[Rumour] Friedman: Ducks really like Sam Bennett

[Beninho]

Bennett won't be going anywhere unless it's for an overpayment, this thread is pointless and Friedman has been adding these little caviets in his articles for some time now without giving any explanation. I for one only trust Bob McKenzie and Dregger, Friendman usually is very trustworthy but he's definaltey been flinging some bull#### put their to get clicks.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Not to metion Brett Hull...

Larf

The Flames traded a young, Grade A prospect for an all star defenceman and a reliable veteran backup.

And we won a Cup

Who would you have traded instead of Hull. Here were the other possibilities at the time:

Some plugger named Gary Roberts
Joe Niewen-something
A little guy named Fleury, but the Flames would have to throw more in.


The Flames new Hull would be a good player and they traded from a position of strength to acquire depth in areas of need.

And they won a Cup.

[Sandman]

Hull DID NOT want to be here anyway.....

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Bennett won't be going anywhere unless it's for an overpayment, this thread is pointless and Friedman has been adding these little caviets in his articles for some time now without giving any explanation. I for one only trust Bob McKenzie and Dregger, Friendman usually is very trustworthy but he's definaltey been flinging some bull#### put their to get clicks.

Friedman no doubt does get some good leads, but he also mastered the art of saying a lot, without really saying anything. He leaves so much room between the lines sometimes that you can interpret the narrative however you like. He is rarely ever "wrong", because he rarely ever goes out on a limb.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I would consider moving bennett for a top flight young puck moving defender.

I'm not sure that's necessarily where Calgary needs to be, but if the plan is to shuffle some of the defensive deck chairs and maybe move a defender out for offensive help, it might make sense to capitalise on Bennett's free agent status and value around the league.

The Flames are in the unenviable position of needing a lot of help, but without the necessary trade assets to get deals done. Bennett is a prime trade asset.

Move bennett, sign backlund... profit?

While those things may be true, we need to consider where the Flames would be after that trade.

Do we need another puck-moving defenseman? Definitely.

But what is the hardest asset to acquire? Top Cs. Bennett has the potential to not only be a top 6 C but a top line C. They are extremely difficult to acquire, other than with a top 5 pick. And the fact is that our time in the lottery world is probably over. The Flames are going to be playoff contenders for the foreseeable future.

The other side of that coin is that, while we need another defender, we have 3 excellent ones, and the improvement to the team would be marginal. Or to be more precise, adding a defender like Vatanen would be less impactful to the team than adding a top line C (Bennett's potential).

Trading Bennett puts a huge hole in the middle of the lineup that the Flames have absolutely no way of filling.

Filling the problem of a puck moving defenseman? Many more options. Maybe we even get lucky and have Andersson or Kylington step into that role.

Regardless of what people think with respect to who is better, Vatanen or Bennett, it simply doesn't make sense for the flames to make that trade. It creates a much bigger and more difficult to fill hole than the one it solves.

Oh, and to Pinder saying that the Flames would have to add? That's laughable. They are at risk of losing Vatanen for nothing. Also, his stock has dropped a fair bit in the last year (even before the pending surgery), there is a reason why he is the one that the Ducks won't protect.

I shake my head at some of Pinder's valuations, but this one is ridiculous.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Is that you Pinder?

Pinder is no good.............

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Poor comparisons. Tatar and Nino are 24-25 year olds not 21. Vatanen is 25 and a good player but obviously one the Ducks will likely move over 3 other defenders on their roster. He turns 26 on the weekend.

Bennett is also a centre and you compare him to wingers but finding centre comparisons is difficult.

Using the Brodie example I would sat Drouin is a good comparable. A high draft pick taken 5 years later (Brodie 08, Vatanen 09, Drouin 13, Bennett 14). If the Flames had a top 3 of Lindholm, Fowler, Manson as well as Montour and Theodore in the system I easily move Brodie for Drouin. Considering we have only 2 Dmen ahead of Brodie and literally one guy signed below him next year the Flames simply can't afford to move a Dman in our top 3

Drouin has scored 32 more points than Bennett in 5 more games in the NHL.

Drouin and Bennett are not comparable.

I'm using a Flames Nation article for my Bennett comparisons. I understand the comparables are older, but based on a ranking by salary, Vatanen > Bennett.

If Bennett scored more points he would have more tangible value, but the points aren't there so neither is the value. The belief/hope is that the points arrive, but guys who are doing it will be more valuable than the guys who could but aren't yet.

[Toonage]

Anaheim has two 2nd round picks. Calgary has none.

Bennett for Vatanen and a 2nd

[vilzeh]

Do not want Vatanen, overrated.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Drouin has scored 32 more points than Bennett in 5 more games in the NHL.

Drouin and Bennett are not comparable.

I'm using a Flames Nation article for my Bennett comparisons. I understand the comparables are older, but based on a ranking by salary, Vatanen > Bennett.

If Bennett scored more points he would have more tangible value, but the points aren't there so neither is the value. The belief/hope is that the points arrive, but guys who are doing it will be more valuable than the guys who could but aren't yet.

I believe Bennett and Drouin today are more comparable than Bennett to either Niederriter, or Tatar who are 4-5 years older.

Brodie is pretty much exactly one year older than Vatanen and it was considered a bad year for Brodie who had 36pts this year where Vatanen has only 24 (71 games) Brodie has also been called a solid defensive player where Vatanen is considered more of an offensive specialist.

My comparison isn't spot on but I feel is much better than your "would you trade Brodie for Tatar or Nino?" Comment

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Drouin has scored 32 more points than Bennett in 5 more games in the NHL.

Drouin and Bennett are not comparable.

You do realize that 75 of those games were played at an age older than Bennett is today, right?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Anaheim has two 2nd round picks. Calgary has none.

