Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, GM_3300 said:

I'm aware of that but this team can't afford him anymore, just like TOR had to unload Bozak and JVR to move into the future. Get 1 more year out of Frolik to support Bennett and Tkachuk then get rid of both Bennett and Frolik after this season if it does work. Bennett is priced as a 3rd liner so he can be bumped down after this season if still no uptick to his  offense, time to find out.

 

Considering we are paying 6.3 m and 5.3m for ouir top 2 centers, that is cheap.

That's not the problem with the cap.

 

When you are talking about TOR, I assume you mean they couldn;t spend the money on re-signing them.

We have 4D making a combined 20m, but that's still not the problem.

6F making more than 4m.

One of those is 3rd or 4th line.

70m for 22 players

2.6m in buyouts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GM_3300 said:

I'm aware of that but this team can't afford him anymore, just like TOR had to unload Bozak and JVR to move into the future. Get 1 more year out of Frolik to support Bennett and Tkachuk then get rid of both Bennett and Frolik after this season if it does work. Bennett is priced as a 3rd liner so he can be bumped down after this season if still no uptick to his  offense, time to find out.

 

Why can't we afford him? We aren't anything like Toronto. They have some of the highest paid players in the league on their roster. Our best players are making under 7 million a year and will for at least the next 3. Tkachuk may be the lone exception to that. 

 

Yes it's tight this season. But it looks really good for the following two. Trading Backlund as a way to generate cap space isn't required and would be a huge loss for a team in the window to go after a cup. 

Share this post


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

 

Why can't we afford him? We aren't anything like Toronto. They have some of the highest paid players in the league on their roster. Our best players are making under 7 million a year and will for at least the next 3. Tkachuk may be the lone exception to that. 

 

Yes it's tight this season. But it looks really good for the following two. Trading Backlund as a way to generate cap space isn't required and would be a huge loss for a team in the window to go after a cup. 

It's easy to say trade Jankowski or Czarnik or Frolik but it seems nobody wants them, thus our problem of getting Tkachuk to a number his team is happy about. Maybe we should try trading Bennett to PHI for Patrick C. Nobody wants Bennett as a C here but Patrick could be that young C to go with a young Tkachuk. PHI has enough C that Patrick is down the depth chart, they may be receptive to such a trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand flack towards Backlund in favour of a young, unproven center who is likely going to cost more as early as next season if he shows to be anywhere close to equal to Backlund talent.

 

The idea of adding of Patrick is not necessarily a bad idea. The thing is, calling him the next C for Tkachuk because you want to trade Backs makes little sense. Patrick has 2 seasons in the league with 13 goals and 30 points each and is signed for 1 more season and then is RFA. Backlund has 3 20+ goal seasons, 5 over 13, 4 40+ point seasons including 1 50+, plays all the hard minutes and is signed for 5 more years at 5.35 mil cap hit. Comparables for Patrick, who currently have slightly better numbers are JT Miller, Kevin Hayes and Brayden Schenn, all of whom have over 5 mil per cap hits for lower output than Backlund. If your plan is to save cap from Backs, the likelihood is that Patrick will not save much, if any, and not provide the same D strength as Backs.

 

If the Flames can get an obvious upgrade over Backs to be the #2 at a reasonable price, then go for it, but Patrick is not that, at least not yet. Bennett and Patrick have basically the same current results and just signed a good, fair contract. His energy and physicality work just fine. No need to move him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

I don't understand flack towards Backlund in favour of a young, unproven center who is likely going to cost more as early as next season if he shows to be anywhere close to equal to Backlund talent.

 

Why would you have a problem with a young player who makes more money after he shows he's close or equal to Backlund?

Share this post


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

Considering we are paying 6.3 m and 5.3m for ouir top 2 centers, that is cheap.

 

That's more a result of circumstance than anything though right?  We would love to pay our top 2 Centers $9 and $7... the names on the back of the jersey should reflect the price.

Share this post


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

 

That's more a result of circumstance than anything though right?  We would love to pay our top 2 Centers $9 and $7... the names on the back of the jersey should reflect the price.

