Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
redfire11

Lines and Pairings for 2018/19 Season

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

To me, the Flames have TWO second lines next season.  We all know who's the first line.  But Backlund and Lindholm should Center their own lines (now that we added Neal and he's defacto first line RW).  Both second lines should play equal minutes each game and get equal zone start chances.  The reason is, we should deploy a full time RHS C.  So that's Lindholm.

The situation of having a RHS-RW that has played C with a LHS-C provides on-ice options which tells me Lindholm does not have to play C.

Share this post


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

The situation of having a RHS-RW that has played C with a LHS-C provides on-ice options which tells me Lindholm does not have to play C.

 

Well let's say Lindholm switches with Monahan for a defensive zone faceoff and loses it clean.  Everybody now needs to stick to positional assignments from the faceoff so that means Monahan/whoever could be stuck on RW for 20 to 30 seconds potentially.

 

Just avoid this and get Lindholm at C with his own line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as of now we have 11 bubble players who require waivers: Hathaway, Lazar, Czarnik, Brouwer, Stone, Prout, Klimchuk, Shinkaruk, Robinson, Quine, and Graovac fighting for the last 6 roster spots.

 

Doesn't even include Andersson and Mangiapoane who have a credible chance of making the team and Foo, Valimaki, Dube, Kylington, Ehliz, Lomberg, and Hogstorm who have an outside chance.

 

Training camp should be very interesting.

Share this post


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

Another thought they could think about is putting Neal on LW (played in PIT) with Backlund and Lindholm. Tkachuk would relish the opportunity to play with Gaudreau and Monahan I'm sure.

Neal was LW in Dallas. When he played in Pittsburgh he was moved to the RW (he even talked about it here: https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/james-neal-predators-sniper

Though if needed we *could* play him LW, but that just weakens our RW a bit (which is also where Neal prefers to play)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Khrox said:

Neal was LW in Dallas. When he played in Pittsburgh he was moved to the RW (he even talked about it here: https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/james-neal-predators-sniper

Though if needed we *could* play him LW, but that just weakens our RW a bit (which is also where Neal prefers to play)

Well there you go, well explained by him. Maybe BP will try the same with Tkachuk because I think he sees himself with Gaudreau and Monahan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Khrox said:

Neal was LW in Dallas. When he played in Pittsburgh he was moved to the RW (he even talked about it here: https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/james-neal-predators-sniper
 

 

This was a great article, thanks for posting. I especially liked this part:

 

Quote

Once I got used to it, I really elevated my game, because whenever I shot the puck on my forehand, the release point was closer to the net. I was a threat at all times, especially on one-timers. 

 

This is why I was so adamant the Flames pick up some RS in the off-season. I honestly believe having the mix is going to make a big different to their offence, just not on the PP but 5 on 5 too. 

Share this post


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

 

This was a great article, thanks for posting. I especially liked this part:

 

 

This is why I was so adamant the Flames pick up some RS in the off-season. I honestly believe having the mix is going to make a big different to their offence, just not on the PP but 5 on 5 too. 

 

Guys like Johnny are not that lethal on the LW, since he doesn't have a rocket to begin with.  He's much more dangerous a shot on the right side.  On the PP, I would prefer to see a LHS on the right side for that reason and the one-timers.  Neal would fit that mold to a T.  In that case, you use JH strictly as a set up guy for the point shot and a down low passer.  

 

For the most part, on 5v5, I am fine with having guys play their dominant side.  On the rush, they can criss-cross to mix up the coverage.  We actually have a mix of guys that can play either wing and guys that can play center/wing. 

