2021 Offseason Thread

[kehatch]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

THe GM is not that dumb.

He probably even has a offers in the wings, should it go south.

You know he would have had that discussion with teams calling about him.

 

 

I think they will sign Gaudreau to an extension. But I am not as confident as you are there is a plan B if things go south. It's certainly possible, but I think it's more likely they are gambling on an extension. The Flames lack scoring all ready and they can't afford to trade away our best offensive player as a contingency, not without throwing away the season. 

 

What I do think is possible is that other moves are on hold pending the extension. Would trading Monahan (for example) impact the Gaudreau negotiations? Does the extension potentially impact what moves they want to make (specifically the final dollar figure, but also potentially an overall direction)? 

[cross16]

The problem I see with getting a Gaudreau extension done is what motivation does Gaudreau have to do it right now? Statistically speaking he's not coming off a great year, although I thought it was pretty good all things considered, and he's in a economic situation that's a little un precedented. There is always an injury risk but outside of that I could see his camp being more motivated by going into this season, having a better year, and then trying to get a better deal next year. The further we get from COVID and the closest we get to the new NHL TV deals I think the more comfortable the owners will get with signing large cheques.

From a Flames perspective, sure you can have a plan B but let's be honest Plan B is not likely to be very attractive. I don't think you will get a great return in trade, certainly not enough to warrant losing your best offensive player, and with the move to Sutter your already challenged to score goals. While I do not believe the season would be lost if Gaudreau were to leave without a replacement, I don't think they are a playoff team without him so is that even really a Plan B? On top of that, and this has been well discussed, desite being your best offensive talent and one of the better offensive talents in the league is Gaudreau worth sliding a blank cheque over to? This was easy with players like Iginla, you gave them the cheque and said how much but I don't personally think Gaudreau belongs in that category. How high can you go with him?

 

I see this as a situation more where both sides know what the outcome is in that Gaudreau needs to be a Flame but that means a large commitment and likely not a very team friendly contract. As much as I like Gaudreau I completely understand why the team isn't rushing to put pen to paper given the situation. 

 

[travel_dude]

5 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

I think they will sign Gaudreau to an extension. But I am not as confident as you are there is a plan B if things go south. It's certainly possible, but I think it's more likely they are gambling on an extension. The Flames lack scoring all ready and they can't afford to trade away our best offensive player as a contingency, not without throwing away the season. 

 

What I do think is possible is that other moves are on hold pending the extension. Would trading Monahan (for example) impact the Gaudreau negotiations? Does the extension potentially impact what moves they want to make (specifically the final dollar figure, but also potentially an overall direction)? 

 

They knew they would lose Gio and were not willing to pay to prevent it.

I'm sure they did as much as they could do.

I think there is a break-the-glass plan B, should they not get a deal done within their timeline.

There are a few other parts of the team that come into play on his next deal.

One year left on Tkachuk and Mangiapane.

Two left on Lucic.

Those first two impact the cap far more than the Lucic savings.

 

I don't know if the deal is holding up other moves or other moves holding up the deal.

You trade Tkachuk, then you can't trade Gaudreau.

You trade Monahan out East, does Gaudreau stick around unless Eichel is coming here?

We haven't replaced Gio's contribution to offense, so does Gaudreau really want to hold off signing in case his numbers don't rebound?

 

I think the two sides have numbers they want, and this gets signed when there a little more clarity in the summer final moves.

Funny how we are hearing nothing at all about a Tkachuk extension in the works.

But I get that.  BT isn't going to sign him first, whether a trade is being considered or not.

At worst, he's under Flames control for 2 years.

He's only worth x dollars today, so he needs to be a top scorer to get a long term big dollars contract. 

He's not going to sign long term without seeing Gaudreau's deal.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

The problem I see with getting a Gaudreau extension done is what motivation does Gaudreau have to do it right now? Statistically speaking he's not coming off a great year, although I thought it was pretty good all things considered, and he's in a economic situation that's a little un precedented. There is always an injury risk but outside of that I could see his camp being more motivated by going into this season, having a better year, and then trying to get a better deal next year. The further we get from COVID and the closest we get to the new NHL TV deals I think the more comfortable the owners will get with signing large cheques.

