Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

In the pressbox eating popcorn.. or rotating backups on the bench

I don't see it and I also wouldn't change this team with any trades. This is a team that believes in each other and what they are accomplishing together which IMO is more important than importing any outsider. I would let our own depth play for the experience win or lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I don't see it and I also wouldn't change this team with any trades. This is a team that believes in each other and what they are accomplishing together which IMO is more important than importing any outsider. I would let our own depth play for the experience win or lose.

unless its something of highly significant proportions.. (which I dont see happening at all) , id bet money that no roster players will leave this team at the deadline .. maybe Mangiapane..thats it ..

Pick up a McHillenney, give em a 7th rounder .. and plant him in the press box 

Share this post


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

In the pressbox eating popcorn.. or rotating backups on the bench

 

Much like you carry an extra D or 2 extra F, you can carry a backup.  Practice is a little more difficult.  That also assumes that you can't re-assign him to the AHL.  Have to be waiver-exempt.  I get that.

 

Three-headed goalie monsters can be a problem.  I get that.  Doesn't mean it can't work out.  If you have any question about Smith's health (perhaps he's not 100%), then you would be dumb not looking into it.  There certainly some evidence that he's a risk to be injured again.  

Share this post


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

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. 

 

It'd be better paying him over Stone to ride the pine. Wouldn’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, robrob74 said:

 

It'd be better paying him over Stone to ride the pine. Wouldn’t it?

 

As Hrudey would say, Absolutely.

Actually, I am a big Muzzin fan.

He would be the kind of depth we could use.

Not sure how to fit him in without sending salary back.

Would also have to fit in with the plan for the D going forward.

I suppose, if we wanted to, we could trade him in the summer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Much like you carry an extra D or 2 extra F, you can carry a backup.  Practice is a little more difficult.  That also assumes that you can't re-assign him to the AHL.  Have to be waiver-exempt.  I get that.

 

Three-headed goalie monsters can be a problem.  I get that.  Doesn't mean it can't work out.  If you have any question about Smith's health (perhaps he's not 100%), then you would be dumb not looking into it.  There certainly some evidence that he's a risk to be injured again.  

we had a problem because we had 3 goalies and no #1.. that same year NYI had 3 and had one of the best GAA in the league , i think one guy played one game , but they kept him up to keep him off waivers  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

What about aggressive defending of Neal?

 

There is a large difference there for me depending on what angle you want to take.

 

Are both under performing their contracts - absolutely. If this is the benchmark then I agree both takes are poor and you can't defend that Neal has not been worth his contract yet (and IMO won't as its not a good contract).

 

However, Smith is under performing not only his contract but basic NHL metrics and really shows no signs that this is going to change. With Neal the raw numbers are bad but IMO his game tells a different story. I think he is a useful player on most nights who is contributing and shows signs of coming out of a slump. Smith does not. 

 

That being said, if the argument is we should trade Neal absolutely. I never liked the deal so if you can get out from under it absoltuely. My defending of Neal is that while I will always agree his contract sucks, I think he is playing better than his raw numbers and we should give him a chance to turn it around because moving him isn't likely. 

 

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

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.

 

 

That's the thing I was showing though, he really isn't trending up. He's just been poor since the start of the year. 

Share this post


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

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. 

 

Who would you take out of the top 4 for Muzzin? I don't think anyone deserve to be taken out.

 

He's also going to cost a boatload to acquire. No sense acquiring him as a 3rd pairing dman. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

There is a large difference there for me depending on what angle you want to take.

 

Are both under performing their contracts - absolutely. If this is the benchmark then I agree both takes are poor and you can't defend that Neal has not been worth his contract yet (and IMO won't as its not a good contract).

 

However, Smith is under performing not only his contract but basic NHL metrics and really shows no signs that this is going to change. With Neal the raw numbers are bad but IMO his game tells a different story. I think he is a useful player on most nights who is contributing and shows signs of coming out of a slump. Smith does not. 

 

That being said, if the argument is we should trade Neal absolutely. I never liked the deal so if you can get out from under it absoltuely. My defending of Neal is that while I will always agree his contract sucks, I think he is playing better than his raw numbers and we should give him a chance to turn it around because moving him isn't likely. 

 

 

 

That's the thing I was showing though, he really isn't trending up. He's just been poor since the start of the year. 

I disagree with you and think his last two starts have been good ones.

Share this post


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

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.

