2022 Offseason

[cross16]

19 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

The Senators sorta gutted their team after the Karlsson/Hoffman thing.  They went to the Conference Finals and then blew up their team.

 

I think there is a huge difference there. First of all it's another example of a team that actually wasn't that good but got hot but even that aside they didn't really take their team down. They made the Duchene move months after, they thought they were good. 

I don't think losing Karlsson and Stone because they wanted contracts the Sens wouldn't pay is the same as intentionally taking apart your team. Especially when you consider the contract scenarios of the Flames. 

 

Again not saying you 'cant" do it, just that's its never been done. 

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Just saying though.  You don't have to wait until your core guys are all old and worthless to begin a rebuild.  When it's the right time, then it's the right time.

 

We waited too long with Brodie.  Waited too long with Gio.  We are about a year or so behind the rebuild being signaled.  Missed out again, assuming there was ever any desire to do it.    

[The_People1]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We waited too long with Brodie.  Waited too long with Gio.  We are about a year or so behind the rebuild being signaled.  Missed out again, assuming there was ever any desire to do it.    

 

 

[travel_dude]

11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

 

Well, I guess you can look at Gio going and not losing Dube or Kylington.  Had we traded him, one of those two goes.  Possibly Mangiapane.  Brodie was poor asset management.  Hamonic was a poor trade, so losing him meant a lot of nothing.  

 

I'm not sure that losing Gaudreau means we lose Monahan for nothing.  Either or, not both.

[cross16]

24 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

 

This looks awful when put into a tweet but at the same time it lacks context and should be pointed out this isn't much different than other NHL teams, especially ones in Canada. 

 

But I've said this before asset management is key in the cap area and if (i stress this) Gaudreau walks I think it's an organizational failure that needs to be investigated. If it's GM driven then you need to replace the GM and if it boils down to the directive then you need to fix the directive. 

[sak22]

20 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

Also gained Tanev, Markstrom and Coleman for no assets, there is asset management but also cap management.  Considering Hamonic was injured at his deadline there wasn't much you could do, trade Brodie at that deadline and you send the message to the remaining players that they aren't good enough and you don't care about winning.  I think most teams at some point lose players like Brodie or Hamonic for nothing, and most teams got impacted at least once in expansion, we can be happy we didn't make it worse like say Anaheim in trading Theodore.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This looks awful when put into a tweet but at the same time it lacks context and should be pointed out this isn't much different than other NHL teams, especially ones in Canada. 

 

But I've said this before asset management is key in the cap area and if (i stress this) Gaudreau walks I think it's an organizational failure that needs to be investigated. If it's GM driven then you need to replace the GM and if it boils down to the directive then you need to fix the directive. 

When you put it in a Canadian perspective, Canadian teams are under pressure by owners and fans to win and therefore tend to hold onto players too long too often. 
 

i also wonder if there is a misinterpretation of fans intelligence when it comes to time to rebuild. Some of us tend to see the signals earlier than expected… but the Canadian teams need to contend with American dollars vs Canadian dollars, so playoff revenue tends to be more important…

 

It is a weird dichotomy because on one hand, owners spend to the cap, and on the other, aren’t willing to do what it takes to build all the way. The Leafs got Marner and Matthews and then Tavares and determined their build was over, when maybe another year of waiting might help. Much like the Flames, we make the playoffs and beat the Canucks and our build was over. 

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, sak22 said:

Also gained Tanev, Markstrom and Coleman for no assets, there is asset management but also cap management.  Considering Hamonic was injured at his deadline there wasn't much you could do, trade Brodie at that deadline and you send the message to the remaining players that they aren't good enough and you don't care about winning.  I think most teams at some point lose players like Brodie or Hamonic for nothing, and most teams got impacted at least once in expansion, we can be happy we didn't make it worse like say Anaheim in trading Theodore.

 

for most of us at the time, we saw they weren’t good enough and wanted to trade Brodie. They were probably hovering around or close to the playoffs but the writing was on the wall. 
 

but I also think it’s an ownership thing, make the Playoffs at all costs. Those costs tend to be the future.

[sak22]

27 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

for most of us at the time, we saw they weren’t good enough and wanted to trade Brodie. They were probably hovering around or close to the playoffs but the writing was on the wall. 
 

but I also think it’s an ownership thing, make the Playoffs at all costs. Those costs tend to be the future.

