Sam Bennett

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Feaster seems to have some blinders in his drafting, mostly Feas-brod.

Kanzig - the next Charo.

Harrison - another HS kid in the US.

 

 

Drafting has come so far.  Lol Chara would have easily gone top 10 now looking at what he did in his prior draft year, the massive points he put up in both mens leagues and leagues where he was the youngest.   In today's scouting world that would have been an obvious and low risk move.   Absolutely zero comparison to Kanzig sigh

 

I dunno what happened, Feaster did so well in the previous draft and others, then just went nuts.   

 

Even today, I think some of the best draft opportunities come from drafting guys in leagues not well scouted, because not every talent has reason to submit themselves to the big name leagues that young.    What does it matter to them if they go first round or 4th round?  It doesn't.     That, and, sigh, smaller players.   That will always be an opportunity.   So I was always fine with us drafting Gaudreau, happy when I first saw it.     But you can't hold onto every small LWer you draft.   

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, jjgallow said:

I dunno what happened, Feaster did so well in the previous draft and others, then just went nuts.   

 

Even today, I think some of the best draft opportunities come from drafting guys in leagues not well scouted, because not every talent has reason to submit themselves to the big name leagues that young.    What does it matter to them if they go first round or 4th round?  It doesn't.     That, and, sigh, smaller players.   That will always be an opportunity.   So I was always fine with us drafting Gaudreau, happy when I first saw it.     But you can't hold onto every small LWer you draft.   

 

Feas-brod was the problem.

Decided they knew more than our scouts.

Bees was good at scouting US players, but I think he got caught up in it a bit.

Janko was one thing (not a terrible pick where he went), but Garrisob?

Gilmour was just a reach from a well coached team, since they were watching Janko at that point anyway.

 

I think we do a decent job scouting, just that tje local leagues are easier to convince the majority about.

OHL not so much this year.

Q league had a lot of games.

European ones were hit an miss this year.

[jjgallow]

6 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Feas-brod was the problem.

Decided they knew more than our scouts.

Bees was good at scouting US players, but I think he got caught up in it a bit.

Janko was one thing (not a terrible pick where he went), but Garrisob?

Gilmour was just a reach from a well coached team, since they were watching Janko at that point anyway.

 

I think we do a decent job scouting, just that tje local leagues are easier to convince the majority about.

OHL not so much this year.

Q league had a lot of games.

European ones were hit an miss this year.

 

I think cockiness is the problem to some degree, and you can spot it as soon as they start drafting out of order.

 

Yes, those were some bad draft rounds so Feas-brod was clearly off the board.    IMHO probably got cocky after drafting Gaudreau  (who was BPA legitimately).

 

But BT's drafting hasn't been any better to be honest.   When he actually keeps any picks, that is.

[travel_dude]

10 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I think cockiness is the problem to some degree, and you can spot it as soon as they start drafting out of order.

 

Yes, those were some bad draft rounds so Feas-brod was clearly off the board.    IMHO probably got cocky after drafting Gaudreau  (who was BPA legitimately).

 

But BT's drafting hasn't been any better to be honest.   When he actually keeps any picks, that is.

 

To be fair, from 2015 onward, we've had successes and fails like every team:

2015 - 3 players selected 2nd round and 4th have played in the NHL, one player in KHL  

2016 - 3 of 4 from rounds 1-3 are NHL'ers; round 4 onward not so much (one too small for Sutter)

2017 - round 1 and 4 have played NHL games; round 5-7 not good 

2018 - first pick starting in round 4; 3 of them in the AHL last year for 1st season.

2019 - a bit early to call any busts;

2020 - 4 of 6 look like they could be NHL eventually

 

The issue for me is we don't have enough 2nd rounders.  We seem to hit on most of them.  Anything past that is gravy.    

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

To be fair, from 2015 onward, we've had successes and fails like every team:

2015 - 3 players selected 2nd round and 4th have played in the NHL, one player in KHL  

2016 - 3 of 4 from rounds 1-3 are NHL'ers; round 4 onward not so much (one too small for Sutter)

2017 - round 1 and 4 have played NHL games; round 5-7 not good 

2018 - first pick starting in round 4; 3 of them in the AHL last year for 1st season.

