Transitioning to Youth

[cccsberg]

The Flames are currently in Rebuild mode, working to upgrade the team by bringing in more talent and younger players, while moving out veterans.  All this is being done looking to the future of the team.  We are looking to build a new core of younger players then work to add depth as the core develops.  

 

This is typical of most rebuilding teams, though the Flames have a few twists of their own, like the "Always Earned, Never Given" motto the team adopted last year.  In any case, "going Younger" is not just for rebuilding teams, but also useful to keep a team fresh, as well as turning over older veterans for younger, perhaps faster talent.  It also is pretty relevant to today's Salary Cap world as teams are continually needing to bring in younger, cheaper players to keep under the Cap.

 

In this thread I'd like to examine HOW the Flames (and others) accomplish this task, some historical examples of WHO, and examine the WHYS of past deals.  In addition it would be nice to look at our current NEEDS and proposals that might fit the team going forward.

 

 

 

[cccsberg]

Perhaps the best two examples I can think of, both good and bad, for transitioning to youth involve one of our best players ever, Jarome Iginla.  

 

In the summer of 1995 Calgary got into some salary troubles and ended up trading away Joe Nieuwendyk in the summer of 1995 for a newly drafted Jarome Iginla.  Nieuwendyk was a 9 year vet, an All star and superstar Centre with the team still in the prime years of his career.  Trading him was extremely difficult as he was one of the Core pieces of the team, but at least the Flames got back an A+ level prospect in Iginla.  Iginla had just finished winning his second Memorial Cup with Kamloops and was WHL Player of the Year.  

 

Nieuwendyk went on to win 2 more Stanley Cups with Dallas and then NJ, becoming only the 10th player in NHL history to win Cups with three different teams.  This is a trade I probably would not make under almost any circumstances, but seems to be forced upon them by $s and perhaps (?) some internal squabbling with management?  At the time Calgary had a new GM fresh out of the Dallas system which is probably why they did it, knowing pretty certainly what they were getting on the other end.  This was a trade of two HHOF players (almost certainly...) that is almost unthinkable today.  

 

The bad is the other end of the spectrum, trading away Iginla after 16 years with the Flames as one of the pre-eminent power forwards, scorers and leaders in the NHL over most of that time.  He was traded for Kenny Agostino, Ben Hanowski and a late 1st rounder (Morgan Klimchuk).  While Hanowski was not re-signed to the Flames system, both Agostino and Klimchuk are in the AHL developing.  Iginla meanwhile has played for Pittsburg, Boston and now Colorado and is working on his 3rd straight 30-goal season since departing the Flames.

 

Although the final outcome is unknown, it seems apparent that this was a bad trade, even though it was time and necessary to move the team into a new phase of trying to rebuild with a new core moving forward.  Iginla was aging, at the end of his contract and would be very expensive moving forward, so the rationale was solid.  However, a combination of being handcuffed by a NTC and limited trade partner options (4 teams) limited the return, especially since the team waited too late before making the decision to move him.

 

So what did we learn for these two?  First, a $ Salary dispute with a player, mitigated by inside knowledge by a new management GM.  Second, holding on too long to a Franchise Icon, backing themselves into a corner by a NTC and waiting too long to pull the plug on a trade.  

 

In terms of the current Flames, we hope we're not doing the same with Hudler, nor setting up the same scenario with Giordano down the road.

[The_People1]

I contest the idea we are rebuilding because I feel we are done rebuilding.  Our young core is basically established with Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, and Hamilton.  It's about finding the right veterans at the right price to fill out the roster and emerge as Cup contenders. 

 

I also contest the idea we are carrying over the "always earned, never given" mantra because this season is proof that Hartley plays favorites.  It's earned from last year and then always given this year.

 

But sure, trade Giordano if we can get a young Jarome Iginla.  That we should do always whether we are rebuilding or not.

[cccsberg]

Some of the key reasons, and hindrances to Transition to Youth, and where the Flames sit relative to each:

 

1. Salary Cap (too much $$s signed) - the Flames are currently fine, but with several major signings due this summer they will be tight $-wise next season.

