Quote:
Originally Posted by Macindoc
In a couple of years, Gio should not be on the 1st pairing, and Hanifin has not proven that he belongs there yet. Andersson has not shown 2nd pairing chops to this point (or even 3rd pairing, for that matter). Kylington has perhaps a 50% chance of being a regular NHLer.
Your assertion is based on an overly-optimistic projection of where Gio, Hanifin, Valimaki, Andersson, and Kylington will be at that point, and still requires the re-signing of Hamonic, who will be at that point be on a less team-friendly deal or one that has too long a term. Realistically, you can expect that only one of our defensive prospects will hit his ceiling, and the Flames will be happy if two of them become permanent fixtures on the team. The problem is that many fans equate a player's potential ceiling with where they expect him to play, and they compare prospects who haven't proven anything with established NHLers who have proven that they can perform at that level.
I'm not saying that I wouldn't play a prospect if he had proven that he could perform at the NHL level, and I would gladly replace a veteran with a prospect who had clearly demonstrated that his performance was at least close to the level of the veteran. But the vast majority of prospects never perform at the NHL level to the degree that they are projected to based on their pre-professional careers.
In the end, I don't think we will be ready in 2 years to replace all of Brodie, Hamonic and Stone (and Kulak is also on a 1-year deal). If we can replace Stone and Kulak, I will be happy, but in addition to Hamonic, I think we will still have to sign someone capable of doing 1st pairing minutes (waiting for Hanifin to prove that he can take it to that level, Gio is getting older, and if we don't re-sign Brodie, who will be on the 1st pairing in 2 years?). I get what you're saying about players being passed by prospects on the depth chart, but there are a lot of big ifs there. I'm not yet convinced that any of those prospects will be better than Brodie. I have some hope that they will, but you can't build a team based on what you hope players will become, especially on D.
|
As I explained in my posts that followed the original my whole argument was essentially that I wasn't going to worry about having 3 x 30 year old defenceman coming off the books at the same time in the sense that I wouldn't want it to hinder us from buying out Brouwer. If there are other reasons to not buy him out so be it but that would not be one for me.
- Stone likely won't be here in two years time
- Hamonic wants to play in western Canada and has limited offensive upside so I don't think re-signing him would break the bank
- Everyone wanted to trade Brodie before we dealt Hamilton. I get that things have changed and now we need to keep him but I originally said IF the young guys all meet their potential we SHOULD be able to move him as well
- Kulak was never really part of the discussion as the first post I responded to specifically talked about our top 5 defenceman
If Brouwer needs to go I don't think the fact those three guys are coming off the books in two years time is the reason you don't do it. There are a number of other legitimate reasons not to but that isn't one IMO.
I also explained in following posts the pairings I outlined were mearly to illustrate how I saw their potential not necessarily how things would look in two years time - Treliving is not one who is afraid to make trades so there is also the possibility of that.
IMO Andersson and Valimaki will be NHL regulars within the next 2 seasons which is why I'm not worried about Stone, Brodie and Hamonic coming off the books at the same time.
I get that we could end up being disappointed if they fail to meet their potential but my whole point was I don't think the 1.5 million cap hit penalty, if we decide to buy out Brouwer, is going to disrupt our ability to remain competitive, even if 3 of our current top 5 dmen need a new contract in 2 years time.