Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Recommended Posts

No way would I give up Bennett for Gibson it's a non starter for me. The ducks would have to add rakell to make me even consider it. While I agree Gibson has good upside I would never trade a potential top line elite skill center for a goalie. Wouldn't even consider it. It is significantly harder to find someone with Bennetts skill set then it is to find a goalie who can take you to a cup.

I'm all for acquiring him Bennett is a non starter as is the flames first this year. Bennett, Gaudrea, Mony, Brodie, Hamilton, and the flames first this year are off the table for me but anything else I would discuss.

I get the hesitation but I don't think we get Gibson without giving up Bennett or our 1st, and it was for Gibson and Vatanen or Fowler. It sounds like they might be looking for offense.

I really believe Gibson will be a top 5 goalie in the league in the very near future.

I am not 100% sold on Bennett as a center, he looked much better on the wing this year, hopefully he takes a jump forward this season. I would prefer to hold onto him, but again I think Gibson is that good and at the moment he is cost effective.

If we get Gibson, does that make Gillies redundant? Do you package him in a trade for Gibson?

I have a hard time believing Anaheim would let Gibson get away. He looks to be a bargain at $2.3M per year through 2019.

It doesn't make him redundant right away, but if Gillies makes it to the point where his value is at a similar value of Gibson or Vasilevskiy then we have a very good problem on our hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way would I give up Bennett for Gibson it's a non starter for me. The ducks would have to add rakell to make me even consider it. While I agree Gibson has good upside I would never trade a potential top line elite skill center for a goalie. Wouldn't even consider it. It is significantly harder to find someone with Bennetts skill set then it is to find a goalie who can take you to a cup.

I'm all for acquiring him Bennett is a non starter as is the flames first this year. Bennett, Gaudrea, Mony, Brodie, Hamilton, and the flames first this year are off the table for me but anything else I would discuss.

 

Totally agree....funny how that works....I thought you wanted a proven vet?  ;)

 

With regards to the Flames untouchables, I do feel right now that everyone in that list is Basically untouchable at the moment, with Maybe the exception of Gaudreau.    But even Gaudreau....there is just no way.    Unless Gibson was a just an extra in part of a larger deal.

 

Gaudreau, for Shea Theodore and Gibson?   Maybe that would be more of a fair trade, still don't know if I like it.

 

So, while most of us would love to have Gibson here, very few of us are willing to over-pay for him, and I doubt the Flames are either.   Meanwhile, still very hard to imagine Anaheim giving him up.

 

So, we shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way would I give up Bennett for Gibson it's a non starter for me. The ducks would have to add rakell to make me even consider it. While I agree Gibson has good upside I would never trade a potential top line elite skill center for a goalie. Wouldn't even consider it. It is significantly harder to find someone with Bennetts skill set then it is to find a goalie who can take you to a cup.

I'm all for acquiring him Bennett is a non starter as is the flames first this year. Bennett, Gaudrea, Mony, Brodie, Hamilton, and the flames first this year are off the table for me but anything else I would discuss.

I wouldn't consider Bennett either. Backs maybe but even then it would have to be for a top Netminder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way would I give up Bennett for Gibson it's a non starter for me. The ducks would have to add rakell to make me even consider it. While I agree Gibson has good upside I would never trade a potential top line elite skill center for a goalie. Wouldn't even consider it. It is significantly harder to find someone with Bennetts skill set then it is to find a goalie who can take you to a cup.

I'm all for acquiring him Bennett is a non starter as is the flames first this year. Bennett, Gaudrea, Mony, Brodie, Hamilton, and the flames first this year are off the table for me but anything else I would discuss.

Rackell RW would be a good acquisition along with Gibson. Interesting consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, while most of us would love to have Gibson here, very few of us are willing to over-pay for him, and I doubt the Flames are either.   Meanwhile, still very hard to imagine Anaheim giving him up.

 

So, we shall see.

 

 

See first i think we have to take it for what it is, an opinion of a reporter. We all agree it makes no sense for the Ducks to even consider it, but it does make for good discussion when we have a couple of months to kill

 

That being said BT is always quite clear and adamant that our future is not for sale for anything remotely looking like a win now proposition. Meaning  Bennett, Johnny, Monahan, TJ, Hamilton and any high 1st round draft pick definitely are non starters .. to a lesser degree, Backlund,  and Gio ( i think those 2 could be had for the right price.. but it would need to be good, if not great for us)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See first i think we have to take it for what it is, an opinion of a reporter. We all agree it makes no sense for the Ducks to even consider it, but it does make for good discussion when we have a couple of months to kill

 

That being said BT is always quite clear and adamant that our future is not for sale for anything remotely looking like a win now proposition. Meaning  Bennett, Johnny, Monahan, TJ, Hamilton and any high 1st round draft pick definitely are non starters .. to a lesser degree, Backlund,  and Gio ( i think those 2 could be had for the right price.. but it would need to be good, if not great for us)

BT has also said "the net will go far and wide" to fix our goaltending situation. I think a better perspective comes from tonight's draft lotto as it also presents options for consideration leading up to draft day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the hesitation but I don't think we get Gibson without giving up Bennett or our 1st, and it was for Gibson and Vatanen or Fowler. It sounds like they might be looking for offense.

