So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[cccsberg]

2 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Chris Chelios played a hard nosed game including in the rough & tumble days as a defenseman. He retired @ 48.

Jagr took 3 years off to play in the no-hit KHL , played mostly in the days that the NHL had changed rules to pussyfy the game & is more of a fitness freak than Chelios ever was. So his body has less wear & tear.

It'd be a 1 year low risk/high return gamble if we got him with a low base/good bonus structure. With the base pay we get a great influence on the young players while every bonus he hits means the team is scoring/winning. I really don't see a down side to that. (I'd rather win then experiment with kids that may not be ready or hoping other teams rejects re-discover their game)

 

Like I said elsewhere Jagr is better than at least half our forwards so I have no problem signing him.  Doing so should not mean prospects get the shaft.  Best players should get the positions on the team.  Full stop.  If vets can't keep up trade them or demote them.  Keep it simple.

[cross16]

Thing to remember with waivers is the vast majority clear especially at the start of the year. Waivers is not a means to add a longer term asset to the organization as you need to keep the player on your roster or risk just losing him back to the team. So in the case of guys like Shinkaruk and Porier another team would have to look at them and want them to play on their NHL roster. If they don't play well enough to make the Flames then the likelihood of another team viewing them as a player that can help them in the short term is small. 

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the Flames, or any NHL team would make roster decisions based on wavier status as you see this all the time (see the 3 goalie situation). As much as an organization can preach "only the best will play" that isn't true in a world of guaranteed contracts and all organizations will send players down that probably deserve to make the team but contract status dictates it. Just a reality of the system. 

[MAC331]

Just now, cccsberg said:

Shinkaruk we gave up a 2nd (Granlund) for.  Poirier we gave up a 1st for.  Foo and Pribyl we gave up nothing except the team's integrity and reputation, re: free agent signings.  Lazar is no different than Shinkaruk and worth less than Poirier.

I think all 3 have certain qualities and hope they hang with us. I would love to see what a line of Shinkaruk, Jankowski and Poirier could do in Stockton for part of the year.

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Shinkaruk we gave up a 2nd (Granlund) for.  Poirier we gave up a 1st for.  Foo and Pribyl we gave up nothing except the team's integrity and reputation, re: free agent signings.  Lazar is no different than Shinkaruk and worth less than Poirier.

 

I didn't intend on rating them against each other, just that they have similar value to the organization.  If you are willing to risk losing Poirier then you have to be willing to lose Lazar.  

[Flyerfan52]

5 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

This is where we disagree, I think they need another playmaker to free up JG so he can score more. You are looking for someone to stick up for him and hope the opposition respects that Ferland is on the ice. Ferland will do some of that, be hard along the boards and be another sniper but that leaves JG being the only feeder so guess who the focus will be on.

Add to that odds are good Hamonic will be on the ice quite often when Gaudreau is. I'd rather have Jagr distracting those that are defending against JG with Hamonic around to let the slashers/hackers know he doesn't like it.

Ferland fighting isn't the deterrent as good having another gunner to split the defense as to which to cover while Hamonic will nail those taking liberties with a clean but devastating check to dicourage those taking liberties.

 

Play Ferland to ride shotgun sounds good in theory but killing 2 minutes (or more) when he does that vs. a harder line to defend with a tough D man who can deter threats without spending time in the box (feeling shame). Easy choice for me.

[cccsberg]

7 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I didn't intend on rating them against each other, just that they have similar value to the organization.  If you are willing to risk losing Poirier then you have to be willing to lose Lazar.  

Personally I wouldn't like to risk either Poirier or Lazar, with Shinkaruk probably the weakest and easiest to replace with guys coming up.  My point was that somehow Lazar seems to be put into a different category whereas Poirier is in the same state.

[robrob74]

Just now, cccsberg said:

Personally I wouldn't like to risk either Poirier or Lazar, with Shinkaruk probably the weakest and easiest to replace with guys coming up.  My point was that somehow Lazar seems to be put into a different category whereas Poirier is in the same state.

 

 

I don't know whether Poirier is up there as high as Lazar. Poirier has been so bad the last few years, I think he's lost his status and could be safe to be down? Like Cross or others have said, all teams have players who are waiver eligible and I wonder if someone would pluck Poirier from the wire at this point. I'd be more afraid of Lazar...

[cccsberg]

7 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Add to that odds are good Hamonic will be on the ice quite often when Gaudreau is. I'd rather have Jagr distracting those that are defending against JG with Hamonic around to let the slashers/hackers know he doesn't like it.

