2022 Offseason

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

RHS RW with size and decent skating... You have to pay a small premium for RHS always.  That's just the free market forces at play because RHS is a rarer commodity.  Anytime a team trades a LHS for a RHS, the LHS player should be the better player.

 

Pooly has baggage.  He hasn't been able to muster a good season yet.  He struggles with consistency.  When most every player in that draft top 10 (except Nylander and Juolevi) have improved year over year, Pooly has struggled to even match Dube.  Dube is more versatile.  EDM would really benefit from Dube for Pooly, but I wouldn't do that trade.  

[The_People1]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

If you are looking at the playoffs as being an expose of Kylington, perhaps take into account that Tanev was injured in the first round and the D was exposed as a whole at that point.  Hanifin and Zadorov were unable to handle any of the top lines.  So it wasn't Kylington that was the only player getting walked.  In fact, Kylington was one of the few that could get back to cover, without taking penalties.

 

Pooly was unable to fit any line he played on, whether it was with McLeod or Draisaitl or McD.  Even though Yamamoto struggled with NHL sized players, Pooly showed his lack of hockey IQ.  I think he could be rebranded and get his game closer to the level of a top 3 pick, but right now he is unlikely to play in EDM.  He's not worth even a 3rd pairing guy on a top 10 NHL team.  Lundqvist got a 1st and 4th, so the value of a D shows what teams are willing to pay.  Pooly isn't even close to that.  

 

Lundkvist is a RHS RD which highlights exactly what I've just said.  You have to pay a premium to get RHS.

 

I'm proposing we trade a bottom 3 LHS LD for a 3rd line RHS RW.  That's roughly fair value guys.

 

Why is it that Kylington has potential while Puljujarvi can only go downhill from here?

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Pooly has baggage.  He hasn't been able to muster a good season yet.  He struggles with consistency.  When most every player in that draft top 10 (except Nylander and Juolevi) have improved year over year, Pooly has struggled to even match Dube.  Dube is more versatile.  EDM would really benefit from Dube for Pooly, but I wouldn't do that trade.  

 

Sam Bennett struggled with the Flames too before he got a fresh start.  Nichushkin was kicked to the curb by DAL before his career was rescued by a fresh start.  Puljujarvi could blossom here.

 

Meanwhile, if Kylington ever goes to the Oilers... they are a Dman graveyard.  It's career ending for him and he'll be out of the NHL in 2 years. 

[The_People1]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Pooly has baggage.  He hasn't been able to muster a good season yet.  He struggles with consistency.  When most every player in that draft top 10 (except Nylander and Juolevi) have improved year over year, Pooly has struggled to even match Dube.  Dube is more versatile.  EDM would really benefit from Dube for Pooly, but I wouldn't do that trade.  

 

I would do Dube for Puljujarvi straight up.  

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Lundkvist is a RHS RD which highlights exactly what I've just said.  You have to pay a premium to get RHS.

 

I'm proposing we trade a bottom 3 LHS LD for a 3rd line RHS RW.  That's roughly fair value guys.

 

Why is it that Kylington has potential while Puljujarvi can only go downhill from here?

 

The difference is that one NHL club was willing to pay a 1st and 4th for a RHS D.

And a RHS D vs RHS RW is not remotely the same.

 

Calling Kylington a bottom pairing D doesn't make him one.

Sure, Kyl could regress this year.

But how is it that a player with as much NHL experience (almost) as Tkachuk is still struggling?

How will another year in EDM make him any better?

 

Trading a former 2nd pairing guy coming off a career year for a struggling RW seems off.

Fair value for EDM, since they want to unload him for what they can get.

He's not worth a 1st to any team.

When Broburg is considered a top 6 D, then you know EDM is in trouble.

Valimaki, even in his present funk, is still an upgrade.

 

[The_People1]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

The difference is that one NHL club was willing to pay a 1st and 4th for a RHS D.

And a RHS D vs RHS RW is not remotely the same.

 

Calling Kylington a bottom pairing D doesn't make him one.

Sure, Kyl could regress this year.

But how is it that a player with as much NHL experience (almost) as Tkachuk is still struggling?

How will another year in EDM make him any better?

