So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[phoenix66]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

A lot of small sample size bias going on here. Reaves was a healthy scratch for the first 2 series and Vegas has won more games with him out of the lineup then in it in the playoffs. If you feel there is a need for a player like that by all means have that opinion, but to make the case that Reaves has changed anything for Vegas or Vegas has changed Reaves is reaching a fair bit.

again I'm not saying Reaves is the end all be all.. just that he's shown me he can be that player . Vegas has had Engelland the whole time. I'm sure they could have gotten a more skilled player for the 2nd pairing (altho Engelland is a good dman ) he brings way more than that . I'm sure he will wear the C when they finally give one out 

I'm also not advocating building a team of knuckle dragging lumberjacks like Edmonton.

I don't want that guy either, that's gonna be around long enough to get his 5 min major and game misconduct and be lost for the rest of the game. 

Every good high end bar has good bouncers.,. and the best rarely have to get in a fight .

 

I want that guy that can play at least 4th line , be in the lineup regularly and contribute. Who ,at the same time , if needed can pound the idiot who thought it was ok.

[cross16]

12 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

again I'm not saying Reaves is the end all be all.. just that he's shown me he can be that player . Vegas has had Engelland the whole time. I'm sure they could have gotten a more skilled player for the 2nd pairing (altho Engelland is a good dman ) he brings way more than that . I'm sure he will wear the C when they finally give one out 

I'm also not advocating building a team of knuckle dragging lumberjacks like Edmonton.

I don't want that guy either, that's gonna be around long enough to get his 5 min major and game misconduct and be lost for the rest of the game. 

Every good high end bar has good bouncers.,. and the best rarely have to get in a fight .

 

I want that guy that can play at least 4th line , be in the lineup regularly and contribute. Who ,at the same time , if needed can pound the idiot who thought it was ok.

 

Yes, but what i'm saying is you just described Ryan Reaves throughout his career. My point is I think you are letting a small sample size of Reaves played decent, but not great, hockey for a few games cloud what Reaves has been his whole career. Up until now, Reaves was exactly the player you just described in this post.

 

Either way i"ll put this to bed. You and Mac clearly have a different opinion of Reaves, or the idea of an enforcer in general, than I do so we'll have to agree to disagree and move.

[phoenix66]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Yes, but what i'm saying is you just described Ryan Reaves throughout his career. My point is I think you are letting a small sample size of Reaves played decent, but not great, hockey for a few games cloud what Reaves has been his whole career. Up until now, Reaves was exactly the player you just described in this post.

 

Either way i"ll put this to bed. You and Mac clearly have a different opinion of Reaves, or the idea of an enforcer in general, than I do so we'll have to agree to disagree and move.

fair enough.. but I stand by my prediction, we will have "that" player in our lineup next season .

I actually wonder about Dalton Prout too.. history with Ward , and of course with Huska. Huska used him quite regularly in all situations.

just depends what we do with our D up here . He could be number 7 for sure, just that doesn't check the "playing every game" box.

[MAC331]

30 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Yes, but what i'm saying is you just described Ryan Reaves throughout his career. My point is I think you are letting a small sample size of Reaves played decent, but not great, hockey for a few games cloud what Reaves has been his whole career. Up until now, Reaves was exactly the player you just described in this post.

 

Either way i"ll put this to bed. You and Mac clearly have a different opinion of Reaves, or the idea of an enforcer in general, than I do so we'll have to agree to disagree and move.

Let me be clear on Reaves, I would only be interested for a 1 year deal at what he is making now. There is a lot more that needs to happen with this roster than worrying about our 4th line make up but even it could use some new bodies IMO. Let's say they bring in Derek Ryan as our 4th line C and are successful in getting two quality RW players. This frees up Ferland and Shore to play other positions. I would not be unhappy to see Ferland LW, Ryan C, Shore RW with Reaves RW and Klimchuk LW as spares. I would either trade or pass Lazar and Hathaway through waivers to have them as depth in the A.