Ferland fighting isn't the deterrent as good having another gunner to split the defense as to which to cover while Hamonic will nail those taking liberties with a clean but devastating check to dicourage those taking liberties.

 

Play Ferland to ride shotgun sounds good in theory but killing 2 minutes (or more) when he does that vs. a harder line to defend with a tough D man who can deter threats without spending time in the box (feeling shame). Easy choice for me.

I do like Ferland based on our current players and both his hockey and deterrent abilities.  However, Jagr is a whole other thing and getting him for JG-SM would be even better.  The point about Hamonic is a good one that I'm certainly hoping will materialize.

[MAC331]

9 hours ago, cccsberg said:

I do like Ferland based on our current players and both his hockey and deterrent abilities.  However, Jagr is a whole other thing and getting him for JG-SM would be even better.  The point about Hamonic is a good one that I'm certainly hoping will materialize.

The bigger question is what did Gaudreau learn this past season ? Everyone has to fend for themselves to a certain degree and he needs to buy himself some space to operate. Monahan also showed more willingness and ability to carry the puck in the O zone which was a good sign. Jagr has skills to burn and forms his own threat within the O zone and for those questioning his speed I doubt he is much if any slower than Monahan or Ferland. Listening to media it sounds like the Jagr and Bennett deals will be done soon.

[cccsberg]

16 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

The bigger question is what did Gaudreau learn this past season ? Everyone has to fend for themselves to a certain degree and he needs to buy himself some space to operate. Monahan also showed more willingness and ability to carry the puck in the O zone which was a good sign. Jagr has skills to burn and forms his own threat within the O zone and for those questioning his speed I doubt he is much if any slower than Monahan or Ferland. Listening to media it sounds like the Jagr and Bennett deals will be done soon.

So true about each player defending himself.  I hope Gaudreau is learning.  He certainly is adapting as per his modified mitts.  If Jagr were on the line perhaps Gaudreau would not be carrying the puck as much which also sets him up as a target.  

 

One interesting scenario I'm eager to see is how GG utilizes Smith's elite puck-handling abilities in the attack. I would expect it may take some time but could be a powerful new tool, especially as the Flames D is pretty mobile themselves.

[MAC331]

15 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

So true about each player defending himself.  I hope Gaudreau is learning.  He certainly is adapting as per his modified mitts.  If Jagr were on the line perhaps Gaudreau would not be carrying the puck as much which also sets him up as a target.  

 

One interesting scenario I'm eager to see is how GG utilizes Smith's elite puck-handling abilities in the attack. I would expect it may take some time but could be a powerful new tool, especially as the Flames D is pretty mobile themselves.

For the most part GG's system has the D moving the puck up the ice and for as many times as a goalie can pass, a surprise stretch pass could work fantasticly.

[cccsberg]

53 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

For the most part GG's system has the D moving the puck up the ice and for as many times as a goalie can pass, a surprise stretch pass could work fantasticly.

Yes it could work great as long as the forwards are looking out for it.  I think his puck handling could also have a dramatic effect countering the forechecking shoot around and transitioning the puck quickly the other direction.

[cross16]

I think the difference between Lazar and Porier as it relates to waivers is one has shown they can be an Nhler, albeit yes a few years ago, and one hasn't. I can't see a team interested in Porier because he is a complete roll of the dice and that's not really what waivers get used for. I think it's pretty likely Lazar would get claimed. 

 

[cccsberg]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I think the difference between Lazar and Porier as it relates to waivers is one has shown they can be an Nhler, albeit yes a few years ago, and one hasn't. I can't see a team interested in Porier because he is a complete roll of the dice and that's not really what waivers get used for. I think it's pretty likely Lazar would get claimed. 

 

Yes Lazar has NHL experience, lots of it, but no it didn't go well and his stock has fallen considerably.  Make no doubt the Flames have a reclamation project that they hope goes well.  Poirier also has had his (personal) issues, and overcome them, and also is a reclamation project.  Even so I'd think Montreal would scoop him up in a heartbeat if he goes on waivers.  They can bring him home, play him 20-30 games and if he doesn't work out put him back on waivers, where the Flames could reclaim him.  But, nothing lost, potentially much to be gained.

 

[MAC331]

17 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Yes Lazar has NHL experience, lots of it, but no it didn't go well and his stock has fallen considerably.  Make no doubt the Flames have a reclamation project that they hope goes well.  Poirier also has had his (personal) issues, and overcome them, and also is a reclamation project.  Even so I'd think Montreal would scoop him up in a heartbeat if he goes on waivers.  They can bring him home, play him 20-30 games and if he doesn't work out put him back on waivers, where the Flames could reclaim him.  But, nothing lost, potentially much to be gained.

