Flames Exploring Trade Options

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by herashak

Except he has done nothing but play like a top 10 nhl goalie since hes been in the league. i dont see how you can name 9 goalies better than him you can try. horvat looks solid but definitely not what im trading a young promising goalie with 100 games experience for.

Goalies historically don't bring back a lot in a trade. Look at comparable goalies out there that have been traded in the last few years - Bernier being the best comparable at this time. I thought Vancouver did very, very well in that trade. They mishandled the whole process with Luongo terribly, but the return they received for Schneider I thought was better than expected.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by herashak

Except he has done nothing but play like a top 10 nhl goalie since hes been in the league. i dont see how you can name 9 goalies better than him you can try. horvat looks solid but definitely not what im trading a young promising goalie with 100 games experience for.

Top 10... top 15... does it really matter nowadays? We haven't seen a goaltender carry his team to a Cup win since the days of Roy and Brodeur. Besides Lundqvist, how many legitimate top 3-5 goalies from past eras haven't at least backstopped their team to the Cup finals? Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in having the best goaltending, but nowadays, it seems you just need a good one capable of playing 50+ games in the regular season and not choke in the playoffs. Rarely do you see the better goalie steal a playoff series.

Now I'm in the camp who thinks very highly of Schneider. At the time of the trade, I consider him as safe of a bet as there is for a goaltender traded at his age who is expected to be one of the better #1 goalies. The Canucks managed to get a top 10 pick in a deep draft for him. What did similar goalies get?

Bernier can be considered equally as talented but much less proven and got a much lesser return. Halak was considered less talented and less proven and got Eller who certainly wasn't worth a top 10 pick at the time. Lehtonen was considered an injury risk and got a lesser return. Varlamov is probably the closest comparison in terms of talent and pedigree at the time of the trade, but he was less of a sure thing due to his injury proneness. and was traded in a different environment. The Capitals received a first round pick and a conditional 2nd from a team that finished last in the league the previous season but was 12th best the year before due to superior goaltending. At the time that was considered a massive steal for Capitals. In the end the first round pick turned into the #11th pick.

I think that one can make a strong argument that the Canucks could have gotten more for Schneider but I don't think this is in any way a poor return. It'll be interesting to see what Ryan Miller goes for. From the looks of it, most teams aren't willing to give up much in the way of young assets and draft picks for goaltending nowadays.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by moon

He hasn't been a top 10 goalie at any point in his career so far what makes him a pretty much guarantee to be a top 10 goalie for the next 6-7 years?

The range between Monahan and Knight is enormous so pretty tough to answer that but if it was close to Monahan then yes I would gladly trade Schneider to get that.

Last year he was 8th in gaa and 4th in sv%.

Two years ago he was 3rd in gaa and second in sv%.

I am not sure what your criteria is but he definitely makes a strong case for top 10 in the NHL. Again he split time with luongo so it will be interesting to see how he holds up as a starter, but he should only get better considering his age, and I think he has already looked great. I do understand if you don't think he is top ten, but I would consider him top ten.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by FAN

Top 10... top 15... does it really matter nowadays? We haven't seen a goaltender carry his team to a Cup win since the days of Roy and Brodeur. Besides Lundqvist, how many legitimate top 3-5 goalies from past eras haven't at least backstopped their team to the Cup finals? Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in having the best goaltending, but nowadays, it seems you just need a good one capable of playing 50+ games in the regular season and not choke in the playoffs. Rarely do you see the better goalie steal a playoff series.

Now I'm in the camp who thinks very highly of Schneider. At the time of the trade, I consider him as safe of a bet as there is for a goaltender traded at his age who is expected to be one of the better #1 goalies. The Canucks managed to get a top 10 pick in a deep draft for him. What did similar goalies get?

Bernier can be considered equally as talented but much less proven and got a much lesser return. Halak was considered less talented and less proven and got Eller who certainly wasn't worth a top 10 pick at the time. Lehtonen was considered an injury risk and got a lesser return. Varlamov is probably the closest comparison in terms of talent and pedigree at the time of the trade, but he was less of a sure thing due to his injury proneness. and was traded in a different environment. The Capitals received a first round pick and a conditional 2nd from a team that finished last in the league the previous season but was 12th best the year before due to superior goaltending. At the time that was considered a massive steal for Capitals. In the end the first round pick turned into the #11th pick.