Bennett for Vatanen and a 2nd

A 2nd in a horrible draft and a 26 year old that is going to be injured for the beginning of the season for Bennett? The Flames are not in a position to trade young established NHLers for older vets. It would be different if the team just lost in the third round and defensive depth was our downfall. We just got swept and have to continue to build. Moving the highest of our 3 top 10 picks before he turns 21 is not the answer

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

While those things may be true, we need to consider where the Flames would be after that trade.

Do we need another puck-moving defenseman? Definitely.

But what is the hardest asset to acquire? Top Cs. Bennett has the potential to not only be a top 6 C but a top line C. They are extremely difficult to acquire, other than with a top 5 pick. And the fact is that our time in the lottery world is probably over. The Flames are going to be playoff contenders for the foreseeable future.

The other side of that coin is that, while we need another defender, we have 3 excellent ones, and the improvement to the team would be marginal. Or to be more precise, adding a defender like Vatanen would be less impactful to the team than adding a top line C (Bennett's potential).

Trading Bennett puts a huge hole in the middle of the lineup that the Flames have absolutely no way of filling.

Filling the problem of a puck moving defenseman? Many more options. Maybe we even get lucky and have Andersson or Kylington step into that role.

Regardless of what people think with respect to who is better, Vatanen or Bennett, it simply doesn't make sense for the flames to make that trade. It creates a much bigger and more difficult to fill hole than the one it solves.

Oh, and to Pinder saying that the Flames would have to add? That's laughable. They are at risk of losing Vatanen for nothing. Also, his stock has dropped a fair bit in the last year (even before the pending surgery), there is a reason why he is the one that the Ducks won't protect.

I shake my head at some of Pinder's valuations, but this one is ridiculous.

I don't really like the idea of dealing bennett either, I would much rather move Backlund and risk sucking a bit more while bennett and monahan get used to more heavy lifting, but that's just me.

Backlund as part of a package for Schneider, Backlund and Ryan Murray as the key pieces, something like that.

Ideally you sign Bennett to a 3 or 4 year deal at a cap hit of less than 3, sign a top 6 offensive winger and then give him and bennett the prime minutes to coax the offense out of him while he's under contract at a reasonable rate.

NOt sure who that winger is though. It's not jason williams or TJ oshie.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Manson is still exposed under this scenario which is why many are speculating the Ducks will move Vatanen before the expansion draft. Bieksa will waive or be bought out, Manson, Fowler, Lindholm are protected.

He is injured and required surgery after the last round of playoffs, and as such cannot be bought out.

On top of that, I highly doubt he will waive to be traded nor do I think there will be many teams lining up for him and his buggered knee and his 4 million dollar cap hit.

[ComixZone]

Vatanen took time to develop, and was a player selected in the 4th round.

Bennett is a player who is very early on in his development, and was selected in the 1st round.

Yes - by all means, let's abandon the player who had/has more perceived potential and not give him the time to develop, because as we know being impatient with prospects and relying on trades and free agency is how you build a winning team.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by transplant99

He is injured and required surgery after the last round of playoffs, and as such cannot be bought out.

On top of that, I highly doubt he will waive to be traded nor do I think there will be many teams lining up for him and his buggered knee and his 4 million dollar cap hit.

I believe he will waive to be exposed and not selected therefore allowing the Ducks to protect 3 of Lindholm, Fowler, Vatanen, and Manson

[Flamefan1]

Flames would be idiots to trade Bennett. We will start the season with arguably the most talented 4 centres the team has ever had with: Monohan, Backlund, Bennett and Jankowski. I have no doubt Annaheim would want to trade a defenseman to Calgary for Bennett seeing that they will lose one in the expansion draft anyways. Cagary should keep Bennett, sign26 year old Stone for 3 or 4 years, and actuallLy play two of Andersson, Kulak, Wotherspoon, or Kylington.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Flamefan1

Flames would be idiots to trade Bennett. We will start the season with arguably the most talented 4 centres the team has ever had with: Monohan, Backlund, Bennett and Jankowski. I have no doubt Annaheim would want to trade a defenseman to Calgary for Bennett seeing that they will lose one in the expansion draft anyways. Cagary should keep Bennett, sign26 year old Stone for 3 or 4 years, and actuallLy play two of Andersson, Kulak, Wotherspoon, or Kylington.

I agree with everything, except i'm hoping we play ONE of those young defensemen, and hopefully bring back Engelland for a few years-we can't lose any size or toughness that we need for this conference.

[LIP MAN]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Pinder is no good.............

I believe Pinder thought that Anaheim would have to add.

[Calgary4LIfe]

It isn't like Bennett hasn't been developing. I think he is light years better defensively. I think he has become more disciplined as well.

I just can't see the merit of trading away what could be a top line center to solidify the top 4 defencemen by bringing in a #4. Bennett really could pan out to become a real game-changer for this franchise. Is Vatanen THAT much better than Stone? Why not just re-sign Stone in the offseason?

At any rate, getting a #4 defencemen is a heck of a lot easier than trying to acquire another top line center. I get that people may feel that Bennett won't be one, but I will take the chance on Bennett that he has a lot more room for development yet. Maybe he never develops into one - but I do bet that he develops into a player that the entire fanbase considers part of the core.

Flames have always been able to acquire really good defencemen. Flames have been a lot less able to acquire good centers. Langkow - a pretty damn good player - has probably been the best center this organization has managed to acquire in 20 years. Toss up between him and Conroy anyways, and I argue that the Flames lucked out with Conroy developing an offensive side.

It would be foolhardy to trade Bennett now. I take it as a compliment that the Ducks really like what they see in Bennett. They like him for a reason, and it is because they see his potential and probably feel he will experience a lot of growth in his game yet.