From a Flames perspective, sure you can have a plan B but let's be honest Plan B is not likely to be very attractive. I don't think you will get a great return in trade, certainly not enough to warrant losing your best offensive player, and with the move to Sutter your already challenged to score goals. While I do not believe the season would be lost if Gaudreau were to leave without a replacement, I don't think they are a playoff team without him so is that even really a Plan B? On top of that, and this has been well discussed, desite being your best offensive talent and one of the better offensive talents in the league is Gaudreau worth sliding a blank cheque over to? This was easy with players like Iginla, you gave them the cheque and said how much but I don't personally think Gaudreau belongs in that category. How high can you go with him?

 

I see this as a situation more where both sides know what the outcome is in that Gaudreau needs to be a Flame but that means a large commitment and likely not a very team friendly contract. As much as I like Gaudreau I completely understand why the team isn't rushing to put pen to paper given the situation. 

 

 

Gaudreau has no motivation to do it right now because he's coming off a bad season.  And when next summer approaches and he's only 2 months away from UFA, then he might as well wait to see all the offers out there, especially from the NY teams and Philly.  He will have no motivation to do it with the Flames next season either.

 

If we can get Gaudreau extended now, then an "overpay" of a 65-point guy wouldn't look as bad as a "fair contract" for a 90-point guy (assuming he has a huge rebound year).  $7.5-mil x 6-to-8-years would be great.  $8-mil is tolerable especially if Gaudreau returns to 90-point form.

 

If we move Gaudreau now, then I think we can get something that can help us in the future.

 

Worst case is to have Gaudreau for one more year and then he walks for nothing.  I don't care if we struggle to score next season.  It's about the future seasons... which I understand the team doesn't care.  They only care about this coming season.

[travel_dude]

33 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

Gaudreau has no motivation to do it right now because he's coming off a bad season.  And when next summer approaches and he's only 2 months away from UFA, then he might as well wait to see all the offers out there, especially from the NY teams and Philly.  He will have no motivation to do it with the Flames next season either.

 

If we can get Gaudreau extended now, then an "overpay" of a 65-point guy wouldn't look as bad as a "fair contract" for a 90-point guy (assuming he has a huge rebound year).  $7.5-mil x 6-to-8-years would be great.  $8-mil is tolerable especially if Gaudreau returns to 90-point form.

 

If we move Gaudreau now, then I think we can get something that can help us in the future.

 

Worst case is to have Gaudreau for one more year and then he walks for nothing.  I don't care if we struggle to score next season.  It's about the future seasons... which I understand the team doesn't care.  They only care about this coming season.

 

I know what you are saying, but the GM does care about two seasons from now.

That's the only reason why a deal isn't done.

You give Gaudreau $8.5m now, he signs.  But his NTC is more limited for the extra cash.

And it's loaded so that actual cash is cheap down the road.

 

But you have more than one person who thinks they are a star.

You either fork out the same money to Tkachuk or he holds out.

That's $17m tied up in two wingers.

 

It's risky either way with Gaudreau.

He signs now and bounces back or he waits and has a down season.

He's either overpaid or underpaid perhaps.

But BT is not excited about paying him that much.

So, it's more likely $7mx7 or $7.5m x 6.

Not smart deals for Gaudreau.

Agent should negotiate with the idea that it gets done now or not at all.

It's risky, but better than going to UFA after a bad season. 

[kehatch]

If Gaudreau doesn't sign an extension his pending UFA status will follow him all season. Between that, a Sutter system, and a general lack of scoring on this team he could very well end up in the 60 point range again which will limit his negotiating value.

 

The Flames know what they have with him. He has played every season for them. This extension isn't going to be about last season only. 

