Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

No Center means everything is for not.  If we move one or both of Tkachuk and Gaudreau then we absolutely have to return Eichel or equivalent.  Bumping Backlund up to 2nd line Center when he should be bumped down to 3rd line Center is exactly the opposite thing we should do.


maybe we get Eichel but I don’t see a deal there. It would be suicide to trade for Eichel. Trading for him creates Too many holes. 
 

what other centers could be available? 
 

I think it’ll end up a UFA signing…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like trades as much as the next person but dealing MrT would be a mistake like I have said before teams would kill to have his type of player in there ranks trading him would make us worse not better I don't trust BTs ability to make good trades and sure wouldn't want to risk losing MrT to another foolish trade like Bennett or Kulak just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

what other centers could be available? 

 

No other Center at that level is available.  We have to go all in if we want to win now.

 

Of course, I want us to rebuild but if this team wants to win now, then the first move to make is to get Eichel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2021 at 3:57 PM, sak22 said:

Who knows.  Fox wasn't gifted 20 minutes and top PP to start in New York, didn't even get the top PP until DeAngelo left, he gave the Rangers no choice but to play him. 

 

It may seem like that but the reality is Fox was playing 20+ minutes nearly every single night a full season before DeAngelo left:

https://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/7174/gamelog/?selectedTable=0&season=2019

 

I will agree with you that his PP time and minutes continued to increase, but he was Always given loads and loads of ice time.

 

Quote

Gaudreau wasn't gifted top 6 or PP1 out the gate, he gave them no choice but to play him more,

 

Yes he was gifted this, actually.  Out of the gate no, in his first couple months, yes.  And that is the relevant part of the discussion.   One of the only times the Flames got this right, he was an older rookie coming here from US College.

 

Quote

Monahan was bottom 6 most of his rookie year,

 

Another way of saying this, and a more accurate and relevant way, is that Monahan was promoted to top 6 at the age of 19.   IMHO, he could have used another year of junior, but to say that Monahan was held back young, is simply not something we can say.

 

Quote

Gio was a bottom pairing guy until he started outplaying all the multimillionaires.  Nothing wrong with starting guys low and making them earn it.

 

Gio was a top pairing guy in the OHL, AHL, and then Russia before becoming a top pairing guy in Calgary.
Admittedly yes, his first full season here he was not the top pairing guy but he moved up pretty quickly after that.

 

 

I'm not necessarily saying anyone's wrong.    We don't have much to brag about when it comes to development.   Your best arguement here and I would argue ONLY argument is a 39 year old D.   That pretty much says it all.   On the other hand, we don't have much in the way of prospects either, we're incredibly thin.

 

So are our current projects being given a chance?  probably not.    Are they the next Adam Fox?  Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2021 at 5:20 PM, robrob74 said:


i don’t get what you’re saying…

 

Hamilton was a true Top2 D RHS and Ferland was no slouch. That should have been equal to a crappy Hanifin who had a lot of negative reviews and only amount to a top4 D. Is a top 2? Debatable. On the Flames, yes. On a contender, no.

 

Lindholm had some pluses, but also someone at the time that was not living up to the projected player he was supposed to be…

 

yes, the Flames should have traded fox in a separate deal. I said at the time of the deal and I will say it again… 

 

the canes made the deal, and it should’ve been up to them to sign or keep both ferland and Hamilton.

 

if it were me, I don’t do the deal if Fox is in it, unless the Canes added more to the deal. I back out. Or the canes add. 
 

the word on  the street was Fox was the real deal at the time of the deal. Maybe they only add another 2nd or 3rd to the deal but in my view, the deal was even without fox in it. To say, “oh well, he wasn’t signing here anyway,” doesn’t cut it…

 

This is a bad narrative, because almost no one says that. If Fox was willing to sign here, he'd still be here the fact that he wasn't going to sign here only made his inclusion in this deal possible. It's a leap to go from that to say he was a throw in. 

 

What I am saying is when you break down the deal Hamilon and Ferland for Lindholm and Hanifin was not going to fly for Carolina. They only had Ferland for 1 more year, Hamilton for 3 before both were UFA. Sure it's up to the Canes to keep them but at the same time any team is going to look at the long term asset management of a deal of this magnitude as you are trading core pieces. Canes were giving up 2 players who would have been part of their long term future, and who could be signed for cheaper, for 2 players who could be gone in a few years.  That's where Fox came in. 

