Andrew Mangiapane

[cross16]

What are we defining as peak, as in this is the most he can produce? Some food for thought.

 

Over the last 2 seasons, Mangiapane is 29th in the entire league in 5 on 5 goals for forwards. 

He's 67th for forwards in points at 5 on5.

He's 52nd for First assists. 

 

He's the 6th highest forward in TOI/game. Barely deployed as a top 6 forward. 

Over the last 2 seasons his PP TOI/Game ranks him 11th at 33 seconds/game. The Flames have used Lucic, Czarnik, Bennett and Dube more on the PP than Mangiapange. 

 

Is this his peak in terms of his age, yup I would agree at that. Can he produce more if given more opportunity? No doubt in my mind. 

[MP5029]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

What are we defining as peak, as in this is the most he can produce? Some food for thought.

 

Over the last 2 seasons, Mangiapane is 29th in the entire league in 5 on 5 goals for forwards. 

He's 67th for forwards in points at 5 on5.

He's 52nd for First assists. 

 

He's the 6th highest forward in TOI/game. Barely deployed as a top 6 forward. 

Over the last 2 seasons his PP TOI/Game ranks him 11th at 33 seconds/game. The Flames have used Lucic, Czarnik, Bennett and Dube more on the PP than Mangiapange. 

 

Is this his peak in terms of his age, yup I would agree at that. Can he produce more if given more opportunity? No doubt in my mind. 

Thing is will he every get that chance here in Cgy to play top 6...regularly and with a Ctr and RW who can compliment his play and any chance at 1st line pp? Doubtful..even if traded to another team he’s probably gonna be 2nd line PP, he’s just way too far down the dept chart on most all teams.

 

thing is he’s a super great 3rd liner...2nd liner, no...not here and pretty much every other team He’s 3rd liner...thing is, on other teams he’s gonna have a better Ctr and RW to play with on the 3rd line and that will see him improve some, but no way he’s on a 2nd line and even if he were to be put on one I just don’t see him doing well for all long stint at 2nd line duty...hence this is why the value of Manji is high now, there are som GM foolish enough to think he can do 2nd line duty regularly and well, but make

my words, any success he may have be it here or elsewhere on 2nd line...will be short lived.

 

others may disagree and that fine but let me ask you this...ok play Manji on 2nd line so are you demoting Chucky or Gaudreau? And if so, let’s say it’s Chucky..you really want to play him on the 3rd line at 7 mil and see even less production...I’m gonna go on a limb here and say this was an off year for him and he will bounce back...I’m speaking of Chucky here.

 

in any event, Manji is 3rd line at best, and if given a choose Chucky or Manji I’m on the Chucky keeper wagon...not sure how many would think Manji is the over all better player but ok they are entitled to an option regardless of how foolish that thought process would be.

[cross16]

4 hours ago, MP5029 said:

Thing is will he every get that chance here in Cgy to play top 6...regularly and with a Ctr and RW who can compliment his play and any chance at 1st line pp? Doubtful..even if traded to another team he’s probably gonna be 2nd line PP, he’s just way too far down the dept chart on most all teams.

 

thing is he’s a super great 3rd liner...2nd liner, no...not here and pretty much every other team He’s 3rd liner...thing is, on other teams he’s gonna have a better Ctr and RW to play with on the 3rd line and that will see him improve some, but no way he’s on a 2nd line and even if he were to be put on one I just don’t see him doing well for all long stint at 2nd line duty...hence this is why the value of Manji is high now, there are som GM foolish enough to think he can do 2nd line duty regularly and well, but make

my words, any success he may have be it here or elsewhere on 2nd line...will be short lived.

 

others may disagree and that fine but let me ask you this...ok play Manji on 2nd line so are you demoting Chucky or Gaudreau? And if so, let’s say it’s Chucky..you really want to play him on the 3rd line at 7 mil and see even less production...I’m gonna go on a limb here and say this was an off year for him and he will bounce back...I’m speaking of Chucky here.

 

in any event, Manji is 3rd line at best, and if given a choose Chucky or Manji I’m on the Chucky keeper wagon...not sure how many would think Manji is the over all better player but ok they are entitled to an option regardless of how foolish that thought process would be.

So he is in their top 6, leads the team at 5 on 5 this year, one of their most productive over the last 2 seasons and producing like a first line player but he’s a 3rd line player at best?

