So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[AlbertaBoy12]

2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

RS vs LS why don't you two get that ?

what does that have to do with calling andersson up versus the other two?

 

I dont recall stone being injured after the TDL, and the third pairing was always engelland-bartowski..

 

I guess you could make the arguement they wanted a spare right shot...but im not seeing it.

[MAC331]

Just now, AlbertaBoy12 said:

what does that have to do with calling andersson up versus the other two?

 

I dont recall stone being injured after the TDL, and the third pairing was always engelland-bartowski..

 

I guess you could make the arguement they wanted a spare right shot...but im not seeing it.

Then you better go back because he was injured and out for a stretch. How long was Andersson up and he played 1 game on the LS whoopee and that tells you he will challenge to make the team this season ???? sorry not in my world or they wouldn't have re-signed Stone.

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

Then you better go back because he was injured and out for a stretch. How long was Andersson up and he played 1 game on the LS whoopee and that tells you he will challenge to make the team this season ???? sorry not in my world or they wouldn't have re-signed Stone.

3 games is a stretch to you? 

 

What tells you kulak will challenge to make this team? or wotherspoon? Because they are left shots? seems pretty funny the team would bring andersson up for a month to hang out with the team, getting that experience is invaluable. While I dont think it gives him a huge leg up over kulak, saying he wont challenge when he was in training camp till the very end last year is ridiculous.

[MAC331]

Just now, AlbertaBoy12 said:

3 games is a stretch to you? 

 

What tells you kulak will challenge to make this team? or wotherspoon? Because they are left shots? seems pretty funny the team would bring andersson up for a month to hang out with the team, getting that experience is invaluable. While I dont think it gives him a huge leg up over kulak, saying he wont challenge when he was in training camp till the very end last year is ridiculous.

We will see, I don't think it is ridiculous as you may think. The Flames have made it a priority with the defensemen to be LHS playing on the LS and RHS playing the RS not sure how you now over look this direction.

[Khrox]

47 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

3 games is a stretch to you? 

 

What tells you kulak will challenge to make this team? or wotherspoon? Because they are left shots? seems pretty funny the team would bring andersson up for a month to hang out with the team, getting that experience is invaluable. While I dont think it gives him a huge leg up over kulak, saying he wont challenge when he was in training camp till the very end last year is ridiculous.

Didn't Kulak play something like 20 games last season though? If that doesn't scream challenge to make the team, I don't know what does.

[AlbertaBoy12]

42 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

We will see, I don't think it is ridiculous as you may think. The Flames have made it a priority with the defensemen to be LHS playing on the LS and RHS playing the RS not sure how you now over look this direction.

 

Just now, Khrox said:

Didn't Kulak play something like 20 games last season though? If that doesn't scream challenge to make the team, I don't know what does.

I didnt say andersson is going to make the team for sure, and i certainly didnt say kulak is not going to make this team..so im not quite sure where the 20 games or LS versus RS arguement is coming from. I simply said andersson could make this team just as much as kulak could, which is not unreasonable. Andersson is down to 211 pounds and apparently is more fit then ever. If he comes into the young stars tournament and the preseason, making a great showing along the way, I wouldnt be surprised if he made the big club, and they made an exception on lefty/righty pairings.

 

Yes kulak did play 20 games, but they chose to play bartowski over him down the stretch last season, as well as call up andersson. Now they also played wideman during stones injury, and andersson only got into one game, but that doesnt mean much as we were in a playoff race. I think andersson stands a good chance of making this team if he has a good showing, just like kulak does.

[cccsberg]

1 hour ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

 

I didnt say andersson is going to make the team for sure, and i certainly didnt say kulak is not going to make this team..so im not quite sure where the 20 games or LS versus RS arguement is coming from. I simply said andersson could make this team just as much as kulak could, which is not unreasonable. Andersson is down to 211 pounds and apparently is more fit then ever. If he comes into the young stars tournament and the preseason, making a great showing along the way, I wouldnt be surprised if he made the big club, and they made an exception on lefty/righty pairings.

 

Yes kulak did play 20 games, but they chose to play bartowski over him down the stretch last season, as well as call up andersson. Now they also played wideman during stones injury, and andersson only got into one game, but that doesnt mean much as we were in a playoff race. I think andersson stands a good chance of making this team if he has a good showing, just like kulak does.

All of you guys have valid points that one could easily justify, depending on your POV and assumptions.  The biggest assumption of all is how well we assume a player will do in the training camps, versus last season and allowing for reasonable projections.  Certainly if you assume everything is identical to how it finished off last year than the jobs are already set (save the 2 openings from players gone(Bouma & Wideman)), however every year there are surprises, and player development, especially in the younger guys so there are possibilities for real changes.  Although the vets get consideration and some slack for past history, hockey(professional sports) is largely a "what have you done for me lately?" game and if the vets don't perform they won't last long, even if they make Opening Night line-ups.

