2023 Offseason

[cross16]

Conroy said it himself already but Lindholm is the #1 for sure. You have to know where he is at and it's a steep decline down to number 2 for me. If Lindholm wants to leave I think the Flames need to pivot on their plan for the next 2-3 years. 

 

Lindholm is going to be worth the Horvat deal at minimum. So your looking at 8 X 8.5, maybe 9. Not a good contract and likely going to be a mistake at the end but if the mandate it to win now you have to do that deal. 

 

Hanifin for me depends on Kylington. If Kylington is all in then i'm trading Hanifin. I think his deal is going to be too pricey for my liking and I think it's a good opportunity to get some assets back and change up the D core. Flames need to prioritize getting some D men who are harder to play against. 

 

for the rest of the UFAs:

I'd like Tanev and Backs walk to UFA. I think they are important to the fabric of this team but neither are worth extentions at this time. If that means you lose 1 or both as UFAs i'm fine with that. 

Toffoli - I think you need to extend Toffoli pending the contract of course. 

Z - I'd push hard to move Z myself. 

[phoenix66]

On 5/17/2023 at 7:05 PM, The_People1 said:

 

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.

For me it starts with the players.. Conroy was pretty clear on 2 things ..he only wants players that want to be here ..and we won't be doing the johnny situation aver again ..

So it starts with Lindholm? Do you want to be here yes or no.. no thinking about it or he's our biggest trade chip going tino the draft.. if yes then we have to resign him.. 

Tanev and Backlund are next .. if they want to stay and extend now then we keep them 

 

We still need a scoring winger .. assuming nobody still wants out, Hanifin to me is the trade chip . Not to move him for the sake of it but you have to give to get ..

Personally I'd target Nylander, but with BT looking more and more like the likely new gm in TO I'm not sure how easy that deal would be. Can't see him that open to helping us out and we can't let a Fletcher Riseborough student teacher fleecing ever happen again  .. 

Or maybe Coronato or Pelletier are the key?  Coronato snapping one timers off Huberdeau feeds on the powerplay makes me need a cigarette lol

 

Get Rosie in the lineup in Lewis or Ritchie's spot .. get Duehr in the lineup every night 

 

But I will say this and it's gonna be unpopular..  re sign Lucic..  he'll be cheap ..he likes it here and he will bring all the leadership and hard work and example to the bottom line those kids need to emulate .. he did wonders for Dube and when there's 2 new spots open next to him with Ritchie and Lewis gone we need that vet leadership on the 4th line 

 

 

 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Conroy said it himself already but Lindholm is the #1 for sure. You have to know where he is at and it's a steep decline down to number 2 for me. If Lindholm wants to leave I think the Flames need to pivot on their plan for the next 2-3 years. 

 

Lindholm is going to be worth the Horvat deal at minimum. So your looking at 8 X 8.5, maybe 9. Not a good contract and likely going to be a mistake at the end but if the mandate it to win now you have to do that deal. 

 

Hanifin for me depends on Kylington. If Kylington is all in then i'm trading Hanifin. I think his deal is going to be too pricey for my liking and I think it's a good opportunity to get some assets back and change up the D core. Flames need to prioritize getting some D men who are harder to play against. 

 

for the rest of the UFAs:

I'd like Tanev and Backs walk to UFA. I think they are important to the fabric of this team but neither are worth extentions at this time. If that means you lose 1 or both as UFAs i'm fine with that. 

Toffoli - I think you need to extend Toffoli pending the contract of course. 

Z - I'd push hard to move Z myself. 

 

I think you have stated it well.  Kylington's greatest strength is his skating.  He looks like he is getting back in real game shape.  I can live with his less than perfect hockey decisions.  He may blow a play but manages to get back to cover.  And he does play harder on the body than Hanifin.  I have no desire to extend Hanifin, so a trade is needed.

 

Toffoli is one of the better fits in the lineup.  Even without a top LW, he still managed career highs.  He's not the fastest, but has a great shot.  