2019 - a bit early to call any busts;

2020 - 4 of 6 look like they could be NHL eventually

 

The issue for me is we don't have enough 2nd rounders.  We seem to hit on most of them.  Anything past that is gravy.    

 

I don't want us to be like every team

 

We lose a lot of picks.  first, second, we lose a lot more picks good organisations lose.    And we know all about that, it's gotta stop.

 

 

With regards to drafting guys because we happened to have a scout in the area, this is the worst.    And we say that the GM wasn't listening to their scouts.

But...they were.    Just, not the right way.

 

It's not possible to properly scout every player in the draft.    Some of the guys we pick, that are just well below the calibre in their round but are scouted by us, makes me think we either need waaaay more scouts, or we need a better method.    

 

And yeah I'll say it, you need a couple stats guys in there.   Maybe they don't have the final say, I get that.  But they should have some veto power.  Because with stats you can pretty much spot a dud a mile away.     And they should be in there two years ahead, helping figure out where you want your scouts to be scouting in draft year.

[travel_dude]

Draft failures are not always picking the wrong guy.

Poirier may have been the wrong pick; choppy stride but nose for the net.

There were personal issues below the surface that scouts would never pick up on.

And the development path for him may have played a big part in the failure.

 

Those are two very different reasons for players failing.  

Mason MacDonald should have had warning bells going off, so no excuse there; completely bad pick.

Klimchuk should have been able to transition to the NHL, so I will think that to be a development fail.

 

A team picks Kucherov in round X and they are a genius.

29 teams passed on him.

 

My point is that as long as your top 2 round picks are NHL players that contribute according to their draft placement, you are doing well.

3rd round and beyond success rate is much less, so finding gems is the goal.

 

Too often, I think we critique based on drafted player lists (1-7th rounds) for a year or draft rankings and complain about picking player x and not player y.  

Sure, some are WTF moments.  Others are "What did you see there".  What teams don't share is the reason why they went there other than the opinion.

No empirical evidence, no chance at success for the position, just opinion.

Pelletier picked because he told them they would regret not picking him.

Or some other nonsense.

He was scouted for a reason, and attitude wasn't it.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I think cockiness is the problem to some degree, and you can spot it as soon as they start drafting out of order.

 

Yes, those were some bad draft rounds so Feas-brod was clearly off the board.    IMHO probably got cocky after drafting Gaudreau  (who was BPA legitimately).

 

But BT's drafting hasn't been any better to be honest.   When he actually keeps any picks, that is.

 

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

To be fair, from 2015 onward, we've had successes and fails like every team:

2015 - 3 players selected 2nd round and 4th have played in the NHL, one player in KHL  

2016 - 3 of 4 from rounds 1-3 are NHL'ers; round 4 onward not so much (one too small for Sutter)

2017 - round 1 and 4 have played NHL games; round 5-7 not good 

2018 - first pick starting in round 4; 3 of them in the AHL last year for 1st season.

2019 - a bit early to call any busts;

2020 - 4 of 6 look like they could be NHL eventually

 

The issue for me is we don't have enough 2nd rounders.  We seem to hit on most of them.  Anything past that is gravy.    

 

i actually agree with TF here! I feel like they’ve drafted better or slightly better than before. When you look at the total NHL players, somewhere around 20% have played NHL hockey. Apparently that’s the definition of success in drafting. My biggest issue is not finding true difference makers, but that’s due to missing on a number of our first rounders early in the rebuild, Benny not panning out, and so on. But I think where some teams find gems, I guess we have in Andersson, Mangiapane and Gaudreau. Andersson is a definitive Top4 D. Mangiapane’s a really good middle 6 winger, and Gaudreau is an excellent LW for a top line if he had a true #1C. 
 

But, this is why I get so pissed when we trade away picks to fill holes. In the long run some of those holes can be filled if they were patient. 
 

although, it seems we have a good read on skilled forwards under 6’ tall. 
 

I guess I agree with you both, partially. 
 

while we could have had Barzal if we didn’t trade for Hamilton, we wouldn’t have Hanifin and Lindholm if that happened. Hanifin is another decent Top4 D and Lindholm is a good 1RW and a good 2C. Is it better to have those two, or a bonafide #1C? Those are the trade offs that are made when trading away picks. 

