So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[cccsberg]

8 hours ago, redfire11 said:

If SB misses training and early into the season that could negatively impact his career. Look at how JG struggled at the beginning of last season after his hold out. I see SB getting a bridge deal 3 years and if he misses any part of training camp and early season his production numbers could be worse than last year. Plus he might not get a preferred role on the team which could hurt his cashing in in 3 years. Yes he still needs to prove himself but he won't get far on 4th line minutes.

I agree with this 100% and think it is so obvious it seems incredible that it would ever get close to that.  However we don't know what has been offered and what the hold-up is.  Certainly we know BT will be looking to keep his salary in-line with others, and good on him for that.  SB has only proven to date that he isn't measuring up to other top Flames players and doesn't deserve their type salary, and perhaps the fact that he has had mainly crappy line mates is the sticking issue.  In other words, even on a bridge deal, HOW is he supposed to prove his full potential if he's stuck with Brouwer,,, on the third line?  Maybe he's trying to guarantee a shot playing either top line RW or with Tkachuk as his LW?  That would certainly help and be more reflective of his true potential.  

[kehatch]

With respect to Bennett, he had similar line mates to Versteeg. In fact he was most commonly with Versteeg and Brouwer. Versteeg produced. Bennett also spent time with Gaudreau and other Flames producers. 

 

At some point you need to take advantage of the opportunity you have been given before you get additional opportunity. 

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, kehatch said:

With respect to Bennett, he had similar line mates to Versteeg. In fact he was most commonly with Versteeg and Brouwer. Versteeg produced. Bennett also spent time with Gaudreau and other Flames producers. 

 

At some point you need to take advantage of the opportunity you have been given before you get additional opportunity. 

 

Ok, so when Gaudreau and Monahan didn't produce while with each other to start the year, they should've separated them and taken their opportunity away. 

 

Bennett was playing better hockey than they were to start the first 20 or so games, and just had no results on the score sheet. 

 

They never gave Bennett the chance to grow into a line, to gain chemistry, like they did and helped Monahan and Gaudreau to. 

 

Sure they have history, but they looked horrible to start the year, albeit without a full camp. 

 

The only excuse I give him is it was his first year as a C. Everyone, stop complaining or being down on his production, or put him on the wing... 

 

Even Monahan started slow as a C in his first year. They're two different players and Monahan scored goals, but he was also extremely sheltered. 

[kehatch]

38 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Ok, so when Gaudreau and Monahan didn't produce while with each other to start the year, they should've separated them and taken their opportunity away. 

 

Bennett was playing better hockey than they were to start the first 20 or so games, and just had no results on the score sheet. 

 

They never gave Bennett the chance to grow into a line, to gain chemistry, like they did and helped Monahan and Gaudreau to. 

 

Sure they have history, but they looked horrible to start the year, albeit without a full camp. 

 

The only excuse I give him is it was his first year as a C. Everyone, stop complaining or being down on his production, or put him on the wing... 

 

Even Monahan started slow as a C in his first year. They're two different players and Monahan scored goals, but he was also extremely sheltered. 

 

A slow start for two proven producers is a LOT different then a prospect not performing over the course of an entire season. 

 

I like Bennett a lot and would like to see him with better line mates. But he is responsible for his play. 

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

A slow start for two proven producers is a LOT different then a prospect not performing over the course of an entire season. 

 

I like Bennett a lot and would like to see him with better line mates. But he is responsible for his play. 

 

I am not saying he is not. It was his first year playing the position in the NHL. He scored just fine with Backlund, and last year played ok as well. The only knock I have on his play last year were the lack of points, but he played well (learning what it's like to be a C in the toughest league) away from the puck and I think was one of the most engaged players consistently.

 

He made nice plays later when paired with Gaudreau in the one game I remember. I think it's hard to be creative when you're the only one on the line. Gaudreau can be easy to stop sometimes, when the other team focussed on him. 

