Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - This is the year for the Flames to prove they can graduate prospects from the AHL

Five-hole · 07-05-2017, 04:43 AM

Fair warning: this is an opinion thread.

I don't mean to rain on what has been a pretty successful offseason for the Flames so far. We have a stopgap solution for goaltending for the next two years. The addition of Hamonic steadies the top four for the next few seasons. The Stone signing adds stability to the bottom pair for the next three years.

BUT.

I have had a concern for a long time that the Flames are mediocre at best, and likely pretty terrible in fact, at graduating prospects from the AHL.

Consider that the last prospect to graduate to the Flames NHL team and who is still on the Flames NHL team after spending some time on the farm was Micheal Ferland, drafted in 2010. Spent parts of three seasons in the AHL (one of which resulted in being sent back down to junior), and appears to have become a full-time NHLer.

Prior to that?

TJ Brodie, drafted in 2008. Spent parts of 3 seasons in the AHL.
Mikael Backlund, drafted in 2007. Spent 1 season in the AHL, plus a one-game demotion in 2010-11.

Other notables:

Lance Bouma, drafted in 2008. Spent parts of 4 seasons with the Heat. Recently bought out.

Markus Granlund, drafted in 2011. Spent parts of 3 seasons with the Heat, was traded to the Canucks due to a "logjam" at centre for a winger who is struggling to make the jump. Last season's stat line:
69 GP, 19 G, 13 A, 32 P, 14 PIM, -19 +/-, $800k salary

Sven Baertschi, also drafted in 2011. Spent parts of 3 seasons with the AHL club, demanded a trade and was dealt to the Canucks, because he didn't feel he had a chance here. Last season's stat line:
68 GP, 18 G, 17 A, 35 P, 8 PIM, -6 +/-, $1.85M salary

Conversely consider these statlines:
Michael Frolik: 82 GP, 17 G, 27 A, 44 P, 58 PIM, +13 +/- $4.3M salary
Troy Brouwer: 74 GP, 13 G, 12 A, 25 P, 31 PIM, -11 +/-, $4.5M salary
Matt Stajan: 81 GP, 6 G, 17 A, 23 P, 40 PIM, +3 +/-, $3.125M salary

Don't get me wrong, I love what Frolik brings. He was 1/3rd of one of the best lines in hockey for a reason. But another 1/3rd of that line was a true homegrown player, Mikael Backlund, who we have had on the cheap for a number of years because we didn't have to sign him out of free agency.

This year we have a number of prospects on the AHL team who are knocking on the door:

At F:
Mark Jankowski
Hunter Shinkaruk
Morgan Klimchuk
Emile Poirier
Spencer Foo
Curtis Lazar

On D:
Rasmus Andersson
Tyler Wotherspoon
Brett Kulak

On D, barring injury, we have one spot. Two, if you carry 8 D. One of my wish list items for this season is that some combination of those three guys gets 82 games or more. It doesn't have to be one guy, but if Matt Bartkowski is taking a regular shift as a #6 I'm going to be very disappointed. If Treliving signs another stopgap vet to play bottom-pairing minutes I'm going to be very, very disappointed.

I was very happy that Treliving did not (or at least not yet) sign any more aging stopgaps up front. We have a plethora of young talent that, once developed, could fit in top 9 roles and very few spots for them.

Gaudreau - Monahan - Ferland
Tkachuk - Backlund - Frolik
Versteeg - Bennett - Brouwer
? - Stajan - ?

It's highly unlikely that any of those players, barring injury, don't play in the top 9 to start the season. That's two spots, assuming (hoping) schlubs like Gazdic aren't playing on the big club, and it's two spots on the 4th line, which has a very specific function and may not be well-suited to grooming top-9 offensive prospects.

What's the big deal, you say? If a prospect deserves a spot he will earn it, right?

Well, maybe not. I imagine it was likely rather disappointing for Rasmus, Spoon, and Kulak to see that two top-5 D were added for the next 3 years. The prevailing wisdom is you can't overripen a prospect, but you can if you literally never pick it off the vine. There's a difference between "gifting" a spot to a prospect who is not ready, and sending the message to your entire prospect base that you will never have a realistic shot at getting time on the big club. Why do you think Hickey didn't want to sign here?