 

He played well in the Arizona game, we also played very well infront of him and he didn't have to be great in that game, but he was not very good against Detroit. We are winning in spite of Smith not because of him.

Share this post


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

 

He played well in the Arizona game, we also played very well infront of him and he didn't have to be great in that game, but he was not very good against Detroit. We are winning in spite of Smith not because of him.

I totally disagree with that comment as without saves by Smith we could have easily lost that game we were out played for most of it. Anyways I'm done arguing with you and cross, like I said I don't think there is any real changes coming nor should there be IMO.

Share this post


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

 

He played well in the Arizona game, we also played very well infront of him and he didn't have to be great in that game, but he was not very good against Detroit. We are winning in spite of Smith not because of him.

Detroit played well against us in both games. We weren't going to be trouncing them regardless of goalie.

They had a plan, especially in our barn, and played us well.

Share this post


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

I disagree with you and think his last two starts have been good ones.

I think the answer to the goaltending issue is quite simple. If we can pick up a goalie for little, Treliving might pull the trigger. If not, we stick with what we have. One goalie is playing above expectations, and people are worried about his regressing to his mean/average. The other goalie is struggling to get back to the mean, and people are worried about him not doing so. I think we will be fine with our existing players. If not, it will be fun to see Parsons start in the NHL playoffs.

Share this post


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

 

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

I didn't get to watch the last Detroit game but from I've read in the GDT and going by the boxscore all 3 were difference makers, regardless of the fact most of it was on the PP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more name to throw out there.

 

Nate Thompson. The guy is just a flat out warrior, he plays mean, he can win faceoffs, he kills penalties, he is a good defensive forward. I see him as the ultimate 4th line forward, he can play C/LW. I don't think he cost much at all to acquire. 

 

I still remember him with Anaheim in the playoffs against us, he was a beast.

Share this post


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

One more name to throw out there.

 

Nate Thompson. The guy is just a flat out warrior, he plays mean, he can win faceoffs, he kills penalties, he is a good defensive forward. I see him as the ultimate 4th line forward, he can play C/LW. I don't think he cost much at all to acquire. 

 

I still remember him with Anaheim in the playoffs against us, he was a beast.

Were we...even good then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I don't see it and I also wouldn't change this team with any trades. This is a team that believes in each other and what they are accomplishing together which IMO is more important than importing any outsider. I would let our own depth play for the experience win or lose.

That is the way I feel right now as well. BT has a month of hard schedule to see what this team is made of, and that is a long, long time. Any deal between now and then would be presumptuous. Lets revisit this trade thought in a month to see what our needs might be. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

One more name to throw out there.

 

Nate Thompson. The guy is just a flat out warrior, he plays mean, he can win faceoffs, he kills penalties, he is a good defensive forward. I see him as the ultimate 4th line forward, he can play C/LW. I don't think he cost much at all to acquire. 

 

I still remember him with Anaheim in the playoffs against us, he was a beast.

 

Ya but he's 34 now.

Share this post


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

 

Ya but he's 34 now.

 

He is, but he is still an effective player especially in a 4th line role. IMO he would be a much better player in that role than Mangiapane.

Share this post


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

 

He is, but he is still an effective player especially in a 4th line role. IMO he would be a much better player in that role than Mangiapane.

I would also agree that it would be nice to add a veteran to play 4th line LW. Thompson is a good suggestion, another option is Boyle. The biggest knock on this group from the outside will be a lack of playoff experience, which some will agree or disagree with. What I will say is a Thompson or Boyle won’t hurt you, where as a young player like Mangiapane or a Dube could be prone to a costly rookie mistake come playoff time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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.

Although we all love and enjoy SFinest's insights and commentary, as a single person the views are going to be biased.  Think of it this way, pick one single FN blogger here to be THE commentator for the Flames.  Depending on the pick you would get VASTLY different views from that single person.  More inputs is going to provide a better, more balanced view.  

 

Personally I believe Smith has been playing fairly well the past couple months.  His record (results) is also very good, though as some have pointed out, the stats are poor.  To me the issue of Smith comes down to 2 things above all else.  What is the cost?  Previously I have seen a projection that we could get a solid back-up (Mazrek, Mcilhenney) for a 4th rounder.  Doubtful but if so, ok.  Secondly is what is the impact on the team chemistry?  Smith is fiery and demands a lot of himself, and others.  Is that attitude a detriment to the room, or is it the driver to enhanced, more focused play we are seeing this year across the board?  I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure replacing Smith WILL have an effect broadly in the room and it WILL NOT be so simplistic as replacing whatever stats "X" new goalie has for Smith's stats, like many on here seem to assume.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours 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.