 

2. Talent Upgrade - the team is missing the playoffs this year and clearly do not have the talent to get out of the Division, even if they make the playoffs.  Though going Youth is not critical here, it is cheaper and more LT so the much peered method.

 

3. Prospect Motivation - by providing a continuous flow of prospects into the main team through real competition for spots, the Flames keep motivation high amongst their prospect pool.

 

4. High level play by the vets - by having a strong push from below, the vets remain motivated as they know others are ready and willing to push them out from below.  

 

5. Contract terms like NTC and NMC - handcuffs the Flames in terms of trading certain players, and certainly limits the available trade pool of teams.

 

6. Management preferences - Sometimes a player becomes a favourite of management (GM or Coach) and gets inordinate opportunities that are otherwise undeserved.  Often this may not actually be the case, but rather a symptom of the fans not knowing the inside story (i.e. practices, game details, trade-showcasing, and etc...).  In the same way, a player can lose his coach's trust and find it difficult to ever get out of the doghouse.

 

7. Lack of Trust - Until a player earns the trust of the coaching staff, they may not be given the opportunities needed to grow and develop.  Furthermore, if the management team isn't committed to the player they will not accept the mistakes and growing pains that come with it and never give the prospect enough rope to really get established.  this may also manifest in giving the vet a lot more lease due to past history that is totally undeserved relative to their actual play or competition.

 

8. Lack of roster spot(s) - this can be either due to the team failing to provide an open spot (e.g. last year), or failing to bring in a deserving prospect over a vet due to unwillingness to trade out a vet, or waive a vet.  This could be due to $ issues, loyalty issues or perhaps something else entirely (e.g. "Always Earned, Never Given" team mantra).

 

9. Lack of appropriate Roster Spot - a secondary issue related to 8 above, having a 4th line spot may not be the best way to develop a Top6 player, though this is debatable.  In any case, not only do you need to find a spot, but you need to find a role that fits the player coming in.

 

10. Internal Management Conflicts, differing Mandates - GMs and Coaches have two totally different mandates and roles, even though LT they should both be on the same page.  ST is something else all together.  This can lead to problems, like the three-headed goalie monster to start the season(BT not wanting to waive Ortio) and the Byron waiver loss(BH wanting to keep him).  This may never be truly in sync because of the different goals of each, but if it becomes a problem its bad for the team and someone will have to go (most likely the coach)...

[cccsberg]

I contest the idea we are rebuilding because I feel we are done rebuilding.  Our young core is basically established with Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, and Hamilton.  It's about finding the right veterans at the right price to fill out the roster and emerge as Cup contenders. 

 

I also contest the idea we are carrying over the "always earned, never given" mantra because this season is proof that Hartley plays favorites.  It's earned from last year and then always given this year.

 

But sure, trade Giordano if we can get a young Jarome Iginla.  That we should do always whether we are rebuilding or not.

As for rebuilding, it might just be semantics.  I think we're still rebuilding in that every rebuild requires a solid goalie (we don't yet have) and probably at least three solid D (we have w/Gio) and 4 Top6 F (still searching for at least 1 more).  We MAY have the goalie but its at least 2 years away, and the remaining minimum 1 Top6 F is missing.  

 

As for "always earned, never given" I agree that is problematic.  However, I'm wondering if that is mostly on BH or BT?  It was BT that said the guys from last year deserved to go further this year, BT that created the 3-headed goalie monster(which BH was dead against) and BT that waived Byron against his coach's wishes.  Its also mostly on BT to move out players and make trades which we hope will start happening imminently.  I get the BH issues relative to player usage and line deployment, but to say its all his fault is just not looking at the facts.

[MAC331]

Perhaps the best two examples I can think of, both good and bad, for transitioning to youth involve one of our best players ever, Jarome Iginla.  

 

In the summer of 1995 Calgary got into some salary troubles and ended up trading away Joe Nieuwendyk in the summer of 1995 for a newly drafted Jarome Iginla.  Nieuwendyk was a 9 year vet, an All star and superstar Centre with the team still in the prime years of his career.  Trading him was extremely difficult as he was one of the Core pieces of the team, but at least the Flames got back an A+ level prospect in Iginla.  Iginla had just finished winning his second Memorial Cup with Kamloops and was WHL Player of the Year.  