 

You could say ok well then take Fox out and give them a pick or something to offset it but I think a future piece was needed to even the deal for Carolina. Given that Fox wasn't going to sign here, and turned out to only be wroth a couple of 2nds away I don't see it as a problem that he was in the deal to make it happen. And that's from someone who still doesn't love the deal for the Flames. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

This is a bad narrative, because almost no one says that. If Fox was willing to sign here, he'd still be here the fact that he wasn't going to sign here only made his inclusion in this deal possible. It's a leap to go from that to say he was a throw in. 

 

What I am saying is when you break down the deal Hamilon and Ferland for Lindholm and Hanifin was not going to fly for Carolina. They only had Ferland for 1 more year, Hamilton for 3 before both were UFA. Sure it's up to the Canes to keep them but at the same time any team is going to look at the long term asset management of a deal of this magnitude as you are trading core pieces. Canes were giving up 2 players who would have been part of their long term future, and who could be signed for cheaper, for 2 players who could be gone in a few years.  That's where Fox came in. 

 

You could say ok well then take Fox out and give them a pick or something to offset it but I think a future piece was needed to even the deal for Carolina. Given that Fox wasn't going to sign here, and turned out to only be wroth a couple of 2nds away I don't see it as a problem that he was in the deal to make it happen. And that's from someone who still doesn't love the deal for the Flames. 


but that’s where you’re going hindsight. You can say now that they only had them for this long or that long. You can’t play hindsight both ways. Lindholm and Hanifin’s values were not as high at the time. They were young promising players who weren’t reaching their potential that Carolina didn’t want anything to do with. They weren’t willing to pay what Calgary was going to pay them. In Calgary they broke out, and no one saw that coming, especially with Lindholm. Now we can look at the deal and be like, he was definitely worth more. Funny how people aren’t allowed to use hindsight in some circumstances yet in others it’s perfectly fine. 
For me it was an even deal without Fox in it. We lucked out that Lindholm was that player because he wasn’t that player for them. He averaged just over 30 points a year to that point in his career.
 

amd I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. I will always think Fox should have been traded in a deal on its own. 
 

I went from excited to hear about a deal and suddenly gutted when I heard fox was in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, robrob74 said:


but that’s where you’re going hindsight. You can say now that they only had them for this long or that long. You can’t play hindsight both ways. Lindholm and Hanifin’s values were not as high at the time. They were young promising players who weren’t reaching their potential that Carolina didn’t want anything to do with. They weren’t willing to pay what Calgary was going to pay them. In Calgary they broke out, and no one saw that coming, especially with Lindholm. Now we can look at the deal and be like, he was definitely worth more. Funny how people aren’t allowed to use hindsight in some circumstances yet in others it’s perfectly fine. 
For me it was an even deal without Fox in it. We lucked out that Lindholm was that player because he wasn’t that player for them. He averaged just over 30 points a year to that point in his career.
 

amd I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. I will always think Fox should have been traded in a deal on its own. 
 

I went from excited to hear about a deal and suddenly gutted when I heard fox was in it.

 

 

I'm not, I've been saying this since the deal got made. I wasn't happy about the deal at first and like you was mad when Fox was it in, but once you take a step back, review it and look at all factors it made sense to me especially when you look at the contract values. I didn't even mention the fact that Ferland was a medical risk when the Flames traded him too. 

 

Lindholm was signaled out by Brind A'mour at the end of the season as a player he wanted to use differently and find a way to get scoring more, so no this was not a case of they dealt players they wanted nothing to do with. 

 

To each their own and you can believe what you want. All i'm saying is that if you insist Fox should have been dealt on his own then I don't think this deal happens and the Flames are no better off today, could be worse, had they done it that way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel Fox at a 3rd round 66th OA (that wasn't going to sign here) was worth (at the time) getting that deal done. There were not any teams at that time willing to give up a single 2nd to get Fox. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Athletic is reporting that Tarasenko has asked for a trade.

 

 

From a Flames angle, I would potentially consider Monahan for Tarasenko. Both players have injury concerns. Tarasenko holds all the cards though, the Flames would need to do a good job of pitching him on why it would make sense to come here.

 

The Athletic lists NYI, CAR, VGK and BOS as potential fits 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

The Athletic is reporting that Tarasenko has asked for a trade.

 

 

From a Flames angle, I would potentially consider Monahan for Tarasenko. Both players have injury concerns. Tarasenko holds all the cards though, the Flames would need to do a good job of pitching him on why it would make sense to come here.