 

If you think MON will do that then we will find out because he will be going back to the AHL with us.

[travel_dude]

27 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I think the difference between Lazar and Porier as it relates to waivers is one has shown they can be an Nhler, albeit yes a few years ago, and one hasn't. I can't see a team interested in Porier because he is a complete roll of the dice and that's not really what waivers get used for. I think it's pretty likely Lazar would get claimed. 

 

 

The thing about the waivers at the start of the season is that every team is sending down players.  On the other hand, teams are sometimes willing to take a shot on a player that has less NHL experience.  Many borderline players are claimed by teams because the contract is low dollar.  Last season a bunch of "iffy" players were claimed by teams.  Some ended up back on waivers.  Some ended up as depth for a team.  It just depends on the need at the time.  At the end of the day, you may lose the asset for nothing.  

 

All I am saying is that you have risk regardless of the player.  The team may over-value a guy (Ortio) and under-value another (Byron), but you just can't be certain one gets claimed over another.  Teams that scout the Q probably have a good idea of Poirier's ceiling and the demons he faced.    

[AlbertaBoy12]

4 hours ago, MAC331 said:

The bigger question is what did Gaudreau learn this past season ? Everyone has to fend for themselves to a certain degree and he needs to buy himself some space to operate. Monahan also showed more willingness and ability to carry the puck in the O zone which was a good sign. Jagr has skills to burn and forms his own threat within the O zone and for those questioning his speed I doubt he is much if any slower than Monahan or Ferland. Listening to media it sounds like the Jagr and Bennett deals will be done soon.

You do realize that JH was on pace for 70 plus points even with his injury and slow start, I dont think that line needs anything else. There is no reason JH couldnt once again get 70 plus this season with ferland as a linemate, if anything its more then doable. Is it possible to get him a few more point with Jagr on his line, sure I guess, but its not necessary. JH has been going fine without a "proper" RW, and he will continue to go without a proper RW. There is really no need to put Jagr on the 1st line, especially if he can get bennett going.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

You do realize that JH was on pace for 70 plus points even with his injury and slow start, I dont think that line needs anything else. There is no reason JH couldnt once again get 70 plus this season with ferland as a linemate, if anything its more then doable. Is it possible to get him a few more point with Jagr on his line, sure I guess, but its not necessary. JH has been going fine without a "proper" RW, and he will continue to go without a proper RW. There is really no need to put Jagr on the 1st line, especially if he can get bennett going.

 

I get what you are saying, but at the end of the day I do think it's clear the Flames need more out of Gaudreau if they want to take the next step. I don't disagree with the idea he as ok last year and probably better than most people argue, but in the grand scheme of things he does need to be better. Is that simple a case of calming down and not reacting as much? or is it help on the RW? is it being in training camp? I'm not sure it's not a little bit of all 3 but I do think it's very fair to say they Flames need more out of Gaudreau because they do, that's the nature of being the highest paid forward you need to be the best and far too often last year he wasn't that. 

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

I get what you are saying, but at the end of the day I do think it's clear the Flames need more out of Gaudreau if they want to take the next step. I don't disagree with the idea he as ok last year and probably better than most people argue, but in the grand scheme of things he does need to be better. Is that simple a case of calming down and not reacting as much? or is it help on the RW? is it being in training camp? I'm not sure it's not a little bit of all 3 but I do think it's very fair to say they Flames need more out of Gaudreau because they do, that's the nature of being the highest paid forward you need to be the best and far too often last year he wasn't that. 

I agree. But if gaudreau puts up 75 points again, do we really need more out of him? I would say the problem comes in terms of giveaways/turnovers, and thats something gaudreau could fix on his own. But you could argue well if he had a better linemate, the focus wouldnt be on him as much and he wouldnt make those poor plays. But at the end of the day I think thats where he needs to improve, and his defensive zone play could get a bit better. Either way I think 70-80 points is the ceiling for gaudreau, maybe 85 with a proper RW, but I dont think a good RW is going to elevate his decision making, which needs to be much better this season.

[cross16]

22 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I agree. But if gaudreau puts up 75 points again, do we really need more out of him? 

 

Depends on how consistent he is, what he does when the games matter more (ie Playoffs) and as you say whats the rest of his game like. 

