2021 Offseason Thread

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think he's going to cost Kevin Labanc money.  $4.725-mil x 4-years... if we go longer then we are looking at buying more of his prime UFA years so, it could get pricey.  If the Flames trade Tkachuk and/or Gaudreau and give Mangiapane top 6 minutes and 1st unit PP time, then I think Mangiapane could be looking at 25-to-30-goals consistently.  

 

I think that's the ballpark for a shorter deal, but I'm a little tired of them.

We have the Tkachuk issue and the short window to trade Gaudreau because of them.

BT doesn't like to go full term because his risk calculator shows small guys get injured.

And Tkachuk was a contract hold out unless it was short term.

In some ways, it's not worse than when he signed.

He would have gotten $8m+ on 8 years, based on what he signed for.

Instead, we got 3 years at $7m and whatever the new deal looks like.

 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

I get the argument, but effectively he's a winger.

If he plays with McD, he's a winger.

If they move Draisaitl to 2nd line, he's a winger.

If they load up the top line and he plays 2nd line, he's still a winger.

It's not like he's taking even Khaira levels in faceoffs.

Less than Turris (27 games).

would you have called Iginla a center because he took some draws? There’s more to center than faceoff percentage. 

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, robrob74 said:

would you have called Iginla a center because he took some draws? There’s more to center than faceoff percentage. 

 

No, I would look at Iggy and Nuge as playing similar roles.

If he's playing with a natural center, then he is not performing the role of a C.

I have (unfortunately) watched enough Oiler games to see what he does.

3 seasons ago and even part of the COVID season, he played as a C.

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think that's the ballpark for a shorter deal, but I'm a little tired of them.

We have the Tkachuk issue and the short window to trade Gaudreau because of them.

BT doesn't like to go full term because his risk calculator shows small guys get injured.

And Tkachuk was a contract hold out unless it was short term.

In some ways, it's not worse than when he signed.

He would have gotten $8m+ on 8 years, based on what he signed for.

Instead, we got 3 years at $7m and whatever the new deal looks like.

 

 

I don't ever think it was injury risk.  BT wanted to build the best team he can at the best cap hit and as such, went short term.  Long term Gaudreau would've costed $8-mil x 8-years easily and Tkachuk could've been $9-mil x 8-years.  With Mangiapane, if we can lock him up long term this summer for cheap then I think we should do it.  The mistake with Mangiapane is negotiating with him next summer AFTER he's potted a 30-goal season and you're stuck with $5-mil as a starting figure.

 

Trade Gaudreau/Tkachuk and knowing Mangiapane will be moved up the depth charts, lock him up cheap long term.  

[The_People1]

This guy thinks Gaudreau will,"almost 100% sure to be moved before that clause kicks in".  The clause that kicks-in is his limit to 5-teams he can be traded to.  I assume the 5 teams will be Philly, NJ, NYR, NYI, and maybe Washington or Boston.  He's got a fair point however, I don't think there's an urgency because I think those 5 teams will compete against one another for Gaudreau and give us a nice return.  I hope a sign-and-trade 8-year extension could give us even better returns.

 

https://www.foreverblueshirts.com/nhl-rumors-weekly-jack-eichel-johnny-gaudreau-vlad-tarasenko-oilers-wild-and-kraken/

 

 

[Thebrewcrew]

I don't really like the fit of a Gaudreau trade to any of the Northeast teams.

 

Boston- Nothing they'd be willing to move is all that interesting.

New Jersey- Same, it's really only Dawson Mercer that I'd want

NYR- Rangers won't be interested, they have Kakko, Lafreniere, Buchnevich, Kreider as LHS wingers, not to mention Panarin plays LW.

NYI- They are really capped out so I struggle to see them as a viable partner.

PHI- Probably the best fit for the Flames and for Johnny. Konecny and Sanheim interest me. I also like Morgan Frost. Philly has the pieces to do it. 

 

A sleeper could be Carolina. They have some really good prospects if that's the type of return the Flames want. 

[The_People1]

6 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I don't really like the fit of a Gaudreau trade to any of the Northeast teams.

 

Boston- Nothing they'd be willing to move is all that interesting.