I really believe Gibson will be a top 5 goalie in the league in the very near future.

I am not 100% sold on Bennett as a center, he looked much better on the wing this year, hopefully he takes a jump forward this season. I would prefer to hold onto him, but again I think Gibson is that good and at the moment he is cost effective.

.

I think you are right I think it would take either the first or Bennett but I'm still not doing either. The only think that would change my mind is if the flames completely lose the draft and wind up 8th and none of Tkachuk, Nylander or Dubois were there then I would trade the flames first.

I just don't value Gibson enough to give up that kind of price. I think the flames could get other goalies that while maybe arnt as good are still good enough to contend and won't cost Bennett or their first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree....funny how that works....I thought you wanted a proven vet? ;)

I don't have a preference. I don't want another goalie with zero NHL experience but I have no problem with guys like Gibson, Vasilevsky etc. Ideally you'd get a goalie in the 23-25 year old range but it's more challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BT has also said "the net will go far and wide" to fix our goaltending situation. I think a better perspective comes from tonight's draft lotto as it also presents options for consideration leading up to draft day.

That just means he's going to look and inquire everywhere (other teams, Colleges, Europe, etc)  doesnt mean he will get one at any cost . Im sure he'll ask about Carey Price and / or King Henry.. pretty sure he wont like the price tag tho .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just means he's going to look and inquire everywhere (other teams, Colleges, Europe, etc)  doesnt mean he will get one at any cost . Im sure he'll ask about Carey Price and / or King Henry.. pretty sure he wont like the price tag tho .

I doubt very much that he asks about Price or Lundquist but I do think BT has an eye for quality to fit our situation. I am going to stick with a previous position on here that our search for a quality goaltender starts with the 2nd 1st round pick from DAL if we get it. I agree with cross that we don't crazy with ideas of using our 1st overall and someone like Bennett to get the job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt very much that he asks about Price or Lundquist but I do think BT has an eye for quality to fit our situation. I am going to stick with a previous position on here that our search for a quality goaltender starts with the 2nd 1st round pick from DAL if we get it. I agree with cross that we don't crazy with ideas of using our 1st overall and someone like Bennett to get the job done.

 

Of course he'll ask, he has to ask.. sometimes answers can surprise you .. but don't worry , im not suggesting for one second these players would be available.

 

and true, like i put earlier Bennett will not be considered for any deal  no matter who it is ..I'm sure of that .

if we slip to 8th.. and the right player is being discussed .. i can see that one being considered ..  no idea who that might be tho .. I don't think Gibson warrants it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree....funny how that works....I thought you wanted a proven vet?  ;)

 

With regards to the Flames untouchables, I do feel right now that everyone in that list is Basically untouchable at the moment, with Maybe the exception of Gaudreau.    But even Gaudreau....there is just no way.    Unless Gibson was a just an extra in part of a larger deal.

 

Gaudreau, for Shea Theodore and Gibson?   Maybe that would be more of a fair trade, still don't know if I like it.

 

So, while most of us would love to have Gibson here, very few of us are willing to over-pay for him, and I doubt the Flames are either.   Meanwhile, still very hard to imagine Anaheim giving him up.

 

So, we shall see.

Gaudreau is a non-starter, end of story. In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of anyone I would trade straight up for Gaudreau at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

With regards to the Flames untouchables, I do feel right now that everyone in that list is Basically untouchable at the moment, with Maybe the exception of Gaudreau.    But even Gaudreau....there is just no way.    Unless Gibson was a just an extra in part of a larger deal.

 

Gaudreau, for Shea Theodore and Gibson?   Maybe that would be more of a fair trade, still don't know if I like it.

...

 

 

I wouldn't trade Gaudreau.  FULL STOP.

 

He is in the Best Young Forward in the League category.  Two year in the league and he has done nothing but improve.  The GM that pulled that deal would face an army of pitchforks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't consider Bennett either. Backs maybe but even then it would have to be for a top Netminder.

I wouldn't do Bennett straight up for Gibson but the article read Gibson and 1 of Fowler or Vatanen.