[travel_dude]

23 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Let me be clear on Reaves, I would only be interested for a 1 year deal at what he is making now. There is a lot more that needs to happen with this roster than worrying about our 4th line make up but even it could use some new bodies IMO. Let's say they bring in Derek Ryan as our 4th line C and are successful in getting two quality RW players. This frees up Ferland and Shore to play other positions. I would not be unhappy to see Ferland LW, Ryan C, Shore RW with Reaves RW and Klimchuk LW as spares. I would either trade or pass Lazar and Hathaway through waivers to have them as depth in the A.

 

There's nothing wrong with making a case for player X.  We all do that. 

Fit has a big part is determining whether they would work out here.

Brouwer was signed because he was supposedly a playoff performer, gritty, sound defensively or whatever.

He has not lived up to that in any broad sense.

 

What is Derek Ryan's game like away from the puck.  How is his possession numbers?  What does he do really well? 

What does Ryan Reaves bring to the team that we don't have?  Is that something we think we need or do we need it?

How many games would he play and how many minutes without negatively impacting the team?

 

Saying we need a 14th forward to play against big bad team is fine, if you want to go that route.  Your skill players will suffer in those games.

If Vegas doesn't re-sign him, then we know the value of Reaves.

[MAC331]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

There's nothing wrong with making a case for player X.  We all do that. 

Fit has a big part is determining whether they would work out here.

Brouwer was signed because he was supposedly a playoff performer, gritty, sound defensively or whatever.

He has not lived up to that in any broad sense.

 

What is Derek Ryan's game like away from the puck.  How is his possession numbers?  What does he do really well? 

What does Ryan Reaves bring to the team that we don't have?  Is that something we think we need or do we need it?

How many games would he play and how many minutes without negatively impacting the team?

 

Saying we need a 14th forward to play against big bad team is fine, if you want to go that route.  Your skill players will suffer in those games.

If Vegas doesn't re-sign him, then we know the value of Reaves.

You say this a lot about players worth surrounding that team resigning him which is so wrong. These players are UFA which allows them the freedom to pick and choose where the will play and for how much. Vegas could decide they no longer need what Reaves has to offer, I happen to think we could use some of what he brings to a team. Brouwer was not brought here to be an enforcer or intimidator, he was brought here because he was a hard checking player that performed well on the other teams he played for previously. Derek Ryan draw your own conclusions b looking him up. Reaves I have covered the why. How our skilled players will suffer in games that Reaves plays in is buffling to me and must be in your thinking not mine.

[travel_dude]

7 hours ago, MAC331 said:

You say this a lot about players worth surrounding that team resigning him which is so wrong. These players are UFA which allows them the freedom to pick and choose where the will play and for how much. Vegas could decide they no longer need what Reaves has to offer, I happen to think we could use some of what he brings to a team. Brouwer was not brought here to be an enforcer or intimidator, he was brought here because he was a hard checking player that performed well on the other teams he played for previously. Derek Ryan draw your own conclusions b looking him up. Reaves I have covered the why. How our skilled players will suffer in games that Reaves plays in is buffling to me and must be in your thinking not mine.

 

If all you are going to do is look at stats, then you will be disappointed.

You can keep your Reaves.  I would sooner take Beagle, who can actually win faceoffs and kill penalties.  

Derek Ryan, I couldn;t tell you what he is, just saw a bit of him at the IIHF.  Stats don;t tell the story.

Probably would be a better fit than Lazar, based on my limited viewing of him.

If you have some great insight on him, let me know.

 

 

[phoenix66]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If all you are going to do is look at stats, then you will be disappointed.

You can keep your Reaves.  I would sooner take Beagle, who can actually win faceoffs and kill penalties.  

Derek Ryan, I couldn;t tell you what he is, just saw a bit of him at the IIHF.  Stats don;t tell the story.