Over the past ... well, decade or more, dating back to GM Sutter, we have routinely brought in aging and expensive vets to fill holes and perform at a mediocre level. Sure, in theory, Troy Brouwer brings a different game than Sven Baertschi, but I didn't see it last year. Sven has a lot more offensive upside, costs about 1/3rd as much, is younger, and is still developing. There is a very real risk that Brouwer will not only not bounce back but will regress over the course of his contract.

Michael Stone is a reliable #5 guy, but he too costs about 3x as much as a Kulak, a Wotherspoon, or an Andersson. Couldn't Wotherspoon be a Michael Stone if given regular minutes over the next 3 years? And save us $2.5M in cap in the process, allowing us to address other needs, like the upcoming contracts for core players like Bennett, Tkachuk, Backlund, and Brodie?

Bottom line, you can't keep rotating in expensive vets and letting your kids rot on the vine. The crop of young prospects that, to me, represents the big turnaround in the Flames drafting and development are starting to be ready. Let's show Flames prospects that if you put your time in, you will get time and some leeway to learn on the big club.

I worry that signings like Stone and Brouwer show that Treliving is trying to sprint before we can run, and to run, we need cheap, homegrown talent.

Finally, you will rarely if ever hit a homerun by acquiring a developed player. Oliver Kylington could be Erik Karlsson. Highly, highly unlikely, but it's more likely that OK will be than Michael Stone or Travis Hamonic will be Erik Karlsson. Rasmus could easily be as good a D as Hamonic, maybe better. Is it likely? No. But for any of these players to hit a homerun, they need to be given some at-bats.

Furthermore, developing prospects is the only way to make your organization more asset-rich. Too many NHL-ready prospects? Trade one for futures. A prospect makes a vet expendable? Trade the vet for futures. Conversely, buying guys like Hamonic who will be a UFA at the end of his deal with three high draft picks gradually erodes your asset base. Not now, but we have traded three prospects who could make an impact in 2022-2025 for three years of a defenseman now. You better be damn sure that you get this window timing right, because this kind of asset management will force another bottom-out rebuild in 6-8 years unless we can continually replenish our roster with homegrown talent.

Can we? It remains to be seen. I'm hoping to see big strides in that department this season.

