Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

jjgallow

SeniorMembers
  • Content Count

    5,014
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

jjgallow last won the day on June 21

jjgallow had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

524 Excellent

About jjgallow

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

22,176 profile views
  1. Less likely to improve, just showing that he is in his prime, and those other guys are still very young and already outperforming him when it matters. It's just a little silly how we're all like "imagine what Gaudreau could do if he wasn't small" or "maybe there is a way he can still perform in the playoffs". Rather than "look at what Bennett and Monahan are Already doing in the playoffs" and "imagine how much better they Very Likely will Become as they approach their prime". But most would rather like to just dream about their favorite player lol. It'll be the same when Monahan or Bennett have their career years. And that day will come. In any case my general comment here isn't about Gaudreau, it's about Bennett. People here get too high on some guys, and too down on other guys. And, that's true of both Gaudreau and Bennett. But Bennett especially. The fact that they can be compared directly, inherently bothers people. The fact that Bennett can come out on top, Really aggravates people. And that is because we're all a little nuts, to be honest. Too much hyping, and too much bashing on here. That is why I will tend to come down hard on the "favourites" and be more supportive of younger less accomplished players, even when they're in the proverbial doghouse. Because odds are going to be in my favor on that over time. Requirements for Gaudreau to become a top playoff producer: -Miracle. Requirements for Bennett/Monahan to become top playoff producers: -Don't screw up what they're already heading towards on their own. Which is more likely? Ok...possibly the miracle. lol
  2. Maybe for Hugh Hefner but not really in hockey. As is everything any of us have ever written haha But it's all we got. Well I'm not about to argue with those either. That said, I'm liking Bennett and Monahan. Always have.
  3. ok, So, I am really not seeing myself missing the point lol. Firstly I would like to say that I'm a pretty huge Monahan supporter and I put him in a similar category as Bennett. Always have. Also in terms of skill I consider all 3 of the below elite. And yes, Gaudreau moreso. But it's only enough to overcome his size in regular season play. Bennett: 6g in 20 games Now 23 years old (did not get a ton of minutes) Monahan: 8g in 20 games Now 24 years old (played more minutes) Gaudreau: 4g in 21 games Now 26 years old (played way more minutes) So when you adjust for age and minutes, Bennet and Monahan are your guys. Gaudreau not as much.
  4. Well I'm on the Yes side of that debate lol. Buutttt....do you remember how Sam Bennett ended up skipping straight to the NHL to begin with? And not trying to be confrontational...it's just a great story. One of the few NHL players who has Never been in a playoff series where they didn't produce more than in the regular season. Since Junior. That is why he's gold and that is why it may not be reasonable to just "Lucic" Gaudreau into a playoff performer.
  5. Sam Bennett imho was a lot better in the playoffs this year, than he was in the regular season. Why is this significant? Because it was the opposite of the rest of his team. Naturally, there is tonnes of talk on here about his poor regular season play, and trading him while keeping other players who let us down when it mattered most. He's a keeper. And he's due for a leg up.
  6. lol. that was funny. I had my beefs with Feaster too, particularly the "win now" march (which supposedly was directed to him). But to be honest, everything Good about this team right now, is more or less a result of his time here. With BT taking the credit and giving away draft picks now.
  7. I think you're right that Laine will be signed, and I think you're right that on the Jets, he could struggle next year too. But If Laine were to be traded, whether it be for Gaudreau or Backlund or whoever else in the NHL, I believe whoever acquires him would look like a landslide winner 5 years from now. Stamping that.
  8. cd Definitely offer the Camry but I do think you need a Porsche to get this deal done. I think you're getting the better player by a significant margin. And the younger player too. Backlund would be that Camry as suggested by travel_dude. Laine has never had compatible linemates either. Prior to the NHL he was a point-getter too. IMHO on the Flames I think a healthy Laine would be setting many many NHL records.
  9. IMHO, I don't think that's a tough one at all, back to Buy Low and sell high. Of course it is actually tough haha.....you're right,, But him having a down year should be a Requirement for considering him. We should NEVER be acquiring players in their career years, ever. We should only be selling players in their career years (and don't have to). So first requirement met (this is the only year he'll ever be anywhere near affordable). What do we know? We know he's one of the top 3-5 most talented young players in the NHL right now. I would personally say it's a tossup between him, McDavid, and a couple others. Except he's had an aweful season. Step 1: Why did he have an aweful season? First question to ask. https://www.nhl.com/news/injuries-hindered-patrik-laine-during-season-and-playoffs/c-306950966 Answered. Step 2: His attitude? Despite recent media remarks, I would say good. He is definitely frustrated right now. But I refer to his playoff performances. His performances in the playoffs are elevated. He is a championship winner. Step 3: Is his current situation reversible? Answer: Yes. Look at this quote: "Nothing I couldn't handle," from the above article. This guy, one of the brightest stars in the NHL, is being allowed to self-manage a serious back issue and play 82 games. He's 21, so his back can probably be fixed. But, he's being mismanaged 100%. One of the top talents in the NHL playing 82 games with a back injury should be a fireable offense. I thought only Edmonton was this dumb. He should have INSTANTLY gone on injured reserve and be sent to the best back specialists in the world with dedicated staff giving him a recovery plan. Step 4: Laine for Gaudreau and Lucic Or something like that. Step 5: Do what you do with Any Ferrari and get him sent to the experts. Don't think twice about putting him on injured reserve for half the upcoming season. Don't even flinch.
  10. ok, so let's be fair... We traded Iginla at the age of 57 or something like that. Bouwmeester too. Those aren't reasonable comparisons. Also keep in mind the reality that whatever disadvantage we have imagined, is the exact same disadvantage for the other trading party. Another way of saying this is come on guys let's not be ridiculous. So literally I just watched the conversation go from "trading Gaudreau is ridiculous and we would never do that, and".. .. "let's trade Tkachuk for Laine". Like literally. lol. You keep Tkachuk. Which is why what's happening now with his contract, and the Lucic move, scares me half to death. And I'm not the only one. Laine: Offer Gaudreau. Gaudreau for Laine. Negotiate pieces on the side from there. Your team instantly gets huge, and all your top talent now performs in the playoffs (or can). You get way younger, you're scoring more goals than you are now (Gaudreau is mostly assists). And.....for those who think we will lose on Gaudreau.... Yeah you're probably right because we'll keep him until he's 35 and trade him for a bag of pucks. But if he were in play for Laine, the same is true on both sides. Winnipeg is also worrying about how they get similar back. This solves that, more or less. So really I see only two big problems: 1. We don't know Laine and what baggage he comes with 2. We'd pretty much have to buy out Lucic because of that totally insane trade we made. Or send him as part of a package and assume some of the salary. I'm just saying guys, everyone's getting all emotional about trading Gaudreau and how you can't trade franchise players and then three seconds later we're all talking about trading Tkachuk. lol. Now you're going to make me emotional
  11. jjgallow

