2022 Offseason

[The_People1]

46 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

That doesn't make any sense. We shouldn't talk about the impact of all 3 of those guys on the line or the fact that there is plenty of reason to believe that line could be very good even without Gaudreau?

 

The point here is that while he is an very good hockey player that line doesn't owe all of their success to Gaudreau. 

 

Because we are facing a situation where Lindholm-Tkachuk will have to go without Gaudreau where we already know Lindholm-Tkachuk as a combo.  It's been years of them together prior to Gaudreau.  Don't even need to discuss it.

 

I don't want to use terms like "still very good" because that's subjective.  Saying they are 65 to 70 point players is not subjective.  You can still interpret that as very good if you want to.

 

The meta-game behind the Gaudreau talk is we were not good enough last season and we need to get better.   So to lose Gaudreau is a step backwards and to argue Lindholm-Tkachuk when we already know their game together... It's so far from the bigger picture.

[sak22]

With or without Gaudreau we shouldn't expect a carbon copy next season.  The man himself isn't a model of consistency from season to season, did he have added motivation this season that could be removed with long term security who knows.  This team last year was relatively healthy which may not repeat next year.  This started running away with the division after they had a month of makeup games which was home heavy, we shouldn't expect another messed up schedule.  We are worried about not being able to beat the Oilers in the playoffs next year without Gaudreau, no guantees that we play them to begin with.  The team was still very good possession wise, and I don't expect every other player to fall off a cliff in that area if he leaves.  We don't need a +85 goal differential, teams still win cups in the +20 range.

[phoenix66]

25 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't recall one single person suggest the Flames will be a lottery team if they lose Gaudreau so what has gotten under your skin?  I believe we all know we won't be a lotto team if Gaudreau leaves.  No.  Instead, we will be even worse.  We will be a "middling team".

 

Borderline playoff team.  One and done once getting in.  Good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough to win the Cup.  Bad enough to miss the playoffs but not bad enough to have great lotto odds.  You know.  The worst place to be as a franchise.

It's been said but it's still heavy on "back up the moving trucks "..  trade Markstrom, trade Hanifin , trade Toffoli.. strip it down and start over ..

I actually believe if you moved Mangiapane up to the top line and inserted a top quality #2 center ..we'd be just as deadly 

 

I disagree..  the caveat being the right moves need to be made , but with BT and Sutter being a master of chemistry guiding him I have faith good moves would be made .

Our cap situation neatly guarantees some Stockton players graduate next year as well .. Tanev can work his magic with Valimaki or Mackey 

47 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

D by committee to replace an aging vet is one thing.

For sure, if we replace JH with Kadri and Forsberg we would have more scoring and likely a better team.

That's also kinda the point, we need at least one comp player to replace him.

And we have to delve into FA to do it, since we lost via FA.

 

If we lose JH, then we have to have a serious conversation about Tkachuk.  Is he what we need?  We are down to Lindholm and Backlund as our two top C.  Monahan dropped to an after thought.  Give Backs credit for stepping up, but you can only hope he stays competitive longer than a couple of years.  Here we are again.  

 

EDIT:  Yes, I know the total for Kadri and Forsberg would be about $8M more than just Johnny.

Backs is an interesting one.. a few years back we were willing to ship him to Edmonton to get the pick for Puljjaarvi..   I wonder if they'd still look at that deal? Not one for one .. find a way to get some picks as well because we'd have to eat salary .. But I'm in the camp that JP is way better than he's shown in Edmonton offensively..and he's already very good defensively..  we'd miss backs cuz he has been one of our best playoff guys everytime .. but JP seems to have the makings of the same defensive ability..albeit as a winger 

[travel_dude]

13 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Backs is an interesting one.. a few years back we were willing to ship him to Edmonton to get the pick for Puljjaarvi..   I wonder if they'd still look at that deal? Not one for one .. find a way to get some picks as well because we'd have to eat salary .. But I'm in the camp that JP is way better than he's shown in Edmonton offensively..and he's already very good defensively..  we'd miss backs cuz he has been one of our best playoff guys everytime .. but JP seems to have the makings of the same defensive ability..albeit as a winger 

 

I would be willing to send them a pick to help out their cap.  Doesn't allow them to sign Kane, so all is good.  Backs for Pooly is an overpay on our part.  He's barely worth Dube.  And while I would entertain that trade (Dube), I don't know if it's the best idea.  

 

Yes, Pooly is far better than what he is doing there.  Has not had a good coach and his team just chooses to play around him.  He's supposedly good without the puck (defense).  He's got a good shot on the rush and a good one-timer.  