[jjgallow]

42 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

i actually agree with TF here! I feel like they’ve drafted better or slightly better than before. When you look at the total NHL players, somewhere around 20% have played NHL hockey. Apparently that’s the definition of success in drafting. My biggest issue is not finding true difference makers, but that’s due to missing on a number of our first rounders early in the rebuild, Benny not panning out, and so on. But I think where some teams find gems, I guess we have in Andersson, Mangiapane and Gaudreau. Andersson is a definitive Top4 D. Mangiapane’s a really good middle 6 winger, and Gaudreau is an excellent LW for a top line if he had a true #1C. 
 

But, this is why I get so pissed when we trade away picks to fill holes. In the long run some of those holes can be filled if they were patient. 
 

although, it seems we have a good read on skilled forwards under 6’ tall. 
 

I guess I agree with you both, partially. 
 

while we could have had Barzal if we didn’t trade for Hamilton, we wouldn’t have Hanifin and Lindholm if that happened. Hanifin is another decent Top4 D and Lindholm is a good 1RW and a good 2C. Is it better to have those two, or a bonafide #1C? Those are the trade offs that are made when trading away picks. 

 

Yeah I'm not even sure we're fully disagreeing although that's bound to change

 

I just look at it as:  Is our drafting/development good enough?

 

1.  No.

2.   We cut our last rebuild short and that's why no matter what trades your repositioning you do, you're 2-3 key guys short of a contender even with all pistons firing.

3.   The guys we cut short on, were:   Everyone but LW.   Soooo....we can't even be a pretend contender now

 

Here is my interpretation of those same years:    ( expectedly I am harsher.  but I admit up front that their development system is as much to blame as drafting)

 

2015 - Traded away our first pick.  GM immediately suspect by default, but at least it wasn't an aweful trade.  Andersson and Mangiapane turned out.  2 is ok, not special.
            2015 Context:   Best draft in a generation.   Some teams had 5/7 players turn out (like Winnipeg)

2016 - We picked SUPER high, and had only 2 turn out (Tkachuk and Dube).  Deep draft.   Most teams picking as high as us had 3 turn out.  Some 4.
            2016 Context:  I didn't include Fox.   Do you include him?  Not without a whole thread on how BT should be fired.

2017 - Literally just one player turned out (Valimaki in round one).   Bad bad bad.   Traded away a lot of picks too.  Again

2018 - Zero turned out.  Beyond words aweful.   Nobody standing out.  Traded picks away AGAIN

2019 - Bizarre off the board drafting.  It's early, but these are all likely failures except we have hope for Wolf.    Hope, as in small chance of turning out.

2020 - Too early to call.  IMHO maybe one.   Ryan Francis.  Maybe.    Solovyov has the skill but is a Rafikov type situation. 

           2020 context:  Totally understandable that we see this one differently.  Obviously too early.   IMHO they got most of this draft wrong, especially the higher round picks.

 

So basically, from 2015-2018, 5 players turned out as meaningful NHLers.   That's one per year.    And it includes some very high picks early on, or it would be lower.

 

We lose more than one player per year to age/injury.      This doesn't sustain.

 

Is this a full disagreement?   Actually no.   I agree that if we hadn't lost so many picks, this would look better.

 

However, I don't see any impact players in here.  Other than Tkachuk who was expected to be that at 7th overall.
So I disagree with measuring success by players graduating to the AHL.   Quite frankly even the NHL isn't good enough.
 

We are left with zero impact players outside of Tkachuk.   That's where we fail.

[travel_dude]

19 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

2018 - Zero turned out.  Beyond words aweful.   Nobody standing out.  Traded picks away AGAIN

2019 - Bizarre off the board drafting.  It's early, but these are all likely failures except we have hope for Wolf.    Hope, as in small chance of turning out.

2020 - Too early to call.  IMHO maybe one.   Ryan Francis.  Maybe.    Solovyov has the skill but is a Rafikov type situation. 

           2020 context:  Totally understandable that we see this one differently.  Obviously too early.   IMHO they got most of this draft wrong, especially the higher round picks.