 

The Athletic lists NYI, CAR, VGK and BOS as potential fits 

Not interested, just what we need a injury prone plsyer past his prime... No thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

The Athletic is reporting that Tarasenko has asked for a trade.

 

 

From a Flames angle, I would potentially consider Monahan for Tarasenko. Both players have injury concerns. Tarasenko holds all the cards though, the Flames would need to do a good job of pitching him on why it would make sense to come here.

 

The Athletic lists NYI, CAR, VGK and BOS as potential fits 

 

For me, Eichel is top priority and once we spend all the bullets on Eichel and get our #1 Center, then i'm very comfortable moving Monahan for Tarasenko (assuming straight up).

 

My first instinct is NO, not interested in Tarasenko.  Word is his should is done so maybe he's just a 20-goal scorer moving forward.  As for Monahan, we don't know what he is anymore.  Not a #1 Center... but someone like Lindholm can play 2nd line Center just fine so... Monahan could be expendable.  Anyways, land Eichel first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya. I’m still of the belief that Eichel is in the realm of possibility and should be the priority target for the flames. Buffalo, as much as they say they want to move forward with their young 3 core players, they’re going to need some mentoring and players to play with them - it can’t be all futures or Buffalo risks the same result as they got with Eichel. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Mony and Johnny are in the age range that would be desirable for Buffalo - they don’t want grey beards to mentor - the big issue is those 2 have little term remaining. If Buffalo showed interest in those 2 players and this was the sticking point, I’d have no problem letting Buffalo talk to both Mony and Johnny’s camp about extending and getting to continue to play together. We know they’re close off the ice as well. Moves them both closer to family as well. 
 

And if we can pull that off, why not talk about the inclusion of Backlund and Reinhart in the deal? 2Cs and a star winger (plus whatever else - pick/prospect) for a star C and C/RW? 
 

2nd priority is poaching someone good from the damn tampon bay lightning. There’s opportunity there. Wish we could’ve OS’d Point… or at least wished some other team would’ve OS’d him. Aside from the $18mil over the cap, we all forget about the broker deals Detroit made for TB to retain salary on players they acquired. Didn’t Detroit retain half of Savard’s salary out of CBJ? Clearly more than the $18mil over everyone’s talking about. Bubble Cup* and Cap Circumvention Cup*… oh, and how can we forget the It was in Cup*… blemishes on all 3 of TB’s championships. So there. 😏

 

3rd - If we can alleviate ourselves of Backlund - target Danault as his replacement.  
 

PS> I really don’t give a flying puck about Fox. On one hand it shows our scouts had one right for a change, on the other the kid would’ve never played for anyone but the blue shirts. The fact we got something for him after he chose to go back on his word, it is what it is. Karma will come knocking. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do you ppl think we could get for Wolf I believe bring him this Franchise will ruin him seems every goalie we have drafted has been destroyed by our goalie coaches best to get what we can for him and move on why kill another players future by bringing him into this system and watch him decline like gill and  Parsons. I know I have very little faith in the management when it comes to there coaching decisions I just don't understand why every drafted goalie we have gotten falls apart here. I also know I have very little knowledge compared to every one here but I have watch enough to see something is very wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lou44291 said:

2nd priority is poaching someone good from the damn tampon bay lightning. There’s opportunity there. Wish we could’ve OS’d Point… or at least wished some other team would’ve OS’d him. Aside from the $18mil over the cap, we all forget about the broker deals Detroit made for TB to retain salary on players they acquired. Didn’t Detroit retain half of Savard’s salary out of CBJ? Clearly more than the $18mil over everyone’s talking about. Bubble Cup* and Cap Circumvention Cup*… oh, and how can we forget the It was in Cup*… blemishes on all 3 of TB’s championships. So there. 😏

 

Of the 18 million there was 7.5 that was acquired of LTIR guys from Ottawa with Gaborik and Nilsson, a trade that essentially cut 3 million from Tampa's cap and saw them pay 7.5 million for guys who weren't going to play, one of whom hasn't played in 3 years.  Nobody had a problem with that at the time.  The problem is really Kucherov, but again who really wants to go into a season without their best forward, and credit for the player, can't think of too many guys who can get hurt in September and not play until May and dominate, its essentially like a player getting hurt in preseason and returning for the conference finals in a normal year.  What I find funny with the complaints about Tampa, is that every fanbase wouldn't give a crap if their team did it, people here would do cartwheels if Lucic, Giordano or Backlund were thrown on LTIR to start the season.  The Flames have done their own cap work in the past, either LTIRing Warrener, or burying guys like Eriksson and Kotalik.  Everybody does it at some point, only the ones who do it best get the hate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

For me, Eichel is top priority and once we spend all the bullets on Eichel and get our #1 Center, then i'm very comfortable moving Monahan for Tarasenko (assuming straight up).

