2023/24 Roster/Lines

[The_People1]

10 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Considering the AAV, that seems like missed opportunity.

 

Nah.  Conroy said he's going to dangle the carrot, not fill every position including the 4 line so no prospects have a legit chance to make it out of camp.  

[robrob74]

16 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Nah.  Conroy said he's going to dangle the carrot, not fill every position including the 4 line so no prospects have a legit chance to make it out of camp.  

my only concern is, do we have. A legitimate player that can replace Backlund? 
we have excess of centres, but do they do what Backlund does? Can they? 
 

it feels a lot like run with Backs and then see what happens, and no alternative plans, as usual. Shortsighted. 

[conundrumed]

At $1.6, Suter would have been a good option to help solidify the bottom of the roster. He won't set the world on fire, but he's consistently dependable, even in top matchups he's effective as a shutdown.

 

[conundrumed]

7 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Almost an impossible year to win the Calder, with Bedard, Fantili and Cooley.

 

But I think the Flames will have some good rookies.

.915 from Wolf and 15-20 from Coronato wouldn’t surprise me.

Add Brandt Clarke, Luke Hughes and potentially Simon Edvinsson and Jiricek. Maybe Devon Levi or Leo Carlsson.

Just give it to Pelletier already=)

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, robrob74 said:

my only concern is, do we have. A legitimate player that can replace Backlund? 
we have excess of centres, but do they do what Backlund does? Can they? 
 

it feels a lot like run with Backs and then see what happens, and no alternative plans, as usual. Shortsighted. 

 

Ya the thing is, we won't know if we don't give the kids a shot.  Maybe Zary is ready.  

[travel_dude]

8 hours ago, robrob74 said:

my only concern is, do we have. A legitimate player that can replace Backlund? 
we have excess of centres, but do they do what Backlund does? Can they? 
 

it feels a lot like run with Backs and then see what happens, and no alternative plans, as usual. Shortsighted. 

 

Maybe, just maybe we have a GM that looks past the immediate.  The now suggests that we have Backlund as an option for 3C.  The now suggests that we could run him back and figure out what to do with him by February.  That solves exactly nothing.  Having a player say that the "may" decide to re-sign as a UFA should set off warning bells and that you take action now.  A trade either brings back a better player for a wing spot or just picks/prospects.  That leaves the spot vacant for players to step up.

 

Ruzicka and Zary have not had any chance at a C spot with better than 4th line player or at all.  They don't need to be Backlund, they need to be a 3C and the defensive role is spread out.  If they can't rise to the level you need, then you know what you have.  You make another move.

 

$5M for a 3C is insane unless you have value in 1C and 2C.  We don't.  Move on time.  We really can't afford both him and Hanifin this or next year.  

[conundrumed]

14 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Nah.  Conroy said he's going to dangle the carrot, not fill every position including the 4 line so no prospects have a legit chance to make it out of camp.  

Can't run a team that way. Have to fill your spots and make prospects force their way, not hand it to them. If someone forces their way, then it's the GM's job to make adjustments. Not send the prospect down due to waiver eligibility, as I believe we've had the appearance of doing in the past. That part is a dumb mistake. Ice the best players, lose a player to waivers, well, he wasn't in your top 23 players, no big, move forward.

[Sarasti]

50 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Can't run a team that way. Have to fill your spots and make prospects force their way, not hand it to them. If someone forces their way, then it's the GM's job to make adjustments. Not send the prospect down due to waiver eligibility, as I believe we've had the appearance of doing in the past. That part is a dumb mistake. Ice the best players, lose a player to waivers, well, he wasn't in your top 23 players, no big, move forward.

 

Some of this extends to the coach as well though, as we saw with Sutter. He always preferred to ice the vets in premium positions over giving a kid an extended look at the same spot.

 

I'm pretty sure only Sutter liked the idea of Lucic with Kadri and Huberdeau. 

[conundrumed]

8 hours ago, Sarasti said:

 

Some of this extends to the coach as well though, as we saw with Sutter. He always preferred to ice the vets in premium positions over giving a kid an extended look at the same spot.

 

I'm pretty sure only Sutter liked the idea of Lucic with Kadri and Huberdeau. 