 

that is quite the response

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

So he is in their top 6, leads the team at 5 on 5 this year, one of their most productive over the last 2 seasons and producing like a first line player but he’s a 3rd line player at best?

 

that is quite the response

 

I think he was starting to say Mangiapane is not a "great" second liner.   Which is true, more because of his position (LW).   Most teams have so much depth there.  Only this last season do we speak of Mangiapane with such good numbers but still I think he would need to jump another step to be a good second liner on most playoff teams.  But not all.  I totally admit it's debatable.

 

Here's a weird example...Toronto.  One of the few playoff teams not loaded with LW talent.

 

How would Mangiapane fair with them?  I think quite well, and I think he'd be a decent, maybe good 2nd liner.  At least for a year or two.   On Most other playoff teams he would not stack up so well.

[Sarasti]

I fully disagree with the notion that Mangiapane has peaked, as I believe his best hockey is still ahead of him.

 

We are talking about a player who has improved significantly every season of pro hockey he has played and has among the best 5v5 possession metrics in the league, and his "sell-high" value is a 2nd rounder? Foolish imo.

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, Sarasti said:

I fully disagree with the notion that Mangiapane has peaked, as I believe his best hockey is still ahead of him.

 

We are talking about a player who has improved significantly every season of pro hockey he has played and has among the best 5v5 possession metrics in the league, and his "sell-high" value is a 2nd rounder? Foolish imo.

 

That's what everyone said about Gaudreau two years ago, they just pointed to Gaudreau's strong stats and took the high road over anyone who suggested selling high.  Same for Monahan, and in a differen way Gio too.  I will admit that in playoff hockey I would prefer Mangiapane's strengths.   Realistically that's not going to be a relavant topic for us for a while.  

 

I totally get and expect disagreement from fans when selling high is suggested.

 

In fact, a true measure of selling high is when the greatest number of fans are pissed off at the idea.  So thank you for your support

 

But the track record of how this plays out is .. Pretty clear and pretty one-sided.

 

ps....I would like to think Mangiapane commands more than a 2nd rounder.   Nor would Mangiapane be my first choice for a trade.   Just sayin.

[rocketdoctor]

But are you selling high?

 

I would argue not. 

[travel_dude]

20 hours ago, jjgallow said:

.....

...  um....what do you mean Will decline...lol?   They literally embody that graph, it's already happened.  There is no fighting this, it would take one heck of an anti-aging cream.   Also, since this data came out, average NHL ages are getting younger so ...there's that.

 

And yes I agree with you about Mangiapane having more shelf life, Although...we do have to keep in mind he's high energy.

That is why I've used a context where he peaks 2 years later than that graph shows.  Which still puts him pretty near that peak.

 

SO, you look at one season and think this is proof of being past the peak?

Okay, I guess you are right.

Never mind the reasons for the decline.

Never mind any other reasons.

[travel_dude]

35 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

That's what everyone said about Gaudreau two years ago, they just pointed to Gaudreau's strong stats and took the high road over anyone who suggested selling high.  Same for Monahan, and in a differen way Gio too.  I will admit that in playoff hockey I would prefer Mangiapane's strengths.   Realistically that's not going to be a relavant topic for us for a while.  

 

I totally get and expect disagreement from fans when selling high is suggested.

 

In fact, a true measure of selling high is when the greatest number of fans are pissed off at the idea.  So thank you for your support

 

But the track record of how this plays out is .. Pretty clear and pretty one-sided.

 

ps....I would like to think Mangiapane commands more than a 2nd rounder.   Nor would Mangiapane be my first choice for a trade.   Just sayin.

 

The progression and decline of players is not linear.

Nor is it ever the same for all players.

Gaudreau was a late show to the game, as he had years in college.

And a couple to get to the NHL size.

Then he was unstopable.

Then some teams figured a way to stop him.

Then his sniper was injured.

Then he found a new way to score.

 

So you would argue that he is past prime.  

I get that and it's not wrong to want to trade to get better.

Patty Kane is laughing at you.

MSL is rolling his eyes.

They know that smaller players invent and re-invent themselves.

Trade him now, at a low point for the player, and get some okay assets.

Maybe you get a player that has a lower trajectory and trade him at 25.

 

One thing is certain, though.

We do hang onto assets too long.

Iggy, Gio, Cammi, Hamonic.

Some not long enough.

Jbow.  Hammy.  MSL. etc.