 

I am quite ok with Bennett's progression and maybe in some eyes' lack thereof. My hope is that It allows us to progress and keep players longer. 

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

I am not saying he is not. It was his first year playing the position in the NHL. He scored just fine with Backlund, and last year played ok as well. The only knock I have on his play last year were the lack of points, but he played well (learning what it's like to be a C in the toughest league) away from the puck and I think was one of the most engaged players consistently.

 

He made nice plays later when paired with Gaudreau in the one game I remember. I think it's hard to be creative when you're the only one on the line. Gaudreau can be easy to stop sometimes, when the other team focussed on him. 

 

I am quite ok with Bennett's progression and maybe in some eyes' lack thereof. My hope is that It allows us to progress and keep players longer. 

He was drafted with expectations to be more than "ok".

Check my post in the Sam Bennett thread.

 

It's time for him to show what he's got. No excuses.

A guy named Yakupov had immense talent, was a 1/1 pick but was a waste. Closer to home remember the way this board felt about Baertchi being a "can't miss" player?

[conundrumed]

4 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

He was drafted with expectations to be more than "ok".

Check my post in the Sam Bennett thread.

 

It's time for him to show what he's got. No excuses.

A guy named Yakupov had immense talent, was a 1/1 pick but was a waste. Closer to home remember the way this board felt about Baertchi being a "can't miss" player?

We thought Baertschi/Granlund was Swedish for Trochek?

 

The player is fine, the org is burying him to be a C without an equally skilled winger in any manner of the game.

No excuses is good and well, but we have to put him in a situation to succeed.

We haven't done that much, at all. We haven't done it with any consistency, at all.

If our aim was to keep the price down....I really wonder that with us.

It's murky waters imho.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

We thought Baertschi/Granlund was Swedish for Trochek?

 

The player is fine, the org is burying him to be a C without an equally skilled winger in any manner of the game.

No excuses is good and well, but we have to put him in a situation to succeed.

We haven't done that much, at all. We haven't done it with any consistency, at all.

If our aim was to keep the price down....I really wonder that with us.

It's murky waters imho.

 

I agree with you.

 

When, or will it turn into a Drouin situation?

 

he was ok because it was his first year. Draisaitl wasn't a full C either, in the same amount of time/age as Bennett. How often had Bennett played the PP as well? The pp is where confidence can grow. If they threw him on the PP and he got some points there, maybe his year would've been different.

 

some say Versteeg contributed just fine, so Bennett should have as well. Versteeg is a vet, and knows how to be consistent. He got regular PP shifts as well. So you can't compare them. Even Brouwer got a ton more pp time without earning it. 

 

If the team wanted to get him going, they'd play him on the pp as well. But then, I say he earned it by his effort at least. I think they were concentrating on his D as a C....

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

We thought Baertschi/Granlund was Swedish for Trochek?

 

The player is fine, the org is burying him to be a C without an equally skilled winger in any manner of the game.

No excuses is good and well, but we have to put him in a situation to succeed.

We haven't done that much, at all. We haven't done it with any consistency, at all.

If our aim was to keep the price down....I really wonder that with us.

It's murky waters imho.

 

I doubt it was done to keep the price down.

To me it was more of a situation of "what the heck do we do with Brouwer".  Wasn't a fit on the top line.  Didn't seem to make Bennett any better.  IIRC, playing with Brouwer made his fancy stats worse.  What was Backlund before he found a spot with Frolik?  Not a lot more productive than Bennett.

 

I'm less worried about the player and more about how they use him.  If we want a lesser version of Backlund, then keep playing him with an assortment.  If we want him to be or surpass Monahan, then let's play him with some quality.  Brouwer would fit a lot of team's 3rd line, but perhaps he just doesn't fit with Bennett or the Flames.  

[robrob74]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I doubt it was done to keep the price down.