It's not just an ownership thing.  Was Geoff Ward concerned with the futures or trying to prove he can coach, does BT have a job if that team fails?  We can look back with hindsight as we've lost nothing but time, being a coach, gm or player you have a lot to lose.  Ward is already done as a head coach, most GM's who don't win a cup don't get another GM job, and most players would lose trust of the organization if it threw in the towel on a season where you were making the playoffs.  All we lose being fans is our time, but its all our choice to do so.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

for most of us at the time, we saw they weren’t good enough and wanted to trade Brodie. They were probably hovering around or close to the playoffs but the writing was on the wall. 
 

but I also think it’s an ownership thing, make the Playoffs at all costs. Those costs tend to be the future.

 

I don't know, there are years that things don't go as planned.  We were trying to trade Brodie for Kadri, but it didn't pan out.  Just came off a poor playoff run where we wasted 8 days.  But a great regular season.  INto a Covid season.  Yikes.  Next year the stupid North division.

 

My point is that results don't prove we were good or not good enough.  There are many factors going into it.  Players not having good seasons.  Losing a coach mid year.  A 4 month break going back to playoffs.  The next year a short season.  You can say that every team faced the same issues, but every team is different.  Ryan went from being a solid player to nothing.  We picked up 2 D at TDL that managed to play very little, and they were basically 1/3 of our D corp.  

[cross16]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

When you put it in a Canadian perspective, Canadian teams are under pressure by owners and fans to win and therefore tend to hold onto players too long too often. 
 

i also wonder if there is a misinterpretation of fans intelligence when it comes to time to rebuild. Some of us tend to see the signals earlier than expected… but the Canadian teams need to contend with American dollars vs Canadian dollars, so playoff revenue tends to be more important…

 

It is a weird dichotomy because on one hand, owners spend to the cap, and on the other, aren’t willing to do what it takes to build all the way. The Leafs got Marner and Matthews and then Tavares and determined their build was over, when maybe another year of waiting might help. Much like the Flames, we make the playoffs and beat the Canucks and our build was over. 

 

I think it's more your last sentence and not really an intelligence thing. At the end of the day it's also easier as a fan to say rebuild or trade this guy when we are not signing the cheques and not attracting sponsors. So I can appreciate that the owners are in more of a bind when it comes to a rebuild and it's much harder to sell a product that is losing than one that is winning. 

 

I also just think we forget that winning is really, really hard. I mean people argue the Leafs didn't have a succesfull rebuild and they were a bounce away from eliminated the team who just played game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals. There is no set blueprint to this or a road map you can follow, every team and situation is so different and I think we over simplify it way too much. Owners can't really afford to do that. 

[MP5029]

16 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

No that's the thing though.  If we are happy just being a playoff team then we just keep marching forward without Gaudreau.  We can scrap together a playoff team.  We won't go far though.

Idk…

 

who’s to say If gaudreau walks we re-sign all the others add Forsberg or similar UFA 

 

maybe promote Ruzi and Pelletier, trade Backlund and add a top 4 D (or

Something that…that it’s not a contender?

 

look at Col…they built a core and then build via trades and UFA…they traded Druin (sp?) to MlT and he was a highly valued asset…I can’t recall but I think they didn’t get much back for him…but they did mostly keep the younger players.

 

 I’m definitely on board with moving out Backlund, Lucic and maybe Monahan and even Lindholm and Toffoil all 30 or pushing very close to 30.

 

but guys like Manji, Tachuck etc…they are 25 and younger still getting better every year….build around them.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, MP5029 said:

Idk…

 

who’s to say If gaudreau walks we re-sign all the others add Forsberg or similar UFA 

 

maybe promote Ruzi and Pelletier, trade Backlund and add a top 4 D (or

Something that…that it’s not a contender?

 

look at Col…they built a core and then build via trades and UFA…they traded Druin (sp?) to MlT and he was a highly valued asset…I can’t recall but I think they didn’t get much back for him…but they did mostly keep the younger players.

 

 I’m definitely on board with moving out Backlund, Lucic and maybe Monahan and even Lindholm and Toffoil all 30 or pushing very close to 30.

 

but guys like Manji, Tachuck etc…they are 25 and younger still getting better every year….build around them.

The Avs had the luxury, or incompetence, to select 1st oa with a bonafide star. Then again, 4thoa with Makar in the laughable 2017 draft, via laughable trade (not protecting the 1st Ottawa). Rantanen at 10, 2010 2nd oa with Landeskog.

None of this stuff did we have the ability to do, so comparing us to the Avs isn't relevant.

[conundrumed]

It's probably a good time to facilitate thoughts on life without Johnny  With the disclaimer that I don't really expect it.

