Sam Bennett

[travel_dude]

51 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

And that is because we're all a little nuts, to be honest.   Too much hyping, and too much bashing on here.  That is why I will tend to come down hard on the "favourites" and be more supportive of younger less accomplished players, even when they're in the proverbial doghouse.  Because odds are going to be in my favor on that over time.

 

So far, the odds have not been in your favor.  

NHL games played is a better indicator of how the player is doing.

Age is a factor if the player comes in like Makarov.

At equal points in their careers, Gaudreau and Monahan have outperformed Bennett.

There's no evidence to suggest Bennett will become a 80 point player or Gaudreau will start tailing off.

That's the reality.

 

[The_People1]

I keep going back to the idea of "two teams, one roster".

 

The regular season is about flash and dash.  Pond hockey almost.  Then in the playoffs, the refs put the whistle away and it's a different league with different rules.  You need that "second team".  Sometimes, the same player can play two ways and if not, then you literally need different players to play that way.

 

Gaudreau excels in the regular season.

Bennett excels in the real season.

 

Both are important.  It's like comparing if it's better to have a good driver or a good putter.  They are both needed in golf.  We need both teams.

[travel_dude]

48 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

I keep going back to the idea of "two teams, one roster".

 

The regular season is about flash and dash.  Pond hockey almost.  Then in the playoffs, the refs put the whistle away and it's a different league with different rules.  You need that "second team".  Sometimes, the same player can play two ways and if not, then you literally need different players to play that way.

 

Gaudreau excels in the regular season.

Bennett excels in the real season.

 

Both are important.  It's like comparing if it's better to have a good driver or a good putter.  They are both needed in golf.  We need both teams.

 

I don't disagree.

But, I think we don't really have a handle on this team in the playoffs.

They did not look the same.

Level of competition wasn't the X factor.

 

The X factor was a few of our guys looked like crap in the playoffs.

Exploitation won the series.

Having Gio play a Norris season and look like crap in the playoffs is not a result of him being a regular season player.

Having Backlund play a Selke season and then unable to do anything in the playoffs....

I can't even be certain Smith was any good because he let in a ton of goals.

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

So far, the odds have not been in your favor.  

NHL games played is a better indicator of how the player is doing.

Age is a factor if the player comes in like Makarov.

At equal points in their careers, Gaudreau and Monahan have outperformed Bennett.

There's no evidence to suggest Bennett will become a 80 point player or Gaudreau will start tailing off.

That's the reality.

 

 

Well, the last time I was this insistent on a player's value peaking was after Iginla's 86 point season in 2011.   Odds are in my favor and they are in fact stacked.   But I'm not promising Gaudreau's going to tail off.  I'm just saying he's at max value right now.   Because even if he does improve his regular season performance it's not likely going to be enough to offset depreciation with age (which is a thing).    And one more season of him not showing up in the playoffs, his value will nosedive.

 

This is really more about Bennett, and, I really do need to point out, I never said he would become an 80 point player.  Nor do I care That much about assists, or the regular season.

 

I'd put goals, and playoffs, above assists, and the regular season.      In that regard, absolutely it is entirely more likely for Bennett to increase his playoff goal total faster than Gaudreau.   A lot faster.  Because we're already there.

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I keep going back to the idea of "two teams, one roster".

 

The regular season is about flash and dash.  Pond hockey almost.  Then in the playoffs, the refs put the whistle away and it's a different league with different rules.  You need that "second team".  Sometimes, the same player can play two ways and if not, then you literally need different players to play that way.

 

Gaudreau excels in the regular season.

Bennett excels in the real season.

 

Both are important.  It's like comparing if it's better to have a good driver or a good putter.  They are both needed in golf.  We need both teams.

 

It's true.  Both are important and both are different.

 

But, you can be "just ok" in the regular season, and still win it all.  We've seen that many times.

 

So I do think you focus on playoff performance.  Yes, you have to be good enough to make the cut.   But I suspect if you build a Stanley cup winner, most times they will be able to cross that threshold.    If you absolutely need that first place in the regular season, ok you might need two teams.  But... I'm just not sure we do?