 

Nieuwendyk went on to win 2 more Stanley Cups with Dallas and then NJ, becoming only the 10th player in NHL history to win Cups with three different teams.  This is a trade I probably would not make under almost any circumstances, but seems to be forced upon them by $s and perhaps (?) some internal squabbling with management?  At the time Calgary had a new GM fresh out of the Dallas system which is probably why they did it, knowing pretty certainly what they were getting on the other end.  This was a trade of two HHOF players (almost certainly...) that is almost unthinkable today.  

 

The bad is the other end of the spectrum, trading away Iginla after 16 years with the Flames as one of the pre-eminent power forwards, scorers and leaders in the NHL over most of that time.  He was traded for Kenny Agostino, Ben Hanowski and a late 1st rounder (Morgan Klimchuk).  While Hanowski was not re-signed to the Flames system, both Agostino and Klimchuk are in the AHL developing.  Iginla meanwhile has played for Pittsburg, Boston and now Colorado and is working on his 3rd straight 30-goal season since departing the Flames.

 

Although the final outcome is unknown, it seems apparent that this was a bad trade, even though it was time and necessary to move the team into a new phase of trying to rebuild with a new core moving forward.  Iginla was aging, at the end of his contract and would be very expensive moving forward, so the rationale was solid.  However, a combination of being handcuffed by a NTC and limited trade partner options (4 teams) limited the return, especially since the team waited too late before making the decision to move him.

 

So what did we learn for these two?  First, a $ Salary dispute with a player, mitigated by inside knowledge by a new management GM.  Second, holding on too long to a Franchise Icon, backing themselves into a corner by a NTC and waiting too long to pull the plug on a trade.  

 

In terms of the current Flames, we hope we're not doing the same with Hudler, nor setting up the same scenario with Giordano down the road.

Most rebuilds are about managing expectations and not getting ahead of the process. Last year seen a lot of aspects exceeded however the building continues. A number of the players we have today are here to provide some stability to a growing team's youth. Regardless of last season's success the rebuild has a ways to go in gaining the experience and maturity to become consistent winners.

 

Fans need to manage their expectations.

 

I don't think it does any good to look backwards, keep building the team position by position. We have some veterans holding down positions that will be replaced by younger players very soon and we should expect another phase towards maturing these players together. I look at Giordano as a cornerstone of leadership for this growing process not someone to use in gathering more young players.

 

I would like to see them get some stability for our goaltending situation in the offseason, have another good draft and then address any perceived holes.

[cccsberg]

I contest the idea we are rebuilding because I feel we are done rebuilding.  Our young core is basically established with Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, and Hamilton.  It's about finding the right veterans at the right price to fill out the roster and emerge as Cup contenders. 

 

I also contest the idea we are carrying over the "always earned, never given" mantra because this season is proof that Hartley plays favorites.  It's earned from last year and then always given this year.

 

But sure, trade Giordano if we can get a young Jarome Iginla.  That we should do always whether we are rebuilding or not.

As for the Giordano for a young Jarome Iginla, although that sounds good, I'm not sure that is the best for the team.

 

A relevant example might be Giordano for one of the two Finns is the upcoming draft, straight up.  They are both just coming into the NHL and both wingers.  While we won't know for years its also possible they have tremendous careers a la Iginla.  The problem is is that D and C are more critical positions than wingers so we probably lose that trade even over the longer term.

 

The same can be said of the Nieuwendyk-Iginla trade.  Although Iginla had a likely HHOF career with the Flames, he never won anything with us, while Nieuwendyk went on to win 2 more Stanley Cups with 2 different teams.  Hey, I love all these players but (leadership aside) having a true Norris-level #1 D for many years to come is irreplaceable.

[cross16]

I contest the idea we are rebuilding because I feel we are done rebuilding.  Our young core is basically established with Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, and Hamilton.  It's about finding the right veterans at the right price to fill out the roster and emerge as Cup contenders. 

