Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Ya, I guess that’s the gamble most want to take. I guess you take a cup over long term success. Now they have one strong core player and 4 good ones out of it. 

 

If it wins the cup? Tough call for me. The player has to be right. So it really depends. 

 

I think JTech might have it right, if it could get us another playmaker that Neal can play with, I would be happy with that. Secondary scoring could be coming around though.

oh, 100% agree.. it needs to be an impact player, like my note above about renting Duchesne for example...   im not giving it away , but I'm absolutely dangling it as bait to get that type of player 

 

 

I should add too,  Chicago's "mistake" was also trading the young players ..   tho even that if we are sitting here 6 years from now with 3 cups I'm giving them a pass to do what they had to, but overall BT has managed the cap way better than Chicago did 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

it was said at the time hes a project ,somebody ready to take the next step and then grow with the team..nobody was expecting immediate dividends.. I think if anything he has a higher upside than Mangiapane

 

 

i'd love to believe this is true..  could be just what Neal needs too..  https://foreverblueshirts.com/rangers-have-offer-from-flames-for-zuccarello/

 

 

 

1 hour ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

I dont like it. 6 years older,  same size as JH, having an off year,  for 4.5 mil.  Absolute hard no.   I want the team to get a little bigger heading into the playoffs.

 

A hard no from me too.  Unless the price is Czarnik or Mangiapane straight up (it won't be), I wouldn't want Zuccarello.  We need to add muscle going into the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

oh, 100% agree.. it needs to be an impact player, like my note above about renting Duchesne for example...   im not giving it away , but I'm absolutely dangling it as bait to get that type of player 

 

 

I should add too,  Chicago's "mistake" was also trading the young players ..   tho even that if we are sitting here 6 years from now with 3 cups I'm giving them a pass to do what they had to, but overall BT has managed the cap way better than Chicago did 

 

I think we got lucky that the transition to signing players off ELCs to big contracts was just sorta becoming a thing. We still got players like Lindholm on good deals, but lucky he didn’t want a bridge to see what he could do with the Flames.

 

BT has been excellent at it so I am not trying to dismiss it. If the Cap can keep going up, all of the deals will look like bargains soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The_People1 said:

 

 

A hard no from me too.  Unless the price is Czarnik or Mangiapane straight up (it won't be), I wouldn't want Zuccarello.  We need to add muscle going into the playoffs.

 

Yup, I would say at least someone who isn’t soft. We can play a somewhat physical game, but we also have a lot of small soft players. 

 

For me the question is, can they handle a tough hard seven game series without coming out broken. The small players can handle it from time to time so far as we’ve seen this season. So I get why Cross and others like them think the Flames are fine. So for me, they don’t have to be all muscle, but they just can’t be small and soft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know people want to be positive and that is great. If you like Smith personally fine, but the aggressive defending of him I don't understand. 

 

League rankings for Smith in various categories:

 

Goals saved above average - 2nd last

Save % - 2nd last for any goalie with more than 20 starts. 3rd last for any goalie with 10 or more. 

Quality start % - 7th worst of any goalie with 20 or more starts. 14th worst of any goalie with 10 or more.

Really bad starts (Starts with a save% below 85) - He ranks 6th. Most goalies ahead of him have started 9 or more games than he has. 

GAA - 17th worst of any goalie who has played 10 or more games. 

 

This is all behind a team that is in the top 10 in most defensive categories (except high danger chances where they rank 15th) and features a goalie who is among the top in most of these categories. Yes he was bad to start the year but at the same time in his last 5 games he has a save % of .890 and has given up less than 3 goals once. In his last 10 games he has a .88 Save % a 3.07 GAA, was pulled in 1 start and had a really bad start (save % below .85) in 2 others. 