New Jersey- Same, it's really only Dawson Mercer that I'd want

NYR- Rangers won't be interested, they have Kakko, Lafreniere, Buchnevich, Kreider as LHS wingers, not to mention Panarin plays LW.

NYI- They are really capped out so I struggle to see them as a viable partner.

PHI- Probably the best fit for the Flames and for Johnny. Konecny and Sanheim interest me. I also like Morgan Frost. Philly has the pieces to do it. 

 

A sleeper could be Carolina. They have some really good prospects if that's the type of return the Flames want. 

 

But if we want to do a trade with Carolina then it has to happen pretty quickly before Gaudreau's MNTC kicks in.

 

PHI we should add Foerster in there... but i think he had knee surgery recently so not sure anymore.

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't ever think it was injury risk.  BT wanted to build the best team he can at the best cap hit and as such, went short term.  Long term Gaudreau would've costed $8-mil x 8-years easily and Tkachuk could've been $9-mil x 8-years.  With Mangiapane, if we can lock him up long term this summer for cheap then I think we should do it.  The mistake with Mangiapane is negotiating with him next summer AFTER he's potted a 30-goal season and you're stuck with $5-mil as a starting figure.

 

Trade Gaudreau/Tkachuk and knowing Mangiapane will be moved up the depth charts, lock him up cheap long term.  

 

I hope that injury concern is not the decision making that goes into it.

Monahan settled for one year more at less AAV, as a C.

Was it just the Gio cap that prevented an extra year?

Good excuse if it was.

 

TBH, this is a golden opportunity to get a 8 year deal done.

Fixed cap.

 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Honestly, Gio's deal was envisioned as possibly being a buyout of the last year(s).  Who would have expected him to be the top D on the team.

Would have made sense to trade him 2 years ago.  A given.

Neal's deal was envisioned as being a buyout in the last year.

That begat Lucic which was buyout-proof, which was a poor trade from that perspective.

Backlund was par value at the time, though the years seem to be the issue right now.

 

Sorry, what proposal are you talking about?  I was responding to RobRob about something.  The last things I was talking about was trading for Dumba and then trading Gio.

Target a decent backup goalie in FA.  Not doing a rebuild but possibly trading a LW to help out the forwards. 

 

I was responding to what looked like a proposal to sign both Gaudreau and Tkchuk to $8m each

 

I realize that there was a plan at the time, as you've described above, when those trades were made.  That makes it even worse.   Planning buyouts is just actively screwing us over now, back then, knowing how aweful it would be.

[travel_dude]

24 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

This guy thinks Gaudreau will,"almost 100% sure to be moved before that clause kicks in".  The clause that kicks-in is his limit to 5-teams he can be traded to.  I assume the 5 teams will be Philly, NJ, NYR, NYI, and maybe Washington or Boston.  He's got a fair point however, I don't think there's an urgency because I think those 5 teams will compete against one another for Gaudreau and give us a nice return.  I hope a sign-and-trade 8-year extension could give us even better returns.

 

https://www.foreverblueshirts.com/nhl-rumors-weekly-jack-eichel-johnny-gaudreau-vlad-tarasenko-oilers-wild-and-kraken/

 

 

 

He has the same opinion as Eric Francis.

And the guy is so connected that he has to read a piece by Wes to know what's in his contract.

 

And I think you are actually right about the competition.

While a bigger pool of teams may give you a bunch of weird offers, the 5 team list is more likely to overbid.

They are all going to be in the same conference and most in the same division.

Outbid a team to keep them from getting him.

 

Of course, that assumes we are going that direction.

 

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I was responding to what looked like a proposal to sign both Gaudreau and Tkchuk to $8m each

 

I realize that there was a plan at the time, as you've described above, when those trades were made.  That makes it even worse.   Planning buyouts is just actively screwing us over now, back then, knowing how aweful it would be.

 

I don't know about the merits of Gaudreau and Tkachuk at $8m each.

Today that sounds like a ton.

But there are teams where those are mid-tier players; JVR, Hayes, etc.

The only saving grace would be 7-8 years on those prices, where the cap rises to $90-100m by the end of it.