I think that one can make a strong argument that the Canucks could have gotten more for Schneider but I don't think this is in any way a poor return. It'll be interesting to see what Ryan Miller goes for. From the looks of it, most teams aren't willing to give up much in the way of young assets and draft picks for goaltending nowadays.

You can't really compare these apples to apples. Varlamov was young and didn't even have arbitration rights when he was traded for, thus he was cheap and the team had 3+ years of control on him

Miller will be traded as a 2 month rental thus he should have much less value, unless a gm is trying to save his job.

Schneider still had a reasonable contract, and 4 years control or close to that

Halak was an rfa and Montreal decided price was there guy and didn't want to pay too much on 2starters thus were motivated to trade.

I think salary and service time are two variables that you didn't take into consideration in your discussion.

[theoforever]

Schnider never was #1 goalie, when he got a chance to run with it he either got hurt or crapped the bed. Having said so, he is a good goalie with definite #1 potential.

[dying4acup]

I think Schneider and Halak were good comparables at the time of trade.

Both had more or less ousted the incumbent as starter very recently. Schneider had accomplished more.

Gillis did well with that.

Gillis, if he makes a trade this season, will get fleeced badly. He is desperate and everybody knows it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay

If I had to wager a guess I think we'll see Stajan brought back on a much cheaper deal to be our 3rd line centre for the time beung. Pretty responsible defensively, good leader/team guy and decent in the face off dot.

Also I think the organization has wanted Backlund to emerge as a top 2 centre, which he has not, but they also don't see him being as being a part of our bottom 2. Probably part of why he's being shopped at this point and all the more reason to keep Stajan around for a few more years as a depth guy.

I don't mind the idea of having a veteran centre somewhere in our lineup but I don't really think Stajan is the guy going forward. He just lacks an elite quality. I think we deal him at the deadline for the best offer. I don't think a 2nd rounder would be out of the realm of possibility as a return for him.

Last year way more kids were inserted post deadline and I expect the same this year. So a centre ice lineup of Monahan, Backlund, Colborne and Jones/Reinhart/Knight wouldn't surprise me post-deadline. Continue to see what we have in these guys and make decisions going forward.

If we get a veteran centre to replace Stajan it will probably be in the summer IMO. And unless you get a great offer for Backlund I think we need to keep him till the draft and see what position we get with our probable top 5 pick. For example if we draft Reinhart and think he'll step in then at that point it makes more sense to consider Backlund expendable.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

You can't really compare these apples to apples. Varlamov was young and didn't even have arbitration rights when he was traded for, thus he was cheap and the team had 3+ years of control on him

Miller will be traded as a 2 month rental thus he should have much less value, unless a gm is trying to save his job.

Schneider still had a reasonable contract, and 4 years control or close to that

Halak was an rfa and Montreal decided price was there guy and didn't want to pay too much on 2starters thus were motivated to trade.

I think salary and service time are two variables that you didn't take into consideration in your discussion.

I don't disagree with your points, but I think you missed my points. My main points were that Schneider is good and the return the Canucks got for him was good rather than poor. The guys I named were guys I felt to be the closest comparables given the lack of comparables. Do you have better comparables? If not it helps prove my point.

Originally Posted by dying4acup

I think Schneider and Halak were good comparables at the time of trade.

Both had more or less ousted the incumbent as starter very recently. Schneider had accomplished more.

The reason I felt Varlamov was the closest comparable was due to his perceived talent level and potential, his NHL accomplishments, and the price he was traded for. Of the guys I mentioned, only the return for Varlamov was arguably better or close to what the Canucks got for Schneider. You might have to go as far as long as the Luongo trade to find a goalie who was traded for a price that was better than Varlamov's and Schneider's.

I found Halak to be a lesser comparable because unlike Varlamov and Schneider, there is the risk that he was a one year wonder because he wasn't a top goaltending prospect the way Varlamov, Schneider, and Bernier were.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay

If I had to wager a guess I think we'll see Stajan brought back on a much cheaper deal to be our 3rd line centre for the time beung. Pretty responsible defensively, good leader/team guy and decent in the face off dot.