 

Trading a former 2nd pairing guy coming off a career year for a struggling RW seems off.

Fair value for EDM, since they want to unload him for what they can get.

He's not worth a 1st to any team.

When Broburg is considered a top 6 D, then you know EDM is in trouble.

Valimaki, even in his present funk, is still an upgrade.

 

 

Okay so I guess it's safe to conclude our difference here is that you see Puljujarvi as "struggling" and trending his way out of the NHL soon.  Meanwhile I see him as a really good 3rd line RW with potential to find a home with Kadri on the 2nd line.  

 

That's basically it.

 

All this Kylington talk is kind of irrelevant because we know what he is. He's not a bad player.  He's not a top pair Dman but good on the depth chart.

[cross16]

so I am in favor of acquiring Puljujarvi myself as i'm with People on this one. I think he is already a very good 3rd line player who could break out in the right situation. There are parallels to him and Nichuskin for sure and I don't really get all the negativity thrown his way. It's not his fault he got drafted by Edmonton who can't develop anyone. 

 

Whether or not you'd deal Kylington for him though is pretty irrelevant to me as the deal doesn't make sense. Oilers depth chart is:

Nurse - Barrie

Kulak - Bouchard

Broberg/Koekkoek - Ceci

 

I'm certainly not going to proclaim that a good D core as it isn't but at best Kylington is in a battle for their 2nd pairing. They just paid Kulak and they took Broberg in the top 10 so I'm not seeing how they are going to have value in Kylington. Not to mention they are save 500k off their cap. Same situation with Dube, they only save 700k and don't upgrade so what is the point?

 

I think the only hope the Flames have of acquiring Puljujarvi is if the Oilers are high on Valimaki. It's the only trade that makes sense for their cap, but again they already have a high pick project in Broberg so why acquire another one?

 

Fit really isn't there unless the Flames can move out money and acquire him for a pick but at the same time if that was on the table i'm not sure why they'd be brining in these PTOs or looking at Ritchie. 

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Okay so I guess it's safe to conclude our difference here is that you see Puljujarvi as "struggling" and trending his way out of the NHL soon.  Meanwhile I see him as a really good 3rd line RW with potential to find a home with Kadri on the 2nd line.  

 

That's basically it.

 

All this Kylington talk is kind of irrelevant because we know what he is. He's not a bad player.  He's not a top pair Dman but good on the depth chart.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that at all.  I was looking at what he was and will be in EDM and what value they could get for him.  Valimaki is more value to them in terms of cap savings than Dube or Kyl. 

 

I have been promoting the trading for Puljujarvi for some time, just not overpaying for it.  He probably should be worth  what we paid for Jarnkrok or what we got for Bennett, but no team seems willing to step up.  And we can't really afford a trade like that now.  I am okay with Valimaki, since he's going to be hard pressed to get a NHL gig here.  Rather than waiving him, I would like to see some value come back.  Waste of $500k sending him to the NHL or $1.5M to play 5 NHL games.    

[Heartbreaker]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

I would do Dube for Puljujarvi straight up.  

 

In a heartbeat.

 

Love.

[jjgallow]

So basically the themes above are:

 

1.  "We have excess D"  (common theme lately)

 

2.  Valimaki no good, and we're on the fence if Kylington's any good.

 

 

So

 

It's a no-win situation.       Saying that both #1 and #2 is true, is problematic.    And this is my biggest concern.  We're in a rush to trade away all our defencemen (particularly our younger ones) because we have "excess", meanwhile we are saying our D aren't any good (confirmed in last post-season).

 

We can talk about this from many different angles but the conclusion I tend to draw on it after many years is fans just really don't care about D.     I know that's not a popular opinion because many on here are highly experienced, seasoned, intelligent hockey folks.    But Geez.   We have "excess D" after what happened last playoffs?

 

Puljujarvi:  He's broken.   There was a time I really would have wanted him, that time is over.     Concussion?  Knee?  I don't know, but he's damaged.   If this is what we wanted then we should have just kept Monahan.