 

I can understand not trading Gio.  It was a selfish thing to want to keep a captain past his best year.

Trading Backlund before Monahan makes sense.

Trading Monahan before Tkachuk does too, but just from a trajectory sense.

He's not done, just he needs to have a good line to pley with.

 

Make the trades that make you better, not possibly, maybe better.

Trading Mangiapane for a pick is just dumb.

Is he worth a 1st from a cup winner?

Wow, that's sad.

A NHL player starting his peak for a 50/50 NHL player.

Not even a top tier 50/50 player.

[Sarasti]

45 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

That's what everyone said about Gaudreau two years ago, they just pointed to Gaudreau's strong stats and took the high road over anyone who suggested selling high.  Same for Monahan, and in a differen way Gio too.  I will admit that in playoff hockey I would prefer Mangiapane's strengths.   Realistically that's not going to be a relavant topic for us for a while.  

 

I totally get and expect disagreement from fans when selling high is suggested.

 

In fact, a true measure of selling high is when the greatest number of fans are pissed off at the idea.  So thank you for your support

 

But the track record of how this plays out is .. Pretty clear and pretty one-sided.

 

ps....I would like to think Mangiapane commands more than a 2nd rounder.   Nor would Mangiapane be my first choice for a trade.   Just sayin.

 

I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that I support your take in any way after reading my post.

 

So allow me to make it clear as day.

I do not.

 

Gaudreau has played in the top 6 with top PP time his entire career.

 

Mangiapane has improved his play with much less ice-time, less PP time and less consistency in terms of both linemates and positional usage.

 

All of this with stronger possession numbers than Gaudreau. 

 

Apples to Oranges.

[robrob74]

54 minutes ago, Sarasti said:

 

I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that I support your take in any way after reading my post.

 

So allow me to make it clear as day.

I do not.

 

Gaudreau has played in the top 6 with top PP time his entire career.

 

Mangiapane has improved his play with much less ice-time, less PP time and less consistency in terms of both linemates and positional usage.

 

All of this with stronger possession numbers than Gaudreau. 

 

Apples to Oranges.

 

 

one thing I will say is he has played a lot of time with Backlund who is an excellent possession center, while Ryan on a 4th line is pretty good at possession too. 4th line, he’s not going to see the toughest of opponents, while with Backs he will see harder guys to play against. Harder, but I wouldn’t say the toughest. Gaudreau is still going to get the most defensive guys. 
 

not to discount Mangiapane… just how I see it. 
 

Since his numbers are better, let’s play Mangiapane over Johnny then. We need to get into the playoffs. 
 

what if his numbers are good because the way he plays, limiting his minutes allows him to play at that level. If he gets more time, does he score at the same rate and get more points, or does he get tired and score at lowered rates? 
 

I am not too high on his Worlds performance. It’s awesome and feel good, but it’s not like the opponents are 1st liners in the NHL. 

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, rocketdoctor said:

But are you selling high?

 

I would argue not. 

 

Well see I just hate to argue...it's not my nature

 

I will say this, I would agree that it would make a Lot more sense to trade Gaudreau, and give Mangiapane/Tkachuk more minutes.   And that has made more sense imho for a couple years now.  Mangiapane wouldn't be my first choice, I'm just saying you could.

 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

The progression and decline of players is not linear.

Nor is it ever the same for all players.

Gaudreau was a late show to the game, as he had years in college.

And a couple to get to the NHL size.

Then he was unstopable.

Then some teams figured a way to stop him.

Then his sniper was injured.

Then he found a new way to score.

 

So you would argue that he is past prime.  

I get that and it's not wrong to want to trade to get better.

Patty Kane is laughing at you.

MSL is rolling his eyes.

They know that smaller players invent and re-invent themselves.

Trade him now, at a low point for the player, and get some okay assets.

Maybe you get a player that has a lower trajectory and trade him at 25.

 

One thing is certain, though.

We do hang onto assets too long.

Iggy, Gio, Cammi, Hamonic.

Some not long enough.

Jbow.  Hammy.  MSL. etc.

 

I can understand not trading Gio.  It was a selfish thing to want to keep a captain past his best year.

Trading Backlund before Monahan makes sense.

Trading Monahan before Tkachuk does too, but just from a trajectory sense.

He's not done, just he needs to have a good line to pley with.

 

Make the trades that make you better, not possibly, maybe better.