 

Saying Mike Smith is not an NHL goalie is not being unfair or harsh, it is quite literally based on facts. I can appreciate that some still believe in him and think he can turn it around and that is great. But we are 2/3 of the way into the season so giving up on him seems like an equally rationale conclusion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I would say we are getting the Smith we know to be good coming back game by game. We need to put this constant fear aside and that would not be sticking anyone's head in the sand. Unless you watch Gilles play his games in the AHL it is difficult to have an informed opinion. One poster brought up the fact about the defense not being the greatest in Stockton which definitely effects our Goalies stats. Any time I have seen Gilles up he has looked good, things to work on but for the most part good. I would say our Goalie pipeline is in good shape especially leading into next season knowing what we have in Rittich.

 

I dunno.  Haven't seen many quality starts for him lately.  Detroit games were close calls.  I'll give him an excuse for the BOS game, since he played twioce in two night.  STL was bad.  PHI was bad.  ARI was a one-sided affair.  NASH and Minny were really good starts for him.

 

What I am gettinbg at is that since the PHI game, we're not sure of what to expect.  Has he rounded back into form or still on the road to it?  Given his "injury" history, relying on a healthy Smith to get to the playoffs is risky.  We've spent money on and developed depth in all positions except goaltending.  As far as Gillies goes, I rely on observations from a season ticket holder that blogs for FN.  He sees all the games and how Gillies can let two or three in, in a short period of time.  Sure the defense is less than stellar, but the competition is not world class either.

 

But anyway, I am arguing to pick up goaltending depth to get us to the playoffs, just for the posibility of an injury.  Like taking out insurance.  You probably don't need it, but nice to have if the cost is reasonable.

Share this post


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

 

For me the question is, can they handle a tough hard seven game series without coming out broken. The small players can handle it from time to time so far as we’ve seen this season. So I get why Cross and others like them think the Flames are fine. So for me, they don’t have to be all muscle, but they just can’t be small and soft.

 

Totals man.  Best is we get guys who will wear the other team down. No to Zuccarello, Dzingel, etc.  We are one of the highest scoring teams in the NHL.  We need size more.  We need another Hathaway-type preferable who can play higher up the depth chart.

Share this post


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

 

 

A hard no from me too.  Unless the price is Czarnik or Mangiapane straight up (it won't be), I wouldn't want Zuccarello.  We need to add muscle going into the playoffs.

shouldn't even cost you a player .. 2nd at the extreme most ..more like a 3rd ...   a 2nd last year got you Kane 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phoenix66 said:

shouldn't even cost you a player .. 2nd at the extreme most ..more like a 3rd ...   a 2nd last year got you Kane 

 

If it's a 3rd then sign me up.

 

But I'd still prefer a classic grinder playoff player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about looking at Muzzin from LA?

LHS, but it might stabilize the 2nd pairing in the playoffs.

Hanifin is still a work in progress, and while I think he will become a very good player, he's a ways off.

It may also allow you to keep Hanifin and Hamonic together and have a pairing of Muzzin-Ras.

 

Would have to be a reasonable cost, but he's cheap next year.  $4m. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

shouldn't even cost you a player .. 2nd at the extreme most ..more like a 3rd ...   a 2nd last year got you Kane 

 

Not quite. Kane cost a prospect, a conditional 2nd (that now became a first that he signed as a Shark) and a 4th. 

 

Grabner, who is similar calibre to Zucarello, also cost a 2nd a prospect. This is the current Ranger ask. 

Share this post


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

 

If it's a 3rd then sign me up.

 

But I'd still prefer a classic grinder playoff player.

So like a Simmonds?  I still think he's in my top 3 preferred adds for sure ....likely wouldn't want to pay to re-sign him , but for a playoff run he has the right combo of skills to really put this team over the top

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Not quite. Kane cost a prospect, a conditional 2nd (that now became a first that he signed as a Shark) and a 4th. 

 

Grabner, who is similar calibre to Zucarello, also cost a 2nd a prospect. This is the current Ranger ask. 

true enough , tho I would definitely rate Grabner ahead of Zuc..  if they are holding out for that same return i do hope its not us that pays it..