 

I think I referenced one UFA signing; Neal.

It was bad then and bad now.

What I was getting at was that an extra year was tacked on to attract the player or reduce AAV.

That was a Burkie strategy, so call out BT on it, but let's not forget who signed BT's paycheque.

And it wasn't just a buyout as an option.

What makes this particularly bad is we traded for a bulletproof contract.

Probably easier to trade Lucic than Neal, since Neal is likely a buyout this summer.

 

Do you really think they thought Gio would be the top minutes guy on the Flames when they signed him?

They carved out a deal at less than what was typical, knowing that the last years would be risky or retirement or injury.

[cross16]

Personally, I get the aversion to long term deals and think it's a better way to go. Save it for elite players but if they are not elite then I think you have more cases of teams regretting the deals than loving them. Things can change so fast at the professional level, including injuries, that I think you really need to reserve long term contracts for a select few players. 

 

With guaranteed contracts I think term is what gets you into trouble more often than $s or AAV. 

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't know about the merits of Gaudreau and Tkachuk at $8m each.

Today that sounds like a ton.

But there are teams where those are mid-tier players; JVR, Hayes, etc.

The only saving grace would be 7-8 years on those prices, where the cap rises to $90-100m by the end of it.

 

I think I referenced one UFA signing; Neal.

It was bad then and bad now.

What I was getting at was that an extra year was tacked on to attract the player or reduce AAV.

That was a Burkie strategy, so call out BT on it, but let's not forget who signed BT's paycheque.

And it wasn't just a buyout as an option.

What makes this particularly bad is we traded for a bulletproof contract.

Probably easier to trade Lucic than Neal, since Neal is likely a buyout this summer.

 

Do you really think they thought Gio would be the top minutes guy on the Flames when they signed him?

They carved out a deal at less than what was typical, knowing that the last years would be risky or retirement or injury.

 

I don't honestly know what they were thinking, but, they more they understood, the worse it looks.   Because it's essentially mortgaging our future.

 

Gio, by the way, didn't bother me as much as the others did.   But I would have rathered paying him more up front rather than borrowing from future years.  

[travel_dude]

10 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I don't honestly know what they were thinking, but, they more they understood, the worse it looks.   Because it's essentially mortgaging our future.

 

Gio, by the way, didn't bother me as much as the others did.   But I would have rathered paying him more up front rather than borrowing from future years.  

 

My only issue is that we refuse to move on, regardless of the return value.

The discussion is always trade a younger player because they have value and have not brought the cup to CGY.

Yet here we are facing losing an asset for nothing or protecting a 37 year old for one more year.

Poor asset management letting Brodie walk and expecting the fountain of youth to be open for drinking. 

 

We should trade Gio and Kylington to Mnny for Dumba.

They at least end up with one of the two at worst.

At best, they can trade Gio for a okay return after the draft.

On the other hand, if we expose Gio and he isn't taken, we will refuse to trade him.

 

[jjgallow]

32 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

My only issue is that we refuse to move on, regardless of the return value.

The discussion is always trade a younger player because they have value and have not brought the cup to CGY.

Yet here we are facing losing an asset for nothing or protecting a 37 year old for one more year.

Poor asset management letting Brodie walk and expecting the fountain of youth to be open for drinking. 

 

We should trade Gio and Kylington to Mnny for Dumba.

They at least end up with one of the two at worst.

At best, they can trade Gio for a okay return after the draft.

On the other hand, if we expose Gio and he isn't taken, we will refuse to trade him.

 

 

These are all good incremental moves that I would have supported 5 years ago.

 

At this point, I think you have two problems. 

 

1.  The trade "doesn't exist", as you would say.    I just don't see Mnny going for it.  I don't see how it helps them.

 

2.  It's simply not enough.   Too little, too late, etc.   Dumba's not good enough to solve all our RHS problems, and now we're opening up LHS problems.   Does it spread the talent out better?  Yes.   Does it make us younger?  Maybe.   
          But, can you do enough of these incremental moves to get us where we need to be?   
              No.   you'll stall out short of being a serious team, and run out of moves.
                   So now it's down to getting incrementally better through the draft.
                    I estimate it's a good 10 years to undo the current damage through regular drafting  and the team being middle of the pack.
                    A rebuild will take 5 years.   Way more than people think, but half the time of  coasting through it.
                    I also don't think we have a choice.  Dumba or no Dumba, we will have high picks

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

These are all good incremental moves that I would have supported 5 years ago.