 

Coaching needs to figure out the default lines, as well as the ones to use when they want to mix things up.  Not just "double shift player x".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like there is one more MAC. Maybe not anything big, but something to clear some cap space (such as Stone for a 3rd or even a 4th, or Brouwer for someone of similar skill but cheaper to a floor team). We have 12.8 million in room left, with 9 RFA's that were qualified. Of those 9 RFA's I don't expect huge raises on 7 of them (Gillies, Rittich, Klimchuk, Shinkaruk, Kulak, Jankowski, Hathaway). Those 7 are probably around the 900k-1 mil mark. So around 6.3-7 mil there (realistically on the lower side, especially since Kulak and Hathaway probably come closer to 700k). Which leaves us with about 6 million for the other two (Lindholm and Hanifin). Which I think we can all agree is probably coming in at around the 9.5-10 mil mark combined. Assuming Quine is an AHL'er (Cap friendly has him on the NHL roster for now) gives us an extra 700k, and trading Stone is another 3.5 mil (so a combined 4.2 mil) which gives us the money to sign both Lindholm and Hanifin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see the Flames trying to recoup a pick or 2 for Stone and/or Lazar. Lazar looks pretty much forced out of this roster IMO but might still be a person you could get a 4th/5th rounder for so that's something I would explore if I were the Flames. I don't think Browuer is going anywhere but Stone/Lazar make sense as options to move out that might actually get your something in the trade, albeit not a lot likely.

 

I think the Flames can ice a cap compliant team without moving them but it would be air tight against the cap. Breathing space would not be a bad thing and in regards to Stone I really believe they should clear him so that Andersson can be on the team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Khrox said:

I feel like there is one more MAC. Maybe not anything big, but something to clear some cap space (such as Stone for a 3rd or even a 4th, or Brouwer for someone of similar skill but cheaper to a floor team). We have 12.8 million in room left, with 9 RFA's that were qualified. Of those 9 RFA's I don't expect huge raises on 7 of them (Gillies, Rittich, Klimchuk, Shinkaruk, Kulak, Jankowski, Hathaway). Those 7 are probably around the 900k-1 mil mark. So around 6.3-7 mil there (realistically on the lower side, especially since Kulak and Hathaway probably come closer to 700k). Which leaves us with about 6 million for the other two (Lindholm and Hanifin). Which I think we can all agree is probably coming in at around the 9.5-10 mil mark combined. Assuming Quine is an AHL'er (Cap friendly has him on the NHL roster for now) gives us an extra 700k, and trading Stone is another 3.5 mil (so a combined 4.2 mil) which gives us the money to sign both Lindholm and Hanifin.

I don't think BT has any intention of moving Stone.

I would get rid of Brouwer and Hathaway any way I could.

I want to see Brodie + traded for a much better top 4 RHS-RD. I don't want to be hoping for a return to glory for him here.

Share this post


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

I don't think BT has any intention of moving Stone.

I would get rid of Brouwer and Hathaway any way I could.

I want to see Brodie + traded for a much better top 4 RHS-RD. I don't want to be hoping for a return to glory for him here.

I have to agree on the Brodie comment....Much like you grow tired of the hope situation. If history shows anything it very rarely works with this club.  With Brouwer it would have to be a buy out, just can not see any value in a trade with him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

I have to agree on the Brodie comment....Much like you grow tired of the hope situation. If history shows anything it very rarely works with this club.  With Brouwer it would have to be a buy out, just can not see any value in a trade with him 

 

Didnt someone on here say that a team could only have two players bought out still being paid for the buyouts?

 

if that’s the case, they were saying we couldn’t buyout Brouwer this year as we still have 2 to payout this year. 

Share this post


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

 

Didnt someone on here say that a team could only have two players bought out still being paid for the buyouts?

 

That is not a thing. You can have as many buyouts as your cap will allow. 

 

You were only allowed 2 compliance buyouts (don't exist anymore) and 3 retained salary transactions so perhaps that was the thought, but no limits on buyouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tmac70 said:

I have to agree on the Brodie comment....Much like you grow tired of the hope situation. If history shows anything it very rarely works with this club.  With Brouwer it would have to be a buy out, just can not see any value in a trade with him 

I may be down on Brodie but I have to think if we are relying on him as a top pairing D with Giordano, could we not do better ? or even see how Hamonic and Giordano play together. We need to be tighter as group defensively.

