So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[cross16]

14 hours 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.  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.

 

McDavid, Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Segin, Stamkos, Matthews (by the end of this year), Tavares, Getzlaf. 

I wouldn't necessarily call them Elite, but I would still rank Monahan behind guys like Backstrom, Thornton, probably even ROR and Schiefelle unless Monahan can take a step forward this year and get faster but that remains to be seen. But right now He's behind all of these guys and probably outside the top 20 when it comes to centers. I would also rank Backlund behind Monahan. 

 

[cross16]

23 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

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

The problem with that is your assuming Backlund will still be marketable if he is signed long term at 6 million, which may not be the case. Players signed at 6 mill who are signed into their mid 30s have proven to be tough contracts to move and if you want to move them you have to be prepared to take less in return or take some money back in the deal.

[travel_dude]

30 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

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

 

I don't think there is any way he gets a penny more than $6m, which is still a marketable contract if the term is reasonable.

Sure it's a risk, but so is banking on prospects to take his spot.  Sign him before he has a career year, assuming he wants to sign now.  Structure it so it's mostly signing bonus in the early years to allow him to be traded to a bargain team, if actual dollars is their issue.

 

I'm not saying trade him if he's the 2nd best or best center we have.  Only trade him if we have someone proven to take his place.  That could be in 2018, 2019 or never.  If they decide to move Tkachuk off his line, you will have a better idea of whether the line was that good due to Backlund/Frolik or the addition of Tkachuk.  Maybe that doesn't happen this year, but at some point you need to know. 

[MAC331]

19 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't think there is any way he gets a penny more than $6m, which is still a marketable contract if the term is reasonable.

Sure it's a risk, but so is banking on prospects to take his spot.  Sign him before he has a career year, assuming he wants to sign now.  Structure it so it's mostly signing bonus in the early years to allow him to be traded to a bargain team, if actual dollars is their issue.

 

I'm not saying trade him if he's the 2nd best or best center we have.  Only trade him if we have someone proven to take his place.  That could be in 2018, 2019 or never.  If they decide to move Tkachuk off his line, you will have a better idea of whether the line was that good due to Backlund/Frolik or the addition of Tkachuk.  Maybe that doesn't happen this year, but at some point you need to know.

I don't think it takes a genious to know that Tkachuk's play had a definite effect on that line however it isn't like someone else couldn't step onto that line and maintain the results achieved. The more important part of what IMO Tkachuk brings to a line is his assists and play making skills, this is a Winger someone like Bennett requires. I think we know what Backlund is and I don't expect some exceleration to him being much else. I don't think we should be afraid to pay him and trying to caveat it based on what happens around him. Both Bennett and Jankowski could break their legs, then where would we be ? Backlund help us maintain a good team while moving Tkachuk with Bennett to create a 3rd quality line should make us even better. Personally I think Ferland is the right answer on LW with Backlund and Frolik.

[MAC331]

43 minutes ago, cross16 said:

The problem with that is your assuming Backlund will still be marketable if he is signed long term at 6 million, which may not be the case. Players signed at 6 mill who are signed into their mid 30s have proven to be tough contracts to move and if you want to move them you have to be prepared to take less in return or take some money back in the deal.

Whatever, there is risk with every signing. As a GM it is about or should be am I doing what's best for the team and covering our needs. We need Backlund for another 3 years IMO.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

The problem with that is your assuming Backlund will still be marketable if he is signed long term at 6 million, which may not be the case. Players signed at 6 mill who are signed into their mid 30s have proven to be tough contracts to move and if you want to move them you have to be prepared to take less in return or take some money back in the deal.

 

I think he is moveable withi the first 3 years of any deal.  That is when you would need to trade him.  If he hasn't been replace then you keep him.

 

[cccsberg]

On 2017-09-12 at 7:26 PM, Flyerfan52 said:

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).

Super-Elite: Crosby/Malkin/Toews?/Mcdavid/PKane/Ovechkin/Karlsson/Price/Doughty?/Tavares?  Otherwise known as NHL Top10, "Generational"

Elite: ~Top15 players every(?) position, All-Stars

 

Two teams have multiple Super-Elites (Pittsburg & Chicago), both have won multiple Stanley Cups in the past decade. Each of those also have multiple Elites.  Calgary Flames have zero Super-Elites and 2-3 in the Elite/All-Star category (Gaudreau, Giordano, Smith?), with several others, e.g. Monahan, Backlund, Hamilton and Brodie close to or in the same grouping.  Since Calgary's top end is not as "Top" as either Chicago or Pittsburg, we have to depend on a larger 2nd tier of players and overall team play to make up the difference.  I think we are close in that regard with our D being our strength (similar to Nashville this past Spring) so it is going to have to lead the way for us to go far.  