To me it was more of a situation of "what the heck do we do with Brouwer".  Wasn't a fit on the top line.  Didn't seem to make Bennett any better.  IIRC, playing with Brouwer made his fancy stats worse.  What was Backlund before he found a spot with Frolik?  Not a lot more productive than Bennett.

 

I'm less worried about the player and more about how they use him.  If we want a lesser version of Backlund, then keep playing him with an assortment.  If we want him to be or surpass Monahan, then let's play him with some quality.  Brouwer would fit a lot of team's 3rd line, but perhaps he just doesn't fit with Bennett or the Flames.  

 

Backlund made Bouma better before frolik was signed. Wasn't Backs about a 40-45 pointer? Not much, but still 15-20 points more than Bennett's totals. I think we are overanalyzing it too much. Bennett will progress. 

 

Where would he have been if he had a Hudler in his prime? 

[MAC331]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

I doubt it was done to keep the price down.

To me it was more of a situation of "what the heck do we do with Brouwer".  Wasn't a fit on the top line.  Didn't seem to make Bennett any better.  IIRC, playing with Brouwer made his fancy stats worse.  What was Backlund before he found a spot with Frolik?  Not a lot more productive than Bennett.

 

I'm less worried about the player and more about how they use him.  If we want a lesser version of Backlund, then keep playing him with an assortment.  If we want him to be or surpass Monahan, then let's play him with some quality.  Brouwer would fit a lot of team's 3rd line, but perhaps he just doesn't fit with Bennett or the Flames.  

I really don't know why everyone is having such a hard time with Brouwer playing 4th line RW with Stajan as a strong secondary checking line. Think about the team and forget the money for one minute. Why would we not want another checking line to take some of the workload off Backlund's line giving GG possibly some better line matching to our advantage ?

I agree with conundrum that Bennett hasn't been put in the best situations to succeed mainly because he hasn't been a priority. Maybe this is the season he will be a priority. Price and his contract situation are a direct result of what has transpired to date and it will not weigh in his favor, on purpose or not.

I say put him with Tkachuk and let the two grow together just like they have with JG and SM, only then will this team grow and be better. Forget the 3M line, old news.

[CheersMan]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I agree with you.

 

When, or will it turn into a Drouin situation?

 

he was ok because it was his first year. Draisaitl wasn't a full C either, in the same amount of time/age as Bennett. How often had Bennett played the PP as well? The pp is where confidence can grow. If they threw him on the PP and he got some points there, maybe his year would've been different.

 

some say Versteeg contributed just fine, so Bennett should have as well. Versteeg is a vet, and knows how to be consistent. He got regular PP shifts as well. So you can't compare them. Even Brouwer got a ton more pp time without earning it. 

 

If the team wanted to get him going, they'd play him on the pp as well. But then, I say he earned it by his effort at least. I think they were concentrating on his D as a C....

Maybe if SB never started last season by taking frequent, undisciplined penalties he may have received more PP time.  Instead he chose to sit in the penalty box and watch his team play short handed time after time.  Sometimes you need to pull the reigns back and teach the important parts of the game before you let the player taste the gravy.  You want to take penalties?...... fine, then you can kill penalties too, that’s how he was handled and I have no problem with that.  When he learns the discipline side of the game and appreciates the work required on the PK then maybe he’ll get to see some PP time.  Wasn’t happy with SB for the majority of last season and I don’t point fingers at the line mates. We are going to see how intelligent SB is this season. 

[cross16]

12 hours ago, kehatch said:

With respect to Bennett, he had similar line mates to Versteeg. In fact he was most commonly with Versteeg and Brouwer. Versteeg produced. Bennett also spent time with Gaudreau and other Flames producers. 

 

At some point you need to take advantage of the opportunity you have been given before you get additional opportunity. 

 

5 on 5 they were dead even in production. Yes Versteeg did it in less games due to injury but he also had some of that production when he played on the top line. 

