Quote:
Originally Posted by Kybb79
If Kulak can do it so can Anderson or Wotherspoon for the bottom 6.
|
We're talking about the top 4.
Quote:
|
Move Stone up or Kulak this defense is supposed to be the backbone of the team they have looked ordinary at best.
|
Treliving went out and acquired Hamonic because he was not comfortable with having Stone as a regular #4 and nobody ready to move up in case of injury. Nothing has happened to change that assessment. Hamonic hasn't worked out as well as expected; which is all the more reason NOT to trade away a top-4 D.
(Hint: If defence is a weakness of this team after all, that might be a sign not to make it even weaker.)
Quote:
|
Brodie turns the puck over too much is he really a top 4?
|
Brodie tops all Flames defencemen this year with 24:26 ATOI. No ####, he's top 4.
(Hint: Before you can turn over the puck, you have to get possession of the puck. Gaudreau is second on the team in giveaways, one behind Brodie. Does that mean he's not a top-6 forward?)
Quote:
|
Kane would help especially on the PP and he would most likely play on the top line.
|
Micheal Ferland this season: 12 goals (1.48 G/60 min), $1.7m until 2019.
Evander Kane this season: 14 goals (1.31 G/60 min), $5.25m expiring this year.
Kane gets more production than Ferland largely because he gets a lot more ice time – almost 20 minutes per game. (Want to compare total points per 60 minutes? Kane 2.63, Ferland 2.35.) Is he going to get that much ice time on the Flames?
(Hint: Not even Johnny Gaudreau does.)
Quote:
|
Im not sure where the Leeman comparison came from there is only 1 Leeman.
|
Doug Risebrough traded for Gary Leeman because Leeman once scored 50 goals in a season and Risebrough was dumb enough to think he could do it again. I believe it would be equally dumb to expect Kane ever to repeat the season he is having this year, and outside of this year he's basically a second-line scoring winger. I don't see him as a sufficient upgrade to be worth a top-4 D in return.