 

The only thing is that we have a lot of potential RW and RHS.  

 

[cross16]

58 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Because we are facing a situation where Lindholm-Tkachuk will have to go without Gaudreau where we already know Lindholm-Tkachuk as a combo.  It's been years of them together prior to Gaudreau.  Don't even need to discuss it.

 

I don't want to use terms like "still very good" because that's subjective.  Saying they are 65 to 70 point players is not subjective.  You can still interpret that as very good if you want to.

 

The meta-game behind the Gaudreau talk is we were not good enough last season and we need to get better.   So to lose Gaudreau is a step backwards and to argue Lindholm-Tkachuk when we already know their game together... It's so far from the bigger picture.

 

Prior to this season, at 5 on 5, they (Lindholm and Tkachuk) spent as much time apart as they did together. Prior to Sutter's arrival they hardly played together.  Seems too simplistic to say we know what they are without Gaudreau so it feels like a pretty relevant discussion to me. 

 

I don't really agree it's far from the bigger picture because it does involve how we get better. We assume getting better means finding a replacement for Gaudreau on that line but what if that line is actually ok and the getting better becomes on D? 2nd line?

 

I agree there is a bigger picture at play here but I don't think that means that looking at what Lindholm and Tkachuk are without Gaudreau doesn't matter. 

[conundrumed]

22 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Prior to this season, at 5 on 5, they (Lindholm and Tkachuk) spent as much time apart as they did together. Prior to Sutter's arrival they hardly played together.  Seems too simplistic to say we know what they are without Gaudreau so it feels like a pretty relevant discussion to me. 

I agree with this. I hope that we aren't of the mind that Gaudreau makes or breaks us. It doesn't work that way.

There are a ton of great players. The whole 1st line vs 4th line potential guy is really overplayed. If you're in the NHL, you're one of the best players in the world.

I'd use Ondrej Palat as an example. Does Point, Stamkos, Kucherov make him a 1st line guy on a powerhouse? I'd say they don't. He does it. There are under-rated guys all over the map looking for an opportunity.

It just changes the dynamic.

That stuff comes down to coaching. We've got a good one, we're not a one-trick (player) team.

[The_People1]

16 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I agree with this. I hope that we aren't of the mind that Gaudreau makes or breaks us. It doesn't work that way.

There are a ton of great players. The whole 1st line vs 4th line potential guy is really overplayed. If you're in the NHL, you're one of the best players in the world.

I'd use Ondrej Palat as an example. Does Point, Stamkos, Kucherov make him a 1st line guy on a powerhouse? I'd say they don't. He does it. There are under-rated guys all over the map looking for an opportunity.

It just changes the dynamic.

That stuff comes down to coaching. We've got a good one, we're not a one-trick (player) team.

 

What does Palat have to do with our situation?  We are losing Kucherov.  TB doesn't win more Cups if they lose Kucherov.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

It's been said but it's still heavy on "back up the moving trucks "..  trade Markstrom, trade Hanifin , trade Toffoli.. strip it down and start over ..

I actually believe if you moved Mangiapane up to the top line and inserted a top quality #2 center ..we'd be just as deadly 

 

I disagree..  the caveat being the right moves need to be made , but with BT and Sutter being a master of chemistry guiding him I have faith good moves would be made .

Our cap situation neatly guarantees some Stockton players graduate next year as well .. Tanev can work his magic with Valimaki or Mackey 

 

We will be competitive without Gaudreau but won't realistically compete for the Cup.  Is that okay with you?

 

Gaudreau leaving us would put us between a puck and a hard place, no doubt.  Neither here nor there at that point.  We move bodies around just to be close to last season (when last season wasn't gold enough.  We needed to improve).

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This is a great point that doesn't get enough talk IMO. The focus is always on what Gaudreau did for those 2 and never about how those 2 helped Gaudreau. 

 

I do think Gaudreau mostly stirred the drink but he owes a lot of his season to those 2 guys too. I know Gaudrau already had a 99 point season so the tendency is to say his game was already there but to increase that by 4 goals, 16 points AND have the line perform at a much higher and consistent level than the 2019 season speaks to the impact Tkachuk had on that line. 

 

I'm not of the belief the bottom falls out here if Gaudreau walks. It probably makes a cup more unlikely but i'm not sure it changes the odds as much as we think as i'm not sure the odds are that great even with Gaudreau here. I'm a big believer it takes high end talent to win a cup and the Flames needed more even if they can keep Gaudreau. if he walks you are just filling an ever deeper hole now. 