 

I have an issue with just letting Backlund and Tanev walk.  I understand it.  It makes sense as a way of not extending guys at a certain age.  I would prefer that we only walk them to UFA if we are legit contending in the division by TDL.  Being in a wild card spot is not enough.  

[cross16]

Much like Treliving before him, Conroy re states the desire to add a top 6 forward. 

 

Also throws some shade at the coach last year. Says he didn't like how top players moved around and also wants them to play more

 

 

[Heartbreaker]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

Conroy said it himself already but Lindholm is the #1 for sure. You have to know where he is at and it's a steep decline down to number 2 for me. If Lindholm wants to leave I think the Flames need to pivot on their plan for the next 2-3 years. 

 

Lindholm is going to be worth the Horvat deal at minimum. So your looking at 8 X 8.5, maybe 9. Not a good contract and likely going to be a mistake at the end but if the mandate it to win now you have to do that deal. 

 

Hanifin for me depends on Kylington. If Kylington is all in then i'm trading Hanifin. I think his deal is going to be too pricey for my liking and I think it's a good opportunity to get some assets back and change up the D core. Flames need to prioritize getting some D men who are harder to play against. 

 

for the rest of the UFAs:

I'd like Tanev and Backs walk to UFA. I think they are important to the fabric of this team but neither are worth extentions at this time. If that means you lose 1 or both as UFAs i'm fine with that. 

Toffoli - I think you need to extend Toffoli pending the contract of course. 

Z - I'd push hard to move Z myself. 

 

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here, except for two points.

 

• I would be pretty open to exploring the possibility of moving Tyler Toffoli. If he's to be extended, I would be extremely cautious about the term on that contract.
• I see that you said walk Backlund to UFA, but it's not clear if you mean that you would just let him go when it's over, or if you'd explore options with him at that time. I might be overly sentimental, but I don't have a problem with guys playing their entire career with one team. It's pretty rare, and if 11 wants to chase a cup, I would give him that option - but if he's willing to stick around on a series of short term deals, I'd be happy to have him. He's a pillar to the community, and an excellent mentor for younger players. Basically, he's a beauty! Could probably give him a good office job when his playing days are done, too. I know you know all that, but he's one of very few players that I no longer think of as "an asset".

 

Love.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Much like Treliving before him, Conroy re states the desire to add a top 6 forward. 

 

Also throws some shade at the coach last year. Says he didn't like how top players moved around and also wants them to play more

 

 

 

Conroy threw a bit of shade on both Sutter and BT in the press conference too when he said he will be a better communicator and that it's going to be a group effort.  That sort of highlights how he felt shut off from BT last season.  BT was driving this ship alone.

 

Conroy said today's players need to know "why" the coach wants them to do something.  Clearly indicating Sutter is a dinosaur and doesn't understand the current times.  He didn't like Sutter's approach and style.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

For me it starts with the players.. Conroy was pretty clear on 2 things ..he only wants players that want to be here ..and we won't be doing the johnny situation aver again ..

So it starts with Lindholm? Do you want to be here yes or no.. no thinking about it or he's our biggest trade chip going tino the draft.. if yes then we have to resign him.. 

Tanev and Backlund are next .. if they want to stay and extend now then we keep them 

 

We still need a scoring winger .. assuming nobody still wants out, Hanifin to me is the trade chip . Not to move him for the sake of it but you have to give to get ..

Personally I'd target Nylander, but with BT looking more and more like the likely new gm in TO I'm not sure how easy that deal would be. Can't see him that open to helping us out and we can't let a Fletcher Riseborough student teacher fleecing ever happen again  .. 