 

 

2018 - Traded picks bad.  Having 3 players in the AHL is not a bust.

2019 - really?  You must be able to project a 1st rounder to be a bust.  We really get you don't like the player.

2020 - There are several picks I do not like, but others that could be steals.

[Thebrewcrew]

Teams shoot for 2 NHLers in a draft so let's look at the past handful of Flames drafts

2015- 2 prominent NHLers and Kylington, who's played almost 100 games

2016- 3 prominent NHLers

2017- This is a draft that could be criticized as 3 of the 5 picks didn't earn contracts. Valimaki is a player and Ruzicka has a chance so they may get 2 players yet

2018- For not having a pick until the 4th round, this isn't a bad draft, 3 of the 5 picks have already earned NHL deals. 

2019 and 2020, I have no idea how anyone could criticize these drafts. It's too early still. Only 5 players have played more than 40 games from the 2019 class and only 4 players from 2020 have played NHL games. 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Teams shoot for 2 NHLers in a draft so let's look at the past handful of Flames drafts

2015- 2 prominent NHLers and Kylington, who's played almost 100 games

2016- 3 prominent NHLers

2017- This is a draft that could be criticized as 3 of the 5 picks didn't earn contracts. Valimaki is a player and Ruzicka has a chance so they may get 2 players yet

2018- For not having a pick until the 4th round, this isn't a bad draft, 3 of the 5 picks have already earned NHL deals. 

2019 and 2020, I have no idea how anyone could criticize these drafts. It's too early still. Only 5 players have played more than 40 games from the 2019 class and only 4 players from 2020 have played NHL games. 

 

It all comes down to what we mean by prominent.

 

But put it this way....if we were drafting well enough, we wouldn't be where we are.  So I don't see this is an IF question, more a how and why.

 

Yeah you need 2 NHLers per draft, sort of, but not really.   Because most of your team can be easily acquired in the offseason through various means.

 

That first line.    Your top 3 forwards, top 2 defencemen, top goalie.

 

Those 6 players.     With an average career span in those top positions of also about 6 years.

 

Means we need to draft one every year.   Maybe a little less if we find the odd guy who can play 10 years on the first line.

This is necessary to be competitive NHL team, this is necessary to be a contender.  Because nobody can afford to have their full first line on full blown contracts.

 

We...drafted...Tkachuk, which btw was a no-brainer, in those 5 years.   I don't see anyone else making a first line in the NHL.
        In Europe, sure.  Mangiapane, Dube.

        Wolf?   Maybe, but we're not in a position to assume that with our track record in net.

 

Sure, part of this is because we were high in the standings.  but most of it was because we traded away so many picks and the picks we had, we didn't pick players with high ceilings.  And we don't develop them to reach their ceilings.    So this is the arguement, I think, some make that our problem is "drafting BPA".   Depends on your definition of what that is.  But we're not getting it done, no matter how many AHLers we create.

 

[robrob74]

6 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

It all comes down to what we mean by prominent.

 

But put it this way....if we were drafting well enough, we wouldn't be where we are.  So I don't see this is an IF question, more a how and why.

 

Yeah you need 2 NHLers per draft, sort of, but not really.   Because most of your team can be easily acquired in the offseason through various means.

 

That first line.    Your top 3 forwards, top 2 defencemen, top goalie.

 

Those 6 players.     With an average career span in those top positions of also about 6 years.

 

Means we need to draft one every year.   Maybe a little less if we find the odd guy who can play 10 years on the first line.

This is necessary to be competitive NHL team, this is necessary to be a contender.  Because nobody can afford to have their full first line on full blown contracts.

 

We...drafted...Tkachuk, which btw was a no-brainer, in those 5 years.   I don't see anyone else making a first line in the NHL.
        In Europe, sure.  Mangiapane, Dube.

        Wolf?   Maybe, but we're not in a position to assume that with our track record in net.

 

Sure, part of this is because we were high in the standings.  but most of it was because we traded away so many picks and the picks we had, we didn't pick players with high ceilings.  And we don't develop them to reach their ceilings.    So this is the arguement, I think, some make that our problem is "drafting BPA".   Depends on your definition of what that is.  But we're not getting it done, no matter how many AHLers we create.