 

I also contest the idea we are carrying over the "always earned, never given" mantra because this season is proof that Hartley plays favorites.  It's earned from last year and then always given this year.

 

But sure, trade Giordano if we can get a young Jarome Iginla.  That we should do always whether we are rebuilding or not.

 

I agree with this. As i've said elsewhere the "rebuild" IMO is done, this is about building. Flames have a great looking top 3 D signed and locked up for the foreseable future in Gio, Brodie Hamilton. Short 1 more top 4 yes but have some depth options.

 

At center you've got Monahan - Bennett - Backlund - Stajan. Excellent center depth IMO.

 

You've got Gaudreau and Frolik as 2 of your top 4 wingers. Very good starting pointing and maybe you fill another one out of the draft this year. If not becuase of how good the Flames centers look I don't think you need another high profile top 6 guy, just need the right fit. 

 

I am of the opinion that if the Flames received just avreage or slighly above average NHL goaltending this yera they are either in the playoffs or very close so I don't think the conversation needs to focus on how are we going to maximize return for Hudler or who we are going to ship out. That part has been accomplished, not the focus is on finding a goalie and seeing that we have on the Heat. That process has started with Wotherspoon and Nakladl but needs to go further with guys like Agostino, Porier, Hamilton etc.

[cccsberg]

I agree with this. As i've said elsewhere the "rebuild" IMO is done, this is about building. Flames have a great looking top 3 D signed and locked up for the foreseable future in Gio, Brodie Hamilton. Short 1 more top 4 yes but have some depth options.

 

At center you've got Monahan - Bennett - Backlund - Stajan. Excellent center depth IMO.

 

You've got Gaudreau and Frolik as 2 of your top 4 wingers. Very good starting pointing and maybe you fill another one out of the draft this year. If not becuase of how good the Flames centers look I don't think you need another high profile top 6 guy, just need the right fit. 

 

I am of the opinion that if the Flames received just avreage or slighly above average NHL goaltending this yera they are either in the playoffs or very close so I don't think the conversation needs to focus on how are we going to maximize return for Hudler or who we are going to ship out. That part has been accomplished, not the focus is on finding a goalie and seeing that we have on the Heat. That process has started with Wotherspoon and Nakladl but needs to go further with guys like Agostino, Porier, Hamilton etc.

Again, don't want to get into an argument about the definition of a rebuild.  But clearly, we all agree we are short a starting goalie.  Beyond that we are clearly short on RW, especially if we need to let Hudler go for contract reasons, which is likely.

 

Beyond that I can agree with a "build" of continuing to plug a few holes and changing the make-up of the roster.  I would do this because of two very clear-cut facts.  

 

First, the top line although great at home is mediocre at best on the road, and Gaudreau especially. I don't feel this is just an anomaly, but a reflection of the opposition's ability to hammer Gaudreau via a match-up and Monahan not able at this point to compete physically.  We NEED someone big/strong/talented (like a Ferland) or super fast/talented/physical (perhaps a Poirier, Laine?) to add another dimension to the line that just isn't there at the moment.  If the team is depending on Gaudreau to stir the drink on offence, this is a critical need.  

 

Secondly, as demonstrated vs Anaheim, but also against many other big, physical teams, we cannot compete against those type of teams (last year vs LAK excepted).  If we can't we cannot make it out of the Division given the current playoff format.  This may change as those teams decline and we rise but it is a big factor at the moment.  The thinking that we can just become like Chicago (i.e. not too big) and beat them with skill/? is a possibility, but we haven't seen it to date.

 

Unfortunately, because of salary issues we're going to not only have to fill our current "holes" but also the new ones created in losing our 4D, 1RW, 3RW and 1/2G after this season.  Its likely we regress next season because of this unless many of the replacements come in strong and consistent.  

[cross16]

 

 

Unfortunately, because of salary issues we're going to not only have to fill our current "holes" but also the new ones created in losing our 4D, 1RW, 3RW and 1/2G after this season.  Its likely we regress next season because of this unless many of the replacements come in strong and consistent.  

