was Hamilton.  As you know we have a thread on that.

 

It's not all negative.   Night is darkest before the dawn, and all.   But it's night.  Pretty confident about that.

 

I know this is going nowhere, but anyway...

 

You have a top line that has progressed every year, yet you somehow feel that they are more likely to repeat a down year.

In the last 4 years, other than 18/19, Gio was around 25 assists, 14 or less on the PP.

Gaudreau and Monahan increased their totals over those 4 years.

You could argue Gio is in decline, but that doesn't extend to the rest of the top line.

Gio's SH% dropped by 50%, which is a good indicator why his points dropped.

 

It's fine to trash the team because you don't like the players or style.

Also okay to trash the GM because they made mistakes.

Giving up a 1st for Hamonic was wrong.

Would you have given up a 1st for Blake Coleman or JT Miller?

How about Barclay Goodrow?

 

There are so few teams that are able to make the playoffs every year.

The ones that have missed because of a rebuild are still rebuilding.

And likely to continue that trend.

Should Tampa have rebuilt after a first round sweep last year?

Maybe they got it right by adding for the now instead of hoping for the future.

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, Horsman1 said:

see you've fallen for the trap.. the real formula is.. build a team to compete in the regular season to get as high up in the standings as you can.. don't waste cap space.. instead.. use it at trade deadline to build a team capable of playing playoff hockey. you need two distinct teams every season and if you waste cap space and have no flexibility to build your playoff team.. you're screwed

 

So there is a formula after all.  It's so hard to win in this league because everyone is competing to implement this formula.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I know this is going nowhere, but anyway...

 

You have a top line that has progressed every year, yet you somehow feel that they are more likely to repeat a down year.

In the last 4 years, other than 18/19, Gio was around 25 assists, 14 or less on the PP.

Gaudreau and Monahan increased their totals over those 4 years.

You could argue Gio is in decline, but that doesn't extend to the rest of the top line.

Gio's SH% dropped by 50%, which is a good indicator why his points dropped.

 

It's fine to trash the team because you don't like the players or style.

Also okay to trash the GM because they made mistakes.

Giving up a 1st for Hamonic was wrong.

Would you have given up a 1st for Blake Coleman or JT Miller?

How about Barclay Goodrow?

 

There are so few teams that are able to make the playoffs every year.

The ones that have missed because of a rebuild are still rebuilding.

And likely to continue that trend.

Should Tampa have rebuilt after a first round sweep last year?

Maybe they got it right by adding for the now instead of hoping for the future.

you’re comparing apples to oranges. Depending on what you like more, Tampa is that. They’re a better, deeper built team with a style of play that suits them. They have more higher end stars and people in the right spots. C, D, G... 

 

Monahan or Backlund isn’t the type to fully push as a #1 C.  If you want to compare both teams the Flames are very TB light.

 

The too line’s numbers during the regular season has been consistent sure, but their play had declined constantly in the 2nd half of the season. Sure it improved very little bit last year but was still only a small fraction of what they did at the start of the season the year before. But they’ve been bad in the playoffs nearly every year. 
 

you can’t get by in the playoffs by being a one line team. They’ve been a one line team for a long time. Maybe a part of that is not all players going at the same time. But it’s always only one line going at any time. The big year was mostly Gaudreau’s line, but had Backs line pinch in when that line wasn’t going in the first half. The 2nd half was Ryan’s line. 
 

sure the Gaudreau line not going to drop off the face of the earth but I don’t pin any hope on them making a real difference until they do something different. Whether that is changing the way they play or have a new look, or a new player with them, then I can’t see it changing in the playoffs.

 

you therefore have to ask, I that ok? They help get you to the playoffs. Now do you have enough among the 3 other lines to push you forward? 

Lindholm hasn’t really looked good with them for a year and a half. I think it’s wasting his skills to play with them. 
 

The lines just aren’t built yet. They’re close, just not there yet. Maybe Mang and Dube will be enough growth within to push the play further. 
 

I would go

Tkachuk, Backlund, Lindholm 

Gaudreau, Monahan, Dube

 

Since Dube is better equipped to play RW than Mangiapane I put him there. I think he will leapfrog Mangiapane anyway.Maybe Leivo is Ferland enough to fill the hole, But I am not convinced 
 

To compare the Flames to the lightening  isn’t really fair because they have a stud or two in each position throughout the lineup and I’d say their coach is a thousand times better than ours. But the Flames have promise, they just need to tweak a bit.