There's a bit of a notion for me that we're ready to overpay a player that will be 29 when the season starts. For 8 yrs.

Are we really thinking he'll be laying down 100pt seasons for more than 2 years?

We need to ask ourselves, is this worth it for maybe 3 years of 1st line? This league is only moving further into the direction of young and fast.

I'm actually okay if he moves on and forces us to have some foresight rather than 3 years into an 8 yr deal be living in hindsight.

I'm not asking what we should do instead, simply, are we sure we want 8yr big contracts kicking in at age 29?

[MP5029]

8 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

It's probably a good time to facilitate thoughts on life without Johnny  With the disclaimer that I don't really expect it.

There's a bit of a notion for me that we're ready to overpay a player that will be 29 when the season starts. For 8 yrs.

Are we really thinking he'll be laying down 100pt seasons for more than 2 years?

We need to ask ourselves, is this worth it for maybe 3 years of 1st line? This league is only moving further into the direction of young and fast.

I'm actually okay if he moves on and forces us to have some foresight rather than 3 years into an 8 yr deal be living in hindsight.

I'm not asking what we should do instead, simply, are we sure we want 8yr big contracts kicking in at age 29?

Agreed and fair point! 
 

Tachuck at 9 mil over 8 makes way more sense…he’s 24 now and would be 32 at the end of that contract which almost perfect compared to JG at 9 mil at the age of 37! 

[MP5029]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

The Avs had the luxury, or incompetence, to select 1st oa with a bonafide star. Then again, 4thoa with Makar in the laughable 2017 draft, via laughable trade (not protecting the 1st Ottawa). Rantanen at 10, 2010 2nd oa with Landeskog.

None of this stuff did we have the ability to do, so comparing us to the Avs isn't relevant.

Not comparing, pointing out that we need to consider age…I get moving on from players 27+ especially where long term contracts are considering, guys like Manji, Tachuck etc…those guys you keep, build

around, that’s what we should be doing…

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, MP5029 said:

look at Col…they built a core and then build via trades and UFA…they traded Druin (sp?) to MlT and he was a highly valued asset…I can’t recall but I think they didn’t get much back for him…but they did mostly keep the younger players.

 

 

You mean TBL, who traded Drouin for Sergachev?  Drouin was falling out of favor with TBL and was demoted.  Wanted out.  Dealt to MTL for an overpay.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

It's probably a good time to facilitate thoughts on life without Johnny  With the disclaimer that I don't really expect it.

There's a bit of a notion for me that we're ready to overpay a player that will be 29 when the season starts. For 8 yrs.

Are we really thinking he'll be laying down 100pt seasons for more than 2 years?

We need to ask ourselves, is this worth it for maybe 3 years of 1st line? This league is only moving further into the direction of young and fast.

I'm actually okay if he moves on and forces us to have some foresight rather than 3 years into an 8 yr deal be living in hindsight.

I'm not asking what we should do instead, simply, are we sure we want 8yr big contracts kicking in at age 29?

 

It's a fair question and honestly I'm still not thrilled about the idea of giving Gaudreau a big contract. I never really have been and he while he won me over in certain ways this year i'm still not convinced he's the type of player you go all in on. I still think he will be a top end offensive producer for some time though and I don't think the deal would hurts a few years in. Last couple season probably but i'm actually comfortable with the idea of him performing at a high level the next 5 year or so. 

 

So fair to question if it is worth it but at this point i'm not sure the Flames have a choice because the alternative is far less pretty IMO. 

[travel_dude]

11 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

It's a fair question and honestly I'm still not thrilled about the idea of giving Gaudreau a big contract. I never really have been and he while he won me over in certain ways this year i'm still not convinced he's the type of player you go all in on. I still think he will be a top end offensive producer for some time though and I don't think the deal would hurts a few years in. Last couple season probably but i'm actually comfortable with the idea of him performing at a high level the next 5 year or so. 

 

So fair to question if it is worth it but at this point i'm not sure the Flames have a choice because the alternative is far less pretty IMO. 

 

In a way, BT made his bed.  I would imaging that he was giving a far less competitive offer last summer, since Gaudreau had just come off a career low for points.  If it was a really good offer, it might have been signed.  That's just a possible reason, but would make sense.  Johnny didn't want to keep negotiating when the season started, but at the time we had fewer cap constraints. 

 

To your point, we really don't have much choice but to offer a max deal.  Make it as attractive as possible with bonus structure and front loading (if that is what he wants to do).  A failure to get him signed would be viewed as a failure of the GM by fans.  The team might recover.  Eventually.  But the hard work they pout in this last season goes out the window.     