Also I think the organization has wanted Backlund to emerge as a top 2 centre, which he has not, but they also don't see him being as being a part of our bottom 2. Probably part of why he's being shopped at this point and all the more reason to keep Stajan around for a few more years as a depth guy.

I really hope the organisation doesn't share this view. Regardless of Backlund's current statistics he is a better player than Stajan. He's much younger, cheaper & still has potential to live up to. With Stajan we are finally seeing a half-decent NHLer after 4 years of poor play. It also just happens to be his contract year where we see him pull his finger out and occasionally play well. This is the best we can expect from him, whereas with Backlund we expect much greater things.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

You realize that would leave a team that would be worse than anything the Oilers have ever iced?


That's 14 guys who are either rookies, minor leaguers, or have very recently been minor leaguers (not counting the lockout), 2 guys who were flipped by their teams for depth picks (ie throwaways), and 4 established vets.

That would be horrific.

Don't suppose you actually read my post? I never suggested we trade ALL of those players, but I believe they would be the guys available for the right price. With a few of them I flat-out stated they shouldn't be traded.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

I really hope the organisation doesn't share this view. Regardless of Backlund's current statistics he is a better player than Stajan. He's much younger, cheaper & still has potential to live up to. With Stajan we are finally seeing a half-decent NHLer after 4 years of poor play. It also just happens to be his contract year where we see him pull his finger out and occasionally play well. This is the best we can expect from him, whereas with Backlund we expect much greater things.

Am splitting hairs here, but it's not been that long. He played very well all last year (had maybe a couple legit horrible games that year). So, when you factor in the latter half of 09-10 when he came here from the Leafs through until the better part of 11-12, it's been more like perhaps 2.5 years of piss-poor play here.

Since last year he's been playing approximately as well as he's ever played since his last 2 years in T.O.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by Karl

Am splitting hairs here, but it's not been that long. He played very well all last year (had maybe a couple legit horrible games that year). So, when you factor in the latter half of 09-10 when he came here from the Leafs through until the better part of 11-12, it's been more like perhaps 2.5 years of piss-poor play here.

Since last year he's been playing approximately as well as he's ever played since his last 2 years in T.O.

I agree Stajan played alright in his first half-season here. 'Alright' enough to earn a fairly good contract. It could be a coincidence, but he's only started to play 'alright' again recently, which again happens to be when his contract is up.

2.5 years or 4 years; he has been dead weight for a substantial amount of his time here. He has 9 points and is -7 in 15 games this season, playing on the 1st line and averaging 19 minutes a night.

With Backlund you can never question his work ethic or drive to succeed, but he doesn't get the stats that are expected from him (yet). That being said, he has 7 points and is -6 in 22 games, mostly on the 4th line averaging 14.5 minutes a night. He is 5 years younger and has a cap hit less than half of what Stajan's is.

Why should the bar be set so low for the ageing veteran but the emerging young pro is in the dog house despite working his arse off? They're putting up similar numbers in my opinion, with Backlund's numbers diluted by spending the last month on a line with Big Ern, Tim Jackman or, if he's lucky, T.J. Galiardi.

If Backlund is traded for something insubstantial and Stajan is re-signed then this organisation is as farcical as it has ever been.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

I agree Stajan played alright in his first half-season here. 'Alright' enough to earn a fairly good contract. It could be a coincidence, but he's only started to play 'alright' again recently, which again happens to be when his contract is up.

2.5 years or 4 years; he has been dead weight for a substantial amount of his time here. He has 9 points and is -7 in 15 games this season, playing on the 1st line and averaging 19 minutes a night.

With Backlund you can never question his work ethic or drive to succeed, but he doesn't get the stats that are expected from him (yet). That being said, he has 7 points and is -6 in 22 games, mostly on the 4th line averaging 14.5 minutes a night. He is 5 years younger and has a cap hit less than half of what Stajan's is.

Why should the bar be set so low for the ageing veteran but the emerging young pro is in the dog house despite working his arse off? They're putting up similar numbers in my opinion, with Backlund's numbers diluted by spending the last month on a line with Big Ern, Tim Jackman or, if he's lucky, T.J. Galiardi.

If Backlund is traded for something insubstantial and Stajan is re-signed then this organisation is as farcical as it has ever been.