 

 

I would go further to say, just making the NHL isn’t enough either. Ok so guys can play in the NHL, but how many guys can win? What’s the magic formula? Is it really just getting hot at the right time? 
 

not that we drafted Colborne, but he played how many games, or let’s say Bouma, he played games and I guess that’s considered a drafting success? He played a few hundred games. If the team isn’t filled enough, you’re bound to get some AHL players playing in your lineup. 
 

Dube and Valamaki are AHLera by Sutter’s standards. I could agree. The way he coached them, they should’ve been in the AHL. But that was too late. But also it’s because there’s no one else to fill their spots. 
 

valamaki has some NHL talent, but I think ironing out the kinks was needed. Dube is probably the same, or was cast on the wrong line.

[travel_dude]

39 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I would go further to say, just making the NHL isn’t enough either. Ok so guys can play in the NHL, but how many guys can win? What’s the magic formula? Is it really just getting hot at the right time? 
 

not that we drafted Colborne, but he played how many games, or let’s say Bouma, he played games and I guess that’s considered a drafting success? He played a few hundred games. If the team isn’t filled enough, you’re bound to get some AHL players playing in your lineup. 
 

Dube and Valamaki are AHLera by Sutter’s standards. I could agree. The way he coached them, they should’ve been in the AHL. But that was too late. But also it’s because there’s no one else to fill their spots. 
 

valamaki has some NHL talent, but I think ironing out the kinks was needed. Dube is probably the same, or was cast on the wrong line.

 

I'm not sure what the measuring stick is.

Valimaki played poorly with who?

Are we blaming it on him?

Dube was okay, nut should not have be top RW.

But our 3rd line is a mess.

The 4th line scored almost mothing.

Barely played with Monahan.

 

Can we possibly stop the poor fits and play guys that actually belong together?

Hanifin-Tanev was a safe match.

Gio was not a great fit with anyone other than Tanev, but was not the best pairing.

Try complementing players instead of setting them up with the same style or teo tookies.

Or a poor fit KHL player.

[robrob74]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm not sure what the measuring stick is.

Valimaki played poorly with who?

Are we blaming it on him?

Dube was okay, nut should not have be top RW.

But our 3rd line is a mess.

The 4th line scored almost mothing.

Barely played with Monahan.

 

Can we possibly stop the poor fits and play guys that actually belong together?

Hanifin-Tanev was a safe match.

Gio was not a great fit with anyone other than Tanev, but was not the best pairing.

Try complementing players instead of setting them up with the same style or teo tookies.

Or a poor fit KHL player.

 

this season was like bashing the head against the wall as both coaches did it! I agree! 

[robrob74]

9 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm not sure what the measuring stick is.

Valimaki played poorly with who?

Are we blaming it on him?

Dube was okay, nut should not have be top RW.

But our 3rd line is a mess.

The 4th line scored almost mothing.

Barely played with Monahan.

 

Can we possibly stop the poor fits and play guys that actually belong together?

Hanifin-Tanev was a safe match.

Gio was not a great fit with anyone other than Tanev, but was not the best pairing.

Try complementing players instead of setting them up with the same style or teo tookies.

Or a poor fit KHL player.

 

 

Yup! But that also shows that the Flames iced a borderline NHLer with him most of the time. Sure they can play, but they weren't moving needles. I guess that's what a 3rd pairing is though. I think Valamaki IS an NHLer, but for what you want him to grow into, is an AHLer to get the reps in the position you want him to play; higher up the lineup. What I mean is, play him a lot of minutes. He's so young and missed so much time, I think he just needed to get a lot of minutes and get his legs under him...

 

Sutter talked a lot about his foot speed, I think that's from sitting for nearly 2 seasons with injuries. 

 

I agree that Dube is also there, but there's a poor fit for a lot of these guys, which is why it would be nice to have guys grow together in the AHL. Dube is a guy who was in and out of the lineup. My biggest beef is that they sit him for transgressions that others do just as often, and I didn't think he looked out of place in comparison to others as well.

 

I also agree that players need to compliment skills. But what happens if there's no one able to do that? I think that's why the roster was spread so thin, trying to milk an empty cow. 