Probably would be a better fit than Lazar, based on my limited viewing of him.

If you have some great insight on him, let me know.

 

 

Good 2 way player , great on faceoffs . That's his biggest asset 

[kehatch]

Peters (like most coaches) plans his lines using pairs. So let's do that to find out our gaps. 

 

FORWARD

1. Gaudreau/Monahan: I get most of us want a top line RW. It would certainly be nice. But Monahan cracked 30 goals and Gaudreau was over a point per game. The top line isn't the problem so it isn't the priority to be fixed. 

 

2. Tkachuk/Backlund: Tkachuk could very well be a point per game player this season. Backlund struggled a bit this season, on large part because the Flames couldn't put forward another good defensive line. He is a decent second line centre but could be a spectacular third line defensive centre.

 

3.???/Frolik: You can pencil in Jankowski on this line. But a terrible lack of forward depth killed this team this season. We need legitimate proven players. Ideally I would like to get someone that can bump Backlund down a line, but even a legitimate 3 line centre would be a big help. 

 

The Rest: The Flames have some okay pieces like Jankowski, Bennett, Ferland, and Shore to round out the line up. They also have Dube, Foo, and Mangiapane knocking at the door. Maybe Brouwer turns it around and Versteeg might be back. But adding a RH shot winger who can score would be a help. 

 

DEFENCE

I won't list pairs because the obvious ones didn't work last season. But between Hamilton, Giordano, Brodie, Hamonic, Stone, Kulak, Anderson, Kylington, Valimaki etc the Flames have enough depth here even if they trade one of their players. 

 

GOALIE

The Flames might not have any options except to stick with Smith and Rittich/Gilles. But that is a big risk. Smith fell off last season and the other two were terrible when he got hurt. 

 

SUMMARY 

The Flames don't need a top end RW. They need  forward depth. That starts at centre and hopefully extends to a depth RW. They can round out the top 6 with Ferland, Foo, Bennett, Jankowski, etc. 

 

Adding some confidence in net wouldn't be a bad thing either, but realistically we are probably gambling with Smith this season to buy another year for Gilles/Parsons. At least to stay the season. They can always try and upgrade Smith early season if they need to. 

 

There may also need to be a few hockey trades to improve team speed. Especially up front. Tkachuk and Monahan aren't going anywhere. But they aren't exactly speedsters. We need to surround them with fast players. Vegas top players include guys like Perron, Neal, Engelland, etc (slow) but they are a fast team despite it. We need less Brouwer/Jagr and more Grabner. We have to stop complementing slow with slow. 

[cccsberg]

7 hours ago, kehatch said:

Peters (like most coaches) plans his lines using pairs. So let's do that to find out our gaps. 

 

FORWARD

1. Gaudreau/Monahan: I get most of us want a top line RW. It would certainly be nice. But Monahan cracked 30 goals and Gaudreau was over a point per game. The top line isn't the problem so it isn't the priority to be fixed. 

 

2. Tkachuk/Backlund: Tkachuk could very well be a point per game player this season. Backlund struggled a bit this season, on large part because the Flames couldn't put forward another good defensive line. He is a decent second line centre but could be a spectacular third line defensive centre.

 

3.???/Frolik: You can pencil in Jankowski on this line. But a terrible lack of forward depth killed this team this season. We need legitimate proven players. Ideally I would like to get someone that can bump Backlund down a line, but even a legitimate 3 line centre would be a big help. 

 

The Rest: The Flames have some okay pieces like Jankowski, Bennett, Ferland, and Shore to round out the line up. They also have Dube, Foo, and Mangiapane knocking at the door. Maybe Brouwer turns it around and Versteeg might be back. But adding a RH shot winger who can score would be a help. 

 

DEFENCE

I won't list pairs because the obvious ones didn't work last season. But between Hamilton, Giordano, Brodie, Hamonic, Stone, Kulak, Anderson, Kylington, Valimaki etc the Flames have enough depth here even if they trade one of their players. 