Likely true. He even seemed kind of put off with BT saying we'd prefer to find solutions from within. Then I found myself dissecting every Sutter mantra about needing someone that can score a big goal etc as under-handed jabs at BT obviously wanting prospects to have a shot. The Huby, "taking a Satoshi Nakamoto" and Pelletier 1st game comments I thought were giant nothingburgers that the media frothed over. Basically Sutter saying, "I don't talk about injuries", "don't fawn over my young players". I get that and hated how the media completely twisted it into a completely alternative agenda because he "offended" them. Like we should give 2 Blockchains about the sad state of media being offended.

A big problem, huge in my mind, was the vets having to plead with Sutter to let Pelletier know if he'll play because his parents want to fly in for their kids 1st NHL game. You can't put perfume on that pig. This is likely where the toxicity came to a head. Every player in that room, rookie or 10 year vet, KNOWS that that was thee lifetime moment for them and their loved ones. First NHL game. EVERYTHING is wrapped up in that one moment of bliss.

For Pelletier, Sutter was not giving a flying Blockchain about it. Players literally had to call him out. If they respected you, they truly don't anymore. That is borderline, if not flat out, dehumanizing Pelletier and his family. Could be the only magical moment for all of them and you made it all about stress and anxiety. Without question you know better. Or at least you used to.

So we know the players can be united, now let's do it for the right reason. That episode, for me, is why you fire Sutter. A rookie in his 1st game with his parents there is a huge motivator for players, they want it to be awesome. Sutter tried to dismiss it. That's about as low as you go as a coach, you literally isolated yourself when you had a chance to be a positive influence.

So now we're in what I'm going to call the post-Sutter era. And you can say it's unfair, but I'm going to go ahead and say the Sutter era was an era of sabotage.

As much as everyone pins that Oilers series loss on Markstrom, what in the dying Blockchain was that coaching? Zero reacting and line-matching led to us getting spanked. Every good player we had or have going into mass exodus. That is sabotage. The coaches decision-making was highly questionable even to the casual fan. In particular, sabotaging your GM's efforts at every opportunity.

[Otown72]

Also to add of relevance how Sutter changed is tune by praising  Pelleter the next media opportunity. The damage had been done though and I believe too that this was in large part, Sutters own undoing of himself as head coach. A low blow to the players and the  room furthering the distrust/ toxicity. 

As a fan I wanted to see a new coach right there and now.

 

[travel_dude]

7 hours ago, conundrumed said:

So now we're in what I'm going to call the post-Sutter era. And you can say it's unfair, but I'm going to go ahead and say the Sutter era was an era of sabotage.

As much as everyone pins that Oilers series loss on Markstrom, what in the dying Blockchain was that coaching? Zero reacting and line-matching led to us getting spanked. Every good player we had or have going into mass exodus. That is sabotage. The coaches decision-making was highly questionable even to the casual fan. In particular, sabotaging your GM's efforts at every opportunity.

 

You could see the Sutter control being exercized after game 1.  The players were wound up about the series and came out like gangbusters.  Instead of looking at what went right, he focused on playing a 2-1 style game.  Power vs power to try to play to a draw and hope Lucic gets you the win.  LOL.  Rookie coach played him.  They will just let the hard checking result in PP time, where McD plays 1:50 of 2 minutes.  And sure, put out your 4th line for 12 minutes, because we they are just going to throw out McD and/or Draisaitl.  Take a penalty with 4th line out there?  No problem.  

 

Sutter was great for laying blame.  Put out Pelletier with Kadri in OT, blame the kid for missing an assignment.  In a situation he hasn't faced before.  Suggests the big name players aren't scoring the big goals, but who's sitting in OT?  End of a PP, throw out the 4th line.  Play the Backlund line for the most minutes to manage a tie if possible and lose in OT.

 

Anyway, I kinda done with the Sutter talk suffice to say that the change needed to happen and he took down the GM with him.  The Sutter roster hangover is going to take a lot of greasy food and Tylenol to get over.  

[cberg]

18 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Can't run a team that way. Have to fill your spots and make prospects force their way, not hand it to them. If someone forces their way, then it's the GM's job to make adjustments. Not send the prospect down due to waiver eligibility, as I believe we've had the appearance of doing in the past. That part is a dumb mistake. Ice the best players, lose a player to waivers, well, he wasn't in your top 23 players, no big, move forward.

