Quote:
Originally Posted by bax
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. So just to clarify the timeline of events is:
1. Flames lose a top 4 D in the playoffs resulting in every defenseman having to shoulder some more responsibility and the result isn’t great.
2. Treliving publicly states (in addition to all the Gaudreau and Tkachuk drama) that improving the defense is a top priority this off season.
3. Treliving effectively replaces a bottom pairing defenseman (Gudbranson) with a top pairing defenseman (Weegar) improving not only the top end of our defense, but also the bottom end (by pushing players down the rotation and adding depth in Meloche and Gilbert).
4. Now some fans are advocating for trading away a top 4 cog on defense (essentially erasing the improvement Treliving made to the D) in order for help at forward? Even though he replaced Tkachuk and Gaudreau with Huberdeau and Kadri?
Not only do I disagree with that direction, I just don’t think it’s realistic at all based on what Treliving has said.
I’m baffled that some posters would be okay with either Michael Stone or Connor Mackey pencilled in to play a full season.
In a year when the team has Stanley Cup aspirations Treliving and Sutter aren’t going to rely on a 32 year old slow defenseman who hasn’t been a regular player in 4 seasons or a 26 year old NHL rookie to play a permanent role, it just won’t happen.
If anything Kylington needs to be bumped down the rotation and thrive in a more sheltered role. That way the defense is unquestionably better and better suited to adapt in case of injury.
With that being said I also acknowledge that another top 6 winger would be nice to have, but I haven’t seen one realistic name that would be A) actually available and B) worth giving up any of our defenseman.
I think if Milano impresses at camp the Flames will be happy to give him a shot in the top 6 or potentially make an add near the deadline when they don’t need to trade a core piece to do it.
|
Well there are two schools of thought from those of us that are advocating trading a D for forward help.
The first is that some the D that are currently destined for the 3rd pairing have more to give. A lot of our D are relatively young, and Kylington in particular looks like he can take another step. Playing on the 3rd pairing might limit that development. The same can be argued for Mackey who in my opinion was one of the better D in the AHL last year. That way we still end up with an upgraded D even if we move a one of our top 4 D-man.
The second is more about dealing one of Kylington/Zadorov. It seems the D would still be improved because of the really strong top 4, and still have one D that can step into the top 4 in case of one injury. The bottom line is that we have 10 D under contract, I would argue that 8/9 of them would not look out of place on the bottom pairing. For example I don't think that replacing Zadorov with Mackey will cost us any points in the standings.
Personally I'm very cautious about trading someone like Hanifin, but I could see the return for him being similar to what we got in the Hamilton deal. Most of the posters are still on the high from the Tkachuk trade, and think that we can get a star in the making for Hanifin. That said, I actually think that he was the one carrying that pairing with Andersson, and he can become a #1D as soon as this season, but Andersson is on the better(and longer) contract.
At the end of the day, I don't think we're going to trade any of our D until the next Summer. That's when the coaching staff and management will decide which 3D they prefer to keep out of Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, and Tanev. One of them will be dealt, my money is on Z.