Or maybe Coronato or Pelletier are the key?  Coronato snapping one timers off Huberdeau feeds on the powerplay makes me need a cigarette lol

 

Get Rosie in the lineup in Lewis or Ritchie's spot .. get Duehr in the lineup every night 

 

But I will say this and it's gonna be unpopular..  re sign Lucic..  he'll be cheap ..he likes it here and he will bring all the leadership and hard work and example to the bottom line those kids need to emulate .. he did wonders for Dube and when there's 2 new spots open next to him with Ritchie and Lewis gone we need that vet leadership on the 4th line 

 

I think Hanifin for Nylander makes sense for both clubs.  Leafs need D.  Flames need another top 6 forward.  If BT is the Leafs new GM, then I'd love to trade him Huberdeau, Kadri and Weegar since that's the hill BT wanted to die on.

 

It was nice to hear Conroy's comments on the Lindholm situation.  Can't lose him for nothing.  Can't let another Johnny situation happen.

 

Backlund and Tanev, keep them both unsigned and decide on their fate at TDL.  They could both fetch 1st round picks depending on their play.

 

And no, I wouldn't bother with Lucic.  In his exit interview, he basically said "Calgary turned out better than I thought but I'm going to seek other opportunities out there".  Plus, he was an outright liability at least half the season.  He has no use other than fighting and playing 7 minutes a night but we could probably get by with Zadorov policing things for us.

 

That said, I do want the Flames to get bigger, tougher, and more mean.  I'd prefer that over small/skilled.

[MP5029]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think Hanifin for Nylander makes sense for both clubs.  Leafs need D.  Flames need another top 6 forward.  If BT is the Leafs new GM, then I'd love to trade him Huberdeau, Kadri and Weegar since that's the hill BT wanted to die on.

 

It was nice to hear Conroy's comments on the Lindholm situation.  Can't lose him for nothing.  Can't let another Johnny situation happen.

 

Backlund and Tanev, keep them both unsigned and decide on their fate at TDL.  They could both fetch 1st round picks depending on their play.

 

And no, I wouldn't bother with Lucic.  In his exit interview, he basically said "Calgary turned out better than I thought but I'm going to seek other opportunities out there".  Plus, he was an outright liability at least half the season.  He has no use other than fighting and playing 7 minutes a night but we could probably get by with Zadorov policing things for us.

 

That said, I do want the Flames to get bigger, tougher, and more mean.  I'd prefer that over small/skilled.

I kinda agree on most of this but Hanifin may fetch a better haul than Nylander…also heard rumours his dad is a bit sour on Cgy so he may be too…But definitely move Hanifin if and only if…

 

sign Dumba and Hagg to 5 year max deals and let stone and Statch walk

 

this opens some room and could help offset the many lost games we will

see from Tanev…then later maybe even move Tanev at TDL 

 

not much in the forward ranks for UFA this year but those two D (Dumba and Hagg) would be great additions and for the age where they are only 33 in 5 years so the would probably be pretty good still at 32 in the last year of their contract and could fetch some assets. Also, it would make moving Hanifin more sensible…maybe even land a decent top 2 Ctr with him or a few picks and prospects pending on what team wants him most.

 

Lucic is a hard NO for even LM signing, also I believe Dumba and maybe even Hagg bring some toughness to the back end with Tanev being probably a part timer due to injuries…and also Big z, would at least give each D line some grit and toughness 

[cross16]

50 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Conroy threw a bit of shade on both Sutter and BT in the press conference too when he said he will be a better communicator and that it's going to be a group effort.  That sort of highlights how he felt shut off from BT last season.  BT was driving this ship alone.

 

Conroy said today's players need to know "why" the coach wants them to do something.  Clearly indicating Sutter is a dinosaur and doesn't understand the current times.  He didn't like Sutter's approach and style.

 

I did not get that sense nor do I believe that is how BT operated. Conroy was open that there are certain aspects of the job that Treliving did himself(and he plans to be different) but not that he was a lone wolf. I don't get the sense Treliving was driving this ship alone. 

 

I think most of the shade Conroy has been throwing has been directed at the coach, which is not a surprise given what has been coming out since the season ended. 

 

50 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here, except for two points.