The D man above & beyond Gibson makes the deal worth doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in Calgary treats Goodrow like a god. He is undeniably a highly skilled player but I still wonder if he is too small. Look at the hard hitting playoff games this season so far, and imagine him in there. I know, this angle will draw a lot of flack, with descriptions of where the direction of the game is going, etc.. He would command a top trade (not saying it should happen necessarily) but the media and fans would never stop crying. The Ducks won't want him because of his size.

 

Bennett will develop into a star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in Calgary treats Goodrow like a god. He is undeniably a highly skilled player but I still wonder if he is too small. Look at the hard hitting playoff games this season so far, and imagine him in there. I know, this angle will draw a lot of flack, with descriptions of where the direction of the game is going, etc.. He would command a top trade (not saying it should happen necessarily) but the media and fans would never stop crying. The Ducks won't want him because of his size.

 

Bennett will develop into a star.

 

You mean Barklay Goodrow of the Sharks?  :)

 

Too small.  Not enough truculence.  Heard it all before.  How many 2nd year wingers get 78 points in 79 games?  On a bottom 5 team?  I'm not sure what he has to do to convince you that he is an all star, and a crucial player for the Flames to compete every game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean Barklay Goodrow of the Sharks?   :)

 

Too small.  Not enough truculence.  Heard it all before.  How many 2nd year wingers get 78 points in 79 games?  On a bottom 5 team?  I'm not sure what he has to do to convince you that he is an all star, and a crucial player for the Flames to compete every game.

No, Godrow of the Flames :)

I had never heard of this word truculence; I had to look it up :unsure: Disposed or eager to fight or engage in hostile opposition; belligerent. 2. Showing or expressing bitter opposition or hostility; aggressively defiant.

Godrow is extremely talented. He is truculent in getting goals not fighting minutes. 78 points in 79 game is unarguably good for any player in any year but those are not playoff performance indicators. Look at the shrinking Sedin sisters; they are/were all stars too, and have been crucial for the Canucks to compete. Who can argue any of that? What it would take to convince me would be substantial playoff success. There is only one way to know for sure but it takes more than offense to win a cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in Calgary treats Goodrow like a god. He is undeniably a highly skilled player but I still wonder if he is too small. Look at the hard hitting playoff games this season so far, and imagine him in there. I know, this angle will draw a lot of flack, with descriptions of where the direction of the game is going, etc.. He would command a top trade (not saying it should happen necessarily) but the media and fans would never stop crying. The Ducks won't want him because of his size.

 

Bennett will develop into a star.

Are you actually saying trade JH for a Goaltender?

 

The Ducks or just about any team would grab him in a heartbeat if they could.

 

"this angle might draw a lot of Flack"? .. please don't take this personal.... Are you nuts???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Godrow of the Flames :)

I had never heard of this word truculence; I had to look it up :unsure:Disposed or eager to fight or engage in hostile opposition; belligerent. 2. Showing or expressing bitter opposition or hostility; aggressively defiant.

Godrow is extremely talented. He is truculent in getting goals not fighting minutes. 78 points in 79 game is unarguably good for any player in any year but those are not playoff performance indicators. Look at the shrinking Sedin sisters; they are/were all stars too, and have been crucial for the Canucks to compete. Who can argue any of that? What it would take to convince me would be substantial playoff success. There is only one way to know for sure but it takes more than offense to win a cup.

 

Truculence was a word used by Burke as an asset he liked.  Grit, meanness, etc...

 

Gaudreau helped lead his team to the playoffs in 2014/15.  He managed 6 points in 6 games against the Nucks, while posting 2g and 1a in 5 games against the Ducks.  One year in the playoffs and he had 9 points.  If they don't make the playoffs, is that the fault of a point per game player?  Ovi never won a cup, or even made the finals; he must not be dominant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you actually saying trade JH for a Goaltender?

 

The Ducks or just about any team would grab him in a heartbeat if they could.

 

"this angle might draw a lot of Flack"? .. please don't take this personal.... Are you nuts???

Wow. I deserve whatever flack comes for voicing such an angle. Sure Godrow is quite the commodity right now. Time will tell what kind of a team he would need to be on to win a cup.

Answer to your first question: No. I don't think I actually said that; I will go back and check. I would have said that if that was what I meant but some people throw Bennett's name around like he's expendable weight. His game will shine when he develops physically.

Answer to your second question: Yes, just ask anyone, but please don't hold that against me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truculence was a word used by Burke as an asset he liked.  Grit, meanness, etc...

 

Gaudreau helped lead his team to the playoffs in 2014/15.  He managed 6 points in 6 games against the Nucks, while posting 2g and 1a in 5 games against the Ducks.  One year in the playoffs and he had 9 points.  If they don't make the playoffs, is that the fault of a point per game player?  Ovi never won a cup, or even made the finals; he must not be dominant.