[sak22]

Overvaluing one playoff run lands you this. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=62527

 

We should grab him now that he's cheap because we all know the Gaudreau who scored a respectable 9 points in his first playoffs is dead.

 

[Horsman1]

22 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

It's true.  Both are important and both are different.

 

But, you can be "just ok" in the regular season, and still win it all.  We've seen that many times.

 

So I do think you focus on playoff performance.  Yes, you have to be good enough to make the cut.   But I suspect if you build a Stanley cup winner, most times they will be able to cross that threshold.    If you absolutely need that first place in the regular season, ok you might need two teams.  But... I'm just not sure we do?

and the really good teams understand this.. As an example.. on our team.. we'll take Mangiapane.. by his skill set.. he should be a top 6 left winger If we have two offensive lines and our third line is our defensive line.. If mangiapane has not proven that he is capable of second line offensive duty by the trade deadline.. thern he gets shipped out as our fourth line must consist of heavy playoff type performers.. The Trade deadline is there to readjust your team for the second  season and if you don't use it as such.. you've lost the game before it's even played.. For Mangiapane to have success in Calgary.. he needs to supplant Gaudreau or Tkachuk.. or be moved to right wing

[robrob74]

22 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

You are missing the point a bit maybe.

Suffice to say he did well by Flames standards this playoffs.

5 games is all.

Could he be a difference maker deeper or fade out.

No proof either way.

1g in 5 games against COL

3g in 9 games against ANA

2g in 6 games against VAN

 

What was that bum Monahan doing in those games?

1g in 5 games against COL

5g in 9 games against ANA

2g in 6 games against VAN

 

And that slacker Gaudreau?

0g in 5 games against COL

2g in 10 games against ANA

2g in 6 games against VAN

 

Depends how you look at things I guess.  He's a player you want to take into battle with you.  Is he going to make the dfference or do you need skill to shine through.

Remans to be seen.  

 

 

I dont think he is missing the point at all. Bennett has always been a playoff guy.... don’t you remember the Jim Hughson, “He’s only 18 years old!” The Canucks hated it. But that is his game. He plays hard and in the regular season it doesn’t amount to more for whatever reason. 

 

He had a decent rookie season and then they never played him with the same quality line mates after. 

 

Bennett always pumps it up when it matters more. 

 

You've talked about his 5 points as  not mattered.  But still out scoring most on the team doesn’t matter? 

 

Look at a a lot of Tkachuk’s season points, they’re 1st line Pp. they better be up there and he better get points on the 2nd line as well. 

 

Did he do that in the playoffs? 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

It's true.  Both are important and both are different.

 

But, you can be "just ok" in the regular season, and still win it all.  We've seen that many times.

 

So I do think you focus on playoff performance.  Yes, you have to be good enough to make the cut.   But I suspect if you build a Stanley cup winner, most times they will be able to cross that threshold.    If you absolutely need that first place in the regular season, ok you might need two teams.  But... I'm just not sure we do?

 

Well, we can't have too many Gaudreau's or we will be smashed into oblivion come playoff time.  We can't have too many Sam Bennett's or we risk not making the playoffs at all.  So there's a balance.  Not everyone is Jarome Iginla.  Those are one in a hundred... and here's to hoping Tkachuk is one of them soon (lots of reason to believe he will be a total package in 2 to 3 years).  I think Giordano was "okay" but dragged down by Brodie.  I think Hanifin-Hamonic was our best pairing in the playoffs (but even they weren't clutch).  Maybe Valimaki is our total package D in the future.

 

The thing is, the first team has to carry the second team for most of the year.  Gaudreau has to carry Bennett and Lucic into the playoffs and then come playoff time, it's their turn to carry Gaudreau.  Maybe not so much Lucic but those "types".  We need more Bennetts if we cannot get more total package players.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

Overvaluing one playoff run lands you this. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=62527

 

We should grab him now that he's cheap because we all know the Gaudreau who scored a respectable 9 points in his first playoffs is dead.