 

GOALIE

The Flames might not have any options except to stick with Smith and Rittich/Gilles. But that is a big risk. Smith fell off last season and the other two were terrible when he got hurt. 

 

SUMMARY 

The Flames don't need a top end RW. They need  forward depth. That starts at centre and hopefully extends to a depth RW. They can round out the top 6 with Ferland, Foo, Bennett, Jankowski, etc. 

 

Adding some confidence in net wouldn't be a bad thing either, but realistically we are probably gambling with Smith this season to buy another year for Gilles/Parsons. At least to stay the season. They can always try and upgrade Smith early season if they need to. 

 

There may also need to be a few hockey trades to improve team speed. Especially up front. Tkachuk and Monahan aren't going anywhere. But they aren't exactly speedsters. We need to surround them with fast players. Vegas top players include guys like Perron, Neal, Engelland, etc (slow) but they are a fast team despite it. We need less Brouwer/Jagr and more Grabner. We have to stop complementing slow with slow. 

Personally I would put Gaudreau-Monahan, Tkachuk-Jankowski and Backlund-Frolik as the 3 forward line pairs, and interchangeably utilize Ferland, Bennett, Foo, Dube and Mangiapanne as the fillers.  I would also bring up Klimchuk and Poirier and get them going on the 4th line with Shore/Lazar, and hopefully they will acclimatize and be ready to move up as needed as the season progresses.  With these forwards I'd say Monahan and Tkachuk, and possibly Shore are your slowest guys and overall the team speed should get a significant boost, IF the team strategy changes which hopefully it will.  Overall, more drastic moves could be made, but personally I believe installing a faster-paced, more aggressive system while bringing back true on-ice accountability will do wonders for what we already have.  

 

On D I'd probably move Stone, and/or either of Brodie/Hamilton if they decide to trade for an "elite" RHS RW/C (think Marner, Hoffman, ROR, Stone, Lindholm, Reinhart, Kessel, Perry...), and bring in Andersson and possibly even Kylington/Valimaki, or both with Wotherspoon as 7th D if he re-signs.  I'd also look to get a couple more RHS RW/C at the prospect level, though we already have a few (e.g. Gawdin-C/RW, Phillips-C, Tuulola-RW...).

 

As for our goalies I'd stick with the current guys, giving Rittich one more shot but at least doubling his workload versus last season, and having Gillies/Parsons split time evenly in the AHL to prepare them both for a much heavier load next season, or this pending an injury or if Rittich falters.

 

Finally, do not re-sign any of our UFA vets, buy-out Brouwer and avoid all over-priced/over-term UFAs come free agency.   There may be a deal or two to look at, but overall I'm steering clear if I can.

[kehatch]

21 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Personally I would put Gaudreau-Monahan, Tkachuk-Jankowski and Backlund-Frolik as the 3 forward line pairs, and interchangeably utilize Ferland, Bennett, Foo, Dube and Mangiapanne as the fillers.  I would also bring up Klimchuk and Poirier and get them going on the 4th line with Shore/Lazar, and hopefully they will acclimatize and be ready to move up as needed as the season progresses.  With these forwards I'd say Monahan and Tkachuk, and possibly Shore are your slowest guys and overall the team speed should get a significant boost, IF the team strategy changes which hopefully it will.  Overall, more drastic moves could be made, but personally I believe installing a faster-paced, more aggressive system while bringing back true on-ice accountability will do wonders for what we already have.  

 

On D I'd probably move Stone, and/or either of Brodie/Hamilton if they decide to trade for an "elite" RHS RW/C (think Marner, Hoffman, ROR, Stone, Lindholm, Reinhart, Kessel, Perry...), and bring in Andersson and possibly even Kylington/Valimaki, or both with Wotherspoon as 7th D if he re-signs.  I'd also look to get a couple more RHS RW/C at the prospect level, though we already have a few (e.g. Gawdin-C/RW, Phillips-C, Tuulola-RW...).