 

If Gaudreau is interested in staying in Calgary signing an extension makes sense for both the player and the team. 

 

RE trading him for futures, that is very unlikely. A cap team, with stars in their prime, isn't trading their best offensive player for futures. Especially when they are already tight on scoring. Not in August. Maybe at the draft as part of a play for another acquisition, but not now. If he is traded it will most likely be a hockey trade, but from all the chatter the objective is an extension so I think that's unlikely. 

[cross16]

59 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

Gaudreau has no motivation to do it right now because he's coming off a bad season.  And when next summer approaches and he's only 2 months away from UFA, then he might as well wait to see all the offers out there, especially from the NY teams and Philly.  He will have no motivation to do it with the Flames next season either.

 

If we can get Gaudreau extended now, then an "overpay" of a 65-point guy wouldn't look as bad as a "fair contract" for a 90-point guy (assuming he has a huge rebound year).  $7.5-mil x 6-to-8-years would be great.  $8-mil is tolerable especially if Gaudreau returns to 90-point form.

 

If we move Gaudreau now, then I think we can get something that can help us in the future.

 

Worst case is to have Gaudreau for one more year and then he walks for nothing.  I don't care if we struggle to score next season.  It's about the future seasons... which I understand the team doesn't care.  They only care about this coming season.

 

Which isn't going to happen, IMO. I get many don't like or trust Treliving and that's fine but even if you don't like him I think you'd have to admit he is prepared. I don't think there is any chance he let's Gaudreau walk for nothing.

 

As I said I think the almost certain conclusion here is that Gaudreau remains a Flames, it's just a matter of at what price. I just won't be surprised if this drags out because both sides have motive to wait. 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Which isn't going to happen, IMO. I get many don't like or trust Treliving and that's fine but even if you don't like him I think you'd have to admit he is prepared. I don't think there is any chance he let's Gaudreau walk for nothing.

 

As I said I think the almost certain conclusion here is that Gaudreau remains a Flames, it's just a matter of at what price. I just won't be surprised if this drags out because both sides have motive to wait. 

 

It's not a lack of trust towards Treliving as much as a lack of trust towards Gaudreau's willingness to stay here.  By all measures, Gaudreau "lost" the previous contract negotiation so he's going to go pretty hard this time.  Plus, wife is from NJ.  Best buddies are in Philly, etc, etc.

 

The "isn't going to happen" will cost the Flames an extra $1-mil or two.  That's how it's not going to happen.  Time to get him locked up long term is now.  The Flames have much more motive to get this done than Gaudreau.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, kehatch said:

If Gaudreau doesn't sign an extension his pending UFA status will follow him all season. Between that, a Sutter system, and a general lack of scoring on this team he could very well end up in the 60 point range again which will limit his negotiating value.

 

The Flames know what they have with him. He has played every season for them. This extension isn't going to be about last season only. 

 

If Gaudreau is interested in staying in Calgary signing an extension makes sense for both the player and the team. 

 

RE trading him for futures, that is very unlikely. A cap team, with stars in their prime, isn't trading their best offensive player for futures. Especially when they are already tight on scoring. Not in August. Maybe at the draft as part of a play for another acquisition, but not now. If he is traded it will most likely be a hockey trade, but from all the chatter the objective is an extension so I think that's unlikely. 

 

I agree with everything here.

 

I'm just saying, having that pending UFA label hanging over his head all season... Let's avoid this.  If we can get back immediate help in a Gaudreau trade, then do it.  Doesn't have to be futures.  It can be a hockey trade.  Main point is, we can't lose him for nothing.

 

We already lost Giordano for nothing because we thought we could make a run for the playoffs, for example.

[kehatch]

34 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I agree with everything here.

 

I'm just saying, having that pending UFA label hanging over his head all season... Let's avoid this.  If we can get back immediate help in a Gaudreau trade, then do it.  Doesn't have to be futures.  It can be a hockey trade.  Main point is, we can't lose him for nothing.