I think you kind of put your own complaint to bed.

Stajan and Backlund are fairly similar players. Both are defensive minded players that can also put up modest points.

There biggest detractors against Backlund vs. Stajan is that Backlund has scored 2 less points despite 7 more games, has a sub-50 FO%, and at times plays without much jam.

He has not once this season looked better than Stajan, not even close.

The complaints regarding what lines they are both on is irrelevant. Backlund, despite being on the "4th line" averages 10 more minutes a game than players like Grats, Jackman, or Bouma. His TOI is comparable to Monahan, Baertschi, and Colborne. As well, Stajan plays a bulk of his minutes playing against other team's top lines.

The difference? Backlund hasn't been able to out score or out defend any of them. Colborne has identical offensive numbers but is only a -1, Baertschi who needs defensive work is only -1. And Monohan who is brand new to the NHL has twice the points.

Backlund needs to improve or go. If the Flames trade him and resign Stajan then that would be just fine, as Stajan is the better player and neither guy probably nets you too much.

I get the narrative that Backlund is the "young pro" not being given chances, but he's been given season after season of chances, and 3 or 4 years later he still hasn't stepped up his game.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

I agree Stajan played alright in his first half-season here. 'Alright' enough to earn a fairly good contract. It could be a coincidence, but he's only started to play 'alright' again recently, which again happens to be when his contract is up.

2.5 years or 4 years; he has been dead weight for a substantial amount of his time here. He has 9 points and is -7 in 15 games this season, playing on the 1st line and averaging 19 minutes a night.

With Backlund you can never question his work ethic or drive to succeed, but he doesn't get the stats that are expected from him (yet). That being said, he has 7 points and is -6 in 22 games, mostly on the 4th line averaging 14.5 minutes a night. He is 5 years younger and has a cap hit less than half of what Stajan's is.

Why should the bar be set so low for the ageing veteran but the emerging young pro is in the dog house despite working his arse off? They're putting up similar numbers in my opinion, with Backlund's numbers diluted by spending the last month on a line with Big Ern, Tim Jackman or, if he's lucky, T.J. Galiardi.

If Backlund is traded for something insubstantial and Stajan is re-signed then this organisation is as farcical as it has ever been.

Why should the bar be set so low for the 'agin Stajan'? The answer is because (and you may have also touched on this) this is realistically about as well as we can expect the guy to play given his rather middling skill and history as an NHLer since he joined the league in 03-04.

To be fair, it's also not exactly like he's only played well in contract years. The half-season last year in which he played decently wasn't a contract year. And he also play quite decently (given he doesn't have 1st-line talent or skill) in 08-09, which also was not a contract year for him.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

I agree Stajan played alright in his first half-season here. 'Alright' enough to earn a fairly good contract. It could be a coincidence, but he's only started to play 'alright' again recently, which again happens to be when his contract is up.

2.5 years or 4 years; he has been dead weight for a substantial amount of his time here. He has 9 points and is -7 in 15 games this season, playing on the 1st line and averaging 19 minutes a night.

With Backlund you can never question his work ethic or drive to succeed, but he doesn't get the stats that are expected from him (yet). That being said, he has 7 points and is -6 in 22 games, mostly on the 4th line averaging 14.5 minutes a night. He is 5 years younger and has a cap hit less than half of what Stajan's is.

Why should the bar be set so low for the ageing veteran but the emerging young pro is in the dog house despite working his arse off? They're putting up similar numbers in my opinion, with Backlund's numbers diluted by spending the last month on a line with Big Ern, Tim Jackman or, if he's lucky, T.J. Galiardi.

If Backlund is traded for something insubstantial and Stajan is re-signed then this organisation is as farcical as it has ever been.

I have been waiting for years for Stajans contract to be up so we could finnally move on from that horrible trade.

But as much as it pains me I think management will resign Stajan and trade Backlund, but the return will be decent. He will get packaged for something useful.

With Monahan, Colborne and Knight all likely centering a line fulltime next year we need the fourth guy to have experience and be reliable.

This is why Backlund will likely be traded.

If I could have my way I would trade Stajan for a 2nd round pick. Trade Backlund for a player in a similar situation (young with potential but needs a change), preferably a RW. Go hard after Stastny in the offseason and draft Ekblad.