 

At the same time, looking at the last 2-3 years both Monahan and Backlund would rank in the top 30 in terms of centers at 5 on 5 and top 50 if you look at overall too. Would you like to be better, sure, but are many teams ahead of you? No. 

 

Flames are getting good value out of their top 6 centers. Overall center depth, that is another story. 

Share this post


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

 

At the same time, looking at the last 2-3 years both Monahan and Backlund would rank in the top 30 in terms of centers at 5 on 5 and top 50 if you look at overall too. Would you like to be better, sure, but are many teams ahead of you? No. 

 

Flames are getting good value out of their top 6 centers. Overall center depth, that is another story. 

 

No but, the argument that it's cheap to have top 2 Centers is even ideal.  We should get the best Centers at whatever the price. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you pay more for someone who is at best equal to someone we already have, just because he is younger? The thing is, he MAY become better, but he may be what he is. Backs is not regressing at this time, and he is unlikely to do so, based on his style of play, before the end of his contract at 35 years old 5 years from now.

Share this post


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

 

No but, the argument that it's cheap to have top 2 Centers is even ideal.  We should get the best Centers at whatever the price. 

 

Not necessarily, you should look for value whenever you can. Kevin Hayes just got 7 million and wouldn't be in the Flames top 6. There are a few teams that pay more for their centers than the Flames and IMO are in worse shape. 

 

If your centers are "cheap" because they are not good enough yes that is a problem. if they are better value because they outproduce their contracts that is a good thing. IMO, the Flames are the later for sure. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Not necessarily, you should look for value whenever you can. Kevin Hayes just got 7 million and wouldn't be in the Flames top 6. There are a few teams that pay more for their centers than the Flames and IMO are in worse shape. 

 

If your centers are "cheap" because they are not good enough yes that is a problem. if they are better value because they outproduce their contracts that is a good thing. IMO, the Flames are the later for sure. 

 

We are probably arguing the same thing here.  We want "$9 and $7 cheap" for what they do.  Right?  So "$9 and $7 cheap" is WAY better than "$6 and $5 cheap."  It's almost unfortunate due to circumstance that we only have $6 and $5 cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bosn111 said:

I don't understand flack towards Backlund in favour of a young, unproven center who is likely going to cost more as early as next season if he shows to be anywhere close to equal to Backlund talent.

 

The idea of adding of Patrick is not necessarily a bad idea. The thing is, calling him the next C for Tkachuk because you want to trade Backs makes little sense. Patrick has 2 seasons in the league with 13 goals and 30 points each and is signed for 1 more season and then is RFA. Backlund has 3 20+ goal seasons, 5 over 13, 4 40+ point seasons including 1 50+, plays all the hard minutes and is signed for 5 more years at 5.35 mil cap hit. Comparables for Patrick, who currently have slightly better numbers are JT Miller, Kevin Hayes and Brayden Schenn, all of whom have over 5 mil per cap hits for lower output than Backlund. If your plan is to save cap from Backs, the likelihood is that Patrick will not save much, if any, and not provide the same D strength as Backs.

 

If the Flames can get an obvious upgrade over Backs to be the #2 at a reasonable price, then go for it, but Patrick is not that, at least not yet. Bennett and Patrick have basically the same current results and just signed a good, fair contract. His energy and physicality work just fine. No need to move him.

I'm glad you're here bosn. Always a good read. Always level and insightful.

More a pm here, but yeah. So everyone knows. lol

And one of Stevie Y's first signings was yo boy, Patrick Nemeth.

What a great fit he's going to be for my other team.

For those with short memories, bosn posted solid arguments about why we should get Nemeth.

Quite some time ago.

Yzerman evidently agrees, one of his 1st moves as new GM, if not his first.

Let's fish for Julius Honka. Nemeth was right there for the signing.

Glad he went to blue collar Detroit. They'll love him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bosn111 said:

I don't understand flack towards Backlund in favour of a young, unproven center who is likely going to cost more as early as next season if he shows to be anywhere close to equal to Backlund talent.

