2023 Offseason

[The_People1]

7 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I'd try and use this season as a quick turnaround and build for the future.

 But I'm not gm.
 

Could we trade Lindholm and Backlund and still compete 

 

go with:

 

Huberdeau, Dube, Coronato

Ruzicka, Kadri, Toffoli

Mangiapane, Zary,Coleman

Pelletier, Rooney, Duerhr

 

without the deals:

 

Huberdeau, Lindholm, Mangiapane

Dube, Kadri, Toffoli

Ruzicka, Backlund, Coleman

Pelletier, Zary, Coronato

 

i think there is a decent lineup there but the coach needs to try some options instead of running with what they think is the right mix and never swaying from it...  i have to find Duehr a spot there and I'm just trying to place guys in where they can be insulated.

 

 Like Ruzicka has high offensive iq, so play him with defensive minded players who have some offence? Maybe another fit, but if he played with sims guys who have some defensive acumen it might help his overall game. Which is why I didn't mind him with Lindholm, but I think Lindholm is a shooter that loses that part of his game with Tofolli. I'd separate them because they can probably still get some points out of Tofolli and from what I hear Kadri is more of a passer so that probably makes sense.

 

I would use next season to retool as well but we know the Flames want to get back to the playoffs right away.  This means trading Lindholm is a non-starter.  The player exit interviews went badly and they've identified Sutter as the issue.  I would think it's highly unlikely they fire Sutter to please the players only to turn around and trade the players, especially Lindholm.  It might take as much as $9-mil x 8-years to keep him here but no other choice because if Kadri becomes the defacto #1 Center then kiss the playoffs goodbye.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

I would use next season to retool as well but we know the Flames want to get back to the playoffs right away.  This means trading Lindholm is a non-starter.  The player exit interviews went badly and they've identified Sutter as the issue.  I would think it's highly unlikely they fire Sutter to please the players only to turn around and trade the players, especially Lindholm.  It might take as much as $9-mil x 8-years to keep him here but no other choice because if Kadri becomes the defacto #1 Center then kiss the playoffs goodbye.

 

I think the only thing stopping Lindholm from signing today is the unknown about what the GM is going to build.  You tell him that you are going to bring in scoring and have a coach build lines based on skill not bump and grind, he will be fine with it.  Obviously, he was ticked that Sutter couldn't bear to have a line with the top 3 players on at the same time.  And he's wondering if a coach is going to turn a decent middle 6 player like Jarnkrok into another Rieder with bad water.  

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think the only thing stopping Lindholm from signing today is the unknown about what the GM is going to build.  You tell him that you are going to bring in scoring and have a coach build lines based on skill not bump and grind, he will be fine with it.  Obviously, he was ticked that Sutter couldn't bear to have a line with the top 3 players on at the same time.  And he's wondering if a coach is going to turn a decent middle 6 player like Jarnkrok into another Rieder with bad water.  

 

Well, let's see.  I hope the new GM would be given permission to rebuild and that rebuild starts with Lindholm.

[travel_dude]

20 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well, let's see.  I hope the new GM would be given permission to rebuild and that rebuild starts with Lindholm.

 

Can't use the R word hehe.

Really, we are not in a rebuild state.

Our oldest players are the goalie, Backlund and Tanev.

We are 2 years out before the vets get to that age.

Even so, the vets can still be productive at that age.

 

I really think that you need to trade the mentioned vets as part of a get younger campaign.

Hanifin or Dube or Mange might have to go for the high value in getting a good player back.

 

[The_People1]

27 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Can't use the R word hehe.

Really, we are not in a rebuild state.

Our oldest players are the goalie, Backlund and Tanev.

We are 2 years out before the vets get to that age.

Even so, the vets can still be productive at that age.

 

I really think that you need to trade the mentioned vets as part of a get younger campaign.

Hanifin or Dube or Mange might have to go for the high value in getting a good player back.

