Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Calgary4LIfe · 09-04-2020, 05:06 PM

I don't think you can really think too much of the expansion draft without breaking down your players into 'tiers'.

If you have your 'core' under the protected list, you are ok. If you have one player that you consider vital outside that list WITH what appears to be a significant drop-off, then trade that player. If the drop-off is not severe, with a couple other players either close or looking like they will pass your core piece, then you sit on it and give Seattle the option to pick whomever.

It is going to be tough to trade a guy like Backlund to a team who also will have to use their protection slot on him and push another asset down the chain. You are better off making a deal with Seattle.

At any rate, what this team needs to figure out is if they are contenders or not. If there is just one or two pieces missing, or if the coaching is substandard and not getting the most out of the lineup, or what. You have essentially 2 seasons to 'go for it' before salaries drastically change and force a big move anyway.

One thing I will say, however, is that IF the Flames move into a rebuild now, they are very well positioned. I stated during the last couple of seasons in the Iginla era that this team was already 'sort of' rebuilding - they stopped spending any real assets on vets, and they didn't draft for need (Jankowski being the example - he was viewed as a potential high-skill centre at the time, but one that would take a number of seasons to realize, not a prospect that would be coming into the lineup sooner). Their drafting and development program was expanding as well.

Right now, I 100% trust the scouting department to find players for the team through the draft. I remember someone on HF made a thread comparing all 31 teams over the last 'x' amount of seasons (I forgot exactly how many), and the Flames ranked very near the top (once again, I completely forgot exactly where, but I am going to guess ~top 5 or so).

I trust them to continue finding players to feed into the system and graduate onto the team over time as well, while this team is trying to 'contend'. If it fails, well, you have a legitimately talented prospect pool already - maybe no 'franchise types', but good depth already to kickstart a rebuild and acquire blue-chip talent.

Flames just need to avoid terrible contracts. Way too many buyouts over the years, and high-priced under-performing contracts. This takes away time from development for guys like Bennett, Kylington, etc., so it becomes a double-edged sword. They also spent way too many assets on the wrong players - goalies, Hamonic, etc. That hurts in the long-run. Flames were not ready to be contenders, but they spent like a contender.

I am not sure how they will fill Brodie's shoes this upcoming season. Hopefully they will, but I am also on the fence that while having a top defence is better than middle-of-the-pack defence, you don't always need it if you have a good coach that can implement a sound system (see Sutter, 2004, Islanders, 2020, arguably Pens in their cup years, etc).

I am glad that I am not the GM, because I am not sure which direction I would go.

First thing I would try is to remove all the overpriced contracts that I could to make room. Maybe the 'mix' isn't the problem, and perhaps it is just that this team is too easy to shut-down? Give it more weapons or change the weapons. I am no fan of Taylor Hall, but if you can sign him for free, that's a a big change to your lineup and allows for easier match-ups for you.

That means Lucic and Ryan are expendable (well, duh with Lucic obviously). I like them both, but this is a cap world and you can't keep players around just because you like them. They are both effective in different ways, but 5.25 million for three more seasons of Lucic getting 20-odd points (but also providing much needed intangibles, but still) is expensive. Ditto for a 4th liner making 3.125. Obviously Ryan wouldn't be a difficult contract to move, and I do actually like him and feel he makes an impact, but he is now on the 4th line making that much. You just can't have that on a cap team.

I don't know how much it will cost to unload Lucic for a serviceable depth defencemen or depth 4th liner on a cheap deal - probably starts with a 1st. That's painful...

Backlund to me is not a problem. Do I wish that he was pushed down to 3rd line centre? Definitely, but only because that would mean that somehow this team is elite down the middle. Backlund by every metric is a 2nd line centre. Actually, let me restate that - Backlund by every counting stat is a 2nd line centre - he produces at a 2nd line centre rate. He doesn't produce as a "2nd line Malkin", but he is solidly in the 2nd line centre average around the league in scoring. However, I argue that he OUTPRODUCES most 2nd line centres in the league when you factor-in how he is utilized - his defensive zone starts, his quality of competition, etc. Some of the toughest minutes in the league, period - tougher minutes than "perennial Selke winner Bergeron". So, no, Backlund is not a guy that I think the Flames should move on from. If you do, your other lines have to start in the defensive zone more often, and end up having a tougher time producing offensively. Backlund is a guy that you most definitely can win with.

If you can renegotiate Jankowski's deal cheaper than it is now (or even the same...) I think you do it for 1-2 years. Yep, Jankowski didn't have a good season, but he has 2 previous seasons where he has been both productive and helpful to team wins. One season early on in a player's career shouldn't completely write him off. Now if he wants more money on the other hand, then it is a considerably different conversation and you let him walk.

Don't pay for depth. Period.

If you are rebuilding, don't sign long-term expensive UFA contracts. Period. Not unless a superstar in his mid 20's decides he wants to sign with you. Then you would obviously be stupid not to - but no more 30+ players looking for a retirement pay-cheque. Don't spend assets on guys you aren't going to keep long-term in trying to fill holes - no more 1 season fillers in any position. If you are going to use assets to fill holes, they have to be low cost assets unless you are acquiring promising players before their prime. Even then, spend assets on drafting players, not trading for them until you think this team is kicking and screaming to get into the playoffs. Don't push them into the playoffs kicking and screaming. Make them push you to trade.