 

We already lost Giordano for nothing because we thought we could make a run for the playoffs, for example.

 

I have no issues with trading Gaudreau in a hockey trade.  Especially if the team is happy with Tkachuk long term.  Most of our best players are at LW, and that is a problem.  Those two are already our highest paid players, and both are due an extension next season.  Mangipane is also due a big raise next season, and Lucic's 5+ million will still be on the books.  Next season we could end up with 35% of our cap dedicated to left wingers, and none of them are named Marchand, Kucherov, Pastrnak, Ovechkin, Kane, etc.  That's kind of crazy.    

 

The problem is, how do you make a Gaudreau hockey trade in August that improves your team short and long term?  The Flames biggest issue is going to be to find scoring.  I don't see a scenario where we can afford to trade Gaudreau, but maybe I am just not missing it. 

 

I agree losing Gaudreau for nothing isn't ideal, but I am not sure the Flames see it that way.  Treliving is in win now mode.  Teams go to the nth hour all of the time with their stars knowing the gamble is they could lose the player for nothing.  Sometimes they do.  I just don't know why the Flames would be any different.   

[cross16]

58 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's not a lack of trust towards Treliving as much as a lack of trust towards Gaudreau's willingness to stay here.  By all measures, Gaudreau "lost" the previous contract negotiation so he's going to go pretty hard this time.  Plus, wife is from NJ.  Best buddies are in Philly, etc, etc.

 

The "isn't going to happen" will cost the Flames an extra $1-mil or two.  That's how it's not going to happen.  Time to get him locked up long term is now.  The Flames have much more motive to get this done than Gaudreau.

 

 

And part of what i'm saying is that is the prep work. I'm of the opinion that if Gaudreau didn't want to stay here then they would have traded him by now. The fact that he is still a Flame, and publicly has gone out of his way to say he wants to stay here, tells me he does want to stay.

 

I agree it is ideal for the Flames to get him locked up now, no argument there but it takes 2 and I just expect it to drag out. 

 

I guess for me this is pretty simple, Gaudreau will get traded or he will re sign as a Flame there is no middle ground. They may have their faults but this management team is far from dumb and letting an asset like Gaudreau walk for nothing is dumb. This is not at all close to the Gio situation. 

[Thebrewcrew]

A few ways to look at Gaudreau's contract situation.

 

I think the ask from the Gaudreau camp is very high. It's still really early in the process, I wouldn't be surprised if the Gaudreau camp is talking about a number starting with a 9. Why not? If you're Gaudreau, you can look around the league and see Skinner at 9, Kucherov and Stone, both guys who broke into the league at the same time as him make 9.5. 

 

 

Then there's the Flames standpoint.

 

Look at UFA last week. The biggest contract handed out to a forward was Landeskog for 56mill. On the open market he wouldn't have had a shot at an 8th year, so for arguments sake, say he got 49 mill. I don't have a list of signings, but nobody else got close to that $ or term. 

 

This past week was very busy, an extra 81.5 into the system because of Seattle really helped. That's not going to be the case next year, there won't be nearly as much money available for clubs to spend.

 

The Flames can offer 7.5x8 for 60mill. It's a slight raise as he certainly outperformed his previous deal. It's a huge financial commitment, but that's the price you pay when you're a small Canadian market. I would acknowledge that there's no real incentive for Gaudreau to take a raise of 750k in early August. But I'd be really surprised if in late June in the *illegal tampering period* that Gaudreau received any offers remotely close to 60 million. 

[travel_dude]

5 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

The Flames can offer 7.5x8 for 60mill. It's a slight raise as he certainly outperformed his previous deal. It's a huge financial commitment, but that's the price you pay when you're a small Canadian market. I would acknowledge that there's no real incentive for Gaudreau to take a raise of 750k in early August. But I'd be really surprised if in late June in the *illegal tampering period* that Gaudreau received any offers remotely close to 60 million. 

 

How can you justify paying less in Canada?  If anything, we need to offer more than tax haven states.