Unfortunately all signs are currently pointing to Stajan being re-signed and Backlund being used as trade bait.

Time will tell but I think we are stuck with Stajan for a few more years and Backs will be playing solid overall hockey elsewhere...

[PeteMoss]

At this point - Backlund's upside ceiling is probably Matt Stajan.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by Karl

Why should the bar be set so low for the 'agin Stajan'? The answer is because (and you may have also touched on this) this is realistically about as well as we can expect the guy to play given his rather middling skill and history as an NHLer since he joined the league in 03-04.

To be fair, it's also not exactly like he's only played well in contract years. The half-season last year in which he played decently wasn't a contract year. And he also play quite decently (given he doesn't have 1st-line talent or skill) in 08-09, which also was not a contract year for him.

I know what you're saying, but I guess my underlying point on the Stajan/Backlund conundrum is this:

Should a rebuilding team in this situation:

-Reward a 29yo low-skill, below average NHL 3rd liner centre for meeting pitifully low expectations by offering him a new contract? Expectations are based on being familiar with said centre's limitations from watching his play over a few years. We KNOW we can't expect much from him, but we sign him anyway.

Or

-Dump a 24yo skill player who hasn't lived up to expectations (yet) despite improved play over his years of development. Trade him while his value is at an all-time low because we expect so much more from him. We expect so much from him that he's demoted to the 4th line to hone his abilities with pluggers on a nightly basis. We KNOW he can be better, but trade him because he hasn't been better.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by strombad

The difference? Backlund hasn't been able to out score or out defend any of them. Colborne has identical offensive numbers but is only a -1, Baertschi who needs defensive work is only -1.

Heh, +/-. That's the second most useless stat tracked by the NHL.

Colborne get's better linemates then Backlund does (when neither are out with the 4th line), Colborne get's started in the offense zone more then backlund does, and Colborne pretty much exclusively gets powerplay time for special team minutes while Backlund moreso get's penalty killing duty.

Frankly, I wonder why Colborne has only identical numbers to Backlund when he's given such an easier ride. He's the one that should be producing more.

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

With Monahan, Colborne and Knight all likely centering a line fulltime next year we need the fourth guy to have experience and be reliable.

This is why Backlund will likely be traded.

... Why couldn't we just convert one to wing? Personally I think Colborne would be better as a winger anyways.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Heh, +/-. That's the second most useless stat tracked by the NHL.

Colborne get's better linemates then Backlund does (when neither are out with the 4th line), Colborne get's started in the offense zone more then backlund does, and Colborne pretty much exclusively gets powerplay time for special team minutes while Backlund moreso get's penalty killing duty.

Frankly, I wonder why Colborne has only identical numbers to Backlund when he's given such an easier ride. He's the one that should be producing more.



... Why couldn't we just convert one to wing? Personally I think Colborne would be better as a winger anyways.

+/- like any stat tells a small part of the story. It's about as useless as noting zone face-offs.

Colborne, like Stajan, has outplayed Backlund. If you want to look at PP time, you should not that the average difference between the two is 13 seconds. Not few minutes, not even a minute, 13 seconds.

Should Backlund be expected to outplay Colborne? After all, Backlund, prior to this season, had over 170 NHL games under his belt to develop. Colborne had... oh.... right.... 16.

Colborne is a rookie, Backlund is not. Backlund should be better. Backlund is not.

[Parallex]

+/- like any stat tells a small part of the story. It's about as useless as noting zone face-offs.

But Zone Start is noted to provide context to performance not as a indicative... you were using +/- as an indicative.

Originally Posted by strombad

If you want to look at PP time, you should not that the average difference between the two is 13 seconds. Not few minutes, not even a minute, 13 seconds.

And what the differential in terms of PK time? The context here is that Backlund has to spend a significant part of his minutes down a man. Colberne does not.

Originally Posted by strombad

Should Backlund be expected to outplay Colborne? After all, Backlund, prior to this season, had over 170 NHL games under his belt to develop. Colborne had... oh.... right.... 16.

That's actually an indictment of Colborne... it's not like he's 20 years old he's just 9 months younger then Backlund. The reason he only played 16 games is because he wasn't good enough to play in the NHL.