 

• I would be pretty open to exploring the possibility of moving Tyler Toffoli. If he's to be extended, I would be extremely cautious about the term on that contract.
• I see that you said walk Backlund to UFA, but it's not clear if you mean that you would just let him go when it's over, or if you'd explore options with him at that time. I might be overly sentimental, but I don't have a problem with guys playing their entire career with one team. It's pretty rare, and if 11 wants to chase a cup, I would give him that option - but if he's willing to stick around on a series of short term deals, I'd be happy to have him. He's a pillar to the community, and an excellent mentor for younger players. Basically, he's a beauty! Could probably give him a good office job when his playing days are done, too. I know you know all that, but he's one of very few players that I no longer think of as "an asset".

 

Love.

 

This. I would walk them to UFA and if they are stil productive/good fits then sign them shorter term. 

 

I just don't like the idea of locking them into term right now. Backlund is going to be tricky though because word is building that he really wants to be the captain so you may be faced with either extending him or moving him now. 

[MP5029]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I did not get that sense nor do I believe that is how BT operated. Conroy was open that there are certain aspects of the job that Treliving did himself(and he plans to be different) but not that he was a lone wolf. I don't get the sense Treliving was driving this ship alone. 

 

 

This. I would walk them to UFA and if they are stil productive/good fits then sign them shorter term. 

 

I just don't like the idea of locking them into term right now. Backlund is going to be tricky though because word is building that he really wants to be the captain so you may be faced with either extending him or moving him now. 

Two issues with Backlund:

 

1. age 

2. if he’s gonna be disgruntled cause he wants the C, and to be honest he’s too soft to be the C so no to that.  I’d rather Lindholm, Mangi or even Hubby over Backlund…we lost the best Captain we could have had last year to Fla…so next best are the 3 I mentioned….maybe Weegar but he’s more of an A than C

[The_People1]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I did not get that sense nor do I believe that is how BT operated. Conroy was open that there are certain aspects of the job that Treliving did himself(and he plans to be different) but not that he was a lone wolf. I don't get the sense Treliving was driving this ship alone. 

 

I think most of the shade Conroy has been throwing has been directed at the coach, which is not a surprise given what has been coming out since the season ended. 

 

Ya what I got from his words was that towards the end of BT, he began to go about it alone.  But that could be because BT didn't take some of Conroy's advice when things were going South or Conroy simply didn't feel he was being heard.  It could be a combination of things.

 

But for sure Conroy was throwing shade Sutter's way.  Perhaps Maloney fired Sutter because he knew Conroy couldn't fire his old boss.  And so Maloney cleared the slate for Conroy to come in and start clean.

[travel_dude]

58 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think Hanifin for Nylander makes sense for both clubs.  Leafs need D.  Flames need another top 6 forward.  If BT is the Leafs new GM, then I'd love to trade him Huberdeau, Kadri and Weegar since that's the hill BT wanted to die on.

 

It was nice to hear Conroy's comments on the Lindholm situation.  Can't lose him for nothing.  Can't let another Johnny situation happen.

 

Backlund and Tanev, keep them both unsigned and decide on their fate at TDL.  They could both fetch 1st round picks depending on their play.

 

And no, I wouldn't bother with Lucic.  In his exit interview, he basically said "Calgary turned out better than I thought but I'm going to seek other opportunities out there".  Plus, he was an outright liability at least half the season.  He has no use other than fighting and playing 7 minutes a night but we could probably get by with Zadorov policing things for us.

 

That said, I do want the Flames to get bigger, tougher, and more mean.  I'd prefer that over small/skilled.

Hanifin and Kylington are similar but I think Kyl moves the puck better.  Too many movers and not enough defenders.  Nylander is a risky trade for the next contract.  But I think we need that type of winger, not a defensively responsible one.  And a speedy one at that.  TOR can get BT signed and then he trades with us.

 

The Huberdeau wasn't BT's hill.  He could have evaluated the other trades and really was just told get the best you can from FLA, since Tkachuk wasn't exactly open to other places like CAR.  It's not a good trade when you consider what Tkachuk can do with good players and coaching.  But had he stayed here, he might have had a slump.  As it is, we fared pretty darn good in what we got.  Weegar + 1st is worth close to what Tkachuk's value was. 