7.5m is nothing.  I know that sounds weird, but he could have gotten that by going for a longer deal 5 years ago.

He settled for less term to help keep the number down.

 

I don't agree wth the money, but pay him $9m for 8 if that's what he wants and you want him that long.

He sells tickets.

Get him some help and watch him catch fire.

Maybe Eichel is not quite the right fit, but Monahan and Tkachuk are less talented.

 

[jjgallow]

21 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

THe GM is not that dumb.

He probably even has a offers in the wings, should it go south.

You know he would have had that discussion with teams calling about him.

 

 

20 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

We shall see.

 

I have an opinion on this

[conundrumed]

On 8/3/2021 at 7:21 PM, cross16 said:

 

 

And part of what i'm saying is that is the prep work. I'm of the opinion that if Gaudreau didn't want to stay here then they would have traded him by now. The fact that he is still a Flame, and publicly has gone out of his way to say he wants to stay here, tells me he does want to stay.

 

I agree it is ideal for the Flames to get him locked up now, no argument there but it takes 2 and I just expect it to drag out. 

 

I guess for me this is pretty simple, Gaudreau will get traded or he will re sign as a Flame there is no middle ground. They may have their faults but this management team is far from dumb and letting an asset like Gaudreau walk for nothing is dumb. This is not at all close to the Gio situation. 

I find the rhetoric around Gaudreau wanting out to be really silly.

More silly made up stories for Canadian fans that thrive on hockey talking points, made up or otherwise.

There is zero fact in it. Same as Tkachuk. Media being attention whores, not sure why there isn't just a huge collective eyeroll exasperated sigh...

Rather, the fans decide they need to be traded, rather than call BS. BS talking points...

[bosn111]

The issue with Gaudreau and the reason for the chatter comes from a few places and some is conjecture, some is business.

 

JG is UFA after this year, and he likely is looking at a raise. How much he is looking at, we don’t know for sure. We can assume, based on stats over the past few years that the Gaudreau camp won’t accept less dollar value than what Tkachuk will be getting. Tkachuk is also up for a new contract as an RFA and qualifying offer is 7.7 million so you know that Gaudreau will be looking for 8+. That eats up the savings of dead cap from Brouwer, so the Tkachuk raise eats into cap directly. With a flat cap, it makes no sense to have 2 LW as your 2 highest paid players making a fifth of your total cap. Mangiapane is also up for a solid raise and the Flames only have 9 NHLers signed after this season.

 

What all this means is that to improve the team, the idea of bringing in someone like Eichel at 10 mil becomes even harder. Sure he can be fit in this year, without losing either of Gaudreau or Tkachuk, but can we keep all 3 next year and still be able to fill the roster with quality depth?

 

So from a cap situation, we may have no choice but to trade one of Tkachuk or Gaudreau. Others may say that the idea is they want to go elsewhere (we can call this the Fox phenomenon), but the truth is that the Flames likely don’t have a choice but to move one or both. The Tkachuk rumours are more that he would like to play for St. Louis rather than wanting out of Calgary. Same really for Gaudreau. Flames just can’t let either leave for no return which leads to the trade talk.

[sak22]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I find the rhetoric around Gaudreau wanting out to be really silly.

More silly made up stories for Canadian fans that thrive on hockey talking points, made up or otherwise.

There is zero fact in it. Same as Tkachuk. Media being attention whores, not sure why there isn't just a huge collective eyeroll exasperated sigh...

Rather, the fans decide they need to be traded, rather than call BS. BS talking points...