 

 

What I'm more concerned about is how quick we are to toss away our D.    Because:

 

1.   Guess what.   Not everyone is going to stay healthy.

 

2.   If we were actually concerned about our defense we would be looking to trade Hanifin, who:

       1.   Has actual trade value (so at least worth discussing, as opposed to current discussion)

       2.   Doesn't contribute defensively anyway

 

 

What I would want in return is an actual #1D.  That to me is our greatest need.    Would we get it in that trade?   No, it's going to require at least 2 trades.   At the end of the day though, getting another quality D is the only way this team can hope to avoid what happened last year imho.

[tmac70]

The argument with Pooly I don't get. When you paly with two of the leagues top offensive guys yet he can't make, there is issues far more than we think. So many think he flourishes with lesser offensive talent, oh ok.  Milano's number are very close to JP's with less talent around him. The Flames and reclaimation projects have just as good of a track record as   as the coilers have at development. Milano is intriguing to me, he has the offensive talent to make one of the top 3 lines at vertical no expense of losing a roster player

 

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

So basically the themes above are:

 

1.  "We have excess D"  (common theme lately)

 

2.  Valimaki no good, and we're on the fence if Kylington's any good.

 

 

So

 

It's a no-win situation.       Saying that both #1 and #2 is true, is problematic.    And this is my biggest concern.  We're in a rush to trade away all our defencemen (particularly our younger ones) because we have "excess", meanwhile we are saying our D aren't any good (confirmed in last post-season).

 

We can talk about this from many different angles but the conclusion I tend to draw on it after many years is fans just really don't care about D.     I know that's not a popular opinion because many on here are highly experienced, seasoned, intelligent hockey folks.    But Geez.   We have "excess D" after what happened last playoffs?

 

Puljujarvi:  He's broken.   There was a time I really would have wanted him, that time is over.     Concussion?  Knee?  I don't know, but he's damaged.   If this is what we wanted then we should have just kept Monahan.

 

 

What I'm more concerned about is how quick we are to toss away our D.    Because:

 

1.   Guess what.   Not everyone is going to stay healthy.

 

2.   If we were actually concerned about our defense we would be looking to trade Hanifin, who:

       1.   Has actual trade value (so at least worth discussing, as opposed to current discussion)

       2.   Doesn't contribute defensively anyway

 

 

What I would want in return is an actual #1D.  That to me is our greatest need.    Would we get it in that trade?   No, it's going to require at least 2 trades.   At the end of the day though, getting another quality D is the only way this team can hope to avoid what happened last year imho.

 

A couple things,

 

1. As bad as our D is, our RHS RW depth might be the worst in the NHL.  Here's an available RHS RW 2nd/3rd.  We should be interested even at the expense of excess D or try to come up with ways to acquire him.

 

2. "Bad/good" is too binary and simplistic to cast as a perspective.  D are never just bad/good.  We also have decent RHS RD depth.  But we lack a #1D... Preferably a #1LD.  We have too many mid-tier LHS LD and all our up and coming prospects are LHS LD.  In fact, mid-tier LHS LD are so abundant in the NHL that it's hard to classify them as even commodities to be honest.  Same with bottom 6 LHS LW.  Dime a dozen.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, tmac70 said:

The argument with Pooly I don't get. When you paly with two of the leagues top offensive guys yet he can't make, there is issues far more than we think. So many think he flourishes with lesser offensive talent, oh ok.  Milano's number are very close to JP's with less talent around him. The Flames and reclaimation projects have just as good of a track record as   as the coilers have at development. Milano is intriguing to me, he has the offensive talent to make one of the top 3 lines at vertical no expense of losing a roster player

 

 

 

So, the issue with Pooly is that he can't play with the top two players.  They are frustrated with him and basically ignore him on the ice.  The coach responds by moving him down the rotation.  Not many teams have the lines decided by the top 2 players.  

 

The thing is, I don't think he is a reclamation project, just that he is one in EDM.  I know that sounds funny, but he can't seem to get better there.  He's taken off the PP in favor of the little guy.  Because McD likes the little guy.  And because he blames Pooly whenever he blows a pass.  That's what I have seen.  It's been called out by others.  We are at least a team that egos go to die.  Even Tkachuk had to check it at the door.  The room doesn't allow you to be that high on yourself.    