 

Most of Versteeg's production came on the PP and Bennett saw very little PP. At 5 on 5, Versteeg isn't that great. 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, CheersMan said:

Maybe if SB never started last season by taking frequent, undisciplined penalties he may have received more PP time.  Instead he chose to sit in the penalty box and watch his team play short handed time after time.  Sometimes you need to pull the reigns back and teach the important parts of the game before you let the player taste the gravy.  You want to take penalties?...... fine, then you can kill penalties too, that’s how he was handled and I have no problem with that.  When he learns the discipline side of the game and appreciates the work required on the PK then maybe he’ll get to see some PP time.  Wasn’t happy with SB for the majority of last season and I don’t point fingers at the line mates. We are going to see how intelligent SB is this season. 

 

Thise penalties come from playing intense. Some I wasn't happy about, but I guess they should have him tone back his play. But then are you taking his game away? 

 

I know Tkachuk drew penalties almost as much as he took, but he was undisciplined as well. 

 

I am quite ok with the pemalties. They weren't as terrible as Wideman. Plus I think Bennett learning to kill is fine as well. 

 

But if the organization wants to develop his offence, they need to put him into a position to get points as well. 

[MAC331]

8 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Thise penalties come from playing intense. Some I wasn't happy about, but I guess they should have him tone back his play. But then are you taking his game away? 

 

I know Tkachuk drew penalties almost as much as he took, but he was undisciplined as well. 

 

I am quite ok with the pemalties. They weren't as terrible as Wideman. Plus I think Bennett learning to kill is fine as well. 

 

But if the organization wants to develop his offence, they need to put him into a position to get points as well. 

I don't have much else to say other than if GG doesn't have Tkachuk with Bennett he will have made a big mistake. IMO I have no idea what the plan is for Backlund past this season but I have to believe we want a line of Bennett's to become our 2nd most productive line when it comes to points.

Young players that are aggressive in nature and will take penalties usually in establishing a position they are not there to be pushed around. I think both Tkachuk and Bennett bought themselves some space on the ice this past season. Now they need to focus on becoming the hockey players we need them to be.

[conundrumed]

Monahan is the forward leader, why wouldn't you put Bennett with him?

Seems obvious to me.

We underrate the boring Sean Monahan.

Used to be the argument Bennett takes over at 1C.

Never believed it myself.

And I really doubt Mony has any insecurities about taking on Bennett on the left.

Make sure your players are a team, is all that's left(wing) lol.

[The_People1]

Jankowski is the wildcard this season.

 

I get we want to baby him but he's actually older than Sean Monahan. If he's mature enough, then 15 minutes a night shouldn't be out of the question.

[conundrumed]

16 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Jankowski is the wildcard this season.

 

I get we want to baby him but he's actually older than Sean Monahan. If he's mature enough, then 15 minutes a night shouldn't be out of the question.

Big time.

Do we give him those minutes at wing if he's ready?

Huge wildcard.

*fingers crossed*

[rickross]

Wow..Stafford signed with the Devils for 1 yr at only $800k. The NHL has changed so much in the last 2 years..almost think the Flames could have taken a shot at Stafford at that price..could have still had some room to sign the rumoured Jagr. It would hurt some prospects chances for sure but you can't argue the depth it would add to the roster. 

[AlbertaBoy12]

42 minutes ago, rickross said:

Wow..Stafford signed with the Devils for 1 yr at only $800k. The NHL has changed so much in the last 2 years..almost think the Flames could have taken a shot at Stafford at that price..could have still had some room to sign the rumoured Jagr. It would hurt some prospects chances for sure but you can't argue the depth it would add to the roster. 

We only have room for one prospect at this point, and I dont think adding another guy or two is going to help this team. Stafford is not a 1st line player, so hes really just filling a role we already have filled at this point.

 

I dont think the issue is anymore that the flames dont want to take a risk on players, its just they dont have space for said players. Our top 9 is pretty much spoken for unless we can get a 1st line upgrade on the right side, and other then that theres only one spot open, which is probably on the left wing or at center if you shift stajan over.