Yeah I've never understood the Gaudreau part but it goes back to the fear of him not signing out of college, if playing close to home was priority #1 for him he goes back for his senior year, pretty simple.  Outside of that all we have is the fact his mom has said she would rather him play close to home, the same mom who wanted him to finish college before going pro, because no other mother wouldn't want their kid closer to home.  Then it was an interview in Philly that he said it would be cool to get the chance, like that hasn't happened before, Stamkos was liking tweets talking about him playing for the Leafs in his last year before hitting UFA.  My theory is that Johnny is more on the reserved side, and typically the media (Francis) and some fans get rubbed the wrong way by anyone who doesn't have a Iggy, Tkachuk, or Conroy personality.  Tkachuk gives quotes so Francis loves, Johnny gives nothing so Francis hates.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, bosn111 said:

The issue with Gaudreau and the reason for the chatter comes from a few places and some is conjecture, some is business.

 

JG is UFA after this year, and he likely is looking at a raise. How much he is looking at, we don’t know for sure. We can assume, based on stats over the past few years that the Gaudreau camp won’t accept less dollar value than what Tkachuk will be getting. Tkachuk is also up for a new contract as an RFA and qualifying offer is 7.7 million so you know that Gaudreau will be looking for 8+. That eats up the savings of dead cap from Brouwer, so the Tkachuk raise eats into cap directly. With a flat cap, it makes no sense to have 2 LW as your 2 highest paid players making a fifth of your total cap. Mangiapane is also up for a solid raise and the Flames only have 9 NHLers signed after this season.

 

What all this means is that to improve the team, the idea of bringing in someone like Eichel at 10 mil becomes even harder. Sure he can be fit in this year, without losing either of Gaudreau or Tkachuk, but can we keep all 3 next year and still be able to fill the roster with quality depth?

 

So from a cap situation, we may have no choice but to trade one of Tkachuk or Gaudreau. Others may say that the idea is they want to go elsewhere (we can call this the Fox phenomenon), but the truth is that the Flames likely don’t have a choice but to move one or both. The Tkachuk rumours are more that he would like to play for St. Louis rather than wanting out of Calgary. Same really for Gaudreau. Flames just can’t let either leave for no return which leads to the trade talk.

 

I'm not sure where you came up with the bolded.

Tkachuk's qualifying offer next year is $9m on one year.

He could choose to reject it, negotiate and possibly go to arbitration or accept it.

That walks him up to being a UFA.

 

That makes sense if he plays at a high level this season and makes himself worth more than $7m

He has leverage.
A poor or middling season, he can still get to UFA, but would take him a year to get there.

He's better off signing a reasonable deal with a raise from $7m, with enough career left to play where he wants.

 

So, we control 2 high level assets.

Gaudreau could be moved easily, should we want to go there.  The only way that seems likely is his agent will not budge from $9m and we can do without him.

Tkachuk is CGY property, so he is here for minimum of 2 years unless we trade him.

Subtract Monahan or Gaudreau or Tkachuk and fitting in Eichel is less of a big deal.

[bosn111]

Sorry, I looked at the wrong box on CapFriendly, cap hit not salary.
 

Qualifying offers are 110 percent of current salary. So the QO will be 9.9 mil for Tkachuk which is even worse.
 

Gaudreau has better numbers throughout NHL career each comparable season. Covid shortened is only season Tkachuk got more points so JG should be asking for more than Chucky.

[travel_dude]

56 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

Sorry, I looked at the wrong box on CapFriendly, cap hit not salary.
 

Qualifying offers are 110 percent of current salary. So the QO will be 9.9 mil for Tkachuk which is even worse.
 

Gaudreau has better numbers throughout NHL career each comparable season. Covid shortened is only season Tkachuk got more points so JG should be asking for more than Chucky.

 

There is a set of rules for qualifying offers.

For players making over $1m, it's only 100% of the last contract year value.

So that is still $9m.

 

Your other points are still reasonable.

Gaudreau has scored more p/gp than Tkachuk.

Tkachuk plays a defensive game and was on a shutdown line for most of his career, though.

Tkachuk is younger.

Gaudreau has a bigger impact on scoring.