 

At this point, I think you have two problems. 

 

1.  The trade "doesn't exist", as you would say.    I just don't see Mnny going for it.  I don't see how it helps them.

 

2.  It's simply not enough.   Too little, too late, etc.   Dumba's not good enough to solve all our RHS problems, and now we're opening up LHS problems.   Does it spread the talent out better?  Yes.   Does it make us younger?  Maybe.   
          But, can you do enough of these incremental moves to get us where we need to be?   
              No.   you'll stall out short of being a serious team, and run out of moves.
                   So now it's down to getting incrementally better through the draft.
                    I estimate it's a good 10 years to undo the current damage through regular drafting  and the team being middle of the pack.
                    A rebuild will take 5 years.   Way more than people think, but half the time of  coasting through it.
                    I also don't think we have a choice.  Dumba or no Dumba, we will have high picks

 

Minny has issues with losing Dumba for nothing or paying a high price to keep him.

Gio is a disposable asset for the draft or possibly a trade chip.

I know they probably get much better offers, and really it does actually create some issues for us.

 

Minny doesn't trade:

• Have to use at least a 2nd + prospect to protect Dumba
• Lose another asset 
• Lose Dumba for nothing

 

Minny does the trade (Gio passed on by Seattle):

• Gio not selected, and they lose another player
• Still have Kylington or the other asset
• Can flip Gio for a decent return

 

Minny does the trade (Gio selected):

• Retain assets they would have lost otherwise
• Have Kylington

 

I'm not saying the trade exists or is likely, but it means we expose Tanev.  He was a great player for us, but he has injury risk and will age out eventually.

It's a smart pick for Seattle, but do they need him right now?  More like down the road.

 

[jjgallow]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Minny has issues with losing Dumba for nothing or paying a high price to keep him.

Gio is a disposable asset for the draft or possibly a trade chip.

I know they probably get much better offers, and really it does actually create some issues for us.

 

Minny doesn't trade:

• Have to use at least a 2nd + prospect to protect Dumba
• Lose another asset 
• Lose Dumba for nothing

 

Minny does the trade (Gio passed on by Seattle):

• Gio not selected, and they lose another player
• Still have Kylington or the other asset
• Can flip Gio for a decent return

 

Minny does the trade (Gio selected):

• Retain assets they would have lost otherwise
• Have Kylington

 

I'm not saying the trade exists or is likely, but it means we expose Tanev.  He was a great player for us, but he has injury risk and will age out eventually.

It's a smart pick for Seattle, but do they need him right now?  More like down the road.

 

 

Yeah I'm not saying it's a bad proposal.  If it were to happen then yes I think it would improve us.  Just not enough to change my rebuild ways.   Would need a lot more of them for that, more than the players we have.

[travel_dude]

5 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yeah I'm not saying it's a bad proposal.  If it were to happen then yes I think it would improve us.  Just not enough to change my rebuild ways.   Would need a lot more of them for that, more than the players we have.

 

So, a rebuild unlikely.  Doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't try to improve.  We are not a team to try to get worse and tank.

It also allows us to use another player to improve the team.

Thus removing two players from the core that wasn't able to get it done.

 

Let me be clear, Gio is neither the problem nor the solution to being a contender.

Keeping him means we run in place a bit and don't transition the team at all.

 

Regardless of Gio, we need to sign a LD in some way shape or form.

Ideally, he is big and is young enough to be worth the cost.

We can draft all the D in the world, but they won't be ready in 1-3 years.

[bosn111]

I don’t think we NEED to sign another LD. If you look at what the Flames have already in place even without Giordano (including RFAs but not UFAs):

 

Hanifin

Valimaki

Mackey / Kylington 

Poolman

Kuznetsov

Solovyov

Lerby

 

Yes it is a very young D with need for growth but it isn’t terrible. Sutter would prefer a more aged D corps, but cost becomes a challenge either contract/cap or to acquire.