Disagree.  In the past the roster was filled with washed up vets who were gifted spots due to past history, not earned.  Once signed the Flames could not dump them due to salary cap issues and the kids rarely got a realistic shot at earning the way onto the team.  

[zima]

We are at a rock and a hard place seems we can't move players because GMs know how hard up we are and are offering pucks for high end players. So we are stuck with these high end players till end of season and only the top teams are going to through a couples of pucks or prospects our way and since these teams are at the top there picks will be in the high 20's. Screwed we are we can't buy RFA's due to cash flow which in my mind is about time we can finally see how our kids will fair the only down fall in my miond is we lost Phillips which I believe is a huge lose.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

You could see the Sutter control being exercized after game 1.  The players were wound up about the series and came out like gangbusters.  Instead of looking at what went right, he focused on playing a 2-1 style game.  Power vs power to try to play to a draw and hope Lucic gets you the win.  LOL.  Rookie coach played him.  They will just let the hard checking result in PP time, where McD plays 1:50 of 2 minutes.  And sure, put out your 4th line for 12 minutes, because we they are just going to throw out McD and/or Draisaitl.  Take a penalty with 4th line out there?  No problem.  

 

Sutter was great for laying blame.  Put out Pelletier with Kadri in OT, blame the kid for missing an assignment.  In a situation he hasn't faced before.  Suggests the big name players aren't scoring the big goals, but who's sitting in OT?  End of a PP, throw out the 4th line.  Play the Backlund line for the most minutes to manage a tie if possible and lose in OT.

 

Anyway, I kinda done with the Sutter talk suffice to say that the change needed to happen and he took down the GM with him.  The Sutter roster hangover is going to take a lot of greasy food and Tylenol to get over.  

when he didn't coach he let the other coach out-coach him. And when he did, he out-coached himself.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

when he didn't coach he let the other coach out-coach him. And when he did, he out-coached himself.

 

+1

Yes, that's kind of the point that we lost to a team we have every business beating.

Not that I expected us to go onto the cup, but a series win maybe changes outcome afterwards.

Hard to buy into a diatribe when that proved to be bunk.

 

Anyway, back to lines.

We are missing something right now.   Even if Hubey and Kadri have great seasons, we have flux after them.

Lost a top RW and never found a good 2nd line combo.

Are we gonna have to play Backlund 17 minutes a game?

And this for a player that wants out.

 

 

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

+1

Yes, that's kind of the point that we lost to a team we have every business beating.

Not that I expected us to go onto the cup, but a series win maybe changes outcome afterwards.

Hard to buy into a diatribe when that proved to be bunk.

 

Anyway, back to lines.

We are missing something right now.   Even if Hubey and Kadri have great seasons, we have flux after them.

Lost a top RW and never found a good 2nd line combo.

Are we gonna have to play Backlund 17 minutes a game?

And this for a player that wants out.

 

 

Losing Backlund for nothing, is probably ok. I am torn about it. But he gave us a good career and was a great player for the team, in a way that he did everything asked of him. So we got quality out of him. Not a star, but one of the best two-way players in the game .

[conundrumed]

4 hours ago, cberg said:

Disagree.  In the past the roster was filled with washed up vets who were gifted spots due to past history, not earned.  Once signed the Flames could not dump them due to salary cap issues and the kids rarely got a realistic shot at earning the way onto the team.  

But isn't that just a 180 of gifting spots to prospects also?

[travel_dude]

5 hours ago, robrob74 said:

Losing Backlund for nothing, is probably ok. I am torn about it. But he gave us a good career and was a great player for the team, in a way that he did everything asked of him. So we got quality out of him. Not a star, but one of the best two-way players in the game .

 

With Bergeron winning the Selke every year, there is no way to tell if he was high on people's lists.

Not a scoring star, but every bit as effective defensively as many 2C's in the league.

You lose the trade if the cap allows you to improve the roster.

Does him a solid by trading to a new team to fit in.

 

 

 

[cberg]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

But isn't that just a 180 of gifting spots to prospects also?

