So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[The_People1]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

pretty much. I don't think elite players need complimentary players to be elite. They raise the game of others not the other way around. It's why they tend to be consistent irregardless of who they play with. 

 

Theres some impact I'm sure, but it's minimal

 

"Some impact"... Okay.

 

I'm sure if we had a line of Gauderau - McDavid - Kane, that Gauderau would be impacted into a 100-point-player.  Not ridiculous to think Johnny can get 80-assists playing with those two.

 

But that's getting away from my original point and that is, I believe Gaudreau needs help getting to his 100-point ceiling.  That is to say, i do not believe he can't get there alone.  So perhaps we were all talking the same thing just, misunderstood.

[AlbertaBoy12]

22 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

We can stand pat for Rasmus Andersson and a full year of Stone. Who is there to stand pat for as 1st line RW?  

 

Ferland?

Lazar?

Foo?

Versteeg?

Brouwer?

Poirier?

Putting far too much emphasis on a position that wont impact the team as much as everyone is making it out to be. Would it be nice to replace ferland? sure it would, but its not going to sink the ship to have him playing there. IF anything getting bennetts line going is more important then that position.

[Cowtownguy]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

What if this winger to take Johnny to his 100-point ceiling is Ovechkin?  The Caps were rumored to want to move him.  Not too crazy to think OV will create all the time, space, and chances for both himself and Johnny to do just that.

 

Another player I've suggested is Kessel.  Kessel would give Johnny a 35-goal scorer to help with his assist totals.

 

But this winger doesn't have to be a big name.  If you find the right fit like Kane and Panarin, thus the example, Kane went from a 70 to 85-point player to 108.

That is an excellent example of what can happen when you have the right fit. Kane is an great player, but he performed much better when surrounded by the right people. I think Johnny could be more productive if he had people who worked well around him. We can speculate all we want to whether he is capable of 80, 90, or 100 points in a year. The reality is that we will never know until we optimize that line. I know Treliving wants to give Ferland a chance, but I suspect he has a rather short leash. 

 

Man, can you imagine what that line would look like with OV on it!? It is unlikely to happen, but it is fun to think about.

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Putting far too much emphasis on a position that wont impact the team as much as everyone is making it out to be. Would it be nice to replace ferland? sure it would, but its not going to sink the ship to have him playing there. IF anything getting bennetts line going is more important then that position.

 

We should still get a RW for Bennett too... If we don't trade Bennett.

[Cowtownguy]

7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

"Some impact"... Okay.

 

I'm sure if we had a line of Gauderau - McDavid - Kane, that Gauderau would be impacted into a 100-point-player.  Not ridiculous to think Johnny can get 80-assists playing with those two.

 

But that's getting away from my original point and that is, I believe Gaudreau needs help getting to his 100-point ceiling.  That is to say, i do not believe he can't get there alone.  So perhaps we were all taking the same thing just, misunderstood.

I suspect that most of us are closer in our suggestions than it comes across on the board. I bet most people know Johnny has more potential, Ferland is acceptable although not an ideal RW for him, and that there is a God because Wideman no longer plays for us.

[cross16]

33 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

"Some impact"... Okay.

 

I'm sure if we had a line of Gauderau - McDavid - Kane, that Gauderau would be impacted into a 100-point-player.  Not ridiculous to think Johnny can get 80-assists playing with those two.

 

But that's getting away from my original point and that is, I believe Gaudreau needs help getting to his 100-point ceiling.  That is to say, i do not believe he can't get there alone.  So perhaps we were all talking the same thing just, misunderstood.

 

i think we differ on Gaudrea. I don't think he has that type of upside.

[robrob74]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

i think we differ on Gaudrea. I don't think he has that type of upside.

 

I think Gaudreau could have peaked at about 85-90 with a Hudler in his prime (before his fall). 

 

I am not saying we need hudler, but someone with comparable skill will do, and that would get him close-ish, if 85-90 is close? That's where I see him. But if we had three guys at 1st line calibre, maybe it is doable. 