 

As for our goalies I'd stick with the current guys, giving Rittich one more shot but at least doubling his workload versus last season, and having Gillies/Parsons split time evenly in the AHL to prepare them both for a much heavier load next season, or this pending an injury or if Rittich falters.

 

Finally, do not re-sign any of our UFA vets, buy-out Brouwer and avoid all over-priced/over-term UFAs come free agency.   There may be a deal or two to look at, but overall I'm steering clear if I can.

 

There is a reasonable chance you get your wish as the Flames don't have a huge number of options. At least in so far that we see the top six you mention, the same goalies, and the addition of a RW. 

 

Personally my number on target would be O'Reilly (assuming Tavares doesn't look likely). Let's say it costs you Brodie, Bennett, and a prospect. Your forwards line up as Gaudreau/Monahan, Tkachuk/O'Reilly, Backlund/Frolik. That is a strong foundation. Plus if Jankowski takes a step you can always bump O'reilly to wing. 

 

The Flames take a hit on the D, but still have a strong top 3 and plenty of options to round it out. You have to hope Smith rebounds, but that is a reality no matter what. Then all you have to do is decide what to do at back up and clean up the bottom 6 in free agency. Maybe buyout Brouwer or trade him with salary retained. 

 

It looks even better (much actually) if they can get Tavares. But chances are lower there. Regardless, adding a centre to round out the top 9 improves the line up more then a winger. I like Jankowski, but I would rather have depth verse question marks. 

[MAC331]

23 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Yes, but what i'm saying is you just described Ryan Reaves throughout his career. My point is I think you are letting a small sample size of Reaves played decent, but not great, hockey for a few games cloud what Reaves has been his whole career. Up until now, Reaves was exactly the player you just described in this post.

 

Either way i"ll put this to bed. You and Mac clearly have a different opinion of Reaves, or the idea of an enforcer in general, than I do so we'll have to agree to disagree and move.

Tell us what your 4th line looks like along with two spare forwards.

[cross16]

6 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Tell us what your 4th line looks like along with two spare forwards.

 

Klimchuk - Shore/Ryan/Beagle -Lazar

Versteeg

Hathaway

[MAC331]

14 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If all you are going to do is look at stats, then you will be disappointed.

You can keep your Reaves.  I would sooner take Beagle, who can actually win faceoffs and kill penalties.  

Derek Ryan, I couldn;t tell you what he is, just saw a bit of him at the IIHF.  Stats don;t tell the story.

Probably would be a better fit than Lazar, based on my limited viewing of him.

If you have some great insight on him, let me know.

 

 

If you think I am drawing my conclusions on stats you couldn't be more wrong. No problem I will stick with my Reaves thought. Beagle is a good player as well. Derek Ryan seems to be a foregone conclusion that BP will want to bring I'm here. I can't really add any personal thoughts only what I hear that he is good on the dot and strong two ways.

If BT can bring in some better RWs, he should see if maybe VAN or ARZ would have any interest in Lazar or Hathaway.

[MAC331]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

Klimchuk - Shore/Ryan/Beagle -Lazar

Versteeg

Hathaway

OK but this will depend on what else takes place with this forward group. Here is another question, why would you not want Reaves at say 1.5M over either Hathaway or Lazar ?

I really hope they buy out Brouwer so him and Versteeg can move on to somewhere else.

[MAC331]

10 hours ago, kehatch said:

Peters (like most coaches) plans his lines using pairs. So let's do that to find out our gaps. 

 

FORWARD

1. Gaudreau/Monahan: I get most of us want a top line RW. It would certainly be nice. But Monahan cracked 30 goals and Gaudreau was over a point per game. The top line isn't the problem so it isn't the priority to be fixed. 

 

2. Tkachuk/Backlund: Tkachuk could very well be a point per game player this season. Backlund struggled a bit this season, on large part because the Flames couldn't put forward another good defensive line. He is a decent second line centre but could be a spectacular third line defensive centre.