Trading Mangiapane for a pick is just dumb.

Is he worth a 1st from a cup winner?

Wow, that's sad.

A NHL player starting his peak for a 50/50 NHL player.

Not even a top tier 50/50 player.

 

Hey man I do agree that anything can happen.

 

I'm still hopeful for my big break in the NHL.    What I lack in skills, I make up for with my great attitude.

 

Mangiapane for a legit shot at Coronato or similar I would do, yes.      But I'd rather trade Gaudreau in a larger deal and give Mangipane more minutes, yes.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I am not too high on his Worlds performance. It’s awesome and feel good, but it’s not like the opponents are 1st liners in the NHL. 

 

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, Sarasti said:

 

I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that I support your take in any way after reading my post.

 

So allow me to make it clear as day.

I do not.

 

Gaudreau has played in the top 6 with top PP time his entire career.

 

Mangiapane has improved his play with much less ice-time, less PP time and less consistency in terms of both linemates and positional usage.

 

All of this with stronger possession numbers than Gaudreau. 

 

Apples to Oranges.

 

Well unless you're trying to convince me that Mangiapane's value is now lower, 

 

you are.

 

People really...really struggle with the buy low sell high concept lol

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Hey man I do agree that anything can happen.

 

I'm still hopeful for my big break in the NHL.    What I lack in skills, I make up for with my great attitude.

 

Mangiapane for a legit shot at Coronato or similar I would do, yes.      But I'd rather trade Gaudreau in a larger deal and give Mangipane more minutes, yes.

 

Be sure to have that deal lined up while you are on the clock at the draft.

Lots of GM happy to throw a late 1st for a proven NHL winger getting to the top of his game.

 

 

[Sarasti]

19 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Well unless you're trying to convince me that Mangiapane's value is now lower, 

 

you are.

 

People really...really struggle with the buy low sell high concept lol

 

I'm not struggling with anything. 

I dont believe we should sell at all. Whether his value is high, low, or nonexistent.

 

So again, no I do not agree with you.

 

What I will say is trading Mange is foolish. Here you have a proven top-6 play driver and you want to flip him for a very slim chance of finding someone better in the late first or second round.

We don't exactly have a great track record drafting studs in the late first.

Thats straight up poor asset management IMO.

[jjgallow]

8 minutes ago, Sarasti said:

 

I'm not struggling with anything. 

I dont believe we should sell at all. Whether his value is high, low, or nonexistent.

 

So again, no I do not agree with you.

 

What I will say is trading Mange is foolish. Here you have a proven top-6 play driver and you want to flip him for a very slim chance of finding someone better in the late first or second round.

We don't exactly have a great track record drafting studs in the late first.

Thats straight up poor asset management IMO.

 

Well the whole point was that he had high sell value and you argued against it by explaining how high his sell value is.

 

So I do think you are struggling with that.   Unless.....you think that you are the only one who's looked into his performance and the Flames, and other professional hockey organisations, just don't do this sort of thing.   

 

So again, for me, it wouldn't be my first trade option.   You can think you're disagreeing with me if you want but that doesn't mean you actually are.

 

In terms of asset management, investing in this current core is poor asset management.    And I don't even think that point has to be argued anymore so I'm not sure what you even care of whether he's proven top 6 or isn't (he's not yet).

 

In terms of a late first rounder, this particular draft is highly under-rated and players are being ranked all over the map, it's not going to play out like a typical draft.   Do I have concerns about our drafting prowess?   Sure.   But that's a problem you solve at it's source.  It would be absolutely ridiculous asset management to just stop drafting because you're not great at it.

[Sarasti]

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Well the whole point was that he had high sell value and you argued against it by explaining how high his sell value is.

 

So I do think you are struggling with that.   Unless.....you think that you are the only one who's looked into his performance and the Flames, and other professional hockey organisations, just don't do this sort of thing.   

 

So again, for me, it wouldn't be my first trade option.   You can think you're disagreeing with me if you want but that doesn't mean you actually are.

 

In terms of asset management, investing in this current core is poor asset management.    And I don't even think that point has to be argued anymore so I'm not sure what you even care of whether he's proven top 6 or isn't (he's not yet).

 

In terms of a late first rounder, this particular draft is highly under-rated and players are being ranked all over the map, it's not going to play out like a typical draft.   Do I have concerns about our drafting prowess?   Sure.   But that's a problem you solve at it's source.  It would be absolutely ridiculous asset management to just stop drafting because you're not great at it.