 

I don't disagree there are holes and will be holes but I do disagree with this. The Flames goaltending this year has been the worst in the league and thats is why they are a lottery team. If this team had avg or even slightly better than avg goaltending I think they are a playoff team or very close to it and certainly not a lottery team.

 

there is plenty of money available to get stronger goaltending. Flames can spend about 6 mill on goaltending next season, return everyone under contract and pay Gaudreau/Mony market value raises, plus have a small amount of money for a buy- low option in FA. If they can clear any money in the offseason that picture only gets better. 

 

I don't think the Flames are losing anyone of critical value that is going to cause them to go backwrads next season either. When the Flames played their best hockey this season Hudler wasn't a key part. With Hudler playing some of his best hockey of the season, the Flames have been mediocre. He is a nice complimentary piece, but he doens't drive offence the way some think he does. 

[cccsberg]

I don't disagree there are holes and will be holes but I do disagree with this. The Flames goaltending this year has been the worst in the league and thats is why they are a lottery team. If this team had avg or even slightly better than avg goaltending I think they are a playoff team or very close to it and certainly not a lottery team.

 

there is plenty of money available to get stronger goaltending. Flames can spend about 6 mill on goaltending next season, return everyone under contract and pay Gaudreau/Mony market value raises, plus have a small amount of money for a buy- low option in FA. If they can clear any money in the offseason that picture only gets better. 

 

I don't think the Flames are losing anyone of critical value that is going to cause them to go backwrads next season either. When the Flames played their best hockey this season Hudler wasn't a key part. With Hudler playing some of his best hockey of the season, the Flames have been mediocre. He is a nice complimentary piece, but he doens't drive offence the way some think he does. 

I fully agree about the goaltending.  However, replacing Hudler (1RW) and Russell (4D) isn't going to be a no-brainer, even if they haven't had the greatest of years this year.

[cross16]

I fully agree about the goaltending.  However, replacing Hudler (1RW) and Russell (4D) isn't going to be a no-brainer, even if they haven't had the greatest of years this year.

 

Agreed, but if you upgrade your goaltending significnatly, IE go from dead last to middle of the pack, plus get growth from guys like Bennett, Ferland, or other young players they can be a playoff contender next season. My point is they don't need to "replace" Hudler/Russell skillset for skillset if they get growth and imrpovement in other key areas. 

[MAC331]

Agreed, but if you upgrade your goaltending significnatly, IE go from dead last to middle of the pack, plus get growth from guys like Bennett, Ferland, or other young players they can be a playoff contender next season. My point is they don't need to "replace" Hudler/Russell skillset for skillset if they get growth and imrpovement in other key areas. 

In no way should we be worried about losing Hudler or Russell, it should be viewed as an opportunity to improve not regress at all. Yes we need upgrading for the net but we also need some nastiness on defense if we are going to beat the likes of ANA and LAK. There forwards stand around our net like they own it, this has to change.

[travel_dude]

In no way should we be worried about losing Hudler or Russell, it should be viewed as an opportunity to improve not regress at all. Yes we need upgrading for the net but we also need some nastiness on defense if we are going to beat the likes of ANA and LAK. There forwards stand around our net like they own it, this has to change.

 

Nastiness isn't going to work against their forwards, unless you want to see the Flames killing penalties.  You need strength to angle the players away cleanly.  Engelland has the strength and nastiness, but doesn't have the smarts or speed to make him better.

 

Losing Hudler for the rest of the season isn't that big a deal, but getting something back that helps on the wings would be preferable. You know, a guy like Hayes or Nichushkin.  If we are losing 50+ points from Hudler, we need to get back someone able to at get 30+ points minimum.

[MAC331]

Perhaps the best two examples I can think of, both good and bad, for transitioning to youth involve one of our best players ever, Jarome Iginla.  