 

The idea of adding of Patrick is not necessarily a bad idea. The thing is, calling him the next C for Tkachuk because you want to trade Backs makes little sense. Patrick has 2 seasons in the league with 13 goals and 30 points each and is signed for 1 more season and then is RFA. Backlund has 3 20+ goal seasons, 5 over 13, 4 40+ point seasons including 1 50+, plays all the hard minutes and is signed for 5 more years at 5.35 mil cap hit. Comparables for Patrick, who currently have slightly better numbers are JT Miller, Kevin Hayes and Brayden Schenn, all of whom have over 5 mil per cap hits for lower output than Backlund. If your plan is to save cap from Backs, the likelihood is that Patrick will not save much, if any, and not provide the same D strength as Backs.

 

If the Flames can get an obvious upgrade over Backs to be the #2 at a reasonable price, then go for it, but Patrick is not that, at least not yet. Bennett and Patrick have basically the same current results and just signed a good, fair contract. His energy and physicality work just fine. No need to move him.

It's not flack against Backlund but cap realities do exist here. Also we need someone better or different IMO to get more Offense out of Tkachuk  on 5 and away from a primary checking line. Many have said for years Backlund is better suited for being a 3rd line C and making no more than 4M, now he at 5.5M and being depended on as our 2nd line C with limited offense. It was just another suggestion no reason to get all bent out of shape over. If I had my way we never would have brought in Ryan last season and used Bennett as our 3rd line C which I would do now if they traded Ryan or Jankowski. I also suggested trying to use Bennett to get Patrick, PHI may love a player such as Bennett at his cost and style of game as they are starting to back up their depth at C with a number of quality options, maybe Patrick is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GM_3300 said:

It's not flack against Backlund but cap realities do exist here. Also we need someone better or different IMO to get more Offense out of Tkachuk  on 5 and away from a primary checking line. Many have said for years Backlund is better suited for being a 3rd line C and making no more than 4M, now he at 5.5M and being depended on as our 2nd line C with limited offense. It was just another suggestion no reason to get all bent out of shape over. If I had my way we never would have brought in Ryan last season and used Bennett as our 3rd line C which I would do now if they traded Ryan or Jankowski. I also suggested trying to use Bennett to get Patrick, PHI may love a player such as Bennett at his cost and style of game as they are starting to back up their depth at C with a number of quality options, maybe Patrick is available.

My opinion, Backlund is the last player to trade.

$5.5 is cheap in today's market.

Ryan to replace him? Yeahno for me.

Share this post


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

My opinion, Backlund is the last player to trade.

$5.5 is cheap in today's market.

Ryan to replace him? Yeahno for me.

That isn't what I said at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM_3000 I was not getting "bent out of shape". There is nowhere I made any emotional comment anywhere in my post. I made direct, fact based comments about why it makes no sense to bringi in Patrick at C when we already have Backlund. Based on comparables at C with similar age and output, with the increased salary cap means that Patrick is likely making similar cap hit to Backlund and currently has LOWER offense and LESS defensive pedigree than Backlund does at the NHL level. The whole thing was pointing out why trading Backlund and bringing in Patrick to replace him, either in 1 or multiple moves, makes little to no sense. The only savings would be cap space savings THIS season with a likelihood that with players to be replaced next season you would not be able to re-sign Patrick because most of the cap you would free up moving Backs would be taken up by signing Tkachuk this season. The rest needed to fill holes created next season.

 

You are focusing on offense only, and on one player only, who at this time appears to be missing at least a portion of the season as he is not signed to a contract. There is a chance Tkachuk doesn't play at all this season due to contract ask and cap constraints. Moving one of the most consistent 2 way centers in the league with reasonable offence for a 3rd year upcoming RFA with less pedigree but likely similar cost next season to try and bump up the play of 1 player 5 on 5 does not scream improvement for the team to me. Patrick was a -8 last season, assuming 3rd line play. We all know Backlund plays against the top lines and was +34. Could easily go into more advanced metrics, but no real need. 

 

I also stated that I would not be against moving Backlund for a clear upgrade, but Patrick is not clearly better than Backlund and there is no guarantee he would improve Tkachuk's play. You can argue that the D that Backs and Frolik provide allows Chucky to be more offensive and still look good on D. Chucky had 34 goals and over 70 points playing mainly with Backs and Frolik. Sure he likely could do better, but he could also do worse. 