 

3.???/Frolik: You can pencil in Jankowski on this line. But a terrible lack of forward depth killed this team this season. We need legitimate proven players. Ideally I would like to get someone that can bump Backlund down a line, but even a legitimate 3 line centre would be a big help. 

 

The Rest: The Flames have some okay pieces like Jankowski, Bennett, Ferland, and Shore to round out the line up. They also have Dube, Foo, and Mangiapane knocking at the door. Maybe Brouwer turns it around and Versteeg might be back. But adding a RH shot winger who can score would be a help. 

 

DEFENCE

I won't list pairs because the obvious ones didn't work last season. But between Hamilton, Giordano, Brodie, Hamonic, Stone, Kulak, Anderson, Kylington, Valimaki etc the Flames have enough depth here even if they trade one of their players. 

 

GOALIE

The Flames might not have any options except to stick with Smith and Rittich/Gilles. But that is a big risk. Smith fell off last season and the other two were terrible when he got hurt. 

 

SUMMARY 

The Flames don't need a top end RW. They need  forward depth. That starts at centre and hopefully extends to a depth RW. They can round out the top 6 with Ferland, Foo, Bennett, Jankowski, etc. 

 

Adding some confidence in net wouldn't be a bad thing either, but realistically we are probably gambling with Smith this season to buy another year for Gilles/Parsons. At least to stay the season. They can always try and upgrade Smith early season if they need to. 

 

There may also need to be a few hockey trades to improve team speed. Especially up front. Tkachuk and Monahan aren't going anywhere. But they aren't exactly speedsters. We need to surround them with fast players. Vegas top players include guys like Perron, Neal, Engelland, etc (slow) but they are a fast team despite it. We need less Brouwer/Jagr and more Grabner. We have to stop complementing slow with slow. 

I think you are missing the opportunity to enhance certain situations. If there is a deal out there for a top line RW that would further compliment Gaudreau and Monahan then BT has to make that deal. A RW/C such as W Nylander is that player IMO because of his play making and scoring ability that should remove some of the focus the opposition places on Gaudreau.

2. I agree with your thinking on Backlund as our key defender but that doesn't have to be as a labelled 3rd line C, let's get off that thinking. Personally I would refer to break up the 3M line altogether. We need to get Bennett back to scoring while also using his speed and strong defense for the best advantage. Secondly, if BT could obtain another RW such as Lindholm from CAR or Kapanen from TOR the scoring ability of this line would be enhanced.

3. I think Tkachuk with Jankowski could have the largest effect for us. Tkachuk will bring out the best in Jankowski and we need this to happen if we want a strong top 9 capable of putting up a lot of points. Frolik on their RW provides experience and a smart player to help them defensively.

4. The above moves allows for Ferland to play LW for proven 4th line scoring. Right now we have Shore C, Hathaway RW, Lazar C/RW and Brouwer RW all of which have added nothing in the way of reliable secondary scoring. In regards to some other players being mentioned with potential I think most should continue to develop in the A as certain depth. I might be more inclined to re-sign and use a LW like Hrivik over Klimchuk initially while having some diversification with Shore and Lazar.

Obviously if BT goes after players such as Lindholm CAR or Nylander TOR the big change for us will be on Defense because both Hamilton and Brodie will need to be used in these types of deals. What does this look like without any adds ?

Giordano, Hamonic (can Giordano make a star out of Hamonic ?)

Kulak, Stone

Wotherspoon, Andersson ( they played well together under Huska)

Mike Green is a UFA ??? Calgary boy.

[JTech780]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

OK but this will depend on what else takes place with this forward group. Here is another question, why would you not want Reaves at say 1.5M over either Hathaway or Lazar ?

I really hope they buy out Brouwer so him and Versteeg can move on to somewhere else.