 

My first instinct is NO, not interested in Tarasenko.  Word is his should is done so maybe he's just a 20-goal scorer moving forward.  As for Monahan, we don't know what he is anymore.  Not a #1 Center... but someone like Lindholm can play 2nd line Center just fine so... Monahan could be expendable.  Anyways, land Eichel first.

 

If you get Eichel, then you are as likely to move Lindholm to the wing and keep Monahan.

Gaudreau-Eichel-Lindholm/RW

Mangiapane-Monahan-RW/Lindholm

 

Trading Monahan for Tank doesn't make you better.

Still need to add a RW.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If you get Eichel, then you are as likely to move Lindholm to the wing and keep Monahan.

Gaudreau-Eichel-Lindholm/RW

Mangiapane-Monahan-RW/Lindholm

 

Trading Monahan for Tank doesn't make you better.

Still need to add a RW.

 

 

We don't even know what Monahan is after surgery.  We could make the case Lindholm was a better Center than Monahan all of last season.  Lindholm should remain at Center.

 

Tkachuk - Eichel - Tarasenko

Mangiapane - Lindholm - Dube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

We don't even know what Monahan is after surgery.  We could make the case Lindholm was a better Center than Monahan all of last season.  Lindholm should remain at Center.

 

Tkachuk - Eichel - Tarasenko

Mangiapane - Lindholm - Dube

 

There is some suggestion that Monahan was ailing the entire year, which would back up why he dropped off the map.

He potentially returns to 17/18 form with a chance of being like 19/20 instead.

But, we are banking on a guy with a bad back and a guy that wants out because team doctors botched him shoulder surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make the argument that Monahan will "bounce back" but that's not the primary question for me. Sure he can bounce back but the question is more even if he does bounce back is that level of player good enough to execute the center position in Sutter's system?

 

I don't have the answer but I would consider it highly unlikely and judging by the fact his name seems to be out there I think we know where the team stands on that as well. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

You can make the argument that Monahan will "bounce back" but that's not the primary question for me. Sure he can bounce back but the question is more even if he does bounce back is that level of player good enough to execute the center position in Sutter's system?

 

I don't have the answer but I would consider it highly unlikely and judging by the fact his name seems to be out there I think we know where the team stands on that as well. 

 

 

 

Banking on Eichel's back or Taraseko's shoulders seems as much a risk or more.

But you raise a good point about Sutter system.

Who fits that?

 

I do think the talk is about Monahan because of some expectation to get a #1C.  Backlund has shown that he's an effective #2 and could form the old 3M line.

But I'm not sure that any improvement.

 

Monahan for a top 6 RW?  Sure, if he's a durable one coming back.

Monahan for a top 6 C?  Sure, but teams don't trade better players for an injury risk player.

Monahan for a top 2 D?  Sure.  I'm down with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, zima said:

So what do you ppl think we could get for Wolf I believe bring him this Franchise will ruin him seems every goalie we have drafted has been destroyed by our goalie coaches best to get what we can for him and move on why kill another players future by bringing him into this system and watch him decline like gill and  Parsons. I know I have very little faith in the management when it comes to there coaching decisions I just don't understand why every drafted goalie we have gotten falls apart here. I also know I have very little knowledge compared to every one here but I have watch enough to see something is very wrong.

 

I have an uneducated guess, but I think we have poor coaching, like you said, and then also tend to ride goalies into the ground. We either over-play them or under-play them. There's no plan. Maybe that is the development too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I have an uneducated guess, but I think we have poor coaching, like you said, and then also tend to ride goalies into the ground. We either over-play them or under-play them. There's no plan. Maybe that is the development too. 

 

I'm not a fan of what Sigalet has done in the NHL for goalies, but I don't know how he has ruined prospects in the AHL etc.

Gillies never managed to outplay Rittich there, and Gillies had a lost season due to surgery.

Gillies was given the lion's share of starts when Rittich stayed in the NHL.

Parsons battled injuries and mental health.

 

As much as I blame Sigalet, is it nature or nurture at work here.

Gillies looks like a big goalie that used his size to win, and when he played too deep, he played small.

He never managed to take any positive steps in the AHL.

Parsons played on a stacked Knights team and WJC team.