 

On the right we have:

 

Tanev

Andersson

Kinvall 

Yelesin

 

Tanev provides the veteran leadership and mentoring for the D. Could Kinvall or Yelesin be ready?  
 

In reality, the Flames should be looking for at least 1 more middle experience RHD. A more experienced LHD who could help stabilize would be nice but less necessary. Cost to acquire that LHD would likely be prohibitive.

 

RHD targets would be:

Montour UFA

Parayko STL
Van Riemsdyk WSH

Pulock NYI

 

**Dumba MIN (cap hit and cost to trade are higher than I would want, but he would be an upgrade for sure)

 

LHD

Oleksiak UFA

Nemeth UFA

Zadorov CHI RFA

 

They are all in the age range and quality I would be aiming for. TVR on the low end, but cost for a 3rd pair RD short term to add stability at low cost would work. Basically a younger Stone who won’t move the needle, but also won’t hurt but makes much higher cap room for other moves.

 

Pulock and Parayko are both higher cost on cap and acquire but are also better players.

 

All 3 LHD are solid middle pairs at reasonable cost.

 

Just my thoughts.

[travel_dude]

52 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

On the right we have:

 

Tanev

Andersson

Kinvall 

Yelesin

 

Kinvall is supposed to be coming over this summer, but remains to be seen.

Yelesin signed with the KHL, so he's gone.

 

But your point about D is well taken.

RD that are RHS may or may not be the actual need.

RD are for sure.

 

STL may have to trade Dunne and VAN may have to trade Schmidt to avoid losing for nothing.

I would prefer Dunne in those 2; supposedly he can play either side.

Shouldn't be as expensive to re-sign and he's just a RFA right now.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, a rebuild unlikely.  Doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't try to improve.  We are not a team to try to get worse and tank.

It also allows us to use another player to improve the team.

Thus removing two players from the core that wasn't able to get it done.

 

Let me be clear, Gio is neither the problem nor the solution to being a contender.

Keeping him means we run in place a bit and don't transition the team at all.

 

Regardless of Gio, we need to sign a LD in some way shape or form.

Ideally, he is big and is young enough to be worth the cost.

We can draft all the D in the world, but they won't be ready in 1-3 years.

 

We don't necessarily try to do it, but we have tanked quite proficiently over the last 30 years and gone through various rebuilds.  

 

You don't need to plan for a rebuild, to rebuild.

 

In fact, a lack of planning will do that for you.   On the contrary I don't think this 12th overall pick is the exception.  It is likely going to be the lowest of many high picks over the next few years.

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

We don't necessarily try to do it, but we have tanked quite proficiently over the last 30 years and gone through various rebuilds.  

 

You don't need to plan for a rebuild, to rebuild.

 

In fact, a lack of planning will do that for you.   On the contrary I don't think this 12th overall pick is the exception.  It is likely going to be the lowest of many high picks over the next few years.

The bolded is true if you are in a rebuild.

Unlikely given our penchant for cycling in and out of the playoffs.

As much as it appears that we are doing nothing to change that course, we actually do every year.

Every trade of more than a marginal player is meant to do something.

Every signing is for a purpose of improving.

 

The lack of planning is more of what we are trying to build.

Brouwer signed to add playoff experience and toughness.

Neal to add consistent goal scoring.

Markstrom to add a starter.

Tanev to add toughness and defensive ability.

On the surface, those moves sound like a direction we were going in.

Scouting either didn't identify the weaknesses or completely misjudged the players.

 

I've really got no issue with Markstrom or Tanev.

They probably prevent us from being a basement team and could actually result in cycling back into the playoffs.

A re-tool might get us closer to contender if combined with the right players and game plan.

A rebuild is almost guaranteed to fail, since the likelihood of keeping the right pieces and selecting the next franchise players are remote.

If Tampa is the team to be the model of NHL teams, they certainly spent a lot of time wallowing.

Choice picks of Point and Kucherov in 2013 and 14, but little since.