 

In the summer of 1995 Calgary got into some salary troubles and ended up trading away Joe Nieuwendyk in the summer of 1995 for a newly drafted Jarome Iginla.  Nieuwendyk was a 9 year vet, an All star and superstar Centre with the team still in the prime years of his career.  Trading him was extremely difficult as he was one of the Core pieces of the team, but at least the Flames got back an A+ level prospect in Iginla.  Iginla had just finished winning his second Memorial Cup with Kamloops and was WHL Player of the Year.  

 

Nieuwendyk went on to win 2 more Stanley Cups with Dallas and then NJ, becoming only the 10th player in NHL history to win Cups with three different teams.  This is a trade I probably would not make under almost any circumstances, but seems to be forced upon them by $s and perhaps (?) some internal squabbling with management?  At the time Calgary had a new GM fresh out of the Dallas system which is probably why they did it, knowing pretty certainly what they were getting on the other end.  This was a trade of two HHOF players (almost certainly...) that is almost unthinkable today.  

 

The bad is the other end of the spectrum, trading away Iginla after 16 years with the Flames as one of the pre-eminent power forwards, scorers and leaders in the NHL over most of that time.  He was traded for Kenny Agostino, Ben Hanowski and a late 1st rounder (Morgan Klimchuk).  While Hanowski was not re-signed to the Flames system, both Agostino and Klimchuk are in the AHL developing.  Iginla meanwhile has played for Pittsburg, Boston and now Colorado and is working on his 3rd straight 30-goal season since departing the Flames.

 

Although the final outcome is unknown, it seems apparent that this was a bad trade, even though it was time and necessary to move the team into a new phase of trying to rebuild with a new core moving forward.  Iginla was aging, at the end of his contract and would be very expensive moving forward, so the rationale was solid.  However, a combination of being handcuffed by a NTC and limited trade partner options (4 teams) limited the return, especially since the team waited too late before making the decision to move him.

 

So what did we learn for these two?  First, a $ Salary dispute with a player, mitigated by inside knowledge by a new management GM.  Second, holding on too long to a Franchise Icon, backing themselves into a corner by a NTC and waiting too long to pull the plug on a trade.  

 

In terms of the current Flames, we hope we're not doing the same with Hudler, nor setting up the same scenario with Giordano down the road.

We already have with Hudler, there is more value when a good player has some term remaining. The Flames made the decision that Hudler's best value was to work with the young players. Hudler will be traded and we shouldn't expect anymore than a 2nd round pick for him. If BT wants more he likely has to put another player with him. The best time to trade Giordano would be similar to Neuwendyk by doing it with a few years remaining on his contract.

Nastiness isn't going to work against their forwards, unless you want to see the Flames killing penalties.  You need strength to angle the players away cleanly.  Engelland has the strength and nastiness, but doesn't have the smarts or speed to make him better.

 

Losing Hudler for the rest of the season isn't that big a deal, but getting something back that helps on the wings would be preferable. You know, a guy like Hayes or Nichushkin.  If we are losing 50+ points from Hudler, we need to get back someone able to at get 30+ points minimum.

I think I said in another thread we need 3 young Robyn Reghers with all the attributes both you and I suggest. How's that ?

What do you have to put with Hudler for a player such Hayes ?

[cross16]

In no way should we be worried about losing Hudler or Russell, it should be viewed as an opportunity to improve not regress at all. Yes we need upgrading for the net but we also need some nastiness on defense if we are going to beat the likes of ANA and LAK. There forwards stand around our net like they own it, this has to change.

 

 

Unfortunatley in the new NHL this is really tough to do. If you want to get rough with forwards around the net I think you will wind up taking a bunch of penalties for it. Sucks, but thats the way the game has gone. 

[MAC331]

Unfortunatley in the new NHL this is really tough to do. If you want to get rough with forwards around the net I think you will wind up taking a bunch of penalties for it. Sucks, but thats the way the game has gone. 

It is all in how you deliver the message most games. You cannot let a player like Maroon stand on the corner of the crease like he owns it. We have to match the size and intensity to move these guys out or make life miserable for them enough that they think twice about taking us on.

[travel_dude]

We already have with Hudler, there is more value when a good player has some term remaining. The Flames made the decision that Hudler's best value was to work with the young players. Hudler will be traded and we shouldn't expect anymore than a 2nd round pick for him. If BT wants more he likely has to put another player with him. The best time to trade Giordano would be similar to Neuwendyk by doing it with a few years remaining on his contract.