 

The bolded is why you probably don't trade Big Z.  We don't need the fights once per year guy.  We need the Destroyer.  He doesn't have to hit 5 times a game to distract the other team.  

[The_People1]

31 minutes ago, MP5029 said:

I kinda agree on most of this but Hanifin may fetch a better haul than Nylander…also heard rumours his dad is a bit sour on Cgy so he may be too…But definitely move Hanifin if and only if…

 

sign Dumba and Hagg to 5 year max deals and let stone and Statch walk

 

this opens some room and could help offset the many lost games we will

see from Tanev…then later maybe even move Tanev at TDL 

 

not much in the forward ranks for UFA this year but those two D (Dumba and Hagg) would be great additions and for the age where they are only 33 in 5 years so the would probably be pretty good still at 32 in the last year of their contract and could fetch some assets. Also, it would make moving Hanifin more sensible…maybe even land a decent top 2 Ctr with him or a few picks and prospects pending on what team wants him most.

 

Lucic is a hard NO for even LM signing, also I believe Dumba and maybe even Hagg bring some toughness to the back end with Tanev being probably a part timer due to injuries…and also Big z, would at least give each D line some grit and toughness 

 

I think Hanifin and Nylander have very close trade value.  Nylander put up back-to-back 80-point seasons.  I know he played with stud linemates but still.  80 is 80.  Also 40-goals.  Plus, he's a playoff performer.

 

Nylander's next contract starts at $8-mil and could go as high as $9.5-mil.

 

Hanfin, on the other hand, is looking at $7 or $7.5-mil.

 

And a hard NO to Dumba.  He's never been the same player since his knee surgery.  He's damaged goods now.  MIN has been trying to trade away his $6-mil cap hit for two years.

 

Hagg is worth looking at depending on cap hit.  Kylington and Hanifin will play big roles on LD so can't afford to spend too much on Hagg to play bottom pair.

[travel_dude]

11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think Hanifin and Nylander have very close trade value.  Nylander put up back-to-back 80-point seasons.  I know he played with stud linemates but still.  80 is 80.  Also 40-goals.  Plus, he's a playoff performer.

 

Nylander's next contract starts at $8-mil and could go as high as $9.5-mil.

 

Hanfin, on the other hand, is looking at $7 or $7.5-mil.

 

And a hard NO to Dumba.  He's never been the same player since his knee surgery.  He's damaged goods now.  MIN has been trying to trade away his $6-mil cap hit for two years.

 

Hagg is worth looking at depending on cap hit.  Kylington and Hanifin will play big roles on LD so can't afford to spend too much on Hagg to play bottom pair.

Trading Hanifin for Nylander makes sense.  Hanifin's contract is good now, but won't be next year.  Nylander is the same idea, but it makes sense to pay more for a F, especially when we are in need of a F.  By itself, this won't work, need other pieces going out the door.  Not in this deal but in other areas.  At some point you need to make the call on the goalies.  Risky to move Vladar or Markstrom without much of a view.  But we can't continue playing $8M for two that didn't really give much comfort last season.

 

As much as I like Backlund, I don't see any situation that allows us to re-sign him.  If he has value, trade him for a D and a pick.  In theory, we have decent depth at C.  Embrace the youth in the bottom 6.  

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, MP5029 said:

Two issues with Backlund:

 

1. age 

2. if he’s gonna be disgruntled cause he wants the C, and to be honest he’s too soft to be the C so no to that.  I’d rather Lindholm, Mangi or even Hubby over Backlund…we lost the best Captain we could have had last year to Fla…so next best are the 3 I mentioned….maybe Weegar but he’s more of an A than C

 

 

I think for the most part, the team was too conservative for Tkachuk. I don't necessarily think it was a Calgary thing, more of a culture in the dressing room thing. Maybe it comes with aging players and "this is the way" mentality, but the team didn't seem to see eye-to-eye with Tkachuk, and it showed when he tried to get into the muck all alone. No one had his back, and a  player that could have, we traded to Florida before we traded Tkachuk there. 