 

Also your suggestion does not work cap wise moving Bennett for Patrick. Philly has 1.1 in space and Patrick is currently .9 which would give them about 2 mil in total to work with. Bennett at 2.5 is already higher than that, and no way Treliving should eat even half mil of salary for a player with essentially the same numbers who is upcoming RFA. So the cap for Bennett alone doesn't work. Also Philly only has 11 forwards counting towards the cap with that 1.1 mil space, so they need at least league minimum to carry at least 1 more F meaning to have space to add Bennett, the Flames would need to eat closer to 1.5 mil of his salary and that isn't worth it.

 

Some people say that Backlund at 5.35 is overpaid, but that players who have not broken 40 goals or 90 points are worth twice what he is? Those stats are double Backlund's average output in a season, not even accounting for his D (see intangibles), yet young guys who haven't hit those marks are making over 10 mil per season or are expected to get that rate because in 3 years that could be a steal. So in other words in 3 years, with 2 more years left on his contract Backs will absolutely be a steal of a cap hit based on the very same logic.

 

Nowhere is there a manual that says that the second line should be offensive. Maybe drop Chucky to the third line with less D responsibility and more offensively minded young guys and let him just play offensively. Can't pay him 8 mil + a season though to sit on the "3rd" line. 

 

I agree cap realities exist. Cross and others have pointed out that in many matrixes both Monahan and Backlund rank in the top 30 for centers. When it comes to goals, Backs is top 50, Monahan is top 15. If the reality is that your top 2 C's in the league for each team are in the top 60, then the Flames are doing fine. Especially since guys on that list, like Lindholm, don't even play C regularly. Assists, Monahan is top 20, Backs is 60, Points Backs is 58, Monahan 13. In +/- Backs and Lindy go 1-2 with Monahan at 45 with only Backs and Lindy be better than +30.

 

You also recommend trading Ryan who has the 2nd best FO% in the league for players over 60 games. He took 26 more draws than Kahdri and was 3% better. What more could you really ask from a bottom 6 C? 13 goals, 38 points playing mostly 4th line with rotating line mates at 3.125 cap hit? Janks also played mostly 3rd line and had more goals and more points than Patrick. So what do all of these stats tell you.

 

Now we look at players coming up like Dube, Rusicka, Philip, Phillips, Gawdin and Zavgorodny. You bring in Patrick, with less offence than Ryan, worse face-offs, worse Defence and he will somehow bring more to Tkachuk? Bringing in another young C who has not beaten out guys like Couturier or Giroux and they have now brought in Hayes, does not point at good things for Patrick. Bringing in Patrick, even if you move on from Jankowski, Ryan and Backlund as you suggest, puts little faith in your own pipeline of players.

 

I did suggest bringing in Zacha when he was un-signed because looking at all the stats, he is on the rise. His offense is growing, as is his speed and he is deemed to be a very good, young, 2-way C. Patrick has been basically the same his first 2 seasons and in fact doing worse defensively. If the Flames had been able to sign Zacha cheap, long term then it made sense as a potential successor to Backlund. 

 

I'm sorry, but I look at a whole bunch of stats, cap hits, history, play style and many other features when I comment, which is often why I go long stints without making posts and then write long ones. Looking at making a change for the sake of change works when the team is consistently bad. When the team finished 2nd in the league last season, first in the conference and sure they got swept in the playoffs but most division winners last season got the boot after the 1st round including Tampa (the best in the league regular season), you don't move players who do exactly what you need them to do in hopes that someone outside the team can be better.