[MAC331]

5 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

 

I didnt say andersson is going to make the team for sure, and i certainly didnt say kulak is not going to make this team..so im not quite sure where the 20 games or LS versus RS arguement is coming from. I simply said andersson could make this team just as much as kulak could, which is not unreasonable. Andersson is down to 211 pounds and apparently is more fit then ever. If he comes into the young stars tournament and the preseason, making a great showing along the way, I wouldnt be surprised if he made the big club, and they made an exception on lefty/righty pairings.

 

Yes kulak did play 20 games, but they chose to play bartowski over him down the stretch last season, as well as call up andersson. Now they also played wideman during stones injury, and andersson only got into one game, but that doesnt mean much as we were in a playoff race. I think andersson stands a good chance of making this team if he has a good showing, just like kulak does.

Like I said, go with your own thinking I just don't agree with it.

[cccsberg]

Seems from BT's interview with Mackenzie that they're waiting for TC and that there may be an expectation that Kulak & Jankowski will make the team, both with pencilled in jobs that they'd have to lose.  That would simplify matters so I wonder if there will be much experimentation at all in TC with line combos or if they just get to work with given lines and get the rest of the prospects a game or two before zeroing in on PP, PK and other basics for the start of the season?  

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Seems from BT's interview with Mackenzie that they're waiting for TC and that there may be an expectation that Kulak & Jankowski will make the team, both with pencilled in jobs that they'd have to lose.  That would simplify matters so I wonder if there will be much experimentation at all in TC with line combos or if they just get to work with given lines and get the rest of the prospects a game or two before zeroing in on PP, PK and other basics for the start of the season?  

 

I read into it a bit differently.  Yes, he basically said he expects Janko to come in and win the job, but that is because he thinks Janko will take it to a higher level.  He lumped in Kulak and TSpoon, as well as Andersson with Bart, as guys that have a even chance.  IMHO, the way he was asked about Bart being a lock sounded like Bart was not as high on his list.  He was satisfied with his game, just that he is what he is.  In other words, he won't get much better.  

 

We all read into the things people say.  BT is a master of doublespeak, though, so I have no idea if I am interpreting properly. 

[travel_dude]

On another note, the Flames have signed Joseph Cramarossa to a PTO.

He was waived by the Dicks and claimed by the Nucks.

[MAC331]

10 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I read into it a bit differently.  Yes, he basically said he expects Janko to come in and win the job, but that is because he thinks Janko will take it to a higher level.  He lumped in Kulak and TSpoon, as well as Andersson with Bart, as guys that have a even chance.  IMHO, the way he was asked about Bart being a lock sounded like Bart was not as high on his list.  He was satisfied with his game, just that he is what he is.  In other words, he won't get much better.  

 

We all read into the things people say.  BT is a master of doublespeak, though, so I have no idea if I am interpreting properly. 

Question with Jankowski is what job ? A lot of interesting talk has come up in pairs and lines thread which for me I want him to remain a C.

Bartkowski, Kulak or Wotherspoon does it really matter ? someone is going to end up back in Stockton.

[Flyerfan52]

Nice take on Backlund on THN site. It's in the article on Nash & others in their contract year. If they are close guessing just over $5 million we'd be nuts to trade him or let him walk.

[The_People1]

48 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Nice take on Backlund on THN site. It's in the article on Nash & others in their contract year. If they are close guessing just over $5 million we'd be nuts to trade him or let him walk.

 

$5-mil is palatable.  $6-mil though, no thanks.

[AlbertaBoy12]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

$5-mil is palatable.  $6-mil though, no thanks.

I agree. I dont see how if he has another 50 point season and gets more selke votes we get him for 5 million. He needs to improve his faceoffs to win a selke id assume, but even still I dont see the 5 million number working.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I agree. I dont see how if he has another 50 point season and gets more selke votes we get him for 5 million. He needs to improve his faceoffs to win a selke id assume, but even still I dont see the 5 million number working.

 

Another 20-goal season, 50-points, and Selke material.  That's $6-mil in next summer's market.  I just feel $6-mil players need to be 1st line players but that's growing more unrealistic on my part.  Maybe we will have to give him his pay day.  

[cross16]

I've never been more torn on an extension then I am with Backlund. I can see the merits to both sides and I do really struggle with the idea that is a good idea to sink 13 mill into 2 non elite centers, when the Flames appear to have some great looking depth coming and some pretty large holes on the rest of the roster. I've do like Backlund, but if you put Bennett/Jankowski in that spot and spent the 5-6 million on a top 6 RW are you a better team? I would lean toward yes. 