 

was wondering already , and after reading this I'm even more of the opinion Gillies could/ should be in play as well.. https://flamesnation.ca/2019/01/21/parsons-sets-record-in-heat-win/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

So like a Simmonds?  I still think he's in my top 3 preferred adds for sure ....likely wouldn't want to pay to re-sign him , but for a playoff run he has the right combo of skills to really put this team over the top

I like Simmonds as a player but where would he pencil in?  Dont really want to disrupt the top 3 lines, especially if Neal/Ryan/Bennet keep gelling.  A  third line caliber forward that will play on the fourth but could still move up if needed.

Share this post


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

I know people want to be positive and that is great. If you like Smith personally fine, but the aggressive defending of him I don't understand. 

 

League rankings for Smith in various categories:

 

Goals saved above average - 2nd last

Save % - 2nd last for any goalie with more than 20 starts. 3rd last for any goalie with 10 or more. 

Quality start % - 7th worst of any goalie with 20 or more starts. 14th worst of any goalie with 10 or more.

Really bad starts (Starts with a save% below 85) - He ranks 6th. Most goalies ahead of him have started 9 or more games than he has. 

GAA - 17th worst of any goalie who has played 10 or more games. 

 

This is all behind a team that is in the top 10 in most defensive categories (except high danger chances where they rank 15th) and features a goalie who is among the top in most of these categories. Yes he was bad to start the year but at the same time in his last 5 games he has a save % of .890 and has given up less than 3 goals once. In his last 10 games he has a .88 Save % a 3.07 GAA, was pulled in 1 start and had a really bad start (save % below .85) in 2 others. 

 

Saying Mike Smith is not an NHL goalie is not being unfair or harsh, it is quite literally based on facts. I can appreciate that some still believe in him and think he can turn it around and that is great. But we are 2/3 of the way into the season so giving up on him seems like an equally rationale conclusion. 

 

 

I would like to add that I have been a defender of Smith's and I liked the acquisition of him, up till this year. His play this year has fallen off a cliff and as Cross has pointed out above the stats don't lie.

 

In order to win you need to be deep at every position and right now our biggest weakness IMO is goaltending. Smith has been one of the worst goalies in the league so far and has shown no signs of turning it around. Gillies is posting a .867 save% and a 4.11 GAA in the AHL and has yet to show any kind of consistency at the pro level. Parsons has .875 career save % at the AHL, he might turn it around, but to say he is ready for NHL spot duty is an extreme long shot.

 

I will say it again Rittich has been fantastic, but till he proves he can win down the stretch and win in the playoffs, he is still unproven.

 

There is still a lot of questions and maybes at the most important position on the ice. I 100% get that people don't want to cough up big assets for guys like Howard or Bobrovsky, I get thinking and rationale behind not wanting one of those guys and I am starting to come around to that way of thinking. I would then turn to guys like Mrazek, McElhinney and even Kinkaid, all those guys are clear upgrades on Smith.

 

I would totally be ok with looking at depth defense and maybe a mucker and grinder for the 4th line LW spot. Heck even if all we did was bring in a backup goalie I would be over the moon happy. This team doesn't need a lot but there are small holes that can be filled and won't cost a lot to fill.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

I like Simmonds as a player but where would he pencil in?  Dont really want to disrupt the top 3 lines, especially if Neal/Ryan/Bennet keep gelling.  A  third line caliber forward that will play on the fourth but could still move up if needed.

These guys only play together on the PP. Neal is playing in place of Chucky on the second and Chucky has been put with Janks and Bennett

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

I would like to add that I have been a defender of Smith's and I liked the acquisition of him, up till this year. His play this year has fallen off a cliff and as Cross has pointed out above the stats don't lie.