 

Possible though and what they do next would be very key. 

 

 

 

 

i know I said the two with Gaudreau have less points without him, but I also believe that they benefit from playing with each other. It’s why chasing the money is problematic for me sometimes, Johnny is benefiting from their play too, and wonder if he’s that player without them. I always thought putting Lindholm as a C with Johnny would help his game but a lot said he’s our best RW and it leaves too big a hole to play him there. Also thought Tkachuk needed to play with better players but I was worried about a top heavy lineup. 
 

can Mangiapane play with the top line minus Gaudreau? I’m not sure. Lindholm can set up and score so there’s that. Mangiapane makes room for himself so there is that too. 

[robrob74]

42 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

We will be competitive without Gaudreau but won't realistically compete for the Cup.  Is that okay with you?

 

Gaudreau leaving us would put us between a puck and a hard place, no doubt.  Neither here nor there at that point.  We move bodies around just to be close to last season (when last season wasn't gold enough.  We needed to improve).

I honestly think we would be a borderline playoff team without Gaudreau. LA could take a step. Can Vegas get back with a healthier Eichel and Stone? Will Edmonton be the same? Anaheim started good but tailed off. If the Canucks keep most of their roster they might improve on the points considering how they started playing with Boudreaux. It’s a lot more up in the air than a lot are willing to admit. 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

I agree with this. I hope that we aren't of the mind that Gaudreau makes or breaks us. It doesn't work that way.

There are a ton of great players. The whole 1st line vs 4th line potential guy is really overplayed. If you're in the NHL, you're one of the best players in the world.

I'd use Ondrej Palat as an example. Does Point, Stamkos, Kucherov make him a 1st line guy on a powerhouse? I'd say they don't. He does it. There are under-rated guys all over the map looking for an opportunity.

It just changes the dynamic.

That stuff comes down to coaching. We've got a good one, we're not a one-trick (player) team.

 

Hudler, while only a few years of top play might be a good example of a player buried. 
 

who would be that player for us right now? 

[sak22]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

i know I said the two with Gaudreau have less points without him, but I also believe that they benefit from playing with each other. It’s why chasing the money is problematic for me sometimes, Johnny is benefiting from their play too, and wonder if he’s that player without them. I always thought putting Lindholm as a C with Johnny would help his game but a lot said he’s our best RW and it leaves too big a hole to play him there. Also thought Tkachuk needed to play with better players but I was worried about a top heavy lineup. 
 

can Mangiapane play with the top line minus Gaudreau? I’m not sure. Lindholm can set up and score so there’s that. Mangiapane makes room for himself so there is that too. 

As a line they had a decent run a couple years ago, if I'm not mistaken I believe Mange played on his off wing.  More importantly they were coached by Geoff Ward.  We would not see 115-104-82 points out of a Mang-Lindholm-Chucky line, but you really don't need it.  Right now we view Gaudreau as a 115 point guy, that is wrong, this season has had a lot of career years league wide, scoring in general was up and I would bet on it dropping next year.  The scheduling was really messed up and goalies had a tough time health wise as 119 different goalies played at least a minute this season, almost 4 per team, the last full 82 games season was 93.  All round strange season, but my stance remains if we remain near the top in goals against we will be fine.

[travel_dude]

10 minutes ago, sak22 said:

As a line they had a decent run a couple years ago, if I'm not mistaken I believe Mange played on his off wing.  More importantly they were coached by Geoff Ward.  We would not see 115-104-82 points out of a Mang-Lindholm-Chucky line, but you really don't need it.  Right now we view Gaudreau as a 115 point guy, that is wrong, this season has had a lot of career years league wide, scoring in general was up and I would bet on it dropping next year.  The scheduling was really messed up and goalies had a tough time health wise as 119 different goalies played at least a minute this season, almost 4 per team, the last full 82 games season was 93.  All round strange season, but my stance remains if we remain near the top in goals against we will be fine.

 

So, are you suggesting that Matthews and McDavid will see their points drop as well?

The league has changed.  They are making it easier to score that many goals.

Minor tweaks to the rules.

Goalies not relying on big pads as much.

The good ones still stop a lot, but there are only so many of those.

Really this is the first full season in years, so we see goals up.

[cross16]

44 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

i know I said the two with Gaudreau have less points without him, but I also believe that they benefit from playing with each other. It’s why chasing the money is problematic for me sometimes, Johnny is benefiting from their play too, and wonder if he’s that player without them. I always thought putting Lindholm as a C with Johnny would help his game but a lot said he’s our best RW and it leaves too big a hole to play him there. Also thought Tkachuk needed to play with better players but I was worried about a top heavy lineup. 
 

can Mangiapane play with the top line minus Gaudreau? I’m not sure. Lindholm can set up and score so there’s that. Mangiapane makes room for himself so there is that too. 