 

 

Soooooo,

 

I do need to point out that Bennett is 23, yes acquiring Brower when he was 23 would have been brilliant and he did in fact win a Stanley cup as an integral member of the blackhawks two years later, so... super confused here.  Was that a bad?

 

Sure, the Flames of course picked him up in his 30's and that is nearly almost always a fail.

 

[travel_dude]

11 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I dont think he is missing the point at all. Bennett has always been a playoff guy.... don’t you remember the Jim Hughson, “He’s only 18 years old!” The Canucks hated it. But that is his game. He plays hard and in the regular season it doesn’t amount to more for whatever reason. 

 

He had a decent rookie season and then they never played him with the same quality line mates after. 

 

Bennett always pumps it up when it matters more. 

 

You've talked about his 5 points as  not mattered.  But still out scoring most on the team doesn’t matter? 

 

Look at a a lot of Tkachuk’s season points, they’re 1st line Pp. they better be up there and he better get points on the 2nd line as well. 

 

Did he do that in the playoffs? 

 

I don't overvalue what a player did in one series one year.  Bennett didn't impact the game enough for a win.  

Does that make my opinion of him being trash?

Of course not.

I was illustrating how the three players compared in counting stats, which seemed to be in dispuite.

 

Tkachuk was a playoff letdown, but then again Backlund was as well.

They spent so myuch time defending (not well) that the offense wasn't there.

But Tkachuk drives the play regular season.

He has silky hands around the net, which is why he can score on the PP.

He is probably the best Flame for deflecting shots and scoring in tight.

 

Bennett drives players.

His big hits fuel the team.

[jjgallow]

24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't overvalue what a player did in one series one year. 

 

But, don't you think your evaluation of Gaudreau is kind of doing that right now?

 

If we look back I don't think many forecast a 99 point season.  And certainly didn't expect him to push well past that.

 

Really the only thing which was forecastable was his playoff performance imho.

[sak22]

15 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Soooooo,

 

I do need to point out that Bennett is 23, yes acquiring Brower when he was 23 would have been brilliant and he did in fact win a Stanley cup as an integral member of the blackhawks two years later, so... super confused here.  Was that a bad?

 

Sure, the Flames of course picked him up in his 30's and that is nearly almost always a fail.

 

Did you look into his stats.  The overall picture is a pretty average playoff performer, but due to the recency effect was a clutch player, actuality was he was decent on a cup winner good in one run in St. Louis and a non factor the rest.  Neal was the same pretty ordinary come playoff time, but came here with the perception of being good in the playoffs.  Reality was most of us were happy getting the players but hated the contracts at the time, in both cases I think are expectations were jaded.

 

The whole talking about who we have that are or aren’t playoff performers is premature.  I like Bennett, always have I’m encouraged but not sold.  I like Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk and Backlund and believe they can be better.  We have come to conclusions on this group based on 20 games?  Patel Datsyuk went 5 straight series without scoring a goal, yet his playoff resume is pretty impressive despite going through a long stretch being labeled as a guy you can’t win with him as a leader.

 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

But, don't you think your evaluation of Gaudreau is kind of doing that right now?

 

If we look back I don't think many forecast a 99 point season.  And certainly didn't expect him to push well past that.

 

Really the only thing which was forecastable was his playoff performance imho.

 

Really, I go by what his trend has been every year in the league.

He's more likely to add to his 99 point year than drop to 80.

With the playoffs, we saw what he was against one team where everyone but a few played poorly.

How is that indicative of his playoff performance?

He sets up players left and right, yet nobody can score?

That's on him?

 

Again, he's played a grand total of three teams in the playoffs.

One of them he only faced in his rookie year.

[The_People1]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

He's more likely to add to his 99 point year than drop to 80.

 

The average NHL peak is 27-years-old.  So Gaudreau can definitely add to his 99-point season. But ya I would look to trade him to Philly in a couple years before he walks.  It's a Kawhi Leonard situation brewing.

[jjgallow]

18 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Really, I go by what his trend has been every year in the league.

He's more likely to add to his 99 point year than drop to 80.

With the playoffs, we saw what he was against one team where everyone but a few played poorly.

How is that indicative of his playoff performance?

He sets up players left and right, yet nobody can score?