 

In order to win you need to be deep at every position and right now our biggest weakness IMO is goaltending. Smith has been one of the worst goalies in the league so far and has shown no signs of turning it around. Gillies is posting a .867 save% and a 4.11 GAA in the AHL and has yet to show any kind of consistency at the pro level. Parsons has .875 career save % at the AHL, he might turn it around, but to say he is ready for NHL spot duty is an extreme long shot.

 

I will say it again Rittich has been fantastic, but till he proves he can win down the stretch and win in the playoffs, he is still unproven.

 

There is still a lot of questions and maybes at the most important position on the ice. I 100% get that people don't want to cough up big assets for guys like Howard or Bobrovsky, I get thinking and rationale behind not wanting one of those guys and I am starting to come around to that way of thinking. I would then turn to guys like Mrazek, McElhinney and even Kinkaid, all those guys are clear upgrades on Smith.

 

I would totally be ok with looking at depth defense and maybe a mucker and grinder for the 4th line LW spot. Heck even if all we did was bring in a backup goalie I would be over the moon happy. This team doesn't need a lot but there are small holes that can be filled and won't cost a lot to fill.

 

 

For me, I'd prefer Howard or MacIllhenny just because I know that would be better, rather than hope someone like Mrazek would be.

Still, with the Smith stats and all, he's a game at a time right now imho.

I can easily drop the stats and move on to tomorrow with him. He's struggled mightily and perhaps gets his confidence where it needs to be.

If that can happen, and there's a chance, we can put the stats behind us.

But in honesty, Howard is still the better goalie. Been wholly impressed by his turnaround.

Imagine his stat-line on a good team over the last 2 seasons since his reemergence.

Plus, he's been a big game goalie in the past.

Share this post


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

For me, I'd prefer Howard or MacIllhenny just because I know that would be better, rather than hope someone like Mrazek would be.

Still, with the Smith stats and all, he's a game at a time right now imho.

I can easily drop the stats and move on to tomorrow with him. He's struggled mightily and perhaps gets his confidence where it needs to be.

If that can happen, and there's a chance, we can put the stats behind us.

But in honesty, Howard is still the better goalie. Been wholly impressed by his turnaround.

Imagine his stat-line on a good team over the last 2 seasons since his reemergence.

Plus, he's been a big game goalie in the past.

 

I think the biggest issue I have with Smith is that he doesn't even look comfortable on the saves he makes, he is making easy saves look difficult. If he was looking comfortable and letting in a soft goal once in a while I would probably be fine with him as the backup the rest of the way, but he is fighting it on just about every shot. 

 

The underlying stats for Mrazek are actually pretty good, he has .921 save% at 5v5, but has a .779 save% on the PK. So it seems like he is making the saves he supposed to but maybe isn't getting the help on the PK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

I like Simmonds as a player but where would he pencil in?  Dont really want to disrupt the top 3 lines, especially if Neal/Ryan/Bennet keep gelling.  A  third line caliber forward that will play on the fourth but could still move up if needed.

 

How exactly is Neal/Ryan/Bennett gelling?  Offensive production is so low.

Share this post


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

I know people want to be positive and that is great. If you like Smith personally fine, but the aggressive defending of him I don't understand. 

 

What about aggressive defending of Neal?

Share this post


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

I know people want to be positive and that is great. If you like Smith personally fine, but the aggressive defending of him I don't understand. 

 

League rankings for Smith in various categories:

 

Goals saved above average - 2nd last

Save % - 2nd last for any goalie with more than 20 starts. 3rd last for any goalie with 10 or more. 

Quality start % - 7th worst of any goalie with 20 or more starts. 14th worst of any goalie with 10 or more.

Really bad starts (Starts with a save% below 85) - He ranks 6th. Most goalies ahead of him have started 9 or more games than he has. 

GAA - 17th worst of any goalie who has played 10 or more games. 