[travel_dude]

26 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Super-Elite: Crosby/Malkin/Toews?/Mcdavid/PKane/Ovechkin/Karlsson/Price/Doughty?/Tavares?  Otherwise known as NHL Top10, "Generational"

Elite: ~Top15 players every(?) position, All-Stars

 

Two teams have multiple Super-Elites (Pittsburg & Chicago), both have won multiple Stanley Cups in the past decade. Each of those also have multiple Elites.  Calgary Flames have zero Super-Elites and 2-3 in the Elite/All-Star category (Gaudreau, Giordano, Smith?), with several others, e.g. Monahan, Backlund, Hamilton and Brodie close to or in the same grouping.  Since Calgary's top end is not as "Top" as either Chicago or Pittsburg, we have to depend on a larger 2nd tier of players and overall team play to make up the difference.  I think we are close in that regard with our D being our strength (similar to Nashville this past Spring) so it is going to have to lead the way for us to go far.  

Generational, eh.  Must be 200 years worth of players.

I would say generally that Hedman is way better than Doubty.  Kane has had a great career to date, but is he that much better in his first 3 seasons in the NHL to list him as super-elite.  Getzlaf is not as good as Malkin?  Just an example.

 

Top 10 NHL is as subjective as describing a player as elite, super-elite and franchise player.  Some players that look fantastic in the East don't do so well in the West.  The SCF came down to the team with the better goalie, not a question of elite or super-elite.  Nashville is a contender with players that are young and haven't reached their potential, but I would never describe anyone there as being super-elite.  And they lost RJ too early to be a factor. 

 

Defense and goaltending win cups.  If your defense is suspect, then you better have Murray.  If your goalie is suspect at times, then you better have an awesome top 4 D like Nashville.  CHI had Keith/Seabrooke.  LA had Quick and a solid D.    

[kehatch]

I am not getting into the semantics of labeling players ad elite or generational. But Monahan is an average top line centre at best.

 

In terms of point production he produces near the bottom of the top 30 NHL centres, and that is with Gaudreau (who is top 5 for LW) bumping his numbers and Backlund getting him all the offensive zone draws. He isn't strong defensively, he isn't physical, he is average at face offs. There is nothing about him that elevates him above most of the top line centres in the league. 

 

He is a top goal scorer and that goes a long way. He is also young enough to find another gear offensively and/or defensively. And his contract is fair for what he offers. But we shouldn't be talking about trading any of our top centres right now. This team would be garbage without both of Monahan and Backlund and that will remain true until someone steps up. 

[cccsberg]

8 hours ago, travel_dude said:

Generational, eh.  Must be 200 years worth of players.

I would say generally that Hedman is way better than Doubty.  Kane has had a great career to date, but is he that much better in his first 3 seasons in the NHL to list him as super-elite.  Getzlaf is not as good as Malkin?  Just an example.

 

Top 10 NHL is as subjective as describing a player as elite, super-elite and franchise player.  Some players that look fantastic in the East don't do so well in the West.  The SCF came down to the team with the better goalie, not a question of elite or super-elite.  Nashville is a contender with players that are young and haven't reached their potential, but I would never describe anyone there as being super-elite.  And they lost RJ too early to be a factor. 

 

Defense and goaltending win cups.  If your defense is suspect, then you better have Murray.  If your goalie is suspect at times, then you better have an awesome top 4 D like Nashville.  CHI had Keith/Seabrooke.  LA had Quick and a solid D.    

No, "Generational" you forgot the " ".  Yes, all good arguments, which is my point of discussion.  Pittsburg this year had a suspect or mediocre D but with excellent goalie play along with Crosby & Malkin carrying the offence they pushed through to a Cup.  Edmonton is developing very much into this same type of team.  Agree Nashville has a solid, tremendous D and Elite level goalie and were able to use that to carry them into the SC Finals.  The most interesting series to me were Nashville-Anaheim and Pittsburg-Washington.  Washington was pretty solid all-around but I'm afraid Ovechkin, perhaps because he's a winger, perhaps because he's ? just doesn't have it to carry a team like either Crosby or Malkin can and that was the difference.  In the other series Nashville's D stifled Anaheim, and I think their overall dynamism was too much for Anaheim's D.  In any case, to draw it back to Calgary, we are way more like Chicago then anybody else, but may become more like the (so far failed) Nashville model so I think we'll need all aspects working well to go far.  That would be more from the forwards and consistent goaltending.... to go along with our already strong D corps. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cccsberg said:

Pittsburg this year had a suspect or mediocre D but with excellent goalie play along with Crosby & Malkin carrying the offence they pushed through to a Cup.  Edmonton is developing very much into this same type of team.