I guess my point is that the Flames signed the vets, which filled the spots and made it next to impossible for the kids to earn a roster spot. In addition, vets were given the benefit of the doubt based on past history, whereas kids had to "prove it" in 2-3 pre-season games or else it was back to the minors.  There was a clear bias to vets...

[Sarasti]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

With Bergeron winning the Selke every year, there is no way to tell if he was high on people's lists.

Not a scoring star, but every bit as effective defensively as many 2C's in the league.

You lose the trade if the cap allows you to improve the roster.

Does him a solid by trading to a new team to fit in.

 

 

 

 

Aye. I still think the whole eastern conference bias as far as voting goes is real. That said, Backlund garnered many a selke vote while not posting gaudy offensive totals. Fair to say in terms of pure defense against the games top stars Backs is among the best.

[conundrumed]

7 hours ago, cberg said:

I guess my point is that the Flames signed the vets, which filled the spots and made it next to impossible for the kids to earn a roster spot. In addition, vets were given the benefit of the doubt based on past history, whereas kids had to "prove it" in 2-3 pre-season games or else it was back to the minors.  There was a clear bias to vets...

I think that falls on coaching/mgmt. I agree with you that our approach has been dicey in signing PTOs. I always treat PTO signings as desperation signings. But I'll add that this year might be different watching how the cap and high end values are leaving some good players on the outside. The system is looking fairly broken when managers are making the high end signings like the cap has already gone up. Serious implications for bottom 6 players.

As a Detroit fan, I definitely see UFA signings that have the appearance of zero spots for the kids. Yzerman has gone out of his way to let everyone know that if any prospect convinces them otherwise throughout camp, "we'll make room, then just hope that they don't regress". He uses Lucas Raymond as an example. To paraphrase, "We had no idea what he'd be like because we only saw him in Sweden. He had a great rookie camp, rookie tournament and pro camp and left us no choice".

They put him at 1RW with Larkin, which I'm certain was meant for the Perron signing.

I always revert to what Yzerman's doing. His draft record in TBay was baaad, but his trades and signings were his strengths. And he is a completely wide open book in interviews. But his "nothing" signings/trade throw-ins like Maatta and Walman. Walman was a 7D in St. Loo, he is now the long game top pairing LD with Seider. He literally took it. Maatta nobody was interested in. Put him with Hronek and suddenly Hronek isn't the complete disaster that he'd been. Literally found money.

All of the other 1-2 year signings are tryouts, basically. Recoup if it doesn't work, let him walk, waive him, whatever, doesn't matter. The goal is to make your team better. Some moves will be a disaster, some will be good. Law of averages say you've gotta try.

My interest is completely piqued in how the Huska/Savard combo runs their camp. Sutter virtually isolated pros vs prospects. Initially I thought, "good, get the team gelling". But I think there is more downside in not letting any prospect play with NHL quality linemates.

Long and short, and I hardly expect it, but if Backlund looks like your 5th best center in camp, he's your 13th fwd. If prospects regress, deal with it. Ice your best team, don't make "business decisions" due to waiver eligibility. Your job as GM is to figure it out, your job as a coach is to tell your GM that you don't give a f%#@ about that stuff, that guy has made my team over that guy. Contracts don't guarantee spots has to be the philosophy, and stick to it. Bad signing? Oh well, those happen. Deal with it. Forcing it becomes everyone's problem instead of just yours. It makes your team worse.

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, conundrumed said:

My interest is completely piqued in how the Huska/Savard combo runs their camp. Sutter virtually isolated pros vs prospects. Initially I thought, "good, get the team gelling". But I think there is more downside in not letting any prospect play with NHL quality linemates.

Long and short, and I hardly expect it, but if Backlund looks like your 5th best center in camp, he's your 13th fwd. If prospects regress, deal with it. Ice your best team, don't make "business decisions" due to waiver eligibility. Your job as GM is to figure it out, your job as a coach is to tell your GM that you don't give a f%#@ about that stuff, that guy has made my team over that guy. Contracts don't guarantee spots has to be the philosophy, and stick to it. Bad signing? Oh well, those happen. Deal with it. Forcing it becomes everyone's problem instead of just yours. It makes your team worse.