[travel_dude]

7 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

Yup! But that also shows that the Flames iced a borderline NHLer with him most of the time. Sure they can play, but they weren't moving needles. I guess that's what a 3rd pairing is though. I think Valamaki IS an NHLer, but for what you want him to grow into, is an AHLer to get the reps in the position you want him to play; higher up the lineup. What I mean is, play him a lot of minutes. He's so young and missed so much time, I think he just needed to get a lot of minutes and get his legs under him...

 

Sutter talked a lot about his foot speed, I think that's from sitting for nearly 2 seasons with injuries. 

 

I agree that Dube is also there, but there's a poor fit for a lot of these guys, which is why it would be nice to have guys grow together in the AHL. Dube is a guy who was in and out of the lineup. My biggest beef is that they sit him for transgressions that others do just as often, and I didn't think he looked out of place in comparison to others as well.

 

I also agree that players need to compliment skills. But what happens if there's no one able to do that? I think that's why the roster was spread so thin, trying to milk an empty cow. 

 

We saw what a team with no depth and two NHL points leaders was able to do in the season and playoffs.

Nothing great.

While a guy like Nordstrom is good to PK, he doesn't do much else.

Forecheck for sure, but not much else.

We had a 4th line and part of a 3rd line like that.

 

The impact of losing Hanifin was that we missed the playoffs.

That sounds bad, but shows you that we didn't have another top 2 D on LD.

Our RD was fine in the top 4.

Valimaki made mistakes that happen every day, but pairing him with a guy like Nesterov was a mistake.

Stone was much more steady, but really didn't allow for him to use his wheels.

 

For me, the only way we can fix the D is to ship out Gio and concentrate on what we have left.

Tanev - about as steady a guy as you would want.  Needs to play with a puck mover that can skate.

Hanifin - improved defensive game and smart offensive player that can skate and move the puck.

Ras - is at his best once you gain the zone, relies a bit too much on size to contain in D-zone, needs more confidence.

Valimaki - can fly, just needs to work on D-zone exits.

Mackey - more of a defensive guy, stay at home.

Kylington - best skater of the bunch, but still makes questionable decisions.

 

2 RD and 4 LD.  Stone isn't the answer.  Need a top 4 guy like Montour to stabilize the D.

Hanifin-Ras

Valimaki-Tanev

Kylington/Mackey-Montour

 

I don't want to overpay, just feel we need solid partners to move forward.  Each pair is a mix of skating and defense and grit.

 

As far as Dube goes, he a smart player but belongs with guys that can move the puck forward.

Backlund works, but I don't think Dube's defensive game is there yet.  

On offense, would be nice to see a 3 man unit attack with speed.

We seem to have one poor skater per line, and that really hurts.

 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

Yup! But that also shows that the Flames iced a borderline NHLer with him most of the time. Sure they can play, but they weren't moving needles. I guess that's what a 3rd pairing is though. I think Valamaki IS an NHLer, but for what you want him to grow into, is an AHLer to get the reps in the position you want him to play; higher up the lineup. What I mean is, play him a lot of minutes. He's so young and missed so much time, I think he just needed to get a lot of minutes and get his legs under him...

 

Sutter talked a lot about his foot speed, I think that's from sitting for nearly 2 seasons with injuries. 

 

I agree that Dube is also there, but there's a poor fit for a lot of these guys, which is why it would be nice to have guys grow together in the AHL. Dube is a guy who was in and out of the lineup. My biggest beef is that they sit him for transgressions that others do just as often, and I didn't think he looked out of place in comparison to others as well.

 

I also agree that players need to compliment skills. But what happens if there's no one able to do that? I think that's why the roster was spread so thin, trying to milk an empty cow. 

 

Exactly yes.    Valimaki is a player who could be much more but probably never will be in this organization with how we run it.

 

This pretty much says it all:  The only definitive first-line player we've produced in the last 5 years:   Matthew Tkachuk,

 

We're playing him on the 2nd line.     Because that is Literally how we operate.     If he wasn't so clearly a first liner we would for sure have him on the fourth line.

 

And that brings us back to Bennet, the original topic of this thread.  Literally what we did.

[jjgallow]

26 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We saw what a team with no depth and two NHL points leaders was able to do in the season and playoffs.

Nothing great.