 

Trading assets we should hold onto just for the sake of more shots at the board is the poor asset management I was referring to, but whatever. Let's pretend you didn't know that.

 

Never once were my arguments against his trade value. They were against trading him at all, regardless of value.

 

Mangiapane was our most consistent performer game in and game out, and he's more than proven capable of handling a top 6 role imo. He's the type of dog you want in a fight you're trying to win, because he's the breed of player you win with.

 

I get it though, you're not happy with this squad. Just like you never have been, and likely never will be.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, Sarasti said:

 

Trading assets we should hold onto just for the sake of more shots at the board is the poor asset management I was referring to, but whatever. Let's pretend you didn't know that.

 

Never once were my arguments against his trade value. They were against trading him at all, regardless of value.

 

Mangiapane was our most consistent performer game in and game out, and he's more than proven capable of handling a top 6 role imo. He's the type of dog you want in a fight you're trying to win, because he's the breed of player you win with.

 

I get it though, you're not happy with this squad. Just like you never have been, and likely never will be.

 

I am extremely happy with this squad, they are ushering in a very badly needed rebuild right before the Shane Wright and Connor Bedard drafts which are loaded with talent.  Are you happy with them?

 

Just for the record, if we look back over the years and ask "should we have traded X promising Flames roster player for picks", and would we be in a better or worse space now for it, the answer (assuming fair trade) is definitely yes, 100% of the time, meaning you would be wrong for 100% of all past examples with this team as you would be for this one.  Just for clarification.       

 

Simple reason is our team is too mis-managed to have a shot at the cup with this core, or for player ceilings to be reached (especially on LW).   We cut our rebuild short and have been hurting ourselves ever since.   Your arguement is based on short term perceived need only on a team that can never meet expectations during that time period, and has no additional LW minutes available for the player.  Math.   If you don't understand what planning for the future is, you can't understand asset management.  

[MP5029]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I am extremely happy with this squad, they are ushering in a very badly needed rebuild right before the Shane Wright and Connor Bedard drafts which are loaded with talent.  Are you happy with them?

 

Just for the record, if we look back over the years and ask "should we have traded X promising Flames roster player for picks", and would we be in a better or worse space now for it, the answer (assuming fair trade) is definitely yes, 100% of the time, meaning you would be wrong for 100% of all past examples with this team as you would be for this one.  Just for clarification.       

 

Simple reason is our team is too mis-managed to have a shot at the cup with this core, or for player ceilings to be reached (especially on LW).   We cut our rebuild short and have been hurting ourselves ever since.   Your arguement is based on short term perceived need only on a team that can never meet expectations during that time period, and has no additional LW minutes available for the player.  Math.   If you don't understand what planning for the future is, you can't understand asset management.  

Well if going by this logic…then we need to trade:

 

Gaudreau

Dube

Lindholm

Manj

Chucky

Monahan

Gio

Hanifin

Anderson

Valimaki

Tanev

markstrom 

Backlund 

 

Pretty much a burn it all to the ground by this logic…I think what others are trying to say is of that group, some most definitely need to go while others need to stay, the key is who do we keep and whom do

we trade.

 

I’m in camp that we definitely have too many small guys, while talented and gritty in some cases, it’s still not enough, simply put a 6’1 or 2 or 3 player at 200+ lbs just pushes out guys around and off the puck..this team reminds me much of the very talented but not so successful Mlt teams of about 2-4 years back, same thing has been happening to Cgy.  See while scrappy play with you heart on your sleeve is great and all it doesn’t matter if your on your ads cause the other guy is a juggernaut…look at LVK, TB, Bos etc…all the top teams are big, fast and skilled Cgy is badly missing the Big part of the three part equation.

 

with all that said, this is why Cgy need to make some decisions here and of that group we need to pic one (maybe two) of:

 

gaudreau

Manji

Dube 

 

personally I’d keep Gaudreau and trade both Manji and Dube as if we have one small player keep the best one and trade the others….I kinda liken gaudreau to the Theo Fleury/ Martin St. Louis type small guy, more so the M. St. Louis type…Manj and Dube are more like Theo scrappy wise but far less talented 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, MP5029 said:

Well if going by this logic…then we need to trade:

 

Gaudreau

Dube

Lindholm

Manj

Chucky

Monahan

Gio

Hanifin

Anderson

Valimaki

Tanev

markstrom 

Backlund 

 

Pretty much a burn it all to the ground by this logic…I think what others are trying to say is of that group, some most definitely need to go while others need to stay, the key is who do we keep and whom do

we trade.