[Flyerfan52]

15 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

As I have said, we have unknowns.  If Hamonic is available this year for a 1st and two 2nds, then he surely would be available next year as well.  If he's not, then someone equivalent would be.

 

Once we are sure what we have in Bennett and Janko, for that matter Andersson and our two young goalie prospects, okay, mortgage the future to get the finishing pieces at that time.

 

The big risk right now is, we have nothing in Bennett and Janko.  Real possibilities.  

If BT hadn't made the trade for Hamonic some other team would have. 26 year old proven top 4 RDs on good contracts don't come on the market every year so it was a case of act now or just sit & watch him go to a rival. Say the Jets weren't confident they will re-sign Trouba they would have jumped on it & promptly traded Jake for more than we paid for Travis.

We got lucky a couple of years ago getting Dougie for the same price but there it was for the RFA rights to a less proven possible top 4 (luckily he became 1) & promptly gambled a contract that pays almost $2 million a year more than the 1 that came with Hamonic.

So the trade with the Isles works out better as we got a proven for less than we gambled on a maybe. You can't afford to pass that up.

 

We've got prospects for down the road (unless we want to throw them into the fire by playing them before they are ready) or could have signed a stop gap #4 D @ $4 million x 2  (a tad more than Hamonic's 3.8 x 3) to bridge the gap but adding Hamonic was a rare opportunity. Now we can let the prospects get better while waiting for Gio to age out.

[MAC331]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

We can stand pat for Rasmus Andersson and a full year of Stone. Who is there to stand pat for as 1st line RW?  

 

Ferland?

Lazar?

Foo?

Versteeg?

Brouwer?

Poirier?

 

Most importantly, I never advocated trading picks for OV and Kessel.  That's going "all in" and I never advocated going all in for those guys.

 

Maybe it's a debate on what constitutes "all in".  What's the definition?

We could but we wouldn't be better for it. We find ourselves waiting on that ideal RW but we have players with experience that can play there. I see our forward group as a group that has to get collectively better.

You seem to be the only one taking "all in" literally. If BT thinks he has this roster to a state of being able to win it all good for him, good for us as fans.

[conundrumed]

36 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

If BT hadn't made the trade for Hamonic some other team would have. 26 year old proven top 4 RDs on good contracts don't come on the market every year so it was a case of act now or just sit & watch him go to a rival. Say the Jets weren't confident they will re-sign Trouba they would have jumped on it & promptly traded Jake for more than we paid for Travis.

We got lucky a couple of years ago getting Dougie for the same price but there it was for the RFA rights to a less proven possible top 4 (luckily he became 1) & promptly gambled a contract that pays almost $2 million a year more than the 1 that came with Hamonic.

So the trade with the Isles works out better as we got a proven for less than we gambled on a maybe. You can't afford to pass that up.

 

We've got prospects for down the road (unless we want to throw them into the fire by playing them before they are ready) or could have signed a stop gap #4 D @ $4 million x 2  (a tad more than Hamonic's 3.8 x 3) to bridge the gap but adding Hamonic was a rare opportunity. Now we can let the prospects get better while waiting for Gio to age out.

I fully agree on the bolded. I don't believe that opportunity comes every year.

Bennett's breakout year could be this year. Regardless, we can't hedge on waiting until it happens to add a player like Hamonic, because what you really need just isn't there the moment you need it, you just hope you're planning is accurate.

I believe that is as solid a fit for our top 4 as we could ever hope to get, at that age, experience and cap hit.

I don't believe it's realistic to think it's just there when you want to do it, you have to do it when it's there.

My thoughts right now is that is a home run trade.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

If BT hadn't made the trade for Hamonic some other team would have. 26 year old proven top 4 RDs on good contracts don't come on the market every year so it was a case of act now or just sit & watch him go to a rival. Say the Jets weren't confident they will re-sign Trouba they would have jumped on it & promptly traded Jake for more than we paid for Travis.