 

However, I'm also not sure trading him is really an option at this point. You want to win now so trading him doesn't make you better and I think being a pending UFA means we likely wouldn't even like the return. I think the Flames are going to have to sign him and at this point the hope is to get him on the most team friendly contract you can but that is going to be a big challenge too IMO as Backlund holds all the leverage. 

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I've never been more torn on an extension then I am with Backlund. I can see the merits to both sides and I do really struggle with the idea that is a good idea to sink 13 mill into 2 non elite centers, when the Flames appear to have some great looking depth coming and some pretty large holes on the rest of the roster. I've do like Backlund, but if you put Bennett/Jankowski in that spot and spent the 5-6 million on a top 6 RW are you a better team? I would lean toward yes. 

 

However, I'm also not sure trading him is really an option at this point. You want to win now so trading him doesn't make you better and I think being a pending UFA means we likely wouldn't even like the return. I think the Flames are going to have to sign him and at this point the hope is to get him on the most team friendly contract you can but that is going to be a big challenge too IMO as Backlund holds all the leverage. 

I'm more or less in the same boat but am leaning more every day to hold on to the constantly improving Backlund over Monahan. As you say $13 million is too much for 2 non-elite centers. Adding a top 6 RW & using Bennett/Jankowski in the spot probably = a better team but trading Backlund is not the only option.

Monahan is 4 years younger & will probably bring a better return  while Backs brings a better 2 way game & dang near the same points.

 

I know the trend seems to be younger > older but I look @ bang for the buck. As a rental Backs might return a late 1st & good prospect while traded now SM probably gets us a top 6 winger, a 1st & dang good prospect from a team short a center for the 1st line. 3 off the top of my head are Montreal, Nashville (Johansen injury/surgery still leaving return in doubt & even if healthy they need a 2C) or Columbus.

Doing this would put a lot of pressure on Bennett to step up as 2C. A bit risky but so is using Backs to win while unsigned only to see him walk away with 0 return @ the end of the season.

[cccsberg]

18 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I'm more or less in the same boat but am leaning more every day to hold on to the constantly improving Backlund over Monahan. As you say $13 million is too much for 2 non-elite centers. Adding a top 6 RW & using Bennett/Jankowski in the spot probably = a better team but trading Backlund is not the only option.

Monahan is 4 years younger & will probably bring a better return  while Backs brings a better 2 way game & dang near the same points.

 

I know the trend seems to be younger > older but I look @ bang for the buck. As a rental Backs might return a late 1st & good prospect while traded now SM probably gets us a top 6 winger, a 1st & dang good prospect from a team short a center for the 1st line. 3 off the top of my head are Montreal, Nashville (Johansen injury/surgery still leaving return in doubt & even if healthy they need a 2C) or Columbus.

Doing this would put a lot of pressure on Bennett to step up as 2C. A bit risky but so is using Backs to win while unsigned only to see him walk away with 0 return @ the end of the season.

Not sure what you guys are imagining as "Elite" centres?  Like Crosby/Malkin/Toews/McDavid elite or something else?  I would suggest if its something else then Monahan is also in that grouping, and Backlund too.  If the former then good luck, there are only 4-5 in the league so what's the point.  Also there seems to be some fixation on $6mm, what's that?  If the guys produce they should get paid.  It gets back to a question I raised a week back, is it better to have two to three super-elite guys or 6 elite guys?  Which makes you a better team?  If there is no difference then just do the best with what you've got.  If the super-elite guys are required then just enjoy the season because we don't have one.

[Flyerfan52]

3 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Not sure what you guys are imagining as "Elite" centres?  Like Crosby/Malkin/Toews/McDavid Elite or something else?  I would suggest if its something else then Monahan is also in that grouping, and Backlund too and if you it is this guys then good luck, there are only 4-5 in the league so what's the point.  Also there seems to be some fixation on $6mm, what's that?  If the guys produce they should get paid.  It gets bad to a question I raised a week back, is it better to have two to three super-elite guys or 6 elite guys?  Which makes you a better team?  If there is no difference then just do the best with what you've got.

Define "super-elite" as opposed to merely "elite". Use names.

 Also, do the 3 "super-elite" all play the same position or is 1 a center, another D & the 3rd that elusive goalie? Are the non super supporting cast good or are they surrounded by NHL/AHL borderliners?

You leave way too many variations open.

 

When you give your definition you know I'll poke holes in your choices because you & I have fun with that kind of thing (well I do anyway).

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

I've never been more torn on an extension then I am with Backlund. I can see the merits to both sides and I do really struggle with the idea that is a good idea to sink 13 mill into 2 non elite centers, when the Flames appear to have some great looking depth coming and some pretty large holes on the rest of the roster. I've do like Backlund, but if you put Bennett/Jankowski in that spot and spent the 5-6 million on a top 6 RW are you a better team? I would lean toward yes. 