[jjgallow]

7 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Pooly has baggage.  He hasn't been able to muster a good season yet.  He struggles with consistency.  When most every player in that draft top 10 (except Nylander and Juolevi) have improved year over year, Pooly has struggled to even match Dube.  Dube is more versatile.  EDM would really benefit from Dube for Pooly, but I wouldn't do that trade.  

 

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, the issue with Pooly is that he can't play with the top two players.  They are frustrated with him and basically ignore him on the ice.  The coach responds by moving him down the rotation.  Not many teams have the lines decided by the top 2 players.  

 

The thing is, I don't think he is a reclamation project, just that he is one in EDM.  I know that sounds funny, but he can't seem to get better there.  He's taken off the PP in favor of the little guy.  Because McD likes the little guy.  And because he blames Pooly whenever he blows a pass.  That's what I have seen.  It's been called out by others.  We are at least a team that egos go to die.  Even Tkachuk had to check it at the door.  The room doesn't allow you to be that high on yourself.    

 

I liked your first opinion more lol 

[bosn111]

The “excess” D on the Flames comes from the fact that the Flames have 9 waivers eligible, NHL capable D. 10 if they sign Stone.

 

Players like Meloche, Mackey and Valimaki could all play bottom pairing with sheltered minutes and do ok. Some could potentially do better. Some fans think these players would likely clear waivers, but looking at age, experience, salary etc. I am not so sure.

 

Buffalo has 7 listed NHL D, 3 of whom can be sent down without waivers and they have plenty of cap space. Arizona is a gong show all around, they really need a goalie. Chicago only has 5 D (2 on IR) and are going rebuild big time with over 7 mil in cap. Any of Valimaki, Meloche, Kylington or Mackey could fill in for them and be part of the rebuild.

 

So at least Buffalo and Chicago would be threats to make waiver claims.
 

As fans have pointed out, we really have 2 D who should be considered top pair in Weegar and Andersson, both of whom are RS and neither is likely a Norris challenger at this time. 
 

We have plenty of middle pair with Hanifin, Kylington, Tanev, Zadorov, 3 of whom are LS and 1 RS. 
 

So the biggest issue is that if Weegar plays LD with Andersson, then you reduce the right side. If you put him on the RD then one of the LD (likely Hanifin) needs to play higher than he should.

 

So we do have excess waiver eligible D but are short 1 true top pair LD. How we fix this is TBD. 

[The_People1]

52 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

The “excess” D on the Flames comes from the fact that the Flames have 9 waivers eligible, NHL capable D. 10 if they sign Stone.

 

Players like Meloche, Mackey and Valimaki could all play bottom pairing with sheltered minutes and do ok. Some could potentially do better. Some fans think these players would likely clear waivers, but looking at age, experience, salary etc. I am not so sure.

 

Buffalo has 7 listed NHL D, 3 of whom can be sent down without waivers and they have plenty of cap space. Arizona is a gong show all around, they really need a goalie. Chicago only has 5 D (2 on IR) and are going rebuild big time with over 7 mil in cap. Any of Valimaki, Meloche, Kylington or Mackey could fill in for them and be part of the rebuild.

 

So at least Buffalo and Chicago would be threats to make waiver claims.
 

As fans have pointed out, we really have 2 D who should be considered top pair in Weegar and Andersson, both of whom are RS and neither is likely a Norris challenger at this time. 
 

We have plenty of middle pair with Hanifin, Kylington, Tanev, Zadorov, 3 of whom are LS and 1 RS. 
 

So the biggest issue is that if Weegar plays LD with Andersson, then you reduce the right side. If you put him on the RD then one of the LD (likely Hanifin) needs to play higher than he should.

 

So we do have excess waiver eligible D but are short 1 true top pair LD. How we fix this is TBD. 

 

Ya pretty much.  "Excess D" should not be confused with excess super stars.  Our D needs to add one stud #1 LD still.  We've got 5 3rd pairing guys and not sure who will win/lose the game of musical chairs.