 

Easily IMO. 

 

Mang gets the reputation as a scorer because of the goals but he is a better play driver than people realize. He creates chances at a high end level but the number the last few years show his teammates struggle to bury those chances otherwise I don't think we'd be as concerned. 

 

but of course if you try and replace Gaudreau with Mang your not opening up holes down your lineup and creating other issues with is a fair debate. I do think Mang could join that top line though and they'd be pretty successful

[sak22]

13 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, are you suggesting that Matthews and McDavid will see their points drop as well?

The league has changed.  They are making it easier to score that many goals.

Minor tweaks to the rules.

Goalies not relying on big pads as much.

The good ones still stop a lot, but there are only so many of those.

Really this is the first full season in years, so we see goals up.

Possibly, I didn't even know Andrew Hammond was still playing so who saw him playing over 10 games, who could've predicted Jon Gillies would get more action than David Rittich, if guys like that are getting significant games it bodes very well for offenses around the league.  Add in the teams that didn't even have a quality proven starter to begin the year like Arizona, or Buffalo going with old man Anderson and Tokarski, Dallas had to kick their vets to the curb because they couldn't stop anything.  Some situations may get worse because some teams are just bad, but I don't know if I'd bank on the injuries from last year.  No matter what quality of goaltending played a factor last year.

[sak22]

 

 

The guy really grew on me this year, but that is a deal to avoid.

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, sak22 said:

 

 

The guy really grew on me this year, but that is a deal to avoid.

 

Unfortunately, it's kinda the going rate.

I wouldn't want to pay that much myself.

Might be able to get the same offense from a 3rd pair guy, with less toughness, for around $900k.

 

[sak22]

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

 

 

The guy really grew on me this year, but that is a deal to avoid.

 

Sign him.  $4.75 x 4 and play him top 4 with Tanev.

 

But if it comes down to Gaudreau staying, of course it's out of our control.  This certainly applies to all UFAs.  If Gaudreau leaves then no UFA serious about winning the Cup will come here.

 

And yes, we have to deal with Gaudreau first because if he's gone then may as well blow it up... Don't sign Zadorov. Zadorov himself is applying the same logic to leaving.  

[The_People1]

49 minutes ago, sak22 said:

 

 

Yikes... 

[The_People1]

50 minutes ago, sak22 said:

 

 

Oh also, $9.5-mil x 8 is a joke IMO.  Gaudreau is going to think he can get $10.5 x 7... Then sign a one year for $5-mil as a 36-year old.  Why not?  

[phoenix66]

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Sign him.  $4.75 x 4 and play him top 4 with Tanev.

 

But if it comes down to Gaudreau staying, of course it's out of our control.  This certainly applies to all UFAs.  If Gaudreau leaves then no UFA serious about winning the Cup will come here.

 

And yes, we have to deal with Gaudreau first because if he's gone then may as well blow it up... Don't sign Zadorov. Same argument that has Zadorov leaving.  

Nope.. no doom and gloom here at all.. lol. 

 

Actually if Johnny leaves I'd think a top player like a Forsberg for example would love to sign here to play on what was the top line in hockey last year.. 

 

I think Zadorov leaves regardless .. if Johnny leaves and that swings him so be it .. but if Johnny stays we can't afford him.. 

 

 

[cross16]

Hard pass on that Zadarov contract. I wasn't expecting, and honestly don't exactly want him back either, to come back but at that term and dollars no way. That's gonna be a brutal deal for whatever team signs it IMO. 

[The_People1]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Hard pass on that Zadarov contract. I wasn't expecting, and honestly don't exactly want him back either, to come back but at that term and dollars no way. That's gonna be a brutal deal for whatever team signs it IMO. 

 

Are his advanced stats that bad?  He was our best Dman in the Oilers series... Which isn't saying much I know.

[The_People1]

11 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Nope.. no doom and gloom here at all.. lol. 

 

Actually if Johnny leaves I'd think a top player like a Forsberg for example would love to sign here to play on what was the top line in hockey last year.. 

 

I think Zadorov leaves regardless .. if Johnny leaves and that swings him so be it .. but if Johnny stays we can't afford him.. 

 

 

 

I bet Tkachuk is leaving too if Gaudreau is.  It all comes down to Gaudreau.