 

This is all behind a team that is in the top 10 in most defensive categories (except high danger chances where they rank 15th) and features a goalie who is among the top in most of these categories. Yes he was bad to start the year but at the same time in his last 5 games he has a save % of .890 and has given up less than 3 goals once. In his last 10 games he has a .88 Save % a 3.07 GAA, was pulled in 1 start and had a really bad start (save % below .85) in 2 others. 

 

Saying Mike Smith is not an NHL goalie is not being unfair or harsh, it is quite literally based on facts. I can appreciate that some still believe in him and think he can turn it around and that is great. But we are 2/3 of the way into the season so giving up on him seems like an equally rationale conclusion. 

 

Trending upwards is my reasoning. Smith regaining some confidence should play much better than anything you will get now. Plus I don't think you will see BT give up on him.

Share this post


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

 

I dunno.  Haven't seen many quality starts for him lately.  Detroit games were close calls.  I'll give him an excuse for the BOS game, since he played twioce in two night.  STL was bad.  PHI was bad.  ARI was a one-sided affair.  NASH and Minny were really good starts for him.

 

What I am gettinbg at is that since the PHI game, we're not sure of what to expect.  Has he rounded back into form or still on the road to it?  Given his "injury" history, relying on a healthy Smith to get to the playoffs is risky.  We've spent money on and developed depth in all positions except goaltending.  As far as Gillies goes, I rely on observations from a season ticket holder that blogs for FN.  He sees all the games and how Gillies can let two or three in, in a short period of time.  Sure the defense is less than stellar, but the competition is not world class either.

 

But anyway, I am arguing to pick up goaltending depth to get us to the playoffs, just for the posibility of an injury.  Like taking out insurance.  You probably don't need it, but nice to have if the cost is reasonable.

Where do play this insurance ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

 

I would like to add that I have been a defender of Smith's and I liked the acquisition of him, up till this year. His play this year has fallen off a cliff and as Cross has pointed out above the stats don't lie.

 

In order to win you need to be deep at every position and right now our biggest weakness IMO is goaltending. Smith has been one of the worst goalies in the league so far and has shown no signs of turning it around. Gillies is posting a .867 save% and a 4.11 GAA in the AHL and has yet to show any kind of consistency at the pro level. Parsons has .875 career save % at the AHL, he might turn it around, but to say he is ready for NHL spot duty is an extreme long shot.

 

I will say it again Rittich has been fantastic, but till he proves he can win down the stretch and win in the playoffs, he is still unproven.

 

There is still a lot of questions and maybes at the most important position on the ice. I 100% get that people don't want to cough up big assets for guys like Howard or Bobrovsky, I get thinking and rationale behind not wanting one of those guys and I am starting to come around to that way of thinking. I would then turn to guys like Mrazek, McElhinney and even Kinkaid, all those guys are clear upgrades on Smith.

 

I would totally be ok with looking at depth defense and maybe a mucker and grinder for the 4th line LW spot. Heck even if all we did was bring in a backup goalie I would be over the moon happy. This team doesn't need a lot but there are small holes that can be filled and won't cost a lot to fill.

 

 

Like I just said to cross I don't think BT will do it. I also disagree that Smith is not getting any better because he has been real good these last two games. He as it in him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

I think the biggest issue I have with Smith is that he doesn't even look comfortable on the saves he makes, he is making easy saves look difficult. If he was looking comfortable and letting in a soft goal once in a while I would probably be fine with him as the backup the rest of the way, but he is fighting it on just about every shot. 

 

The underlying stats for Mrazek are actually pretty good, he has .921 save% at 5v5, but has a .779 save% on the PK. So it seems like he is making the saves he supposed to but maybe isn't getting the help on the PK.

I used to love Mrazek, now he scares me.

If we were to get Howard, that's definitely stabilizing, no doubt in my mind.

The downside being he could very well put Rittich back into the backup role.

I've seen Howard be incredible in the playoffs, live, on a number of occasions.

Purely a rental, what would that take?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...