[The_People1]

9 hours ago, cross16 said:

so I am in favor of acquiring Puljujarvi myself as i'm with People on this one. I think he is already a very good 3rd line player who could break out in the right situation. There are parallels to him and Nichuskin for sure and I don't really get all the negativity thrown his way. It's not his fault he got drafted by Edmonton who can't develop anyone. 

 

Whether or not you'd deal Kylington for him though is pretty irrelevant to me as the deal doesn't make sense. Oilers depth chart is:

Nurse - Barrie

Kulak - Bouchard

Broberg/Koekkoek - Ceci

 

I'm certainly not going to proclaim that a good D core as it isn't but at best Kylington is in a battle for their 2nd pairing. They just paid Kulak and they took Broberg in the top 10 so I'm not seeing how they are going to have value in Kylington. Not to mention they are save 500k off their cap. Same situation with Dube, they only save 700k and don't upgrade so what is the point?

 

I think the only hope the Flames have of acquiring Puljujarvi is if the Oilers are high on Valimaki. It's the only trade that makes sense for their cap, but again they already have a high pick project in Broberg so why acquire another one?

 

Fit really isn't there unless the Flames can move out money and acquire him for a pick but at the same time if that was on the table i'm not sure why they'd be brining in these PTOs or looking at Ritchie. 

 

Yups that's fair enough.  Oilers don't really need Kylington.  Maybe they rather have Dube but it doesn't help their cap situation.

 

I agree Puljujarvi would be a solid add for us because he's steady defensively.  One reason we lost to the Oilers is because of players like Puljujarvi, McLeod, and to some extent, Ryan.  They gave the Oilers good 3rd/4th line shifts and pinned us in our own zone while McDavid was on the bench resting.

 

I think in the right situation like ours, Puljujarvi can find his offensive touch.  He's great at screening goalies and establishing net front presence...these are things we are missing.  McDavid is a "score on the rush" type and it doesn't fit Puljujarvi's game.

[jjgallow]

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

A couple things,

 

1. As bad as our D is, our RHS RW depth might be the worst in the NHL.  Here's an available RHS RW 2nd/3rd.  We should be interested even at the expense of excess D or try to come up with ways to acquire him.

 

2. "Bad/good" is too binary and simplistic to cast as a perspective.  D are never just bad/good.  We also have decent RHS RD depth.  But we lack a #1D... Preferably a #1LD.  We have too many mid-tier LHS LD and all our up and coming prospects are LHS LD.  In fact, mid-tier LHS LD are so abundant in the NHL that it's hard to classify them as even commodities to be honest.  Same with bottom 6 LHS LW.  Dime a dozen.

 

Our RW depth is bad, that's true.  Toffoli helped this, and yes we're still one short.   But I don't believe Pulj would truly help this.  For the same reasons some on here feel Kylington/Valimaki aren't helping D.   We are short on the elite end, more than the support end.

 

D is complex, I agree.    I guess it comes down to how one projects Kylington and Valimaki.   Neither are in their prime yet, and could potentially move up a level or 2.   Pulj imho is less likely to do so, he's sort of past that age for a winger (even though they are all the same age).

 

For that reason I think D for Pulj ultimately results in a loss of potential, as well as a loss positionally.   Now, if Valimaki or Kylington are known to have peaked, then all this changes.  For example, if Valimaki is injured and unlikely to get better.   We're not privy to this, so I assume it to be not the case.

 

But yes, I do agree our "excess" D is really an excess of bubble D.   Only true as long as every player stays healthy, though.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

11 hours ago, bosn111 said:

The “excess” D on the Flames comes from the fact that the Flames have 9 waivers eligible, NHL capable D. 10 if they sign Stone.

 

Players like Meloche, Mackey and Valimaki could all play bottom pairing with sheltered minutes and do ok. Some could potentially do better. Some fans think these players would likely clear waivers, but looking at age, experience, salary etc. I am not so sure.

 

Buffalo has 7 listed NHL D, 3 of whom can be sent down without waivers and they have plenty of cap space. Arizona is a gong show all around, they really need a goalie. Chicago only has 5 D (2 on IR) and are going rebuild big time with over 7 mil in cap. Any of Valimaki, Meloche, Kylington or Mackey could fill in for them and be part of the rebuild.

