Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
What depth am I concerned about losing in those two trades? Are you really that dense?
First, you are trading away a top four defenseman that we desperately need. With TJ Brodie being a complete unknown at this point we need proven quantities on the blueline to solidify that component of the team. But let’s say you stupidly go and make the deal anyway. Hamonic and Kylington are out of the system. Valimaki is pushed into playing, and likely playing in a top four capacity, without any experience what so ever. Andersson is already pencilled in to the lineup, so what happens when an iury hits? What is left on the farm as a possible replacement on the blueline? Oh, there isn’t anyone because you just traded away our depth!
Second, you’re carving out a quality cost controlled player that can play and contribute right now at a very important position (center). Sure, you bring in Nylander, but to what point? He’s going to be a $6M player, and playing on the wing, so all you’ve done is add yet another high priced piece and weaken us down the middle. Worse, you’ve moved probably our best asset in Dube who you hope will develop into that two-way player in the middle that will also help keep costs controlled.
Third, long term you’ve cut the legs out from under the team. Darryl Sutter did this with all the trades he made, and the franchise paid dearly for it. I don’t ever want to see this team wander that wilderness again, where we had nothing on the farm and no future to rely upon. Developing players that will continually step in every year is the key to long term success in the NHL. The second you have a poor development system is the second your window of opportunity begins to close. The Flames already have a gap in their development pool, and that is going to hurt them in the near future, There is no reason to compound that gap by making more bad trades where we lose future assets.
The Flames upset the Oilers in ‘86, then won a Stanley Cup in ‘89, because they had depth in the system. They were able to pull in a Nieuwendyk, Roberts, Vernon, Suter, MacInnis, and Fleury, and then still have Hull in the minors to make the deal to fortify an already great roster for the cup run. Depth is systemic, and great teams have depth on the farm to use when they need it.
Nothing alarmist about that. Just the way the game is.
|
This is unhinged dude.
1. This would be our lineup (not sure why both valimaki and andersson have to play in your mind)
Gaudreau-Monahan-Neal
Tkachuk-Lindholm-Nylander
Frolik-Backlund-czarnik
Janko/bennett (who ever is leftover and who cares)- ryan-rychel
Mangiapane/lazar/hathaway/foo waiting to push in at cost control and injury level
Gio-Brodie
Hanifin-R. Andersson
Kulak-stone
Valimaki+ others for injury, pushing into lineup. I might try and sign an older guy to pto
Saros
Smith (50/50)
The depth is reduced at d for sure. But everywhere else is far stronger.
In terms of cutting out the future, only one player in our top 6 would be over 25 and all would be in team control for 4+years. What future am I cutting out?
When you talk about position (trading a centre for a winger) you're ignoring the fact that nylander does play centre and that nylander is better than janko and Bennett could hope to be. You're also ignoring the fact that tre went out and got two players who are clearly better centers than either already in lindholm and Ryan. Bennett and janko are already 5/6 on the centre depth chart.
2. To say that the 89 flames team was a depth team that played well together ignores the overwhelming amount of superstar level talent that we had playing for us at the time. Even if you water it town to who you listed, the flames are still lacking a Vernon analogue. Thinking about both of these points, I believe my proposed trades gets us a far closer team to '89 than holding on to our current dime a dozen prospects and bottom 6 players.