Never asserted himself as the guy in Stockton or Calgary, and battled another injury this year.

 

We gave up on Brossoit before we got a look at him.

 

But, we have to have coaches that need to manage starts better.

This year was a poor example, but the other years have bad too.

We've had 3 years at least where we had 1a/1b situations and played like we had a #1 only.

We've managed to waste that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm not a fan of what Sigalet has done in the NHL for goalies, but I don't know how he has ruined prospects in the AHL etc.

Gillies never managed to outplay Rittich there, and Gillies had a lost season due to surgery.

Gillies was given the lion's share of starts when Rittich stayed in the NHL.

Parsons battled injuries and mental health.

 

As much as I blame Sigalet, is it nature or nurture at work here.

Gillies looks like a big goalie that used his size to win, and when he played too deep, he played small.

He never managed to take any positive steps in the AHL.

Parsons played on a stacked Knights team and WJC team.

Never asserted himself as the guy in Stockton or Calgary, and battled another injury this year.

 

We gave up on Brossoit before we got a look at him.

 

But, we have to have coaches that need to manage starts better.

This year was a poor example, but the other years have bad too.

We've had 3 years at least where we had 1a/1b situations and played like we had a #1 only.

We've managed to waste that.

 

 

What I wonder is though, I don't think it has to do with Siglet in general, but maybe an organizational goaltending philosophy(?). Just how are they developing them? It's hard to say because we don't see what they get them to work on. Plus I am no goalie expert. The only things I can see are how composed a goalie is, their positioning and their reflexes. I'd make a terrible goalie coach. 

 

I liked Rittich. 

 

Other than Rittich maybe the organization doesn't do a very good job of scouting goalies? But injuries were a factor for both. Irving wasn't great. Brossoit turned out to be a decent backup but that was after he left Calgary's development system. Very long ago, but McElleney turned out to be a decent backup. 

 

For me, when Rittich was in the A, I was not happy that he was getting the brunt of starts. I thought it would be best to play your best prospect goalie as a starter. I didn't get why they were doing the play on merit thing. I do get it, but I think it can be a catch-22. If the player isn't progressing or earning a start or playing time, then you can't play them, but if they have the talent and need to continue to grow, they need the playing time. 

 

Thing is, with Dube, Mangiapane, and Monahan, they put in the work. Mangiapane was the type that was underestimated his whole career so he had the drive. Dude has a similar drive. Monahan had the drive as well. I am with someone else though, who thinks Monahan could have used one more year developing. Andersson was also developed well. 

 

I think development could be an organizational need. 

 

It doesn't sound like we have a quick fix. We can't afford Eichel. Maybe we get OEL if Giordano is taken by Seattle? I don't know which way BT is going to fix this? 

 

You don't seem to think we have as many holes. Maybe we don't, but the fix of the holes we do have just isn't as easy as we think it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

For me, when Rittich was in the A, I was not happy that he was getting the brunt of starts. I thought it would be best to play your best prospect goalie as a starter. I didn't get why they were doing the play on merit thing. I do get it, but I think it can be a catch-22. If the player isn't progressing or earning a start or playing time, then you can't play them, but if they have the talent and need to continue to grow, they need the playing time. 

 

Ya where's the balance between developing a kid by giving them ice time and yet, don't spoil the kid?  I get if we are going to develop a 1st line scoring forward that you then gotta put him on the PP and stuff in the minors.  The NHL is the "win now" league and the AHL should be a "development" league.  Play the kids with the highest ceilings regardless if they win or not.

 

But sometimes, playing too much and not getting results can also be devastating to confidence.  We could of started Gillies over Rittich 90% of the time but if Gillies just isn't playing well then you are going to get to a point where he loses all confidence and completely crumbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

What I wonder is though, I don't think it has to do with Siglet in general, but maybe an organizational goaltending philosophy(?). Just how are they developing them? It's hard to say because we don't see what they get them to work on. Plus I am no goalie expert. The only things I can see are how composed a goalie is, their positioning and their reflexes. I'd make a terrible goalie coach. 

 

I liked Rittich. 

 

Other than Rittich maybe the organization doesn't do a very good job of scouting goalies? But injuries were a factor for both. Irving wasn't great. Brossoit turned out to be a decent backup but that was after he left Calgary's development system. Very long ago, but McElleney turned out to be a decent backup. 