I think I said in another thread we need 3 young Robyn Reghers with all the attributes both you and I suggest. How's that ?

What do you have to put with Hudler for a player such Hayes ?

 

Three young RR's would be three top 3 D.  I don;t think we need that as much as a balance of strong players.  Gio-Brodie is a good mix of grit and skill.  Need someone other than Russell or Engie with Hamilton.  Spoon showed a bit of snarl the other night.  He is not a small guy and was able to handle the other players mostly.  Finding another LD with some snarl might be nice, to go with Nakladal.  I don't think Smid is the answer, due to his slowness.  

 

Hayes would take the right need.  If they need a D-man, we could do Russell and a prospect/pick.  Or Wideman/prospect/pick.  That makes some sense if they are looking to trade Yandle to someone else.  If not, there is Hudler + a D-prospect and pick.  Hudler will get them more goals in the playoffs.  That's all just Flames wishful thinking on my part.  For Nichushkin, Russell + makes sense.

[cccsberg]

Agreed, but if you upgrade your goaltending significnatly, IE go from dead last to middle of the pack, plus get growth from guys like Bennett, Ferland, or other young players they can be a playoff contender next season. My point is they don't need to "replace" Hudler/Russell skillset for skillset if they get growth and imrpovement in other key areas.

While I agree you are correct as far as playoffs go, personally I believe that should be the minimum floor of our expectations. I'm thinking more of getting Cup competitive and we'll certainly have to go much further than just a league average goalie.

[MAC331]

Three young RR's would be three top 3 D.  I don;t think we need that as much as a balance of strong players.  Gio-Brodie is a good mix of grit and skill.  Need someone other than Russell or Engie with Hamilton.  Spoon showed a bit of snarl the other night.  He is not a small guy and was able to handle the other players mostly.  Finding another LD with some snarl might be nice, to go with Nakladal.  I don't think Smid is the answer, due to his slowness.  

 

Hayes would take the right need.  If they need a D-man, we could do Russell and a prospect/pick.  Or Wideman/prospect/pick.  That makes some sense if they are looking to trade Yandle to someone else.  If not, there is Hudler + a D-prospect and pick.  Hudler will get them more goals in the playoffs.  That's all just Flames wishful thinking on my part.  For Nichushkin, Russell + makes sense.

This is why I think BT should be putting his best foot forward in trying to get us Hamonic. He would complete our top 4 defense and then you can properly bring in the pipeline when players are ready. I did notice the aggressiveness of Wotherspoon which spoke loud I thought.

I agree with you that it would be good to see any kind of package for a hockey trade that lands us a good RW player that could crack our top 4 using this TDL. I would not want to see BT try to force a deal,if one isn't there take the picks available and work RW in the offseason.

[travel_dude]

This is why I think BT should be putting his best foot forward in trying to get us Hamonic. He would complete our top 4 defense and then you can properly bring in the pipeline when players are ready. I did notice the aggressiveness of Wotherspoon which spoke loud I thought.

I agree with you that it would be good to see any kind of package for a hockey trade that lands us a good RW player that could crack our top 4 using this TDL. I would not want to see BT try to force a deal,if one isn't there take the picks available and work RW in the offseason.

 

All good ideas.  Hamonic is a pipe dream perhaps.  Unfortunately, our D prospects are mostly Brodie-esque.  Hickey, Andersson, Kylington, Gilmour, Kulak, Culkin, etc.  None other than perhaps Spoon, Kanzig and Seiloff have that shutdown quality.  Those tend to be the lesser talents in the pipeline.

 

I think BT has a good sense of making trades.  Nothing recent to suggest he is going for rentals.  If there is a deal out there for a top RW, he will do what he can.

[MAC331]

All good ideas.  Hamonic is a pipe dream perhaps.  Unfortunately, our D prospects are mostly Brodie-esque.  Hickey, Andersson, Kylington, Gilmour, Kulak, Culkin, etc.  None other than perhaps Spoon, Kanzig and Seiloff have that shutdown quality.  Those tend to be the lesser talents in the pipeline.