 

My suggestions to move Frolik, Jankowski and Brodie are because I feel that they can be replaced (at least in large part) internally and thus leave smaller gaps to fill. My suggestions help fill gaps that would be made without costing significant money and they do not require the other team to struggle either to make things work. Not all GMs are as bad at trades as Chia and not all are as crazy with contracts as Dubas. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, GM_3300 said:

It's not flack against Backlund but cap realities do exist here. Also we need someone better or different IMO to get more Offense out of Tkachuk  on 5 and away from a primary checking line. Many have said for years Backlund is better suited for being a 3rd line C and making no more than 4M, now he at 5.5M and being depended on as our 2nd line C with limited offense. It was just another suggestion no reason to get all bent out of shape over. If I had my way we never would have brought in Ryan last season and used Bennett as our 3rd line C which I would do now if they traded Ryan or Jankowski. I also suggested trying to use Bennett to get Patrick, PHI may love a player such as Bennett at his cost and style of game as they are starting to back up their depth at C with a number of quality options, maybe Patrick is available.

 

The Flames best players make less then 7 million. We have plenty of kids to spread across the line up. We have a single bad contract on the entire roster. We have a team that was good enough to take first in the west.

 

Your rationale is flawed.

 

1. We don't have a cap reality that would require us to trade Backlund. See above. 

2. We don't have the C depth to afford trading Backlund. Losing him would leave us with the C depth that would be a tremendous obstacle that would remove us from contention. 

3. Backlund is not overpaid in a 2C or 3C role. Investing at C is how you win championships. 

 

The Flames need to add at C. Not take away. That's why Treliving went after Kadri. It's why so many people are calling for Lindholm to be moved to C. Monahan, Backlund, Jankowski is not good enough. Monahan, Bennett, Jankowski would be absolutely terrible. 

 

I would like to see them pair Gaudreau-Monahan, Lindholm-Tkachuk, and Backlund-Frolik. That sets under 35 million for the three pairs. That's a huge bargain (the Leafs are almost paying that for their top 3 forwards) and it leaves us with a respectable Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund C depth. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

The Flames best players make less then 7 million. We have plenty of kids to spread across the line up. We have a single bad contract on the entire roster. We have a team that was good enough to take first in the west.

 

Your rationale is flawed.

 

1. We don't have a cap reality that would require us to trade Backlund. See above. 

2. We don't have the C depth to afford trading Backlund. Losing him would leave us with the C depth that would be a tremendous obstacle that would remove us from contention. 

3. Backlund is not overpaid in a 2C or 3C role. Investing at C is how you win championships. 

 

The Flames need to add at C. Not take away. That's why Treliving went after Kadri. It's why so many people are calling for Lindholm to be moved to C. Monahan, Backlund, Jankowski is not good enough. Monahan, Bennett, Jankowski would be absolutely terrible. 

 

I would like to see them pair Gaudreau-Monahan, Lindholm-Tkachuk, and Backlund-Frolik. That sets under 35 million for the three pairs. That's a huge bargain (the Leafs are almost paying that for their top 3 forwards) and it leaves us with a respectable Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund C depth. 

 

I have no problem upgrading at C, for the bottom 6.

Ryan is a better playmaker and can be used in multiple situations.

Janko has either been a detriment for Bennett or Bennett a detriment to Janko.

Kadri would have been a nice replacement for Janko since it would give us a better sense of Bennett's worth.

 

I'm still of the belief that if we can trade Brodie/Janko for a decent 3rd or 2nd line C, we do it.

A RW might be easier to get, in which case, we go woth the duos you described.

We create a bit of a hole on RD, but we aren't keeping both Brodie and Hamonic next year anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 9:26 AM, kehatch said:

 

The Flames best players make less then 7 million. We have plenty of kids to spread across the line up. We have a single bad contract on the entire roster. We have a team that was good enough to take first in the west.

 

Your rationale is flawed.

 

1. We don't have a cap reality that would require us to trade Backlund. See above. 

2. We don't have the C depth to afford trading Backlund. Losing him would leave us with the C depth that would be a tremendous obstacle that would remove us from contention. 

3. Backlund is not overpaid in a 2C or 3C role. Investing at C is how you win championships. 

 

The Flames need to add at C. Not take away. That's why Treliving went after Kadri. It's why so many people are calling for Lindholm to be moved to C. Monahan, Backlund, Jankowski is not good enough. Monahan, Bennett, Jankowski would be absolutely terrible. 

 

I would like to see them pair Gaudreau-Monahan, Lindholm-Tkachuk, and Backlund-Frolik. That sets under 35 million for the three pairs. That's a huge bargain (the Leafs are almost paying that for their top 3 forwards) and it leaves us with a respectable Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund C depth. 