That's on him?

 

Again, he's played a grand total of three teams in the playoffs.

One of them he only faced in his rookie year.

 

Well I will give you this,

 

I think most in hockey would agree with you that he can, and likely will, increase his production. 

 

That is exactly why, however,  I believe he is at peak value right now.    Not only his performance but the expectations.    It's a double edged sword, the more you expect from him the higher his value. 

 

On the other hand any divergence from that and his valuation takes a big hit at his size.   I look at his decline in the last 40 games plus the playoffs, I look at his risk of injury, I look at BT's use of cap space and inability to sign Tkachuk.  And JG's own contract.

 

I see nothing but risk and only the possibility...maybe 15% that his current value is maintained. 

 

 

Meanwhile Bennett's valuation is at an all time low.   Which is a direct inflection point with his playoff performance and his upcoming prime playing years.     Couldn't dream of trading him, we need 5 more. 

[robrob74]

It’s easy to go back and look at the stats to say so and so did good or bad. In the playoffs a lot of the scoring gets tighter so less. Play in the playoffs tend to not show up on stat lines. 

 

Sundvquist has 4G 5A 9pts in 25 games, not bad but he had way more impact than on his stat line.

 

Bennett’s stats career playoffs is 

6g 5a 11pts in 20 games. I don’t think it is fair to read a stat line and say he had hardly little impact.

[rickross]

The puzzle that is Sam Bennett continues! Who is Sam Bennett? No one seems to know, is he a grit player, a centre or winger? Top 6 or bottom 6? It’s critical time in his juncture and I’m starting to lean toward considering trading him while he still has upside in value. The inconsistency still plagued his game but he’s never really been in a stable position. He hasn’t been able to build chemistry with any kind of consistent line mates and he’s played all over the map. The one part of his game that has remained consistent over the last couple years...is his moustache! 😮

[JTech780]

The worst part is that Bill Peters doesn't seem to know what Bennett is, the guy gets a period to show what he can do in the top 6 and then is pulled from that spot. He has played at center, RW and LW so far this season. How about let him build chemistry with someone other than bottom 6 forwards.

 

Bennet hasn't been doing himself any favors at the same time, continuing to take bad penalties. Though that could be attributed to him putting too much pressure on himself to make something happen whenever he is on the ice.

[cross16]

I thought Bennett's penalty last night was as much on the bench as him. It was a really poor change and no communication that the D was still getting into place so if you are Bennett you are seeing a guy getting an easy breakaway. It actually was not a bad penalty to take given the circumstance and what he would have saw. 

 

I hate being this guy, but I am starting to wonder about the communication between Treliving and Peters. It makes no sense to sign Bennett to the contract they did to have Peters deploy him the way he is being deployed. Bennett has basically become his filler and his glue guy, which IMO makes it really hard to expect any sort of expectations out of him especially given this is still a young player who has been bounced around basically his whole career. They should have traded him if this was the plan. 

 

His play and his contract don't make him overly desirable right now, nor would the price be any good. Really, really poor asset management here from the Flames. 

[Thebrewcrew]

I don’t love Bennett’s usage in the bottom 6. Ryan is the best fit but they want him with Lucic. Bennett and Lucic is a no go for me. I also don’t love him with Jankowski.

 

He had a bad night on the 2nd line against the Kings and as a result he only got a period before being demoted. I think the Flames either need to trade him or give him a legit shot in the top 6, because in this bottom 6 he’s nothing but a 26 point player like we’ve seen the last 3 seasons 

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

I thought Bennett's penalty last night was as much on the bench as him. It was a really poor change and no communication that the D was still getting into place so if you are Bennett you are seeing a guy getting an easy breakaway. It actually was not a bad penalty to take given the circumstance and what he would have saw. 

 

I hate being this guy, but I am starting to wonder about the communication between Treliving and Peters. It makes no sense to sign Bennett to the contract they did to have Peters deploy him the way he is being deployed. Bennett has basically become his filler and his glue guy, which IMO makes it really hard to expect any sort of expectations out of him especially given this is still a young player who has been bounced around basically his whole career. They should have traded him if this was the plan. 