We got lucky a couple of years ago getting Dougie for the same price but there it was for the RFA rights to a less proven possible top 4 (luckily he became 1) & promptly gambled a contract that pays almost $2 million a year more than the 1 that came with Hamonic.

So the trade with the Isles works out better as we got a proven for less than we gambled on a maybe. You can't afford to pass that up.

 

We've got prospects for down the road (unless we want to throw them into the fire by playing them before they are ready) or could have signed a stop gap #4 D @ $4 million x 2  (a tad more than Hamonic's 3.8 x 3) to bridge the gap but adding Hamonic was a rare opportunity. Now we can let the prospects get better while waiting for Gio to age out.

 

I like the value we got in the Hamonic deal.  I think we won from a value perspective.

 

My problem is the unknown.  If it turns it we have nothing in Bennett and Janko, then I'm pretty confident we are one and done in the playoffs again because we can't go 3 lines deep.

 

We will have no scoring depth, again.  This is a real possibility.  I know many of us still believe in Bennett but reality could very well be that he never amounts to much.

 

In that case, why make the Hamonic deal when we could use the picks.  Once we know what we have, then we spend future assets to complete the roster.  This is what most good teams do.

[AlbertaBoy12]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I like the value we got in the Hamonic deal.  I think we won from a value perspective.

 

My problem is the unknown.  If it turns it we have nothing in Bennett and Janko, then I'm pretty confident we are one and done in the playoffs again because we can't go 3 lines deep.

 

We will have no scoring depth, again.  This is a real possibility.  I know many of us still believe in Bennett but reality could very well be that he never amounts to much.

The thing is when you have a great defensive group like we have built, its not going to be the end of the world if bennett explodes. I dont think we will see bennett have another bad season, but with the group we have on D I wouldnt be as worried about it.

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

The thing is when you have a great defensive group like we have built, its not going to be the end of the world if bennett explodes. I dont think we will see bennett have another bad season, but with the group we have on D I wouldnt be as worried about it.

 

No one said end of the world but we likely don't win the Cup if we fail to go 3 lines deep.  Great D or not.

 

 

[AlbertaBoy12]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

No one said end of the world but we likely don't win the Cup if we fail to go 3 lines deep.  Great D or not.

 

 

No maybe not but the preds came pretty darn close, and their forward group isent much better then ours. I guess you can say well close doesnt matter, but I think we have a better team then the preds.

[tmac70]

On paper we have some good Dman, let's see how it unfolds on the ice. The JG debate about point is speculative, I believe his point total is unlimited with better line mates. Is this club better today on paper yes, we will have to see how things unfold. In order to be a threat in our conference or for the cup, we do need some positions filled up front.

[conundrumed]

20 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I like the value we got in the Hamonic deal.  I think we won from a value perspective.

 

My problem is the unknown.  If it turns it we have nothing in Bennett and Janko, then I'm pretty confident we are one and done in the playoffs again because we can't go 3 lines deep.

 

We will have no scoring depth, again.  This is a real possibility.  I know many of us still believe in Bennett but reality could very well be that he never amounts to much.

 

In that case, why make the Hamonic deal when we could use the picks.  Once we know what we have, then we spend future assets to complete the roster.  This is what most good teams do.

Relax. It isn't unknown. Don't panic, they are good players.

We need more to jam up the top 6. But who doesn't?

We're pretty darned solid down the middle.

Do we really believe Jankowski isn't a top 3 center in our ranks? Get real.

Bennett/Mony

Mony/Bennett

Junkhouse

Should we extend Backlund, ummmm...lol.

[zima]

The fact we haven't done any PTO's or UFA's to this point gives me hope that they Management is opening the door for our kids to show up and prove they want to play in the Bigs.

[Cowtownguy]

Thomas Vanek is still available. He is over 30 and has been around the block a few times. Not sure what it would cost to sign him. He is a RW, right-handed shot.

[redfire11]

1 hour ago, zima said:

The fact we haven't done any PTO's or UFA's to this point gives me hope that they Management is opening the door for our kids to show up and prove they want to play in the Bigs.