 

 

Despite what input we get from SF, a look at Gillies' career stats are probably more insightful to the current Stockton situation.  Over the past 4 years Gillies has been in Stockton and had these SAV% stats:

0.920

0.910

0.917

0.867

His first 3 years he averaged 0.916 and was remarkably very consistent.  The drop-off from that to this year is 0.49 pts, which is MASSIVE.  In spite of that we continue to hear some fairly positive game reports from SF, albeit with the usual "the D let him down... D offered no help... D left him out to dry...."  

 

If you look at Parsons' stats, albeit much more limited you'll also see a huge drop this year in Stockton, dropping 0.32 pts when comparing his London numbers.  I'm not getting into an argument about different levels, injuries...blah, blah, blah.... all valid but not relevant to the point.  This year Gillies has shown a huge drop and it almost certainly is due to the crappy/ineffective/non-existant D corps currently toiling away there.  

 

Any evaluation of our goalie pipeline needs many, many more eyes on the goalies, and also needs to vigorously judge the impact of overall team/D quality in Stockton which is currently low/depleted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Despite what input we get from SF, a look at Gillies' career stats are probably more insightful to the current Stockton situation.  Over the past 4 years Gillies has been in Stockton and had these SAV% stats:

0.920

0.910

0.917

0.867

His first 3 years he averaged 0.916 and was remarkably very consistent.  The drop-off from that to this year is 0.49 pts, which is MASSIVE.  In spite of that we continue to hear some fairly positive game reports from SF, albeit with the usual "the D let him down... D offered no help... D left him out to dry...."  

 

If you look at Parsons' stats, albeit much more limited you'll also see a huge drop this year in Stockton, dropping 0.32 pts when comparing his London numbers.  I'm not getting into an argument about different levels, injuries...blah, blah, blah.... all valid but not relevant to the point.  This year Gillies has shown a huge drop and it almost certainly is due to the crappy/ineffective/non-existant D corps currently toiling away there.  

 

Any evaluation of our goalie pipeline needs many, many more eyes on the goalies, and also needs to vigorously judge the impact of overall team/D quality in Stockton which is currently low/depleted.

 

Gillies is facing 30 shots a night, the same as last year, the year before that he was facing 32 shots a night. So at first glance the team in front of him has been roughly the same. I will admit that high danger chances might be higher and the stats for AHL are harder to find.

 

The idea that because we don't watch the games means we can't say that Gillies or Parsons aren't ready to play at the NHL or aren't playing well, well that goes both ways, I am guessing you don't watch the games to say that they are playing well. So we are left with stats and past viewings of both goalies, both the stats and past viewings suggest that neither goalie is ready.

 

The argument that because Parsons was good in junior or that Gillies was good in college, that they will be good in NHL games if need be, holds no water, it isn't even a valid argument. Zach Fucale was very good in junior and now that guy isn't good enough to play in the AHL.

Share this post


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

 

Gillies is facing 30 shots a night, the same as last year, the year before that he was facing 32 shots a night. So at first glance the team in front of him has been roughly the same. I will admit that high danger chances might be higher and the stats for AHL are harder to find.

 

The idea that because we don't watch the games means we can't say that Gillies or Parsons aren't ready to play at the NHL or aren't playing well, well that goes both ways, I am guessing you don't watch the games to say that they are playing well. So we are left with stats and past viewings of both goalies, both the stats and past viewings suggest that neither goalie is ready.

 

The argument that because Parsons was good in junior or that Gillies was good in college, that they will be good in NHL games if need be, holds no water, it isn't even a valid argument. Zach Fucale was very good in junior and now that guy isn't good enough to play in the AHL.

It use to be as simple as let them see as much rubber as possible in the minors to get them ready. Now everyone selects whatever stat that suits their argument. All these Goalies that make it to the upper levels did so by being very good. What is going to make them good at the NHL level is mental attitude and toughness. What makes them exceptional is having all the ingredients collectively. Some are just more determined than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

He is, but he is still an effective player especially in a 4th line role. IMO he would be a much better player in that role than Mangiapane.

 

I admittedly haven't followed him much this year but if he's still effective then ya, he's someone we should target.  I wonder if there's a deal to be made with the Kings to get Thompson, Clifford, and Muzzin in one fell swoop.  Adds playoff muscle in spades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...