 

So at least Buffalo and Chicago would be threats to make waiver claims.
 

As fans have pointed out, we really have 2 D who should be considered top pair in Weegar and Andersson, both of whom are RS and neither is likely a Norris challenger at this time. 
 

We have plenty of middle pair with Hanifin, Kylington, Tanev, Zadorov, 3 of whom are LS and 1 RS. 
 

So the biggest issue is that if Weegar plays LD with Andersson, then you reduce the right side. If you put him on the RD then one of the LD (likely Hanifin) needs to play higher than he should.

 

So we do have excess waiver eligible D but are short 1 true top pair LD. How we fix this is TBD. 

I think alot of people are putting too much into the "stud D" ideology.  The definition itself is so subjective but if you limit it to Norris worthy then how many d-men is that? 6? 10?  AFAIC chemistry and balance far outweigh the need for a stud D-man. Sure the Bolts have Hedman and Makar seems to be the real deal but lets not forget the Flames recently had a Norris winning d man on the roster with very limited success. I'm more confidant in the current d squad than that one.

[travel_dude]

7 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Our RW depth is bad, that's true.  Toffoli helped this, and yes we're still one short.   But I don't believe Pulj would truly help this.  For the same reasons some on here feel Kylington/Valimaki aren't helping D.   We are short on the elite end, more than the support end.

 

D is complex, I agree.    I guess it comes down to how one projects Kylington and Valimaki.   Neither are in their prime yet, and could potentially move up a level or 2.   Pulj imho is less likely to do so, he's sort of past that age for a winger (even though they are all the same age).

 

For that reason I think D for Pulj ultimately results in a loss of potential, as well as a loss positionally.   Now, if Valimaki or Kylington are known to have peaked, then all this changes.  For example, if Valimaki is injured and unlikely to get better.   We're not privy to this, so I assume it to be not the case.

 

But yes, I do agree our "excess" D is really an excess of bubble D.   Only true as long as every player stays healthy, though.

 

It's more than just prospect ceilings though.  It's also asset mnagement.  We traded for a top D, already having 5 signed that played last year.  Mackey got a game or two in, while Valimaki toiled on the farm.  We signed Meloche to replace Guddy.  We are set to sign Stone as the guy we can park in the AHL or waive to stay here.  

 

While we don't really have an idea of Valimaki's new ceiling after injuries, we also have no immediate place to play him without waiving him.  At the very least, this situation will last this year, while possibly longer before Valimaki even gets a chance.  Injuries occur, but then again he is as likely to be injured as being the guy that takes a spot for an injury.  Perhaps the only reason why he's still on the team is they are waiting to see how he starts camp.  A poor showing means he's bound for the farm.  A good showing puts him as #7.  

 

I'm not in favor of trading Kyl for Pooly.  It may be a fair trade to the Oilers, but I think it's a poor deal for us.  Kyl showed that he is a NHL player capable of top 4.  We need to explot that, not trade him away.  I would be comfortable with Valimaki for Pooly, because both need resets.  The ceiling of both are middle to top of the lineup.  2nd pairing or top 6.  EDM does not have to waive anyone to keep Vali on the roster.  Better option for them than Demers.  The cap savings helps them more.  For us, it reduces the need to sign bottom 6 players from PTO's.  Milano gives us some depth in the middle 6, so I am okay with him.  Probably means we start Pelletier on the farm which is okay.  Lewis might end up being waived as well.  Not the end of the world. 

 

For context, here is a possible lineup:

Hubie-Lindy-Toffoli

Mangiapane-Kadri-Milano

Coleman-Backlund-Pooly

Lucic-Rooney-Dube

Ruzicka  

[bosn111]

I wasn’t limiting the choice of LD to Norris contenders, as I said, Weegar and Andersson are both top pair D, just not Norris contenders right now (I think Andersson could get there in the future).

I believe the Flames need an LD of their level who fits well with Andersson and can allow him to reach being in discussion for Norris, similar to what Brodie did for Giordano. Whether he wins the Norris or not doesn’t matter, so long as he is being considered.

 

By having that LD, you can play Weegar on RD with Hanifin on second pair (where they can both shine with less pressure) and then put Tanev in the third pair with whatever young player you are trying to teach which should reduce his likelihood of getting injured.