Agreed We will be moving up some prospects. 

I think Foo should be given 10+ games to see what he brings and see if he earns a job. If he doesn't make the team he is rewarded by a burnt ELC year. 

( Foo had offers from better looking dates at this dance and since he chose the Flames; we should at least let him get to 2nd base.)

[Flyerfan52]

32 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

Thomas Vanek is still available. He is over 30 and has been around the block a few times. Not sure what it would cost to sign him. He is a RW, right-handed shot.

I was thinking about him too. I figure as the summer drags on his ask drops because he can & wants to still play.

[Flyerfan52]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I like the value we got in the Hamonic deal.  I think we won from a value perspective.

 

My problem is the unknown.  If it turns it we have nothing in Bennett and Janko, then I'm pretty confident we are one and done in the playoffs again because we can't go 3 lines deep.

 

We will have no scoring depth, again.  This is a real possibility.  I know many of us still believe in Bennett but reality could very well be that he never amounts to much.

 

In that case, why make the Hamonic deal when we could use the picks.  Once we know what we have, then we spend future assets to complete the roster.  This is what most good teams do.

There is always the unknown. You're worried about Bennett & Jankowski but they are a lesser worry than if Gaudreau/Monahan take a step back.

We have 1 of the top D in the league for a few years to come & replacement forwards are always easier/cheaper to acquire than top end D. If needed we can pull the trigger to add forwards @ any time all the way to the trade deadline.

 

Up front we have Backlund, Versteeg & Stajan playing for their next contract. Brouwer is likely ready & able to show that last year was an aberation & that he's worth his contract.

 

As for 1 & done my concern lies mostly with the 2 between the pipes. But with the D assembled their lives got a lot easier.

[jaybooitt19]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think you answered it right there.  It would take more than a late first and two seconds to get Ovechkin or Kessel so therefore, hell ya, i would be willing to trade a late first and two seconds for either of them.

 

But then you changed the parameters in the second half of your post, so 'no'... Well 'depends' what's the cost.

 

For the record, I loved the value we gave up for Hamonic.  I'm questioning the timing (this year vs next).

Ok, I follow now. I agree that the timing might not be perfect, but I'm ok with it because next year Hamonic probably wouldn't still be available. 

[redfire11]

I am not a MSN fan but I am encouraged by what was said here.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/news/nhl-off-season-power-rankings-who’s-improved-most-so-far/ar-AAosnF4?li=AA54y7&ocid=spartandhp

[AlbertaBoy12]

36 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

I am not a MSN fan but I am encouraged by what was said here.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/news/nhl-off-season-power-rankings-who’s-improved-most-so-far/ar-AAosnF4?li=AA54y7&ocid=spartandhp

I would rank us top 5, honestly if our 5 v 5 scoring was better last season along with goaltending at times we would have been a better team. Down the stretch after horrible starts, and even with horrible stretch in january we were a top 5 team. I dont see how that can get any worse with the addition of hamonic, stone moving down to the third pairing along with hopefully improvement from all our young guys.

[MAC331]

19 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I think Gaudreau could have peaked at about 85-90 with a Hudler in his prime (before his fall). 

 

I am not saying we need hudler, but someone with comparable skill will do, and that would get him close-ish, if 85-90 is close? That's where I see him. But if we had three guys at 1st line calibre, maybe it is doable. 

This is an interesting point because I believe it to be true. Hudler was a 3rd line, 2nd line winger with DET and even with us until he starting being used with Monahan and then the two of them. Hudler had the experience but he also had great hockey sense of where to be at any given time on the ice. He was that 3rd threat on that line because along with his smarts he was a very good passer and shooter himself. The player I have seen some of the same traits with is Lazar. It may take some time to recognize this with Lazar because he hasn't the time in that Hudler did has he emerged but Lazar is worth watching this season. The Flames have provided him a new lease on his hockey life so let's see what he does with it. Another reason I would like to see him with Bennett not shuffled to 4th line duties.