09-04-2020, 05:06 PM	#22
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	I don't think you can really think too much of the expansion draft without breaking down your players into 'tiers'. If you have your 'core' under the protected list, you are ok. If you have one player that you consider vital outside that list WITH what appears to be a significant drop-off, then trade that player. If the drop-off is not severe, with a couple other players either close or looking like they will pass your core piece, then you sit on it and give Seattle the option to pick whomever. It is going to be tough to trade a guy like Backlund to a team who also will have to use their protection slot on him and push another asset down the chain. You are better off making a deal with Seattle. At any rate, what this team needs to figure out is if they are contenders or not. If there is just one or two pieces missing, or if the coaching is substandard and not getting the most out of the lineup, or what. You have essentially 2 seasons to 'go for it' before salaries drastically change and force a big move anyway. One thing I will say, however, is that IF the Flames move into a rebuild now, they are very well positioned. I stated during the last couple of seasons in the Iginla era that this team was already 'sort of' rebuilding - they stopped spending any real assets on vets, and they didn't draft for need (Jankowski being the example - he was viewed as a potential high-skill centre at the time, but one that would take a number of seasons to realize, not a prospect that would be coming into the lineup sooner). Their drafting and development program was expanding as well. Right now, I 100% trust the scouting department to find players for the team through the draft. I remember someone on HF made a thread comparing all 31 teams over the last 'x' amount of seasons (I forgot exactly how many), and the Flames ranked very near the top (once again, I completely forgot exactly where, but I am going to guess ~top 5 or so). I trust them to continue finding players to feed into the system and graduate onto the team over time as well, while this team is trying to 'contend'. If it fails, well, you have a legitimately talented prospect pool already - maybe no 'franchise types', but good depth already to kickstart a rebuild and acquire blue-chip talent. Flames just need to avoid terrible contracts. Way too many buyouts over the years, and high-priced under-performing contracts. This takes away time from development for guys like Bennett, Kylington, etc., so it becomes a double-edged sword. They also spent way too many assets on the wrong players - goalies, Hamonic, etc. That hurts in the long-run. Flames were not ready to be contenders, but they spent like a contender. I am not sure how they will fill Brodie's shoes this upcoming season. Hopefully they will, but I am also on the fence that while having a top defence is better than middle-of-the-pack defence, you don't always need it if you have a good coach that can implement a sound system (see Sutter, 2004, Islanders, 2020, arguably Pens in their cup years, etc). I am glad that I am not the GM, because I am not sure which direction I would go. First thing I would try is to remove all the overpriced contracts that I could to make room. Maybe the 'mix' isn't the problem, and perhaps it is just that this team is too easy to shut-down? Give it more weapons or change the weapons. I am no fan of Taylor Hall, but if you can sign him for free, that's a a big change to your lineup and allows for easier match-ups for you. That means Lucic and Ryan are expendable (well, duh with Lucic obviously). I like them both, but this is a cap world and you can't keep players around just because you like them. They are both effective in different ways, but 5.25 million for three more seasons of Lucic getting 20-odd points (but also providing much needed intangibles, but still) is expensive. Ditto for a 4th liner making 3.125. Obviously Ryan wouldn't be a difficult contract to move, and I do actually like him and feel he makes an impact, but he is now on the 4th line making that much. You just can't have that on a cap team. I don't know how much it will cost to unload Lucic for a serviceable depth defencemen or depth 4th liner on a cheap deal - probably starts with a 1st. That's painful... Backlund to me is not a problem. Do I wish that he was pushed down to 3rd line centre? Definitely, but only because that would mean that somehow this team is elite down the middle. Backlund by every metric is a 2nd line centre. Actually, let me restate that - Backlund by every counting stat is a 2nd line centre - he produces at a 2nd line centre rate. He doesn't produce as a "2nd line Malkin", but he is solidly in the 2nd line centre average around the league in scoring. However, I argue that he OUTPRODUCES most 2nd line centres in the league when you factor-in how he is utilized - his defensive zone starts, his quality of competition, etc. Some of the toughest minutes in the league, period - tougher minutes than "perennial Selke winner Bergeron". So, no, Backlund is not a guy that I think the Flames should move on from. If you do, your other lines have to start in the defensive zone more often, and end up having a tougher time producing offensively. Backlund is a guy that you most definitely can win with. If you can renegotiate Jankowski's deal cheaper than it is now (or even the same...) I think you do it for 1-2 years. Yep, Jankowski didn't have a good season, but he has 2 previous seasons where he has been both productive and helpful to team wins. One season early on in a player's career shouldn't completely write him off. Now if he wants more money on the other hand, then it is a considerably different conversation and you let him walk. Don't pay for depth. Period. If you are rebuilding, don't sign long-term expensive UFA contracts. Period. Not unless a superstar in his mid 20's decides he wants to sign with you. Then you would obviously be stupid not to - but no more 30+ players looking for a retirement pay-cheque. Don't spend assets on guys you aren't going to keep long-term in trying to fill holes - no more 1 season fillers in any position. If you are going to use assets to fill holes, they have to be low cost assets unless you are acquiring promising players before their prime. Even then, spend assets on drafting players, not trading for them until you think this team is kicking and screaming to get into the playoffs. Don't push them into the playoffs kicking and screaming. Make them push you to trade.