[The_People1]

7 hours ago, MP5029 said:

who’s to say If gaudreau walks we re-sign all the others add Forsberg or similar UFA 

 

We have about 1% chance to sign Forsberg.  He simply has too many options out there and likely won't choose Calgary.

 

So given that, where are the Flames without Gaudreau and don't have Forsberg?  Let alone, if we sign everyone else like Tkachuk, Kylington, Zadorov, Gudbranson, etc, then Gaudreau's money is used up and no more money to add a superstar.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

It's probably a good time to facilitate thoughts on life without Johnny  With the disclaimer that I don't really expect it.

There's a bit of a notion for me that we're ready to overpay a player that will be 29 when the season starts. For 8 yrs.

Are we really thinking he'll be laying down 100pt seasons for more than 2 years?

We need to ask ourselves, is this worth it for maybe 3 years of 1st line? This league is only moving further into the direction of young and fast.

I'm actually okay if he moves on and forces us to have some foresight rather than 3 years into an 8 yr deal be living in hindsight.

I'm not asking what we should do instead, simply, are we sure we want 8yr big contracts kicking in at age 29?

 

Do you want to win the Cup in the next few years or no?  That's all it comes down to.

 

We don't have superstar power after Gaudreau.  He's too important.  And we don't have superstar power playing Center or D which is key.  Not enough difference makers and game changers.  I'm not even sold Markstrom is clutch enough in critical games to be the answer anymore.  

[The_People1]

Frank Seravalli... Last week, basically the Flames and Gaudreau are talking.  The pitch/offer has been made.  Gaudreau camp is not answering yet... there are no negotiations coming from the Gaudreau camp.  All is silent.

 

 

[travel_dude]

8 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

We have about 1% chance to sign Forsberg.  He simply has too many options out there and likely won't choose Calgary.

 

So given that, where are the Flames without Gaudreau and don't have Forsberg?  Let alone, if we sign everyone else like Tkachuk, Kylington, Zadorov, Gudbranson, etc, then Gaudreau's money is used up and no more money to add a superstar.

 

What we really know about Forsberg is not much.  He has fewer options than Gaudreau.  Only a handful of teams can afford to pay him $9M.  What does he want from a team, a coach, or a city?  No idea.

 

If neither him nor Gaudreau are signing before July 13th, then we should be talking to NAS about trading rights.  Find out what Forsberg wants and if he's willing to sign and for how much.  We trade a pick for his rights.  At the very least we have one of the two players come FA.  We can fix the cap in the summer, should we sign both.  Allows us to offer up Tkachuk in a trade in that case.  Or we end up with a shooter instead of a passer.      

[travel_dude]

 

10 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Frank Seravalli... Last week, basically the Flames and Gaudreau are talking.  The pitch/offer has been made.  Gaudreau camp is not answering yet... there are no negotiations coming from the Gaudreau camp.  All is silent.

 

Not negotiating, but still talking.  On the other hand Forsberg's case is radio silent.  Not even any contact.  

This doesn't describe a marriage proposal not being answered.  More like trying to come up with the counter offer without being offside the player's wishes.  There's probably some discussion with family going on.  He's what the offer is, do you think it makes sense?  Do you think I should push for that much more or focus on conditions?

 

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, MP5029 said:

Not comparing, pointing out that we need to consider age…I get moving on from players 27+ especially where long term contracts are considering, guys like Manji, Tachuck etc…those guys you keep, build

around, that’s what we should be doing…

 

 

In Hindsight, in your theory, I can get behind actually, it would have been a lot better to trade Gaudreau a season or two ago. Perhaps even after his 99 point season, it might have been a good move. Getting something really good last year would have been ideal to help move those younger players forward in a few years. Not to keep harping on Monahan, I could always tell something was a bit off whenever he got into injury and when play got tighter it got harder for them. For me, he has always been immobile. I love his shot...

 

The year Lindholm got to Calgary I also thought he should be the Center. Hardly anyone agreed with me because he was The Right Wing we needed. 

 

I like the theory of keeping the young guys. My only worry is that once we find players to compliment them, they're going to be 30. Can we keep Lindholm as that #1C and is he that without Johnny? Does he get it done well enough with say, Mangipane and Tkachuk on his line? Do we need a Forsberg or something to replace Johnny in the meantime? I don't mind there being a mix of young and old. Would Forsberg sign with Calgary, and is he still the player he was a few years ago?