 

I can't really speak to what goes on in the dressing room, but only from what I saw on the ice, and the fallout, or Tkachuk's play after the incident and team meeting to address it. He was a different player, looking to play out his deal and move on. Right or wrong, I think he did the minimum, and it's hard to get up for others when they aren't necessarily up for you.

[flames for life]

2 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here, except for two points.

 

• I would be pretty open to exploring the possibility of moving Tyler Toffoli. If he's to be extended, I would be extremely cautious about the term on that contract.
• I see that you said walk Backlund to UFA, but it's not clear if you mean that you would just let him go when it's over, or if you'd explore options with him at that time. I might be overly sentimental, but I don't have a problem with guys playing their entire career with one team. It's pretty rare, and if 11 wants to chase a cup, I would give him that option - but if he's willing to stick around on a series of short term deals, I'd be happy to have him. He's a pillar to the community, and an excellent mentor for younger players. Basically, he's a beauty! Could probably give him a good office job when his playing days are done, too. I know you know all that, but he's one of very few players that I no longer think of as "an asset".

 

Love.

While I concur with most of your statements, I have to disagree with your last sentence.  Everything you described about Backlund is the very definition of an asset!  This past year was another step for his stats, but more so, his continual demonstration to mentor and lead the younger players.  Many times one describes a great player as “one who makes others better”.  Backlund has done this for many years, by stabilizing the rookies play, and by allowing some leeway for creativity.

IMO, if he was willing to remain in Calgary with a reasonable contract, I would keep him in a heartbeat.

[cross16]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya what I got from his words was that towards the end of BT, he began to go about it alone.  But that could be because BT didn't take some of Conroy's advice when things were going South or Conroy simply didn't feel he was being heard.  It could be a combination of things.

 

Even when BT was still here and Conroy was reporting to him he was honest that there are certain aspect of the job Treliving kept to himself, mostly trade negotiations. He would always consult with the group but the actual conversation with the club/GM, Treliving wanted to have those himself. Conroy noted that wasn't the case with Burke and Feaster who were comfortable to have group conversations or a conference call. 

 

I don't think Conroy has presented, in fact he has flat out side it's fine, this as a negative just presenting this as a way he differs from Treliving and plans to do things differently. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Even when BT was still here and Conroy was reporting to him he was honest that there are certain aspect of the job Treliving kept to himself, mostly trade negotiations. He would always consult with the group but the actual conversation with the club/GM, Treliving wanted to have those himself. Conroy noted that wasn't the case with Burke and Feaster who were comfortable to have group conversations or a conference call. 

 

I don't think Conroy has presented, in fact he has flat out side it's fine, this as a negative just presenting this as a way he differs from Treliving and plans to do things differently. 

 

Yups, I didn't mean to present it negatively either.  Just that Conroy will engage his staff much more than BT.  And that might not be a good thing either.  Too many chefs in the kitchen.  Maybe BT's way was better.  We shall see.

[Thebrewcrew]

Right now I'm of the mind that the best thing for the franchise might be "no" in regards to Hanifin and Lindholm's feelings on extensions.

 

There's no question that the Flames are a better team in 23/24 with them. But a look at the bigger picture, is it the best thing for the team to have two more contacts paying players until they're 35? Probably not. There's already some significant term on this team.

 

If I was the owner my mentality would be shifting from "playoffs" to having a competitive team by the time the new arena opens. Right now the trajectory of the franchise isn't that.

 

 

This is a fantastic time for a re-tool, without tearing it down. 

Hanifin and Lindholm will net fantastic returns. The Flames could have three 1st's in 2023 or multiple 1st's in the next two drafts.

The other UFA's they have are perfect for the TDL.

Tanev likely gets you two 2nd's or a 2 and 3. 

Zadorov is the guy that GM's make mistakes with. He gets you a 1st at the deadline.