 

However, I'm also not sure trading him is really an option at this point. You want to win now so trading him doesn't make you better and I think being a pending UFA means we likely wouldn't even like the return. I think the Flames are going to have to sign him and at this point the hope is to get him on the most team friendly contract you can but that is going to be a big challenge too IMO as Backlund holds all the leverage. 

 

It's a tough call with Backlund.  He's becoming that elusive 2-way player we need, but pretty late in his career.  It make little sense to hold off re-signing him if he wants to sign now.  Sign him now and figure out if you have the next Backlund in the wings.  I doubt he regresses at all this year, in which case he shows he is worth 5-6m.  If he is surpassed by another player next year, then he still a 5-6m player, but we have someone better.  Then  at least you are not trading from weakness.  You have a good player to trade.  

 

Re-sign him before his value increases and the chance of walking are nil.  Decide what to do with him when you have options.    

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I'm more or less in the same boat but am leaning more every day to hold on to the constantly improving Backlund over Monahan. As you say $13 million is too much for 2 non-elite centers. Adding a top 6 RW & using Bennett/Jankowski in the spot probably = a better team but trading Backlund is not the only option.

Monahan is 4 years younger & will probably bring a better return  while Backs brings a better 2 way game & dang near the same points.

 

I know the trend seems to be younger > older but I look @ bang for the buck. As a rental Backs might return a late 1st & good prospect while traded now SM probably gets us a top 6 winger, a 1st & dang good prospect from a team short a center for the 1st line. 3 off the top of my head are Montreal, Nashville (Johansen injury/surgery still leaving return in doubt & even if healthy they need a 2C) or Columbus.

Doing this would put a lot of pressure on Bennett to step up as 2C. A bit risky but so is using Backs to win while unsigned only to see him walk away with 0 return @ the end of the season.

 

Could Gaudreau gain chemistry with Bennett, Jankowski, or Backlund?

[AlbertaBoy12]

7 hours ago, cross16 said:

I've never been more torn on an extension then I am with Backlund. I can see the merits to both sides and I do really struggle with the idea that is a good idea to sink 13 mill into 2 non elite centers, when the Flames appear to have some great looking depth coming and some pretty large holes on the rest of the roster. I've do like Backlund, but if you put Bennett/Jankowski in that spot and spent the 5-6 million on a top 6 RW are you a better team? I would lean toward yes. 

 

However, I'm also not sure trading him is really an option at this point. You want to win now so trading him doesn't make you better and I think being a pending UFA means we likely wouldn't even like the return. I think the Flames are going to have to sign him and at this point the hope is to get him on the most team friendly contract you can but that is going to be a big challenge too IMO as Backlund holds all the leverage. 

This is really the problem isent it? If you can trade backlund for a couple prospects or picks and then use that money on a top line RW, I think it makes the team better if janko and bennett can handle the middle 6 minutes.

 

I agree on the trading him not necessarily being profitable, so its a bit of catch 22.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

This is really the problem isent it? If you can trade backlund for a couple prospects or picks and then use that money on a top line RW, I think it makes the team better if janko and bennett can handle the middle 6 minutes.

 

I agree on the trading him not necessarily being profitable, so its a bit of catch 22.

 

I think it'll be good to sign him long term and keep him at least 2 years. 

It's hard to say what he'll want as he has signed for less and show me contracts so far. A part of me thinks he would again as his fiancé is probably from Calgary. But then, he has to cash in as he's worked to get to his level... 

 

but I think I would give Backlund a 5-6 year deal, keep him for two and have us ease in Bennett and Jankowski. Maybe we'd end up keeping him longer?

[MAC331]

16 hours ago, cross16 said:

I've never been more torn on an extension then I am with Backlund. I can see the merits to both sides and I do really struggle with the idea that is a good idea to sink 13 mill into 2 non elite centers, when the Flames appear to have some great looking depth coming and some pretty large holes on the rest of the roster. I've do like Backlund, but if you put Bennett/Jankowski in that spot and spent the 5-6 million on a top 6 RW are you a better team? I would lean toward yes. 

 

However, I'm also not sure trading him is really an option at this point. You want to win now so trading him doesn't make you better and I think being a pending UFA means we likely wouldn't even like the return. I think the Flames are going to have to sign him and at this point the hope is to get him on the most team friendly contract you can but that is going to be a big challenge too IMO as Backlund holds all the leverage. 

This is why I always say if you can't keep the contract marketable for the future of the player, don't do it. BT has bought himself at least 2 years with signing Bennett the way he has and doesn't have any huge dollars to consider until all of Bennett, Tkachuk and Jankowski come up down the road 2 and 3 years. Whether it is 5.5M or 6M I think the team would be foolish to cast off Backlund. Do a new deal and take it into the future. IMO