 

I look back at last year's TC and wonder what the heck happened.  Lucic and Lewis basically told don't worry about it, you have your spot.  Pelletier and Ruzicka have a meh camp, but they really didn't get much opportunity to stand out.  Phillips stood out, but he was in the "na gonna happen" state.  Mackie put in a position to get a spot while Valinaki put in the gotta prove it state.  

 

To be clear, I have no issues with waiving guys that are marginal NHL at best.  I have no issues with sending guys down that didn't have a good camp.  What we actually ended up with was a NHL experience bias influencing camp lines resulting in NHL players gifted spots.  Camp is still a long ways off and we are yet to actually do anything this summer to deal with deficiencies or pending UFA's that we maybe don't see as being long term players here.  Almost like the mentality is that we are good enough to win the cup and just need the players to step up.  

 

Really, I can't even tell what the GM expects the top line to consist of.  Lindholm, great if he's signed.  Huberdeau, if you have a sniper to step up and score from RW.  

 

Daily faceoff has the following lines and pairs:

Huberdeau-Lindholm-Sharangovich

Dube-Kadri-Coronato

Mange-Backlund-Coleman

Pelletier-Ruzicka-Duehr

 

Hanifin-Ras

Weegar-Tanev

Kylington-Zadorov

Oesterle

 

That's all well and good, but....

- it's perhaps a weaker team than last year

- 4 of the forwards played less than 1/2 a season in the NHL 

- Backlund and Hanifin want out

- Weegar is a top pairing D

- 8 pending UFA's and none re-signed to date, 6 of which are D

- 3 pending RFA's at forward

[The_People1]

On 8/12/2023 at 3:52 PM, conundrumed said:

Can't run a team that way. Have to fill your spots and make prospects force their way, not hand it to them. If someone forces their way, then it's the GM's job to make adjustments. Not send the prospect down due to waiver eligibility, as I believe we've had the appearance of doing in the past. That part is a dumb mistake. Ice the best players, lose a player to waivers, well, he wasn't in your top 23 players, no big, move forward.

 

No one is getting handed.  There will be one or two spots for 10+ forward prospects to fight for at camp.  It's healthy motivation that's mathematically tangible for the prospect pool that wasn't there during the BT era.

[conundrumed]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

No one is getting handed.  There will be one or two spots for 10+ forward prospects to fight for at camp.  It's healthy motivation that's mathematically tangible for the prospect pool that wasn't there during the BT era.

Are you sure? Because currently there is a world of question marks. Pelletier, I have zero concerns, he was always going to be a solid player, I've never wavered on that. Rooney, Ruzicka, Duehr, Zary. These are all pretty big question marks and 2 of them will make the current roster, full-time, whether or not they should. Lose Hanifin, if Kylington's play is weak, we're running band-aids in Oesterle and Gilbert.

They're isn't enough competition for likely 3-4 spots. We NEED Duehr and Ruzicka to be consistent because the alternative doesn't really exist. We've been fortunate with injuries, can that continue?

We don't really have much for depth. We're really relying on hope a lot more than I'd be comfortable with. I know the cap is keeping us stagnant, but we can't really afford to just stand still at any rate.

[robrob74]

18 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Are you sure? Because currently there is a world of question marks. Pelletier, I have zero concerns, he was always going to be a solid player, I've never wavered on that. Rooney, Ruzicka, Duehr, Zary. These are all pretty big question marks and 2 of them will make the current roster, full-time, whether or not they should. Lose Hanifin, if Kylington's play is weak, we're running band-aids in Oesterle and Gilbert.

They're isn't enough competition for likely 3-4 spots. We NEED Duehr and Ruzicka to be consistent because the alternative doesn't really exist. We've been fortunate with injuries, can that continue?

We don't really have much for depth. We're really relying on hope a lot more than I'd be comfortable with. I know the cap is keeping us stagnant, but we can't really afford to just stand still at any rate.

I don't really see Duehr as a question mark. I think he is well suited for the 4th line. I felt the Ritchies and Lucic held him back because they got played regardless of their play. 
 

Lucic sat a few games but got played after even when his play dipped.

 

lewis was ok, but I think Duehr at least played to all of those standards of the four players. Only reason he sat was he was a young player.