 

If you can prevent goals, you don't need "super-elite" players.  The only similiarity between EDM and PITTS is that they have a top 10 C as their #1C.  EDM is developing into a team that has paid upfront for their top 2 players, whereas PITTS played for that after a few years of proven play.  EDM is already pricing themselves out of contention.  

[MAC331]

11 hours ago, kehatch said:

I am not getting into the semantics of labeling players ad elite or generational. But Monahan is an average top line centre at best.

 

In terms of point production he produces near the bottom of the top 30 NHL centres, and that is with Gaudreau (who is top 5 for LW) bumping his numbers and Backlund getting him all the offensive zone draws. He isn't strong defensively, he isn't physical, he is average at face offs. There is nothing about him that elevates him above most of the top line centres in the league. 

 

He is a top goal scorer and that goes a long way. He is also young enough to find another gear offensively and/or defensively. And his contract is fair for what he offers. But we shouldn't be talking about trading any of our top centres right now. This team would be garbage without both of Monahan and Backlund and that will remain true until someone steps up. 

Monahan is about as fundmentally sound of a player as you will find. I thought a few aspects of his game improved last season gradually with winning more faceoffs and his carrying of the puck into and around the O zone. I don't think he will ever be a heavy checker or board worker but I also don't think he is that weak defensively. The C with the most potential to excel and exceed Monahan as our #1 C is Bennett IMO given the right line mates.

[cross16]

It puzzles me why people still make the case Monahan isn't a good defender. IMO he is a very solid 2 way center and I would never use a negative word to describe his defensive game, he's sound.

 

I get people may look at Backlund doing the heavy lifting as think Monahan plays against inferior competition but that is only partly true. GG will go power on power quite frequently and Monahan holds up very well. MOnahan is a solid two way center IMO but an above avg center. As I said earlier I think he's probably in the 25-35 range in terms of centers across the league and needs to get faster and make people around him bettter if he wanted to move up into the top 20. 

[MAC331]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

It puzzles me why people still make the case Monahan isn't a good defender. IMO he is a very solid 2 way center and I would never use a negative word to describe his defensive game, he's sound.

 

I get people may look at Backlund doing the heavy lifting as think Monahan plays against inferior competition but that is only partly true. GG will go power on power quite frequently and Monahan holds up very well. MOnahan is a solid two way center IMO but an above avg center. As I said earlier I think he's probably in the 25-35 range in terms of centers across the league and needs to get faster and make people around him bettter if he wanted to move up into the top 20. 

No argument from me as I see him continuing to improve season to season on top of already being a sound player. He doesn't have the mean streak but that shouldn't be a knock on what he does get done out there.

[cccsberg]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If you can prevent goals, you don't need "super-elite" players.  The only similiarity between EDM and PITTS is that they have a top 10 C as their #1C.  EDM is developing into a team that has paid upfront for their top 2 players, whereas PITTS played for that after a few years of proven play.  EDM is already pricing themselves out of contention.  

I basically agree with your comments, the similarities are in the top player and then "potentially" an Elite 2nd guy although with Edmonton its totally premature and nowhere even close to proven yet.  The other similarities are top-level goalie and a mediocre at best D corps.  

[cccsberg]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Monahan is about as fundmentally sound of a player as you will find. I thought a few aspects of his game improved last season gradually with winning more faceoffs and his carrying of the puck into and around the O zone. I don't think he will ever be a heavy checker or board worker but I also don't think he is that weak defensively. The C with the most potential to excel and exceed Monahan as our #1 C is Bennett IMO given the right line mates.

Agree on Monahan and agree on Bennett, though time will tell.  I'm also hopeful on Jankowski but that's totally premature as he first has to make it to the NHL.  At least Jankowski has the size and even now I think well-rounded skills so perhaps he'll really surprise us and have a tremendous year.  Let's hope so, we could use it.