 

I’m in camp that we definitely have too many small guys, while talented and gritty in some cases, it’s still not enough, simply put a 6’1 or 2 or 3 player at 200+ lbs just pushes out guys around and off the puck..this team reminds me much of the very talented but not so successful Mlt teams of about 2-4 years back, same thing has been happening to Cgy.  See while scrappy play with you heart on your sleeve is great and all it doesn’t matter if your on your ads cause the other guy is a juggernaut…look at LVK, TB, Bos etc…all the top teams are big, fast and skilled Cgy is badly missing the Big part of the three part equation.

 

with all that said, this is why Cgy need to make some decisions here and of that group we need to pic one (maybe two) of:

 

gaudreau

Manji

Dube 

 

personally I’d keep Gaudreau and trade both Manji and Dube as if we have one small player keep the best one and trade the others….I kinda liken gaudreau to the Theo Fleury/ Martin St. Louis type small guy, more so the M. St. Louis type…Manj and Dube are more like Theo scrappy wise but far less talented 

 

Yeah I'm in that first camp lol, although...I would be tempted to keep Chuky in that scenario and maybe Mangiapane, Andersson, Valimaki too.   You need some transition players and you need to build a hella depth chart at D to make a cup run in the future.   

 

Really though, I'm in both camps.  Of course we are too small, and not tough enough, to be effective in the playoffs.   IMHO I'd trade Gaudreau first.   More return.   But failing that, yes Mangiapane.     The problem with this second camp is that we're holding onto a belief that we can right the ship with a few good moves.   We can't.    We could have 4-5 years ago, we can't now.   Ship sailed.   We can tinker and toy all we like, we'll be right there at or near the top of the draft when Wright and Bedard have their days.

[MP5029]

It’s a really tough call…I’m on the side of both camps too…but I have said this a lot…30+ guys have to go maybe one 1 and one forward at 30+ but that’s it…Hockey is a young man’s game.

 

and with that said, this is the twilight of the this current core as most are 25-30 (closer to 30 side) so it’s a bit of a tough call.

 

I’m of the thought process that we give Sutter a shot for 2 more years with most but not all of the core guys, including Monahan and Gaudreau but that’s as much much slack in the preverbal leash I’d allow if I were the GM..and that would totally depend on next season, if it’s anything like the past 2 I’m definitely gonna be on the trade everyone and everything.

 

having said that, I do think it’s worth trying to fix the holes and see how things shake out for one more season…it would be nice to see some balance and size through the line up, maybe a few legit top line RW’s  to start, maybe let a few of the older guys go like Gio, Lucic (wishful thinking) Backlund and a few others, replace them with under 30 guys and see how the season goes under Sutter…if anything I don’t see any of the main guys trade value drop but maybe increase with a good season.

 

I think for the most part the whole coaching circus had kinda messed up the whole team including Monahan, Gaudreau, Lindholm and Tachuck so maybe a year of a stable hard nose coach can if nothing else bring those guys back on line so their value is where it should be.

[travel_dude]

33 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

Really though, I'm in both camps.  Of course we are too small, and not tough enough, to be effective in the playoffs.   IMHO I'd trade Gaudreau first.   More return.   But failing that, yes Mangiapane.     The problem with this second camp is that we're holding onto a belief that we can right the ship with a few good moves.   We can't.    We could have 4-5 years ago, we can't now.   Ship sailed.   We can tinker and toy all we like, we'll be right there at or near the top of the draft when Wright and Bedard have their days.

 

Poor Montreal with all their small players and big defense.

The scorched earth is a good idea.

We can have the Young Guns era for about 10 years while we trade and draft and trade.

 

The problem with building only through the draft is you never get it right.

You have to sign FA's and trade for vets to get to the right level.

 

[ABC923]

Scorched Earth never really works, simply that if you are looking to trade say 10 players off our roster you will be giving some of them away. There simply isn’t a trade market big enough to absorb that many players from a single team. If you wanted to trade Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, and Lindholm in the same off season for picks, you aren’t getting 1st rounders back in more than 2 of those trades. Each player added to the trading block dilutes the market and returns diminish with each move.