 

For me, when Rittich was in the A, I was not happy that he was getting the brunt of starts. I thought it would be best to play your best prospect goalie as a starter. I didn't get why they were doing the play on merit thing. I do get it, but I think it can be a catch-22. If the player isn't progressing or earning a start or playing time, then you can't play them, but if they have the talent and need to continue to grow, they need the playing time. 

 

Thing is, with Dube, Mangiapane, and Monahan, they put in the work. Mangiapane was the type that was underestimated his whole career so he had the drive. Dude has a similar drive. Monahan had the drive as well. I am with someone else though, who thinks Monahan could have used one more year developing. Andersson was also developed well. 

 

I think development could be an organizational need. 

 

It doesn't sound like we have a quick fix. We can't afford Eichel. Maybe we get OEL if Giordano is taken by Seattle? I don't know which way BT is going to fix this? 

 

You don't seem to think we have as many holes. Maybe we don't, but the fix of the holes we do have just isn't as easy as we think it is.  

 

Brossoit never actually became part of the organization; 2 games in the AHL and 3 in ECHL.  For some stupid reason he was included in a trade.  Another Feaster move.

I wouldn't really say he's done anything to bother looking at.  Maybe at best a backup.

 

Gillies really didn't get passed over for AHL starts for Rittich.  In the two years they both played there Gillies play 39 and 39, while Rittich played 31 and 12.

In that first year, Rittich was far superior.

 

I see the holes.

So, my wish list is:

A great 1b goalie in case Markstrom gets injured.

A top 2D; at this point I'm not sure who the partner would be now or in the future.

A big bruising D.

A top 6 RW.

A top 6 C.

4th line.

 

The harder part is how we do that and maintain what we already had.

Dealing Tkachuk for Eichel gets us that #1C, but we need then a RW to replace him in the top 6.

You may need to move Monahan for a top 2D, if you could get that.

And then move a prospect for a RW or sign one in FA.

That's only realistic if Gio gets claimed.

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

What I wonder is though, I don't think it has to do with Siglet in general, but maybe an organizational goaltending philosophy(?). Just how are they developing them? It's hard to say because we don't see what they get them to work on. Plus I am no goalie expert. The only things I can see are how composed a goalie is, their positioning and their reflexes. I'd make a terrible goalie coach. 

 

I liked Rittich. 

 

Other than Rittich maybe the organization doesn't do a very good job of scouting goalies? But injuries were a factor for both. Irving wasn't great. Brossoit turned out to be a decent backup but that was after he left Calgary's development system. Very long ago, but McElleney turned out to be a decent backup. 

 

For me, when Rittich was in the A, I was not happy that he was getting the brunt of starts. I thought it would be best to play your best prospect goalie as a starter. I didn't get why they were doing the play on merit thing. I do get it, but I think it can be a catch-22. If the player isn't progressing or earning a start or playing time, then you can't play them, but if they have the talent and need to continue to grow, they need the playing time. 

 

Thing is, with Dube, Mangiapane, and Monahan, they put in the work. Mangiapane was the type that was underestimated his whole career so he had the drive. Dude has a similar drive. Monahan had the drive as well. I am with someone else though, who thinks Monahan could have used one more year developing. Andersson was also developed well. 

 

I think development could be an organizational need. 

 

It doesn't sound like we have a quick fix. We can't afford Eichel. Maybe we get OEL if Giordano is taken by Seattle? I don't know which way BT is going to fix this? 

 

You don't seem to think we have as many holes. Maybe we don't, but the fix of the holes we do have just isn't as easy as we think it is.  

I don't know how Sigalet is being blamed in the development stages.  Since 2014 he's been the goaltending coach for the Flames, that year MacDonald was drafted and Gillies was still in college.  It's not like part of his job then was to coach either of them, on top of the goalies currently on the roster.  Same once they got to the minors.  He really only worked with MacDonald the little bit he was in camp, same with Parsons, and Gillies had a little more time but still only around 2 months with the big club.  Again I don't claim Sigalet was an awesome coach or anything, I just feel that we can't blame him for the prospects as he had little time to work with any of them, perhaps we need to stay on top of the minor league coaching.

 

In the past I'd say the Flames did a pretty decent job at the minor league level.  There was just a massive roadblock for any prospect as KIpper needed to play 76 games a year, but looking back all of Krahn, McElhinney, Keeltey and Irving showed decently in the minors, but who would've known McElhinney would struggle so much going long stretches without starts and only getting the 2nd half's of back to backs when the team was one of the older teams in the league.  I can at least say I was happy for him now with 2 rings as I felt he got a really raw deal here.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...