 

[pikey7883]

I like most are anxiously awaiting some sort of trade to bolster the line-up, or if your in the rebuild boat, hoping to trade for some picks and futures. But I wondered.....what if we’re done, and who we have is what’s headed into next season? 
my question is how do you roll out the lines? Go with more of the same old same old, or get a bit crazy with the line-up? And because I’m not the coach with no repercussions for suggesting the wrong lines, I like to mix things up. I’ll start

Tkachuk - Monahan - Lindholm (I like this too line, it’s a responsible line, that can grind, it has shooters, and Money and Lindy can alternate at Center for their strong side)

Coleman - Backlund - Pitlick (I expect this line to do a lot of heavy lifting against the other teams top line, with a lot of D-Zone starts)

Gaudreau - Dube - Mangiapane (I like the idea of these three absolutely buzzing around, attacking from everywhere, and I believe that Dube has the speed to be a relentless Center, especially in a line that gets very favourable zone starts. This is also not a dump and chase line obviously, this is get the puck and keep the puck line) 

Lucic - Ruzicka/Lewis - Ritchie/Lewis/Phillips (I like this line to be a bit of a Jack Knife. When we need to be mean and play a heavy game you can go Looch, Lewis, and Ritchie in limited use. If you want to deepen your lineup you can go with Looch with Ruzicka and Phillips, similar to Benny and Dube, but more in a protected role.

Hannifin - Anderson (These are our top 2 D, and they are gonna need to eat some big minutes and play in all situations, whether we like it or not)

Valimaki - Tanev (I hope Sutter gives Val some rope and uses Tanev to protect him the same way he did wonders for Hannifin last year)

Zadorov - Stone (I think Stone could be the steady eddy for Zaddy, who is great in his own end but can start to run around when he wants to be physical, and Stone was consistent at the end of the year, good Vet for Sutter system. 
 

and obviously Marky and Vlad the Impaler.

 

Let the disagreement begin.

 

[travel_dude]

^^^^^^

Ok, so Dube hasn't played as a C since junior.

Even though the skill is heavy, I don't see them being able to get any space; it's speed on transition hoping for an odd man situation.

I don't love the Backlund line; seems a bit of a waste to have Coleman strictly in a defensive role; he will play enough PK as it is.

 

Although I don't mind using Valimaki with Tanev and Ras with Hanifin, I think that 3rd pair sucks.

You really want to have a mobile D with Zaddy.

Considering we haven't signed Stone, that is telling me we are looking for an upgrade.

Or there is a big trade coming where we have to not use on depth pieces for D.

 

Without any changes (I don't believe the roster is set), I would project the following:

Gaudreau-Lindholm-Tkachuk

Mangiapane-Monahan-Coleman

Dube-Backlund-Pitlick

Lucic-Ruzicka-Lewis

 

I would lean towards a setup on D as the following:

Hanifin-Tanev

Zaddy-Ras

Valimaki-??

Kylington

Keep Mackey in the AHL until a injury necessitates him coming up.

 

I would like to see them sign Vatanen.  On the down side to his career, but still just 30.

Have him come in to stabilize Valimaki.  

[pikey7883]

Thanks for playing @travel_dudeI mixed up the lines just to have a conversation, I believe your version of the lineup is what will happen barring any trades. I also have been wondering about Vatanen, I think he would be excellent for 3rd pair. Whether it’s with Zad or Val, steadying reliable RH DMan.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, pikey7883 said:

Thanks for playing @travel_dudeI mixed up the lines just to have a conversation, I believe your version of the lineup is what will happen barring any trades. I also have been wondering about Vatanen, I think he would be excellent for 3rd pair. Whether it’s with Zad or Val, steadying reliable RH DMan.

 

Kylinton re-signed just today.  I'm not sure there is as much of an appetite to bring back Stone.

I could be wrong of course, but don't think Stone is Plan A.

It's not like they dominated with him in the lineup.

And with the loss of Gio's scoring, they need a better puckmover more than a pure defender.

[cross16]

I'm surprised Kylington re signed. Thought he might play hardball to try and get a better opportunity somewhere else or maybe even try overseas.