 

Oof this is where I really disagree.  If not "rebuild" then at least a major "retool" is required.  Call it whatever you want.  A huge roster turnover is needed.  We are not close to contending with this group.  This roster is completely mish mashed with incompatible pieces coming fresh off a GM who built a small fast team that clashed with a coach who wanted a big grinding team.  It doesn't work.

 

Cross mentioned earlier that a rebuild is merely a preference.  Sure.  I cannot argue with the facts that it's possible to win a Cup without ever rebuilding.  From a philosophical standpoint, he's right.  However, we need to see if that case could apply to us specifically.  This group.  This core.  These players.  You take one look at it and it should be obvious the key pieces are missing.

 

How to get these key pieces?  You can trade for them of course (mission impossible) and you can also draft them out of the 2nd round and beyond (trying to strike lightning multiple times).

 

The most logical path is to spend some time in the basement of the NHL.  No one is saying that's easy or guaranteed either but it's a viable path.

[The_People1]

38 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Really, we are not in a rebuild state.

 

Also want to mention our pending UFAs coming.  We set these contracts to expire roughly at the same time for this moment... To hit the reset button if required.  Well it's required.  The timing is right.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Oof this is where I really disagree.  If not "rebuild" then at least a major "retool" is required.  Call it whatever you want.  A huge roster turnover is needed.  We are not close to contending with this group.  This roster is completely mish mashed with incompatible pieces coming fresh off a GM who built a small fast team that clashed with a coach who wanted a big grinding team.  It doesn't work.

 

Cross mentioned earlier that a rebuild is merely a preference.  Sure.  I cannot argue with the facts that it's possible to win a Cup without ever rebuilding.  From a philosophical standpoint, he's right.  However, we need to see if that case could apply to us specifically.  This group.  This core.  These players.  You take one look at it and it should be obvious the key pieces are missing.

 

How to get these key pieces?  You can trade for them of course (mission impossible) and you can also draft them out of the 2nd round and beyond (trying to strike lightning multiple times).

 

The most logical path is to spend some time in the basement of the NHL.  No one is saying that's easy or guaranteed either but it's a viable path.

 

To me, not in a rebuild state is that we haven't got to the point that most teams were at when they did one.  If you look at our last one (perhaps really the only one), we were trading Iggy and losing Kipper.  We had players trending down very rapidly and the state of of defense was shoddy.  We are nowhere near that.  Yes, we should have traded Iggy much sooner, much like trading Gio before we lost him for nothing.

 

To me,  retool is the proper narrative we should be using.  And I agree with that.  Major or minor is really the difference in opinions.  As I have said, trading Backlund and Tanev and Hanifin is a good thing to consider.  Two of them are due raises or long term deals or captaincy or short term similar rate deals.  None are poised to be better.  Backlund had a career year and we sucked anyway.  

 

I disagree about roster construction vs coaching strategy.  It was a poor construction for a Sutter team.  It may be poor for a FLA type team but we never played that style.  We have to turn over the 4th line players we had (two at least).  Dube and Mange are similar players, and both were not used properly.  Toffoli is ideally a 2nd line player, not the first wave.  A shutdown line with a former 30 goal scorer is stupid.  Inconsistent 2nd line RW and playing Kadri with Hubie was dumb.  So, out of this mess of lines and players, how do you determine who fits?  The only way I can see is to keep one of duplicate players and trade the other.  Use more than a poor pro scout to find the right players coming in.  Heck, at this point I would trade Hanifin for Willie Nylander and Backlund for Vince Dunne.  You are going to need floaters that can score.  

[Heartbreaker]

27 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

...

To me,  retool is the proper narrative we should be using.  And I agree with that.  Major or minor is really the difference in opinions.  ...

 

My music brain got really confused, and thought that you were delighting us all with some musical metaphor. In traditional traditional music theory and notation, there is a convention of capitalizing Major, and not capitalizing minor. Of course, there are conventions that we follow, and the difference between those things is not technically a difference of opinion, but I thought we were going to go into the weeds, as C Ionian (Major) and A Aeolian (minor) are made up of the same collection of notes, and could then, theoretically, be a difference of opinion.