Early comments by BP like "we need to get Brouwer back to playing like we know he can" kind of laid it out he was staying, which is to bad. I was hoping BT would bite the bullet.

Share this post


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

I may be down on Brodie but I have to think if we are relying on him as a top pairing D with Giordano, could we not do better ? or even see how Hamonic and Giordano play together. We need to be tighter as group defensively.

Early comments by BP like "we need to get Brouwer back to playing like we know he can" kind of laid it out he was staying, which is to bad. I was hoping BT would bite the bullet.

 

Maybe Brouwer will thrive on less playing time and was asked by GG to play differently than he usually does? Ferland changed his game a bit, thus being less effective occasionally .

 

Brouwer’s comments at the end of the season seemed like he didn’t care they were out of it. So that scares me. Hopefully he doesn’t continue to play for the flames like it is early retirement.

Share this post


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

 

Maybe Brouwer will thrive on less playing time and was asked by GG to play differently than he usually does? Ferland changed his game a bit, thus being less effective occasionally .

 

Brouwer’s comments at the end of the season seemed like he didn’t care they were out of it. So that scares me. Hopefully he doesn’t continue to play for the flames like it is early retirement.

I hope that if Brouwer is used differently, he will be more successful. It seemed to me last year that GG put him in all roles (apart from goal). I was impressed when Peters said that he likes to talk to players about how they are used. Having said that, all coaches say the right things when beginning with a team. 

Share this post


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

 

Maybe Brouwer will thrive on less playing time and was asked by GG to play differently than he usually does? Ferland changed his game a bit, thus being less effective occasionally .

 

Brouwer’s comments at the end of the season seemed like he didn’t care they were out of it. So that scares me. Hopefully he doesn’t continue to play for the flames like it is early retirement.

I think to a degree Brouwer is getting a bad rap because of the way GG used him. There were a lot of bad situations to cover off last season and not a lot of options to go to. I would say if anything Brouwer would be the type of player any coach would lean towards with his experience to cover off injuries or lackadaisical play by others. Now that we are aware of a questionable room full of wrong attitudes, I can also understand the comments in the end.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would certainly hope you coach is positive about the roster. What is he supposed to say, "ya Browuer has been a bust but don't worry I'll find a way to limit his opportunities in the lineup until his contract is up". 

 

The fact that the Flames have brought in 3 RS players and another RW I think sends a pretty clear message what the organization thinks of Brouwer. I think the only reason they are not buying him out is they are trying to limit the financial implications but I don't think they have any plans for him and are basically acknowledging they missed on him. Maybe it motivates him but the face that rumors persist that he has been complaining about his role doesn't give me any hope. 

Share this post


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

I think to a degree Brouwer is getting a bad rap because of the way GG used him. There were a lot of bad situations to cover off last season and not a lot of options to go to. I would say if anything Brouwer would be the type of player any coach would lean towards with his experience to cover off injuries or lackadaisical play by others. Now that we are aware of a questionable room full of wrong attitudes, I can also understand the comments in the end.

Maybe I am totally wrong about this, but I would think that he is not happy with his performance last year. He did appear to try and do what GG wanted, was rewarded for the effort with ice time, and did not perform to unrealistic expectations. Peters seems to think that there is fuel in the tank that can be burned if used properly. That will be kind of interesting to see. The one thing I will give Brouwer is that when the Kings looked like they were going after Chucky (the game after Chucky smacked princess DoughBoy), Brouwer did have a pretty animated conversation with a few of their players, and they left Chucky alone. I think he had an impact and was ready to go.

Share this post


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

You would certainly hope you coach is positive about the roster. What is he supposed to say, "ya Browuer has been a bust but don't worry I'll find a way to limit his opportunities in the lineup until his contract is up". 

 

The fact that the Flames have brought in 3 RS players and another RW I think sends a pretty clear message what the organization thinks of Brouwer. I think the only reason they are not buying him out is they are trying to limit the financial implications but I don't think they have any plans for him and are basically acknowledging they missed on him. Maybe it motivates him but the face that rumors persist that he has been complaining about his role doesn't give me any hope. 