While a guy like Nordstrom is good to PK, he doesn't do much else.

Forecheck for sure, but not much else.

We had a 4th line and part of a 3rd line like that.

 

The impact of losing Hanifin was that we missed the playoffs.

That sounds bad, but shows you that we didn't have another top 2 D on LD.

Our RD was fine in the top 4.

Valimaki made mistakes that happen every day, but pairing him with a guy like Nesterov was a mistake.

Stone was much more steady, but really didn't allow for him to use his wheels.

 

For me, the only way we can fix the D is to ship out Gio and concentrate on what we have left.

Tanev - about as steady a guy as you would want.  Needs to play with a puck mover that can skate.

Hanifin - improved defensive game and smart offensive player that can skate and move the puck.

Ras - is at his best once you gain the zone, relies a bit too much on size to contain in D-zone, needs more confidence.

Valimaki - can fly, just needs to work on D-zone exits.

Mackey - more of a defensive guy, stay at home.

Kylington - best skater of the bunch, but still makes questionable decisions.

 

2 RD and 4 LD.  Stone isn't the answer.  Need a top 4 guy like Montour to stabilize the D.

Hanifin-Ras

Valimaki-Tanev

Kylington/Mackey-Montour

 

I don't want to overpay, just feel we need solid partners to move forward.  Each pair is a mix of skating and defense and grit.

 

As far as Dube goes, he a smart player but belongs with guys that can move the puck forward.

Backlund works, but I don't think Dube's defensive game is there yet.  

On offense, would be nice to see a 3 man unit attack with speed.

We seem to have one poor skater per line, and that really hurts.

 

 

 

I agree with pretty much all of this, in particular moving Gio.  Although he's pretty soon going to move down in the pairings himself.     It's all too little, too late, to be honest, for this core.      But it would be amazing if the organization learned from it, for the next core.

 

Because imho we have three distinct problems,

• Drafting (I still think this is a problem)
• BT trading away our picks and future
• Development

 

I really believe all three are legitimate issues that all need to be solved for our next core to succeed  (I've given up on this one).    And by development, that's a broad term which means making the right trades to give your guys a chance.     Can't have everyone on LW.   Can't have zero development opportunity on defence.    So it gets into management of the team, in a way that the coach can't do.   The coach is there to win games, the GM has to structure it so we win in the future too.

[travel_dude]

Bennett signed today with FLA ofr $4.4m x 4 years.  Nice.

[sak22]

Good to see him get the long term security.  Was curious as to how Florida would treat this as it was a small sample size for success, but in his final year before UFA I wouldn't think they'd go for a 1 year prove it.

[cross16]

Happy for Bennett but have to say i'm really surprised at that deal. 

 

My first reaction is I don't think Florida is going to like that contract. 

[travel_dude]

57 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Good to see him get the long term security.  Was curious as to how Florida would treat this as it was a small sample size for success, but in his final year before UFA I wouldn't think they'd go for a 1 year prove it.

 

42 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Happy for Bennett but have to say i'm really surprised at that deal. 

 

My first reaction is I don't think Florida is going to like that contract. 

 

I was thinking that it's nice for Bennett.  In his 19/20 season he scored but 5 points more than Janko.  Last year just 12 with us.

That's not something you offer $4.4m x 4 for.

He may end up being a value contract, but I'm not sure how they roll out the C positions there now with Reinhart being added.

[LouCifer]

Really happy for Bennett. I have no concern about him living up to that contract. 

[ABC923]

I'll admit I have my doubts he will live up to that contract, but FLA really couldn't give him a one year prove it deal. Bennett leveraged his RFA status and strong performance over a small sample size into a good deal for himself with solid pay and stability. Good for the player, and hopefully he rewards his team for having faith in him.

[ABC923]

So the salary structure seems odd to me, and I got curious about what a buyout might look like down the line (for the record, I’m not predicting a buyout, just curious how the structure would affect things). According to cap friendly, if Florida buys out the last 2 years on the contract, the cap hit is actually negative in year 3 (not by much, but still) and less than 1/3 of Sam’s cap hit in year 4. So having higher base salary in later years of a contract makes them easier to buyout. I know this isn’t new, but I thought it was interesting.