 

Of course, that's also how grammar works - you capitalize the first word of a sentence. It appears purely coincidental that those were the first words... unless I've missed something much deeper.

 

Love.

[travel_dude]

10 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

My music brain got really confused, and thought that you were delighting us all with some musical metaphor. In traditional traditional music theory and notation, there is a convention of capitalizing Major, and not capitalizing minor. Of course, there are conventions that we follow, and the difference between those things is not technically a difference of opinion, but I thought we were going to go into the weeds, as C Ionian (Major) and A Aeolian (minor) are made up of the same collection of notes, and could then, theoretically, be a difference of opinion.

 

Of course, that's also how grammar works - you capitalize the first word of a sentence. It appears purely coincidental that those were the first words... unless I've missed something much deeper.

 

Love.

 

It's not just punctuation, it also depends on what you are responding to.  If I was talking to someone that suggested a minor retool or a rebuild, I would start with minor.  If you are contrasting costs, you start with the lowest if you are upselling, to show the little differences.  Good, better, best.  

 

Music is funny.  When they talked to John Lennon about the impressive use of certain types of notes, chords, hooks and such, he said it sounded good.  English language is funny to.  Some things sound right but are not correct.  Write down or record a speech and someday someone may say it was brilliant for the use tempo or combining metaphors and letters.  The writer may just have had a hangover.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Also want to mention our pending UFAs coming.  We set these contracts to expire roughly at the same time for this moment... To hit the reset button if required.  Well it's required.  The timing is right.

we won't be rebuilding. 
 

If I were GM, I go into this season and go make the playoffs, but trade off those who don't want to be here beyond their contracts for a haul at the TDL. 
 

Sign a decent 3rd line C this summer, and then they can supplement the center position. 
 

we are going to lose Backlund and Lindholm at the same time, but best to get what they can as rentals. I'd venture to say that I would trade them at the draft but if we think we can get more for them at the TDL, gotta do it. 
 

Play Ruzicka, Dube at C so that once they can step in for the playoffs. Math doesn't add up, but maybe they take turns playing C? Find C ice time for them. 
 

After the TDL being up Zary, and any other C to fill those roles. The owners get their playoff revenue and our youth get some experience and we get to see where they're at.

[cross16]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Oof this is where I really disagree.  If not "rebuild" then at least a major "retool" is required.  Call it whatever you want.  A huge roster turnover is needed.  We are not close to contending with this group.  This roster is completely mish mashed with incompatible pieces coming fresh off a GM who built a small fast team that clashed with a coach who wanted a big grinding team.  It doesn't work.

 

Cross mentioned earlier that a rebuild is merely a preference.  Sure.  I cannot argue with the facts that it's possible to win a Cup without ever rebuilding.  From a philosophical standpoint, he's right.  However, we need to see if that case could apply to us specifically.  This group.  This core.  These players.  You take one look at it and it should be obvious the key pieces are missing.

 

How to get these key pieces?  You can trade for them of course (mission impossible) and you can also draft them out of the 2nd round and beyond (trying to strike lightning multiple times).

 

The most logical path is to spend some time in the basement of the NHL.  No one is saying that's easy or guaranteed either but it's a viable path.

 

For sure it is but that's what I  mean by preference. This is just one of many viable paths, it is not the ONLY path and I think it's getting framed as the only path forward. For me it isn't hard to see a scenario that this team has 2-3 good - great years in them, and a team going through a rebuild may only get that too. 

 

That's all I mean by preference. People have their various opinions of what they want to see the organization do and therefore there are multiple paths forward on how to achieve that. Shouldn't be framed as so binary. 