I don't know maybe BP shouldn't say anything at all publicly. Actions speak louder than words so we will see what they have in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

Maybe I am totally wrong about this, but I would think that he is not happy with his performance last year. He did appear to try and do what GG wanted, was rewarded for the effort with ice time, and did not perform to unrealistic expectations. Peters seems to think that there is fuel in the tank that can be burned if used properly. That will be kind of interesting to see. The one thing I will give Brouwer is that when the Kings looked like they were going after Chucky (the game after Chucky smacked princess DoughBoy), Brouwer did have a pretty animated conversation with a few of their players, and they left Chucky alone. I think he had an impact and was ready to go.

I have said this previously that he plays best with veterans that carry out a significant checking role. I could see a line of Frolik LW, Ryan C and Brouwer RW being effective for us.

Share this post


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

You would certainly hope you coach is positive about the roster. What is he supposed to say, "ya Browuer has been a bust but don't worry I'll find a way to limit his opportunities in the lineup until his contract is up". 

 

The fact that the Flames have brought in 3 RS players and another RW I think sends a pretty clear message what the organization thinks of Brouwer. I think the only reason they are not buying him out is they are trying to limit the financial implications but I don't think they have any plans for him and are basically acknowledging they missed on him. Maybe it motivates him but the face that rumors persist that he has been complaining about his role doesn't give me any hope. 

 

I think you are bang on here.  Sure it was before the pickups, but they have talked very highly of Mangiapane and Andersson.  It makes no sense to keep them in Stockton.  They play the same role as players we have making more money.  I feel there is a spot for each of them, especially since we obtained RHS's and C's and a LD.  There's a very good chance that Brouwer could end up sitting games.  You don't talk about a fringe player as very good on the PP, if you don;t have room in the top 12.  Talking about Czarnik.  With him in the conversation, I don't even see a role for Brouwer.  The 4th line is shaping up to be more of a fast skating bunch with some dangerous shots.  That doesn;t sound like Brouwer.  Top 9 (if you will) would be 3 of Neal, Lindholm, Ryan, Frolik, Tkachuk and Bennett on the RW.

 

If the Flames have any appetite to buy out Brouwer, then we should be hearing about a club-elected arbitration.  TBH, I think it would have been more fair to Brouwer to do that sooner, but there was no need in June.    

Share this post


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

 

I think you are bang on here.  Sure it was before the pickups, but they have talked very highly of Mangiapane and Andersson.  It makes no sense to keep them in Stockton.  They play the same role as players we have making more money.  I feel there is a spot for each of them, especially since we obtained RHS's and C's and a LD.  There's a very good chance that Brouwer could end up sitting games.  You don't talk about a fringe player as very good on the PP, if you don;t have room in the top 12.  Talking about Czarnik.  With him in the conversation, I don't even see a role for Brouwer.  The 4th line is shaping up to be more of a fast skating bunch with some dangerous shots.  That doesn;t sound like Brouwer.  Top 9 (if you will) would be 3 of Neal, Lindholm, Ryan, Frolik, Tkachuk and Bennett on the RW.

 

If the Flames have any appetite to buy out Brouwer, then we should be hearing about a club-elected arbitration.  TBH, I think it would have been more fair to Brouwer to do that sooner, but there was no need in June.    

Time will tell but it sure sounds like they have a plan to resurrect Brouwer's performance before they totally give up on him like you. Others have been brought in which is a good situation to back up if their plan doesn't get the results. I still see no place but Stockton for Mangiapane to start the season and be a depth player.

My hope for Stone now that OTT has decided to trade Karlsson is BT can offer him to them as a solid RSD.

Share this post


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

Time will tell

 

Wait for it.....

 

Seriously, where do you expect him to start that will jumpstart him. 

Top 9?  What a waste.  

4th line?  How is that going to help him.

 

And why is it that you want him off the team, yet you single me out for giving up on him.

How many failed seasons does he have to have to be a write-off?

Only took him until December to score a goal.

Freakin' awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...