[Flyerfan52]

16 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Super-Elite: Crosby/Malkin/Toews?/Mcdavid/PKane/Ovechkin/Karlsson/Price/Doughty?/Tavares?  Otherwise known as NHL Top10, "Generational"

Elite: ~Top15 players every(?) position, All-Stars

 

Two teams have multiple Super-Elites (Pittsburg & Chicago), both have won multiple Stanley Cups in the past decade. Each of those also have multiple Elites.  Calgary Flames have zero Super-Elites and 2-3 in the Elite/All-Star category (Gaudreau, Giordano, Smith?), with several others, e.g. Monahan, Backlund, Hamilton and Brodie close to or in the same grouping.  Since Calgary's top end is not as "Top" as either Chicago or Pittsburg, we have to depend on a larger 2nd tier of players and overall team play to make up the difference.  I think we are close in that regard with our D being our strength (similar to Nashville this past Spring) so it is going to have to lead the way for us to go far.  

You paint with a pretty broad brush.

How big a body of work does a player require to be "super-elite"? You have McDavid with 2 years but many refer to Matthews as "generational" after only 1.

For "elite" are the top 15 in the skating positions judged solely by points? Goalies by SV% & GAA? If so "elite" seems to be a pretty fluid label.

 

As TD mentioned some players look great on a specific team or in a conference because it suits their style. Heck, there are players that look like super stars during the WC after their own more mediocre team is long eliminated fro a chance @ playoffs because they are playing with similar talent on a more balanced team.

There are players that look great on weak teams because the contrast between them & their teammates is so glaring.

[Flyerfan52]

On 9/13/2017 at 11:27 AM, travel_dude said:

 

I don't think there is any way he gets a penny more than $6m, which is still a marketable contract if the term is reasonable.

Sure it's a risk, but so is banking on prospects to take his spot.  Sign him before he has a career year, assuming he wants to sign now.  Structure it so it's mostly signing bonus in the early years to allow him to be traded to a bargain team, if actual dollars is their issue.

 

I'm not saying trade him if he's the 2nd best or best center we have.  Only trade him if we have someone proven to take his place.  That could be in 2018, 2019 or never.  If they decide to move Tkachuk off his line, you will have a better idea of whether the line was that good due to Backlund/Frolik or the addition of Tkachuk.  Maybe that doesn't happen this year, but at some point you need to know. 

The Jets announced the re-signing of Bryan Little today. I see that as a pretty good baseline as the ages are similar, both are playing 2C & had a year left until UFA. Little gets 31.75 over 6 years (5.291 cap hit) up from 4.7 on his previous 5 year contract signed when he was 1C (since replaced by Scheifele).

There is a NMC through 2019-20 & then becomes a modified NTC. That security sounds like it kept the cost down (especially the term as he'll be 37 when the contract expires)

but the limited NTC in 3 years still leaves him tradable if the prospects start to outplay him. The way Little trains & takes care of himself has him saying he doesn't expect this extention being his last. I like that confidence.

 

I see similarities as both play a dang good 2 way game while contributing offensively.

 

Backs with probably need a few more $s (lets say 5.5-5.75 per) to play catch up for his low hit the last few years but the term sounds good & if a similar NMC/NTC is needed I'd have no qualms doing it. Even @ $6 I'd see it as a decent price.

 

I figure if Little had hit UFA he'd easily get 6-6.5 with 1 of those signing bonus laden contracts (this 1 appears straight $ = hit so far) as would Backlund.

 

When I heard the announcement I immediately thought of the Backlund situation.

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

The Jets announced the re-signing of Bryan Little today. I see that as a pretty good baseline as the ages are similar, both are playing 2C & had a year left until UFA. Little gets 31.75 over 6 years (5.291 cap hit) up from 4.7 on his previous 5 year contract signed when he was 1C (since replaced by Scheifele).

There is a NMC through 2019-20 & then becomes a modified NTC. That security sounds like it kept the cost down (especially the term as he'll be 37 when the contract expires)

but the limited NTC in 3 years still leaves him tradable if the prospects start to outplay him. The way Little trains & takes care of himself has him saying he doesn't expect this extention being his last. I like that confidence.

 

I see similarities as both play a dang good 2 way game while contributing offensively.

 

Backs with probably need a few more $s (lets say 5.5-5.75 per) to play catch up for his low hit the last few years but the term sounds good & if a similar NMC/NTC is needed I'd have no qualms doing it. Even @ $6 I'd see it as a decent price.

 

I figure if Little had hit UFA he'd easily get 6-6.5 with 1 of those signing bonus laden contracts (this 1 appears straight $ = hit so far) as would Backlund.

 

When I heard the announcement I immediately thought of the Backlund situation.

So did I.  BT would probably use that as a comp for discussion purposes.  But your point about already being paid (Little) makes sense.  Backlund has less consistent seasons, so I would deduct a bit from it.  So the lost income for Backlund's previous contracts would be offset by the lack of 82 game seasons and 40 ish points.  