 

I know it hurts the chances of the playoffs in 23/24, but just by moving four of the seven UFA's, the team can acquire some significant assets. 

 

 

[JTech780]

Friedman mentioned that Lindholm is represented by the same group that Horvat is and Horvat just got 8x8, have to think Lindholm is looking for around the same number. Can Calgary afford Lindholm at 8x8?

[Thebrewcrew]

Just now, JTech780 said:

Friedman mentioned that Lindholm is represented by the same group that Horvat is and Horvat just got 8x8, have to think Lindholm is looking for around the same number. Can Calgary afford Lindholm at 8x8?

I think the Flames have to be prepared for Lindholm to ask for 9. I think he will want more than Larkin.

 

Hanifin’s comp is pretty close to Hanoi’s Lindholm, but I think it could be closer to 7 than 6.5.

 

At most I think the Flames can do one of them, but probably not both.

 

 

[JTech780]

2 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I think the Flames have to be prepared for Lindholm to ask for 9. I think he will want more than Larkin.

 

Hanifin’s comp is pretty close to Hanoi’s Lindholm, but I think it could be closer to 7 than 6.5.

 

At most I think the Flames can do one of them, but probably not both.

 

 

I agree. Even I am surprised that I am going to say this, but Hanifin might be the better option to keep long term. Top 4 defensemen are in short supply and quite honestly there isn’t a ton of top end defensive prospects in the pipeline.

 

Conroy mentioned that he wants to get younger, but he didn’t say that those players necessarily had to come from within.

[The_People1]

57 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Right now I'm of the mind that the best thing for the franchise might be "no" in regards to Hanifin and Lindholm's feelings on extensions.

 

There's no question that the Flames are a better team in 23/24 with them. But a look at the bigger picture, is it the best thing for the team to have two more contacts paying players until they're 35? Probably not. There's already some significant term on this team.

 

If I was the owner my mentality would be shifting from "playoffs" to having a competitive team by the time the new arena opens. Right now the trajectory of the franchise isn't that.

 

 

This is a fantastic time for a re-tool, without tearing it down. 

Hanifin and Lindholm will net fantastic returns. The Flames could have three 1st's in 2023 or multiple 1st's in the next two drafts.

The other UFA's they have are perfect for the TDL.

Tanev likely gets you two 2nd's or a 2 and 3. 

Zadorov is the guy that GM's make mistakes with. He gets you a 1st at the deadline.

 

I know it hurts the chances of the playoffs in 23/24, but just by moving four of the seven UFA's, the team can acquire some significant assets. 

 

 

 

Yes 1000%.

 

But I get the feeling Conroy's mandate from ownership is to get right back into the playoffs.  They've all mentioned directly and indirectly that this group is a playoff team and they intent to make the playoffs next season.

 

There's no path to the playoffs if they trade Lindholm unless they trade him for a 30-year-old with term.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, flames for life said:

While I concur with most of your statements, I have to disagree with your last sentence.  Everything you described about Backlund is the very definition of an asset!  This past year was another step for his stats, but more so, his continual demonstration to mentor and lead the younger players.  Many times one describes a great player as “one who makes others better”.  Backlund has done this for many years, by stabilizing the rookies play, and by allowing some leeway for creativity.

IMO, if he was willing to remain in Calgary with a reasonable contract, I would keep him in a heartbeat.

I agree. I think Backlund gets a lot of grief when I think isn't justified. No one said he was Crosby, but he is a guy who does exactly what you're saying. I was thinking this earlier today. 
 

I don't think he gets credit for doing everything the team has asked him,, and not really complaining about the lack of talent when it could have padded his stats.
 

He's one of the best at carrying the puck in on the team. We'd need to find others to do that.

 

there is so much he does and it's great. I think he's been the best player in awhile but because he doesn't get the points it doesn't get credit.

[JTech780]

If we are going to move Lindholm or Hanifin, Minnesota is probably good place to look as a trade partner. They have a deep prospect pool, and could really use a center and a replacement for Dumba.