 

At some point a rebuild becomes obvious to even be a good team (see 2010-2013) but I don't' think this team is there yet. That's all I meant by saying preference. 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

For sure it is but that's what I  mean by preference. This is just one of many viable paths, it is not the ONLY path and I think it's getting framed as the only path forward. For me it isn't hard to see a scenario that this team has 2-3 good - great years in them, and a team going through a rebuild may only get that too. 

 

That's all I mean by preference. People have their various opinions of what they want to see the organization do and therefore there are multiple paths forward on how to achieve that. Shouldn't be framed as so binary. 

 

At some point a rebuild becomes obvious to even be a good team (see 2010-2013) but I don't' think this team is there yet. That's all I meant by saying preference. 

 

For sures, in philosophy it's viable to rebuild, retool, or just keep trying to win every season.  But in respect to this current roster specifically, does it apply?  Which one applies better?

 

I see a lot of work and luck needed to squeeze the 2-3 good - great years out of this team.  And even then, it's not a legit Cup contender.

 

Let's see what Lindholm decides to do.  If he refuses to extend, then 0 years.  Without a #1 Center, forget about any kind of greatness.  If he extends, then potentially 2-3 good-great years.

 

Huberdeau turning 30 in June.  Max 2-3 good-great years before he declines for good.  That's if he even bounces back at all.  If he doesn't bounce back, then 0 years.  He played better in the second half of the season but the points still weren't there.  He could eventually give Darnell Nurse a run for the worst contract in the NHL.  55-60 points for $10.5-mil.

 

Hanifin, Backlund, Toffoli, and Tanev have 1-year remaining.  Key depth players if we are going to be a good-great team.  Potentially 1-year max, not 2-3.  Extending them beyond their current deals could be argued as franchise destroying.

 

Goaltending is the biggest question mark.  Markstrom is hopeless in my opinion.  Does he even bounce back?  We could be looking at 0 years if he gets even worse regardless of Wolf.  Wolf needs to be sheltered and eased into the NHL, if he even pans out at all.  Realistically speaking, he's looking at 2025/26 to assume the role of the starter.

 

So many what ifs.  But I know the Flames will exhaust all efforts to avoid a rebuild.  And when the next 2010-2013 arrives, I'm happy you will join me in looking forward to a rebuild.  It will come as soon as next season.  At most 2-3 years.

[robrob74]

I read a hockey writers Nylander trade proposal. After watching some leafs playoffs games this year, it gave me second thoughts on trading for him, whereas previously I was a hard no. I think it was the Tampa series, he looked like one of the ones that really wanted to win that one.
 

the article suggested Lindholm for the deal. I don't know if id do that deal unless someone else came, only because if Lindholm is a great two-way center and with the right cast is capable of more. 
 

I admit I could be homerizing here. Maybe it's a more even trade than id think? I just think in that scenario we'd still need Lindholm and wonder if somehow another package can be put together with Mangiapane or Hanifin?

 

Edited in:

 

Trade Hanifin and Dube

for Nylander and a 2nd rounder?

 

Huberdeau, Lindholm, Nylander

Mangiapane, Kadri, Toffoli

Ruzicka, Backlund, Coleman

Pelletier, Zary, Duehr

 

 

Weegar, Andersson

Kylington, Tanev

Zadorov, Stetcher

 

Markstrom

Wolf

 

we trade Vladar for a pick.

 

I don't want to trade Dube. I just wonder what deal Toronto would want. Dube might be a big add. 
 

some say Kadri is more of a playmaker. If he is, Huberdeau on his line is more like two magnets pinned up against each other in opposite directions. And I wonder if a simple trade like this makes the team more balanced. 
 

others might be better at putting lines together. And maybe there's a different simple trade than one I propose. 
 

I do think we can be closer than we think with small changes. The mix just isn't right right now. "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear." I just don't know what deal is out there that sets this team up for success. BT had a foundation in place, and he was always looking for the one thing that put everything together, just could not seem to put the final piece in place. 