 

His play and his contract don't make him overly desirable right now, nor would the price be any good. Really, really poor asset management here from the Flames. 

 

I wish when the Habs and Coyotes were dealing Domi and Galchenyuk, the Flames were able to throw Bennett into the pot too.  We could've came out with Domi.  Even Galchenyuk provides a niche with his shot and 30-goal experience.  Bennett still had a lot of potential and trade value back then.  Also, Domi and Galchenyuk's trade values were at an all time low.

[jjgallow]

We could always trade him to Edmonton, or Toronto?

 

Those trades always seem to go great.

 

Especially when we give up our most undervalued players for aging veterans with giant cap hits.    Sell low, buy high...time to ship him.   

 

I mean we've given him tons of chances, didn't even bother developing him in the minors at all just skipped right to the plug role and he's filled just that.   If we don't like how he performs in the plug role we should trick some team into getting him to succeed on their top 6 right?   The joke would be on them.

 

Bennett for Mike Smith?     Smith's had like 2 good games and no doubt will solidify our goaltending future for years to come, Bennett's clearly washed up at 23.

 

I just hope they never do anything stupid like a conditioning stint in the minors where he gets top-line minutes and remembers how to produce again and be a leader.    Remember how embarrassing that was for Draisaitl?  Bennett is much better off this way.    We should never utilize the minors for development as this damages the egos of our highly paid talented pluggers that we spent top 10 first round picks on.  Egos Must be upheld or the whole team structure can fail.   And then who would fill his crucial 3 minutes/game for while he was gone?  Unthinkable.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

I just hope they never do anything stupid like a conditioning stint in the minors where he gets top-line minutes and remembers how to produce again and be a leader.    Remember how embarrassing that was for Draisaitl?  Bennett is much better off this way.    We should never utilize the minors for development as this damages the egos of our highly paid talented pluggers that we spent top 10 first round picks on.  Egos Must be upheld or the whole team structure can fail.   And then who would fill his crucial 3 minutes/game for while he was gone?  Unthinkable.

 

Draisaitl was meh his first season where they burned his first year and sent him back to the WHL.

Thn he started in the AHL for 6 games, putting up 2 points.

How is that the same?

Bennett went to junior without playing a single NHL game, after his surgery.

And then played the whole year after the playoffs,

Was not eligible to play in the AHL until after that year.

 

But anyway, we get the message.

Would you trade him to EDM for Puljujarvi?

Two players that have not met expectations or adapted to their circumstances.

I am not saying Bennett should be lighting it up with the players he gets, but he should be at least doing what Mangiapane is doing.

You want to score goals?

Put yourself in position to do it.

 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

We could always trade him to Edmonton, or Toronto?

 

Those trades always seem to go great.

 

Especially when we give up our most undervalued players for aging veterans with giant cap hits.    Sell low, buy high...time to ship him.   

 

I mean we've given him tons of chances, didn't even bother developing him in the minors at all just skipped right to the plug role and he's filled just that.   If we don't like how he performs in the plug role we should trick some team into getting him to succeed on their top 6 right?   The joke would be on them.

 

Bennett for Mike Smith?     Smith's had like 2 good games and no doubt will solidify our goaltending future for years to come, Bennett's clearly washed up at 23.

 

I just hope they never do anything stupid like a conditioning stint in the minors where he gets top-line minutes and remembers how to produce again and be a leader.    Remember how embarrassing that was for Draisaitl?  Bennett is much better off this way.    We should never utilize the minors for development as this damages the egos of our highly paid talented pluggers that we spent top 10 first round picks on.  Egos Must be upheld or the whole team structure can fail.   And then who would fill his crucial 3 minutes/game for while he was gone?  Unthinkable.

 

 

Yup! It’s why I think he should’ve played as the #1C in the minors starting 2 years ago. Play him in all situations and perfect it! 

 

I am probably only one of a few who believe our bottom6 young players play not to make a mistake. They’re afraid to do something wrong and then it looks like bad hockey IQ. 

 

I said it back when we drafted him, play him in the A, develop him if we have to!