 

[jjgallow]

37 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

The bolded is true if you are in a rebuild.

Unlikely given our penchant for cycling in and out of the playoffs.

As much as it appears that we are doing nothing to change that course, we actually do every year.

Every trade of more than a marginal player is meant to do something.

Every signing is for a purpose of improving.

 

The lack of planning is more of what we are trying to build.

Brouwer signed to add playoff experience and toughness.

Neal to add consistent goal scoring.

Markstrom to add a starter.

Tanev to add toughness and defensive ability.

On the surface, those moves sound like a direction we were going in.

Scouting either didn't identify the weaknesses or completely misjudged the players.

 

I've really got no issue with Markstrom or Tanev.

They probably prevent us from being a basement team and could actually result in cycling back into the playoffs.

A re-tool might get us closer to contender if combined with the right players and game plan.

A rebuild is almost guaranteed to fail, since the likelihood of keeping the right pieces and selecting the next franchise players are remote.

If Tampa is the team to be the model of NHL teams, they certainly spent a lot of time wallowing.

Choice picks of Point and Kucherov in 2013 and 14, but little since.

 

 

Just so that we are clear, Tampa is by definition the model of NHL teams whether you agree or disagree with how they rebuild.     They stole a cup from us, when we were both rebuilding.

 

Then the went and rebuilt while we were rebuilding,  did it properly and won two more.

 

There is no question as to whether they are the model right now.  I also fail to see how you poke holes in their drafting,  nearly all their top players winning the cup right now are Tampa drafted.

 

I agree with you that we would almost certainly fail in a rebuild,  if we kept BT.

But if we keep BT we're going to fail no matter what we do, so might as well embrace the inevitable rebuild

[The_People1]

5 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Just so that we are clear, Tampa is by definition the model of NHL teams whether you agree or disagree with how they rebuild.     They stole a cup from us, when we were both rebuilding.

 

Then the went and rebuilt while we were rebuilding,  did it properly and won two more.

 

There is no question as to whether they are the model right now.  I also fail to see how you poke holes in their drafting,  nearly all their top players winning the cup right now are Tampa drafted.

 

I agree with you that we would almost certainly fail in a rebuild,  if we kept BT.

But if we keep BT we're going to fail no matter what we do, so might as well embrace the inevitable rebuild

 

Except we refused to rebuild (at least properly).  We refused to let go of the dream... that we can still win with Iginla, etc.  Meanwhile, Tampa moved on and tore it down hardcore the proper way.  And now they are champs again and we are between a puck and a hard place.

 

Next team to win the cup is probably Colorado.  And the Oilers are closer to a Cup than we are... 

[bosn111]

I think that a lot of people are saying similar things with the same basic notion, but going about things differently. There are some here who disagree but it seems most are on board.

 

The big concern is that the team as it is just is not where it needs to be and has not been able to get it done when it really matters. This means that change needs to happen, the question is how.

 

While ideally moving on from the Lucic contract to add a more skilled player, the cap benefits would be short term. With Gaudreau, Tkachuk and Mangiapane all needing new contracts in a year, that basically eats all of the 5 million you save by losing Lucic. So unless the needle moves enough to win this year, there is little that accomplishes long term. You will need to make other moves regardless.

 

Giordano, Lucic and Monahan are up for contracts in 2 years with only Backlund, Lindholm, Tanev, Hanifin, Andersson and Markstrom signed beyond that. So unless there is a big jump in the cap, the team will be redone in large part over the next 2 years regardless as they won’t be able to retain everyone.

 

So there will definitely be a re-tool to some degree, it is how deep and how soon that are the questions.

 

So what is the plan going forward? What will Treliving do? What should he do?

 

As I have stated before, I am all about asset management for the betterment of the team short and long term. I don’t want an extended wallowing at the bottom waiting for high draft picks. As the cap will not likely increase much in the next few years, we won’t be able to retain all of Monahan, Gaudreau and Tkachuk while bringing in other big names. Simple math here folks.

 

So time to move at least some, if not all, for longer, cheaper contracts. Can keep middling short term while building for a brighter future. Don’t need to crash to get better.

 

My thoughts anyways.