[cross16]

Little is a pretty good comp for Backlund. I think Backs gets a slight edge based on his defensive play being better so add maybe 500-600k per season. 

 

Big differnce would be the NMC. Flames have said they won't do them so if Little took some off to get the NMC you may have to add more in and it might push it to 6. Either way it does solidify A fair offer for Backs is in the 5.5-6 mill range. 

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Little is a pretty good comp for Backlund. I think Backs gets a slight edge based on his defensive play being better so add maybe 500-600k per season. 

 

Big differnce would be the NMC. Flames have said they won't do them so if Little took some off to get the NMC you may have to add more in and it might push it to 6. Either way it does solidify A fair offer for Backs is in the 5.5-6 mill range. 

 

BT may have said they won't do them, but they have for most of their recent ones.  Johnny and Monahan lave M-NTC in their later years.  Versteeg and Stone just got M-NTC.  Brodie got a NMC and M-NTC in his final 3 years.

 

I don't see Backs signing without something similar.  It says to the player you are part of the core.  

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

BT may have said they won't do them, but they have for most of their recent ones.  Johnny and Monahan lave M-NTC in their later years.  Versteeg and Stone just got M-NTC.  Brodie got a NMC and M-NTC in his final 3 years.

 

I don't see Backs signing without something similar.  It says to the player you are part of the core.  

 

I was specifically referring to the NMC. They have publicly said it's their policy to not give out full NMC but yes they will do modified ones. I agree Backlund would likely look for, and get, something similar but it depends on how much they value the NMC to see how it would influence the contract. If Little has a full blown NMC (and I don't know that he does and so far CapFriendly says no) how much value Backs and his camp have on it jsut means they may ask for more $. That's the only point I was making. 

[Flyerfan52]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

So did I.  BT would probably use that as a comp for discussion purposes.  But your point about already being paid (Little) makes sense.  Backlund has less consistent seasons, so I would deduct a bit from it.  So the lost income for Backlund's previous contracts would be offset by the lack of 82 game seasons and 40 ish points.  

If we figure it a good comparison BT has probably noticed as well.

Little was injured 13 games last year but by shifting wingers like Perrault back to their previous center position it worked out short term but showed the Jets his value even as they wait on grade "A" prospects like Roslovic to mature. Little will likely move down the chart as youth progresses but it's unlikely that happens during the term of the NMC.

Good point on the lack of 82 games & 40ish points earlier but he seems to be able to stay healthier the last 2 seasons (missed 1 game) & back to back seasons of 47 & 53 show he's still trending up (remember Gio was kind of late bring his best).

I figure those last 2 seasons were a bargain & the previous contract was ELC so a bit of catch up is fair. That's why I went 5.5-5.75. I forgot to mention when I said I'd go 6.0 that I would cut some of the gravy designed to keep $s lower. If we give stability to keep down price he gives that up for bigger $s. With $6 there is no NMC (just modified NYC) & term drops to 5.

 

Re-signings are give & take with both sides having an agenda. If the player wants to spend more years with the organization he gives salary for the guarantee. If he doesn't care he asks for what he (& his agent) think UFA will bring. When they hit a package both sides can agree on we get the announcement where both sides talk about how happy that player will remain a big part of the team. The presser is all sunshine & lollipops.

[travel_dude]

15 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I was specifically referring to the NMC. They have publicly said it's their policy to not give out full NMC but yes they will do modified ones. I agree Backlund would likely look for, and get, something similar but it depends on how much they value the NMC to see how it would influence the contract. If Little has a full blown NMC (and I don't know that he does and so far CapFriendly says no) how much value Backs and his camp have on it jsut means they may ask for more $. That's the only point I was making. 

 

Fair enough.  I wasn't sure if it was specific or the general terms.  

[Flyerfan52]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I was specifically referring to the NMC. They have publicly said it's their policy to not give out full NMC but yes they will do modified ones. I agree Backlund would likely look for, and get, something similar but it depends on how much they value the NMC to see how it would influence the contract. If Little has a full blown NMC (and I don't know that he does and so far CapFriendly says no) how much value Backs and his camp have on it jsut means they may ask for more $. That's the only point I was making. 

I was going by the media reports & presser here about the NMC/modified NTC but just checked & CapFriendly now added the details. 3 years of NMC & 3 of the modified NTC .

True $s = cap hit so not 1 of those Lucic type contracts where the signing bonuses guarantee the $s regardless of stoppages.