 

[The_People1]

4 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I read a hockey writers Nylander trade proposal. After watching some leafs playoffs games this year, it gave me second thoughts on trading for him, whereas previously I was a hard no. I think it was the Tampa series, he looked like one of the ones that really wanted to win that one.
 

the article suggested Lindholm for the deal. I don't know if id do that deal unless someone else came, only because if Lindholm is a great two-way center and with the right cast is capable of more. 
 

I admit I could be homerizing here. Maybe it's a more even trade than id think? I just think in that scenario we'd still need Lindholm and wonder if somehow another package can be put together with Mangiapane or Hanifin?

 

If Lindholm refused to extend with us then I don't mind trying this trade.  Straight up.

 

Nylander just scored 40-goals 87-points.  Back-to-back 80-point seasons.  Nylander is the better pure offensive player whereas Lindholm is the better two-way guy.  But we may want Nylander to switch to Center I think.  Flames don't have a Matthews or Tavares to feed Nylander the passes.

 

Nylander was born in Calgary but if I remember correctly, his dad didn't like how we treated him here and he was eventually traded away.  Not sure if Nylander would even want to play in Calgary.

[conundrumed]

Ouch. Of the 2 players on expiring contracts that you may not be able to re-sign, I think I prefer the better one that is currently cheaper and plays C. If I'm TO I'd do that trade ally day.

[travel_dude]

13 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I read a hockey writers Nylander trade proposal. After watching some leafs playoffs games this year, it gave me second thoughts on trading for him, whereas previously I was a hard no. I think it was the Tampa series, he looked like one of the ones that really wanted to win that one.
 

the article suggested Lindholm for the deal. I don't know if id do that deal unless someone else came, only because if Lindholm is a great two-way center and with the right cast is capable of more. 
 

I admit I could be homerizing here. Maybe it's a more even trade than id think? I just think in that scenario we'd still need Lindholm and wonder if somehow another package can be put together with Mangiapane or Hanifin?

 

Edited in:

 

Trade Hanifin and Dube

for Nylander and a 2nd rounder?

 

Huberdeau, Lindholm, Nylander

Mangiapane, Kadri, Toffoli

Ruzicka, Backlund, Coleman

Pelletier, Zary, Duehr

 

 

Weegar, Andersson

Kylington, Tanev

Zadorov, Stetcher

 

Markstrom

Wolf

 

we trade Vladar for a pick.

 

I don't want to trade Dube. I just wonder what deal Toronto would want. Dube might be a big add. 
 

some say Kadri is more of a playmaker. If he is, Huberdeau on his line is more like two magnets pinned up against each other in opposite directions. And I wonder if a simple trade like this makes the team more balanced. 
 

others might be better at putting lines together. And maybe there's a different simple trade than one I propose. 
 

I do think we can be closer than we think with small changes. The mix just isn't right right now. "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear." I just don't know what deal is out there that sets this team up for success. BT had a foundation in place, and he was always looking for the one thing that put everything together, just could not seem to put the final piece in place. 

 

 

I think you need to trade Vladar for a roster player.  Not sure his value, but if we truly embrace Wolf, then we need to trade him (or Markstrom if we really want to embrace change).  I would be okay in either scenario as I think both goalies will see a rebound this season.

 

I agree that the mix is wrong, but hard to tell exactly what is wrong since a lot of it was coaching.  I think we need a player like Nylander though.  Too many smaller guys that aren't snipers.  Nothing wrong with Pelts abd Mange and Dube, but none of them are snipers and have breakaway speed.  I would never trade Lindholm for Nylander though.  Maybe Hanifin, so that Toronto can boast about having Calgary East.  

[robrob74]

 

7 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Ouch. Of the 2 players on expiring contracts that you may not be able to re-sign, I think I prefer the better one that is currently cheaper and plays C. If I'm TO I'd do that trade ally day.

 

9 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

If Lindholm refused to extend with us then I don't mind trying this trade.  Straight up.