We will see. I wish this year's version of the Flames all the best. Go FLAMES Go.  CYA enjoy the season everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 11:26 AM, kehatch said:

I would like to see them pair Gaudreau-Monahan, Lindholm-Tkachuk, and Backlund-Frolik. That sets under 35 million for the three pairs. That's a huge bargain (the Leafs are almost paying that for their top 3 forwards) and it leaves us with a respectable Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund C depth. 

 

Those line “pairings” were what I was hoping for when we acquired Lindholm. I’m not expecting to see it happen, personally, due to the chemistry Lindy has with Mony and Johnny. But, as much as I had a personal conflict with Kadri coming here, I hope that BT keeps his sights on upgrading our center depth (after Tkachuk is signed for a reasonable amount) 

Share this post


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

 

Those line “pairings” were what I was hoping for when we acquired Lindholm. I’m not expecting to see it happen, personally, due to the chemistry Lindy has with Mony and Johnny. But, as much as I had a personal conflict with Kadri coming here, I hope that BT keeps his sights on upgrading our center depth (after Tkachuk is signed for a reasonable amount) 

 

The coach has talked a lot about trying Lindholm at C, and his inability to rework the roster hurt us in the playoffs. I expect you will see two Flames looks this season. One with the traditional lines and one with the pairs above.

 

I think the ability to transition between deep and top heavy would be a big asset against some teams.  I also think the reason we haven't seen it this preseason is because Tkachuk is not signed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Flames run 22 players they can get around 130k under the cap. That isn't enough. So who do they move? My take on the likely players (in order) :

 

Jankowski: They can probably get a mid round pick for Jankowski. If they replace him with Quine they save almost a million on the cap. 

 

Czarnik: I don't think they get much for Czarnik, but they can probably move his salary. It only saves us around half a million, but that might be enough. 

 

Bennett: They have been showcasing him all preseason, and given his playoffs he might have a bit of value. Not sure you can move him on a straight cap dump, but you might get a second round pick and a depth player. 

 

Frolik: Given his cap hit I don't think Frolik has a bunch of value. If he did he probably would have been moved in the summer. He probably has more value to the Flames then they get back. But given the tensions last season and being on the last year of his contract he is a possibility. 

 

Ryan: This one is a bit of a leap because I think the Flames, and the coach, like him. I also don't think he gets you much of a return. But he is paid too much to play on the fourth line, even with his versatility. 

 

My guess is they trade Jankowski, sign Reider and MacDonald, and demote Dube and Kylington. 

 

Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm

Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik 

Lucic-Ryan-Bennett

Mangiapane-Quine-Czarnik

Rieder 

 

Giordano-Brodie

Hanafin-Hamonic

MacDonald-Andersson

Stone

 

Rittich 

Talbot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see that Kehatch... makes sense. MacDonald gives us some insurance on D, and Reider has shown his wheels (plus PK value). 

 

Also, here's hoping the Blues suffer from Stanley Cup hangover, don't look good this year, and Schenn becomes available at the TDL as it's the last year on his contract. Interestingly, St Loo is over the cap at the moment. Wonder what moves they're going to make to become compliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW I thought Jankowski was the worst player on the ice last night. 

 

Flames seem poised to have Ryan as the 3rd line center this year and Jankowski really seems to be on the outs from a roster perspective. I don’t think Jankowski nets you very much but it’s likely he gets to an asset of some kind and I don’t think any other trade candidate does. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cross16 said:

FWIW I thought Jankowski was the worst player on the ice last night. 

 

Flames seem poised to have Ryan as the 3rd line center this year and Jankowski really seems to be on the outs from a roster perspective. I don’t think Jankowski nets you very much but it’s likely he gets to an asset of some kind and I don’t think any other trade candidate does. 

 

He made the other players look worse than they were.

Beat to the puck by small AHL players.

Checked off the puck.

Nothing good last night.

 

Saying that, he would have more value when combined with Brodie.

Still a few teams that are shallow on D, so we might be able to combine the two for a good player, at a slightly lower cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...