 

Reaves averaged just over7 mins a game this year, and at no point in his career has he ever averaged over 9 mins a night. Why would we want someone in the lineup that can't play a regular shift? Most 4th lines in the league are playing 10+mins a night, you need to be able to roll 4 consistent lines out there every night having Reaves in the lineup doesn't allow you to do that. 

[kehatch]

32 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I think you are missing the opportunity to enhance certain situations. If there is a deal out there for a top line RW that would further compliment Gaudreau and Monahan then BT has to make that deal. A RW/C such as W Nylander is that player IMO because of his play making and scoring ability that should remove some of the focus the opposition places on Gaudreau.

2. I agree with your thinking on Backlund as our key defender but that doesn't have to be as a labelled 3rd line C, let's get off that thinking. Personally I would refer to break up the 3M line altogether. We need to get Bennett back to scoring while also using his speed and strong defense for the best advantage. Secondly, if BT could obtain another RW such as Lindholm from CAR or Kapanen from TOR the scoring ability of this line would be enhanced.

3. I think Tkachuk with Jankowski could have the largest effect for us. Tkachuk will bring out the best in Jankowski and we need this to happen if we want a strong top 9 capable of putting up a lot of points. Frolik on their RW provides experience and a smart player to help them defensively.

4. The above moves allows for Ferland to play LW for proven 4th line scoring. Right now we have Shore C, Hathaway RW, Lazar C/RW and Brouwer RW all of which have added nothing in the way of reliable secondary scoring. In regards to some other players being mentioned with potential I think most should continue to develop in the A as certain depth. I might be more inclined to re-sign and use a LW like Hrivik over Klimchuk initially while having some diversification with Shore and Lazar.

Obviously if BT goes after players such as Lindholm CAR or Nylander TOR the big change for us will be on Defense because both Hamilton and Brodie will need to be used in these types of deals. What does this look like without any adds ?

Giordano, Hamonic (can Giordano make a star out of Hamonic ?)

Kulak, Stone

Wotherspoon, Andersson ( they played well together under Huska)

Mike Green is a UFA ??? Calgary boy.

 

The bottom line is that we need to stop filling up the bottom 6 with hope-fulls and has-beens and calling it depth.  Spending the few assets we have to acquire a sexy name for the top line is not how you fix this team.  Losing a guy like Hamilton to do it  would be taking three steps back to take a drunken stumble forward. 

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

 

Reaves averaged just over7 mins a game this year, and at no point in his career has he ever averaged over 9 mins a night. Why would we want someone in the lineup that can't play a regular shift? Most 4th lines in the league are playing 10+mins a night, you need to be able to roll 4 consistent lines out there every night having Reaves in the lineup doesn't allow you to do that. 

I'm a firm believer that you are as good as your best game. To now he has been used in that spot role, but he's proving right now he can do more.

When we got Engelland everybody laughed at BT's statement that he was capable of being more than he had shown to date.. but yet , it was true.

10 min or less for 4th line is pretty common .. even for teams running 4 lines 

 

If not Reaves, we need somebody like him .. and it doesn't stop there , I get the sense and I am hopeful that Peters will implement a system of "this is your role. do it and be the best at it"

Just like not every player is a 200' player , and should not be expected to be one. I'd be happy signing a guy like Vanek too. All he does is score. Keep him out of the D zone, but when we need offense get him out there . Just make sure he has defensive players with him and let him do his thing 

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

 

Reaves averaged just over7 mins a game this year, and at no point in his career has he ever averaged over 9 mins a night. Why would we want someone in the lineup that can't play a regular shift? Most 4th lines in the league are playing 10+mins a night, you need to be able to roll 4 consistent lines out there every night having Reaves in the lineup doesn't allow you to do that. 

Seriously you don't think Reaves could put in 10 mins of 4th line work. LOL This takes the cake as an argument against.