07-05-2017, 04:43 AM	#1
Five-hole Franchise Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The C-spot Exp:	This is the year for the Flames to prove they can graduate prospects from the AHL Fair warning: this is an opinion thread. I don't mean to rain on what has been a pretty successful offseason for the Flames so far. We have a stopgap solution for goaltending for the next two years. The addition of Hamonic steadies the top four for the next few seasons. The Stone signing adds stability to the bottom pair for the next three years. BUT. I have had a concern for a long time that the Flames are mediocre at best, and likely pretty terrible in fact, at graduating prospects from the AHL. Consider that the last prospect to graduate to the Flames NHL team and who is still on the Flames NHL team after spending some time on the farm was Micheal Ferland, drafted in 2010. Spent parts of three seasons in the AHL (one of which resulted in being sent back down to junior), and appears to have become a full-time NHLer. Prior to that? TJ Brodie, drafted in 2008. Spent parts of 3 seasons in the AHL. Mikael Backlund, drafted in 2007. Spent 1 season in the AHL, plus a one-game demotion in 2010-11. Other notables: Lance Bouma, drafted in 2008. Spent parts of 4 seasons with the Heat. Recently bought out. Markus Granlund, drafted in 2011. Spent parts of 3 seasons with the Heat, was traded to the Canucks due to a "logjam" at centre for a winger who is struggling to make the jump. Last season's stat line: 69 GP, 19 G, 13 A, 32 P, 14 PIM, -19 +/-, $800k salary Sven Baertschi, also drafted in 2011. Spent parts of 3 seasons with the AHL club, demanded a trade and was dealt to the Canucks, because he didn't feel he had a chance here. Last season's stat line: 68 GP, 18 G, 17 A, 35 P, 8 PIM, -6 +/-, $1.85M salary Conversely consider these statlines: Michael Frolik: 82 GP, 17 G, 27 A, 44 P, 58 PIM, +13 +/- $4.3M salary Troy Brouwer: 74 GP, 13 G, 12 A, 25 P, 31 PIM, -11 +/-, $4.5M salary Matt Stajan: 81 GP, 6 G, 17 A, 23 P, 40 PIM, +3 +/-, $3.125M salary Don't get me wrong, I love what Frolik brings. He was 1/3rd of one of the best lines in hockey for a reason. But another 1/3rd of that line was a true homegrown player, Mikael Backlund, who we have had on the cheap for a number of years because we didn't have to sign him out of free agency. This year we have a number of prospects on the AHL team who are knocking on the door: At F: Mark Jankowski Hunter Shinkaruk Morgan Klimchuk Emile Poirier Spencer Foo Curtis Lazar On D: Rasmus Andersson Tyler Wotherspoon Brett Kulak On D, barring injury, we have one spot. Two, if you carry 8 D. One of my wish list items for this season is that some combination of those three guys gets 82 games or more. It doesn't have to be one guy, but if Matt Bartkowski is taking a regular shift as a #6 I'm going to be very disappointed. If Treliving signs another stopgap vet to play bottom-pairing minutes I'm going to be very, very disappointed. I was very happy that Treliving did not (or at least not yet) sign any more aging stopgaps up front. We have a plethora of young talent that, once developed, could fit in top 9 roles and very few spots for them. Gaudreau - Monahan - Ferland Tkachuk - Backlund - Frolik Versteeg - Bennett - Brouwer ? - Stajan - ? It's highly unlikely that any of those players, barring injury, don't play in the top 9 to start the season. That's two spots, assuming (hoping) schlubs like Gazdic aren't playing on the big club, and it's two spots on the 4th line, which has a very specific function and may not be well-suited to grooming top-9 offensive prospects. What's the big deal, you say? If a prospect deserves a spot he will earn it, right? Well, maybe not. I imagine it was likely rather disappointing for Rasmus, Spoon, and Kulak to see that two top-5 D were added for the next 3 years. The prevailing wisdom is you can't overripen a prospect, but you can if you literally never pick it off the vine. There's a difference between "gifting" a spot to a prospect who is not ready, and sending the message to your entire prospect base that you will never have a realistic shot at getting time on the big club. Why do you think Hickey didn't want to sign here? Over the past ... well, decade or more, dating back to GM Sutter, we have routinely brought in aging and expensive vets to fill holes and perform at a mediocre level. Sure, in theory, Troy Brouwer brings a different game than Sven Baertschi, but I didn't see it last year. Sven has a lot more offensive upside, costs about 1/3rd as much, is younger, and is still developing. There is a very real risk that Brouwer will not only not bounce back but will regress over the course of his contract. Michael Stone is a reliable #5 guy, but he too costs about 3x as much as a Kulak, a Wotherspoon, or an Andersson. Couldn't Wotherspoon be a Michael Stone if given regular minutes over the next 3 years? And save us $2.5M in cap in the process, allowing us to address other needs, like the upcoming contracts for core players like Bennett, Tkachuk, Backlund, and Brodie? Bottom line, you can't keep rotating in expensive vets and letting your kids rot on the vine. The crop of young prospects that, to me, represents the big turnaround in the Flames drafting and development are starting to be ready. Let's show Flames prospects that if you put your time in, you will get time and some leeway to learn on the big club. I worry that signings like Stone and Brouwer show that Treliving is trying to sprint before we can run, and to run, we need cheap, homegrown talent. Finally, you will rarely if ever hit a homerun by acquiring a developed player. Oliver Kylington could be Erik Karlsson. Highly, highly unlikely, but it's more likely that OK will be than Michael Stone or Travis Hamonic will be Erik Karlsson. Rasmus could easily be as good a D as Hamonic, maybe better. Is it likely? No. But for any of these players to hit a homerun, they need to be given some at-bats. Furthermore, developing prospects is the only way to make your organization more asset-rich. Too many NHL-ready prospects? Trade one for futures. A prospect makes a vet expendable? Trade the vet for futures. Conversely, buying guys like Hamonic who will be a UFA at the end of his deal with three high draft picks gradually erodes your asset base. Not now, but we have traded three prospects who could make an impact in 2022-2025 for three years of a defenseman now. You better be damn sure that you get this window timing right, because this kind of asset management will force another bottom-out rebuild in 6-8 years unless we can continually replenish our roster with homegrown talent. Can we? It remains to be seen. I'm hoping to see big strides in that department this season. Last edited by Five-hole; 07-05-2017 at 04:47 AM.