[travel_dude]

25 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

I wasn’t limiting the choice of LD to Norris contenders, as I said, Weegar and Andersson are both top pair D, just not Norris contenders right now (I think Andersson could get there in the future).

I believe the Flames need an LD of their level who fits well with Andersson and can allow him to reach being in discussion for Norris, similar to what Brodie did for Giordano. Whether he wins the Norris or not doesn’t matter, so long as he is being considered.

 

By having that LD, you can play Weegar on RD with Hanifin on second pair (where they can both shine with less pressure) and then put Tanev in the third pair with whatever young player you are trying to teach which should reduce his likelihood of getting injured.

 

So, you consider taking Weegar and bumping him down to play with Hanifin on the 2nd pair.  Some unmentioned trade to get a top LD to play with Andersson.  And Tanev playing with a rookie D.  Beyond the obvious of we can't afford another top D, in cap nor in trade assets going out, we also have two D that are signed that have not even been mentioned; Kylington and Zadorov. 

 

Weegar played with Ekblad in a top pair on the best team in the NHL last year.  Hanifin has played well with 2 D over the last few year; Andersson (top pair) and Tanev (2nd pair), so I don't get the need to play him with Weegar on the 2nd pair. 

 

At some point, you have to stop changing the D and let them grow a bit.  Weegar and Andersson seem to have the highest ceilings on the team.  Hanifin and Kylington have been suitable to very good in a limited usage.  Zadorov brings the toughness that we sorely lacked two years ago.  At some point, you need to accept that Tanev is the best pure defensive D we have and accept his limited speed.  6 guys that are capable of being part of the deepest D in the NHL.

 

On the other hand, we have a decent top 9 at F - Hubie, Lindy, Mange, Toffoli, Kadri, Backlund, Coleman.  Two spots with fillers.  Beyond that, we have a 4th line of suitable grinders, no real standouts.  Our greatest need is middle 6, so that the 4th line is a mix of heavy players and ones with speed/skill.  We have addressed C depth, but not RW depth.  And we only have D depth to use in a trade, since we don't have a ton of picks or prospects we can use in trade.  To a certain extent, we have to send money out to bring money in.  Hanifin, Kylington or Valimaki are the only players we could possible use, since (the first two anyway) they allow us to bring in a $4m to $6M F.  There won't be any TDL deals to get better, since we don't have the draft capital or cap space.  This is our team for the year unless we trade now.  

[travel_dude]

Ruzie signed a 2 year deal.  Close to league minimum.

Y1 - $750k, seems like one way, since no minors salary mentioned.

Y2 - $775K same NHL and minors value.

 

Good to have him signed.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, bosn111 said:

I wasn’t limiting the choice of LD to Norris contenders, as I said, Weegar and Andersson are both top pair D, just not Norris contenders right now (I think Andersson could get there in the future).

I believe the Flames need an LD of their level who fits well with Andersson and can allow him to reach being in discussion for Norris, similar to what Brodie did for Giordano. Whether he wins the Norris or not doesn’t matter, so long as he is being considered.

 

By having that LD, you can play Weegar on RD with Hanifin on second pair (where they can both shine with less pressure) and then put Tanev in the third pair with whatever young player you are trying to teach which should reduce his likelihood of getting injured.

 

I've not seen enough of Weegar to comment but Andersson just doesn't feel like he's got a Norris trophy in his career.  He doesn't have enough tools offensively to ever get close to 60-points which is needed to catch the attention of the trophy voters.  Defensively, he's prone to bad reads and relies on working hard rather than working smart.

 

Don't get me wrong, he's a legit top pairing RD who has above average skills in almost all categories but nothing elite.  Not in the same conversation as Josi, Makar, Fox, Hedman, Giordano, etc.  And it feels like Makar is going to go on a historical run of Norris trophies starting now for the next 10 years.

[The_People1]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Ruzie signed a 2 year deal.  Close to league minimum.

Y1 - $750k, seems like one way, since no minors salary mentioned.

Y2 - $775K same NHL and minors value.

 

Good to have him signed.

 

Very nice,