[MAC331]

54 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

The bottom line is that we need to stop filling up the bottom 6 with hope-fulls and has-beens and calling it depth.  Spending the few assets we have to acquire a sexy name for the top line is not how you fix this team.  Losing a guy like Hamilton to do it  would be taking three steps back to take a drunken stumble forward. 

Who is doing that not me with the players I have suggested ? which ones are hopefuls and has beens ? What if Hamilton and Brodie are truly the real problems within the room and need to go ? The players I have suggested in trading for are not simply "sexy" names but bonafide quality RWs that suit our very needs. I did acknowledge there would be serious consideration on how to replace Hamilton and Brodie who are both lousy defenders.

[kehatch]

5 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Who is doing that not me with the players I have suggested ? which ones are hopefuls and has beens ? What if Hamilton and Brodie are truly the real problems within the room and need to go ? The players I have suggested in trading for are not simply "sexy" names but bonafide quality RWs that suit our very needs. I did acknowledge there would be serious consideration on how to replace Hamilton and Brodie who are both lousy defenders.

 

Neither Brodie or Hamilton are lousy defenders. Brodie struggled last season but has generally been very solid. Hamilton is a legitimate top pair D. 

 

The point is robbing our D to put a RW on a line that is already putting up huge numbers doesn't make sense. Our need is in the bottom 6, specifically putting together a strong third line. Expecting Jankowski to anchor it is a big gamble, especially when we have players like Brouwer to put with him. I understand you want to put Tkachuk there, but then you are leaving Frolik on the second line and he isn't the player he was. 

[MAC331]

2 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

Neither Brodie or Hamilton are lousy defenders. Brodie struggled last season but has generally been very solid. Hamilton is a legitimate top pair D. 

 

The point is robbing our D to put a RW on a line that is already putting up huge numbers doesn't make sense. Our need is in the bottom 6, specifically putting together a strong third line. Expecting Jankowski to anchor it is a big gamble, especially when we have players like Brouwer to put with him. I understand you want to put Tkachuk there, but then you are leaving Frolik on the second line and he isn't the player he was. 

Sorry but yes they are poor defenders but the other point you seem to ignore is that they may be a big part of the room problem. Te real point is about getting more production out of our top 9 forward group not less and in order to do that you need to enhance each line not leave them the same. I guess you missed the part where I moved Frolik down to be with Tkachuk and Jankowski (you need to progress him) and Brouwer bought out. Brodie and Hamilton for top quality RWs is a hockey trade plain and simple.

[kehatch]

7 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Sorry but yes they are poor defenders but the other point you seem to ignore is that they may be a big part of the room problem. Te real point is about getting more production out of our top 9 forward group not less and in order to do that you need to enhance each line not leave them the same. I guess you missed the part where I moved Frolik down to be with Tkachuk and Jankowski (you need to progress him) and Brouwer bought out. Brodie and Hamilton for top quality RWs is a hockey trade plain and simple.

 

Believe what you want about Brodie and Hamilton. Your dead wrong. But agree to disagree. As for them being bad in the room. Based on what? A wild guess? 

 

For the record, I am not against moving a D for the right return. But a top line winger isn't the right return. Our top line isn't an area of need and you aren't bumping anyone down the line that solves our depth problem. 

 

This is turning into a circular debate though, so I agree we disagree. 

[JTech780]

49 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Seriously you don't think Reaves could put in 10 mins of 4th line work. LOL This takes the cake as an argument against.

 

When has ever shown that he can? Even in these playoffs when everybody seems to be in love with him he has averaged under 8 mins a game after sitting out the first two rounds. If we did go out and get Reaves and he averaged more than 10 mins a night, I am pretty confident in saying that we would looking at another lottery pick again next year. 

 

Also when you look at Peters history, there is nothing to suggest he would deploy an enforcer, which is pretty much all Reaves is. My understanding of Peters philosophy is that you need to have players who can skate and play the game at both ends of the ice on all 4 lines, Reaves doesn't fit that role.