If truculence is a word Burke likes, I will be sure to stay away from it. :o:lol:

 

It wouldn't be all Godrow's fault if the Flames made the playoffs or not, absolutely not. Ovi contributes though in other aforementioned ways too. There is no comparison IMO between the two players. I don't hate Godrow. I think he needs a certain strong well rounded team around him.

 

Ovi and the Caps have yet another crack at it this year. That will be interesting.

 

You know when you are playing hockey with a very skilled player but you would pick a different guy because he has more tools in many areas of the game? That's how I feel, that's all. :)

 

Go Johnny Go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a super goalie is THE most important thing in a Stanly Cup win but even a super goalie can't hold up the world.

 

I think the Flames need that proven tender that will allow them to make calculated changes to the roster and team play, while not wondering so much if losses are the fault of the goaltending or not, someone they can depend on back there. The Flames have to put the best goalie they can out there as a starter. Goaltending needs to be top notch now and into the building future. It doesn't have to be the same goalie during that period, just the best possible goalie/s fit available. There will be flow in transition of the right players and goalies. To put a 'maybe' in there is not optimum reasoning at anytime. Let's face it, the team has to come up with money to purchase while keeping the strong players that are going to fit that strong team.

 

Remember the Canadien had one of the lowest payrolls in the league and they were the contender. Do you want to win a cup or do you want to make the best buck? They held together a team of fine players (goaltenders included) who wanted to win cups. Start with that mentality... Iggy seemed to have that attitude.

 

OK, but I'm nuts and my back is getting sore. :wacko::) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I deserve whatever flack comes for voicing such an angle. Sure Godrow is quite the commodity right now. Time will tell what kind of a team he would need to be on to win a cup.

Answer to your first question: No. I don't think I actually said that; I will go back and check. I would have said that if that was what I meant but some people throw Bennett's name around like he's expendable weight. His game will shine when he develops physically.

Answer to your second question: Yes, just ask anyone, but please don't hold that against me. :)

It is JOHNNY GAUDREAU on the Flames website. Maybe you are taking a lot of flack about another player called Goodrow / Godrow. If so my bad and my mistake.

 

However if we are talking the same player then let us at least spell our most coveted players name right when you want to trade him away.  :P

 

There is good reason why JH is considered core and pretty much untradeable. Size has nothing to do with that thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is JOHNNY GAUDREAU on the Flames website. Maybe you are taking a lot of flack about another player called Goodrow / Godrow. If so my bad and my mistake.

 

However if we are talking the same player then let us at least spell our most coveted players name right when you want to trade him away.  :P

 

There is good reason why JH is considered core and pretty much untradeable. Size has nothing to do with that thinking.

No, it's the same guy for pete's sake. :)  I was yoking around; being lighthearted. I will probably affectionately use that moniker for JH for some time to come. I will spell it Godreau for clarity. There are no bads or mistakes going on. I hope they get his name right when they dump him :lol: I'm enjoying this whole thread.

 

Ya, he is obviously franchise player potential, and the org is culturing that idea for him (and Monahan). I mean the fans and media have already nearly 'Iggied' him. You are 100% right that size has nothing to do with being pretty well untradeable (at this point) but in a hard assed game such is playoff hockey, size has got something to do with it.

 

I say again though, to whatever Bennett critics may be listening, don't throw him under the bus quite yet. He has a lot of growing to do. I can see something great in him too. <_<

 

Lets look at goalies without blowing away the strong members of the core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's the same guy for pete's sake. :)  I was yoking around; being lighthearted. I will probably affectionately use that moniker for JH for some time to come. I will spell it Godreau for clarity. There are no bads or mistakes going on. I hope they get his name right when they dump him :lol: I'm enjoying this whole thread.

 

Ya, he is obviously franchise player potential, and the org is culturing that idea for him (and Monahan). I mean the fans and media have already nearly 'Iggied' him. You are 100% right that size has nothing to do with being pretty well untradeable (at this point) but in a hard assed game such is playoff hockey, size has got something to do with it.

 

I say again though, to whatever Bennett critics may be listening, don't throw him under the bus quite yet. He has a lot of growing to do. I can see something great in him too. <_<

 

Lets look at goalies without blowing away the strong members of the core.

Well there would be a lot to be debated if we are able to find a franchise goalie. I personally would not let JH go for one, but some here would. In my mind he is going to sell too many jerseys and too many tickets to let go in a trade.

 

Interesting you have him Iggyfied status already. Maybe. Everyone likes a little feel good(row) story.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...