[cross16]

Drew Stafford just also really isn't very good. If we can't expect someone form the A to our perform him we are in big trouble. 

[rickross]

8 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

We only have room for one prospect at this point, and I dont think adding another guy or two is going to help this team. Stafford is not a 1st line player, so hes really just filling a role we already have filled at this point.

 

I dont think the issue is anymore that the flames dont want to take a risk on players, its just they dont have space for said players. Our top 9 is pretty much spoken for unless we can get a 1st line upgrade on the right side, and other then that theres only one spot open, which is probably on the left wing or at center if you shift stajan over.

It's definitely a balancing act and a lot still has to play out over training camp to know who's ready to take a spot. I'd argue that there's little risk in signing a guy like Stafford at $800k, at that price I don't mind him sitting in the press box some nights if he's underperforming or being outperformed. We're still pretty short on RW depth, Stafford could plug in for injuries or who knows he's only 1 season removed from putting up 20 goals.

 

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Drew Stafford just also really isn't very good. If we can't expect someone form the A to our perform him we are in big trouble. 

Never been a Stafford fan myself but he's coming in just as cheap if not cheaper than some prospects plus he brings a lot of NHL experience. He's not the worst option at that price and the Flames don't have to guarantee him top line minutes or a starting spot at all. It's a win win for everyone, Stafford knows his NHL career is at a crossroads and its a big contract year, gives prospects even more competition to step their game up and if he proves his worth its at a great value and adds RW depth.

[MAC331]

Just now, rickross said:

It's definitely a balancing act and a lot still has to play out over training camp to know who's ready to take a spot. I'd argue that there's little risk in signing a guy like Stafford at $800k, at that price I don't mind him sitting in the press box some nights if he's underperforming or being outperformed. We're still pretty short on RW depth, Stafford could plug in for injuries or who knows he's only 1 season removed from putting up 20 goals.

 

Never been a Stafford fan myself but he's coming in just as cheap if not cheaper than some prospects plus he brings a lot of NHL experience. He's not the worst option at that price and the Flames don't have to guarantee him top line minutes or a starting spot at all. It's a win win for everyone, Stafford knows his NHL career is at a crossroads and its a big contract year, gives prospects even more competition to step their game up and if he proves his worth its at a great value and adds RW depth.

How do you figure we are short on RW depth especially lower down the lines ? We have currently Ferland, Frolik, Brouwer, Lazar, Hathaway, Versteeg, Hamilton. Where do you see Stafford fitting in ?

[AlbertaBoy12]

2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

How do you figure we are short on RW depth especially lower down the lines ? We have currently Ferland, Frolik, Brouwer, Lazar, Hathaway, Versteeg, Hamilton. Where do you see Stafford fitting in ?

Thats my biggest problem. While sure some of those guys are not true right wingers, I dont think we need anymore bottom 6 options.

[cross16]

10 minutes ago, rickross said:

Never been a Stafford fan myself but he's coming in just as cheap if not cheaper than some prospects plus he brings a lot of NHL experience. He's not the worst option at that price and the Flames don't have to guarantee him top line minutes or a starting spot at all. It's a win win for everyone, Stafford knows his NHL career is at a crossroads and its a big contract year, gives prospects even more competition to step their game up and if he proves his worth its at a great value and adds RW depth.

 

And if he doesn't make the team are you comfortable with the idea of him playing in the A and taking away ice time from a prospect they are trying to develop?  

 

Sure he brings you NHL experience but why should we value that over a prospect who could have more talent/more impact? I get the NHL experience argument but I think you need to weight the benefit of that experience versus the benefit of giving your prospects NHL experience if needed. For where the Flames are right now I think the benefit of giving their prospects experience would far outweigh having an NHL vet like Stafford. 

 

Not that i'm against signing an NHL vet but at this point if they can't help you in the top 6 there is no point. Flames could use help in the top 6 but when it comes to depth at F or on D they are far better off using their depth at the A than they are signing more vets.