I would take a 65 point Gaudreau who doesn't get rattled so easily, can be more consistant and show up in the playoffs everyday of the week over a 75 point Gaudreau that plays like he did last year. 

[robrob74]

I think that Gaudreau will be a bit better this year. Coming off the hold out and new contract it took him awhile to adjust to internalized, fan, and organizational expectations. Now that he is used to it, he can just go out and play. The same goes with Monahan. He was just as inconsistent, but I expect a better start from both, which hopefully gives us an opposite record for the first 15-20 games than we had last year. 

 

Is Tkachuk ready to be separated from the  3M line? Do we risk him having a sphmore jinx? 

 

If we do, and sign Jagr, I prefer to put Tkachuk and Jagr with Bennett as Bennett can use some lessons on puck utilization, and Jagr could be the perfect mentor. It would've been good to have someone with him (consistently) last year for that reason, while it is helping him grow, he still could use some mentoring as we forget he's super young  and only has played 1 year as a C.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Depends on how consistent he is, what he does when the games matter more (ie Playoffs) and as you say whats the rest of his game like. 

I would take a 65 point Gaudreau who doesn't get rattled so easily, can be more consistant and show up in the playoffs everyday of the week over a 75 point Gaudreau that plays like he did last year. 

 

I don't think there's a lot he can do with his defensive game, but I hate when he isn't shadowing the player he's assigned to.  Seems like he is waiting for the breakout pass instead of backchecking.  He definitely wasn't as good with takeaways last year.

[Flyerfan52]

3 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

You do realize that JH was on pace for 70 plus points even with his injury and slow start, I dont think that line needs anything else. There is no reason JH couldnt once again get 70 plus this season with ferland as a linemate, if anything its more then doable. Is it possible to get him a few more point with Jagr on his line, sure I guess, but its not necessary. JH has been going fine without a "proper" RW, and he will continue to go without a proper RW. There is really no need to put Jagr on the 1st line, especially if he can get bennett going.

On pace for means 0. A 1 game call up that gets a point is "on  pace for" a point a game. BTW, 0.85 PPG put him on pace for just under 70 rather than 70+.

 

A few more points can translate into a few more wins meaning higher seeding.

 

Are you happy with "fine" from our highest paid players (he's tied with Gio)? A huge raise means expectations of increased production rather than decreased. Missing training camp really doesn't cut much slack when he did fine on Team NA with less familiar linemates during the WCH.

 

[AlbertaBoy12]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't think there's a lot he can do with his defensive game, but I hate when he isn't shadowing the player he's assigned to.  Seems like he is waiting for the breakout pass instead of backchecking.  He definitely wasn't as good with takeaways last year.

I think him cutting down on giveaways would be a huge improvement, and yes takeaways would be a plus. But I dont think we will get much more then points hes got previously, so I would like to see other improvements.

 

6 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

On pace for means 0. A 1 game call up that gets a point is "on  pace for" a point a game. BTW, 0.85 PPG put him on pace for just under 70 rather than 70+.

 

A few more points can translate into a few more wins meaning higher seeding.

 

Are you happy with "fine" from our highest paid players (he's tied with Gio)? A huge raise means expectations of increased production rather than decreased. Missing training camp really doesn't cut much slack when he did fine on Team NA with less familiar linemates during the WCH.

 

Sure on pace for means 0. But we arent talking about 1 game call up, its a much larger sample size, but we can argue semantics. My point being he got 78 a year previous, and was on pace for "70 ish". I agree more points would translate to more wins, but theres no reason he shouldnt get 70 plus this season again, unless he has a poor season again. But this whole thing with him getting a better winger or having a better season, is overblown. He is not going to be 20-30 points better with a different RW, unless that RW is someone like laine, and I would be much happier to see him improve other parts of his game.

 

Its not about being happy with fine, the mony line was very good in the 2nd half and we can argue why he had a poor season all day, he has somethings to fix himself.

[MAC331]

19 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

You do realize that JH was on pace for 70 plus points even with his injury and slow start, I dont think that line needs anything else. There is no reason JH couldnt once again get 70 plus this season with ferland as a linemate, if anything its more then doable. Is it possible to get him a few more point with Jagr on his line, sure I guess, but its not necessary. JH has been going fine without a "proper" RW, and he will continue to go without a proper RW. There is really no need to put Jagr on the 1st line, especially if he can get bennett going.

So if it doesn't matter who is on his RW why would you have a problem with it being Jagr ? The worst that could happen IMO is that JG may learn a few helpful things and score more.