 

I think BT has a good sense of making trades.  Nothing recent to suggest he is going for rentals.  If there is a deal out there for a top RW, he will do what he can.

Perhaps Hamonic is a pipedream but I will always venture in at 3 to 1 odds and give it my best effort to win the day. BT showed with the Hamilton deal that he is willing to put in the time and effort to get a targeted player so let's hope he is still on the radar.

A number of these prospects likely never see the ice as Flames, you land Hamonic and the system backs up making some of these assets available within trades.

[cccsberg]

All good ideas.  Hamonic is a pipe dream perhaps.  Unfortunately, our D prospects are mostly Brodie-esque.  Hickey, Andersson, Kylington, Gilmour, Kulak, Culkin, etc.  None other than perhaps Spoon, Kanzig and Seiloff have that shutdown quality.  Those tend to be the lesser talents in the pipeline.

 

I think BT has a good sense of making trades.  Nothing recent to suggest he is going for rentals.  If there is a deal out there for a top RW, he will do what he can.

I think you've forgotten our two Europeans, Rafikov and Mattson, and Riley Bruce, all of the shut down variety.  However, I'd say its at least a minimum of 2 years before we see any of them competing for a spot on the Flames, and that's probably generous....

[travel_dude]

I think you've forgotten our two Europeans and Bruce, all of the shut down variety.  However, I'd say its at least a minimum of 2 years before we se any of them competing for a spot on the Flames, and that's probably generous....

 

Olas-Mattson is currently out of commission, and still seems a long shot to come to Canada.  He has stated he was interested, but somehow didn't make it last year.  It's very possible he joins the Heat next season, but I won't hold my breath until I hear he is at least coming over for one of the camps.  He is still very young by D-man standards.  Rafikov is not likely Canada bound anytime soon.  He's still in Y1 of a two year KHL deal.  He isn't exactly getting top minutes in the KHL.  Bruce is way too slight to be ready for the NHL anytime soon.  Way too young to be playing in the AHL.  I would put at least a 5 year wait for him to NHL ready, if ever.

 

I think Hickey, Andersson and Kylington have the edge right now.  Two of them play against men now, and Andersson seems to be pro size already.  All three are at least a year away from the NHL, at a minimum.  If Olas-Mattson is going to play in NA, he will need to make that transition sooner than later.  This summer should give us an idea if he is interested.

[cccsberg]

Olas-Mattson is currently out of commission, and still seems a long shot to come to Canada.  He has stated he was interested, but somehow didn't make it last year.  It's very possible he joins the Heat next season, but I won't hold my breath until I hear he is at least coming over for one of the camps.  He is still very young by D-man standards.  Rafikov is not likely Canada bound anytime soon.  He's still in Y1 of a two year KHL deal.  He isn't exactly getting top minutes in the KHL.  Bruce is way too slight to be ready for the NHL anytime soon.  Way too young to be playing in the AHL.  I would put at least a 5 year wait for him to NHL ready, if ever.

 

I think Hickey, Andersson and Kylington have the edge right now.  Two of them play against men now, and Andersson seems to be pro size already.  All three are at least a year away from the NHL, at a minimum.  If Olas-Mattson is going to play in NA, he will need to make that transition sooner than later.  This summer should give us an idea if he is interested.

I agree the three I mentioned are a ways off, but still there as options down the road.  Right now we have a good mix of D prospects potentially available over the next 5 years.  Saying that we certainly can use some increased toughness now, with Engelland really the only one of that ilk from my POV.  

 

I've liked what I've seen from both Nakladal and Wotherspoon the past two games and hopefully they will continue to get games and continue to impress.  They are more of a hybrid between physical and puck-moving, which would probably fit in just fine.

 

This summer we will have to make a decision on Gilmour at PC, as well as Hickey at BC.  I could see both of them in the AHL next Fall, but unless we clear out several D there is going to be a serious glut of players at the AHL level.  That would also include Kanzig.