    Goaltending

    Except the trend of us never being on that list since Kipper. Or even anywhere close to it. That's a trend. So 4 to 5 out of 5 of those goalies were developed in-house. Which is pretty much what you get when you look at Stanley cup winning goalies, which matters more, except the trend is even stronger. 4 to 5 out of 5 were identified as 1As by or before the age of 26. Same with Stanley cup winning goalies but even stronger. Only exception I can think of is Tim Thomas. Those are, quite honestly strikingly high correlations. And again I think you get better data out of Stanley cup winners, but this aligns pretty well. Probably one more trend, that I can't validate: Pretty sure if you look at the teams responsible for developing those goalies, their organizations Do believe in trends, and recipes, and put resources into them. And I think you'd find they produce a higher number of quality goalies in general. Not seeing a lot of Voodoo here.
  12. Nobody suggested a bag of pucks. So with regards to teams who traded top players to win a Stanley cup, the answer is all of them, including St. Louis. Franchise player trades are rare but imho Gaudreau is not a and should not be a franchise player, that is the whole crux of this. A franchise player delivers in the post-season. Binnington himself was a result of the Eric Brewer trade. A technicality perhaps, but these teams all make trades and if you Look at those trades, they are with the future in mind. Some very strong arguements for keeping Gaudreau were just made above. Very strong. But they are all based on the premise that he is our franchise player on a team that is building for the Stanley Cup. Which simply isn't true and we all saw it in the playoffs. It's what we want to believe. Anyway. Can't build a team around a guy who can't show up in the playoffs. We all know it
  13. Agree and agree. But Gaudreau is a regular season franchise point-player. Not a playoff franchise player. And not a franchise goal scorer either. I am fine with trading for a player with a higher ceiling than Gaudreau (height pun not intended), and they are out there. Even on this team we have Tkachuk. Would a team give us a Tkachuk-type talent for Gaudreau? They'd give us a lot more than that. You'd have to assume some risk and they would likely be in the prospect stage. But we assume greater risk doing nothing. Package deals are just fine too.
  14. That's news to me. https://www.nhltraderumors.me/2019/04/rumor-connor-mcdavid-demands-trade-out.html History shows that point-getters in the top 10 are tradeable. Really though we should be looking at goals first. And from there, you have 18 others, many more under trade consideration. Totally agree, and this is why he holds incredibly high value. The returns would be astronomical. So if you look at the top 10 point getters from the previous season (17-18), how many then improved upon that performance? 2 out of 10. Which happens to be pretty much bang-on what you would expect if you look at it historically and even if you adjust for age, and don't consider size. So, you are suggesting that the best route to take is to make him a 100+ points player, which has odds of about 20% being very kind. Very kind indeed. Then, making Gaudreau a scoring force in the playoffs. Which is literally next to impossible and has no precedence. So this approach is admirable. But it is low probability. It just is. Couple with the reality that the Flames have not done as you suggested. They have done very little in any direction other than failing to sign Tkachuk.
  15. Yeah I don't think you are either, I think you're following your own course of logic. But 99% are. And that is why you're right about it being a fireable offense. Comes down to the ticket sales etc. (even though the returns would be massive and probably lead to even more sales over the course of a few years, they're still assuming risk) I never think of it in terms of whether a move makes us better. It think of it in terms of whether a move makes a Stanley Cup more likely in the future. Organization has to think of it in terms of predictable, low risk revenue. And even intangibles. Like, you've got Gaudreau fans on council.
×
×
  • Create New...