 

Nylander just scored 40-goals 87-points.  Back-to-back 80-point seasons.  Nylander is the better pure offensive player whereas Lindholm is the better two-way guy.  But we may want Nylander to switch to Center I think.  Flames don't have a Matthews or Tavares to feed Nylander the passes.

 

Nylander was born in Calgary but if I remember correctly, his dad didn't like how we treated him here and he was eventually traded away.  Not sure if Nylander would even want to play in Calgary.

if I want to keep competing, I'm doing my best to keep Lindholm. So I'm trading Hanifin in that deal and I guess Dube kind of offsets something they need too. Maybe with better players he flourishes.

[robrob74]

Could we deal Markstrom to the Habs? I saw a rumour site asking whether they should draft a goalie or not. 
 

Marky isn't in their future window though. When should they start to compete? Being a Canadian team, Canadian teams tend to shift from rebuild to compete sooner than normal builds 

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Could we deal Markstrom to the Habs? I saw a rumour site asking whether they should draft a goalie or not. 
 

Marky isn't in their future window though. When should they start to compete? Being a Canadian team, Canadian teams tend to shift from rebuild to compete sooner than normal builds 

 

Considering it costed a 1st round pick to beg the Habs to take Monahan off our hands, Markstrom will probably cost us three 1sts.

[robrob74]

25 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Considering it costed a 1st round pick to beg the Habs to take Monahan off our hands, Markstrom will probably cost us three 1sts.

I dunno. I think we are probably underrating Markstrom a bit. I don't see his value dropped that far. Maybe it has.

[JTech780]

Conroy’s comments today about not going into the season with 7 pending UFA’s and leaving the door open for younger players to earn spots on the roster, were a breath of fresh air.

 

I do wonder which players are going to get extensions and which players are going to get traded.

 

I don’t see how you can go into the season without extensions in place for Lindholm and Hanifin for sure. You need to know where those two stand and move them if they don’t fit the long term plan.

[sak22]

3 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Conroy’s comments today about not going into the season with 7 pending UFA’s and leaving the door open for younger players to earn spots on the roster, were a breath of fresh air.

 

I do wonder which players are going to get extensions and which players are going to get traded.

 

I don’t see how you can go into the season without extensions in place for Lindholm and Hanifin for sure. You need to know where those two stand and move them if they don’t fit the long term plan.

Lindholm and Hanifin are the obvious ones, those two will probably have an impact on whether Backlund would stay or go.  Tanev and Zadorov I question on whether they bring more value as TDL rentals, tough to go that route with Tanev's health.  The real wildcard for me is Kylington, really can't extend him this summer and the trade market for him will probably be poor, how would he be after a year away.

[Thebrewcrew]

The two you have to know about are Hanifin and Lindholm. Those are premium assets and still in their prime.

 

The rest I'm not too worried about entering the year with them a year away. Zadorov isn't a guy you need to be extending a year early. Neither are 33 and 34yr olds Tanev and Backlund. Toffoli is a tougher one. But I would still be fine with playing it out, instead of committing 3yrs to a 31yr old a year early.

[MP5029]

I’m hopeful we see under 30 UFA signings and trades…no more of this 30+ or turning 30 player additions please! 

[MP5029]

12 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

The two you have to know about are Hanifin and Lindholm. Those are premium assets and still in their prime.

 

The rest I'm not too worried about entering the year with them a year away. Zadorov isn't a guy you need to be extending a year early. Neither are 33 and 34yr olds Tanev and Backlund. Toffoli is a tougher one. But I would still be fine with playing it out, instead of committing 3yrs to a 31yr old a year early.

Well 2 thoughts on this, I think knowing where they are at right now is important, noncommittal then trade them ASAP…though the bulk of What you say makes 100% sense….I’m wondering if Conroy can maybe move out a few of our 30+ guys and kinda cover it up with ownership by saying they were not 100% committed could be a shifty way to move out a few older bodies especially at TDL