The Legend of Sam Bennett

[Mathgod]

Sad to see him go, but the return was decent.

All the best to Sam in the future, except when playing against the Flames.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by really?

Tanev's not going to be exposed. If you were to have traded any of those three D today, I would venture to say Tanev would draw rhe greatest return, even with his term. Giordano has been a great Flame, but that ship is sailing at warp speed and Kylington may be something, or not....

Clearly the choices for Seattle will be limited, but if they were to select Giordano, or even Backlund, with their respective term, it doesn't derail anything special.

Unless Lucic refuses to waive his NMC Backlund can be protected without much consequence.

[VladtheImpaler]

The Flames are not rebuilding. We are going to try to contend (for 8th) next season because that's what the mandate is, that's why Sutter is here, and why we have Markstrom. Therefore, Giordano will not be exposed, we will pay Seattle not to take him, and we will sign him to an extension after this contract expires.
This is the way.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I just don't see it that way.

Nor will I see it as moving a fourth round pick for a huge gain if they trade Gaudreau in the summer.

I guess I'm just saying this should be a learning experience.

- If a guy is supposed to be 1 or 2, but the first three teams pass on him, maybe there's something they're seeing that we aren't.

- Draft best player, sure, but if he's not coachable (either because of the player or coach) then move him while he's still a 4th overall pick and the rest of the league hasn't been given 6 seasons to figure he's really just a bottom-six.

- Probably most importantly, figure out your plan for the team is and stick to it. And then either draft a guy that fits into that plan, or draft a better guy and trade him for a better guy that fits into that plan. Or just move down and get some more picks.

I know this stuff is much easier with the benefit of hindsight, but picking 4th overall doesn't grow on trees, and it's not like we couldn't have capitalized on that better than what we did today.

(Having said that, and given the way events actually transpired, a second-round prospect and a second-round pick is a pretty great return.)

[powderjunkie]

Expose Gio. If they take him, use the space to get a sweetener with a bad deal. If they take someone else, fine, flip Gio at the deadline.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

No, the Flames didn’t get any better today

That’s TBD

Addition by subtraction. A middling player (wish he'd been more!) with issues, and a penchant for bad penalty timing ... for nothing, improves the Flames. That they got a decent return for a guy they pretty much ruined, is OK in the end. But lousy player management for all those years.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The Flames are not rebuilding. We are going to try to contend (for 8th) next season because that's what the mandate is, that's why Sutter is here, and why we have Markstrom. Therefore, Giordano will not be exposed, we will pay Seattle not to take him, and we will sign him to an extension after this contract expires.
This is the way.

Why would you pay Seattle if you already protected Gio?

Anyway, exposing Gio, having him taken, and having another $6.75M to spend on a UFA is a re-arming, not a rebuilding. Then sign Gio to an extension at 38-39 if you really want to.

The only reason you protect Gio is sentiment.

[really?]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The Flames are not rebuilding. We are going to try to contend (for 8th) next season because that's what the mandate is, that's why Sutter is here, and why we have Markstrom. Therefore, Giordano will not be exposed, we will pay Seattle not to take him, and we will sign him to an extension after this contract expires.
This is the way.

That may well be the case, but I'm not sure Giordano version 2021-22 isn't more of an anchor to playoff hopes than a life vest. That kind of action could result in an unintended tank. Time will tell.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I guess I'm just saying this should be a learning experience.

- If a guy is supposed to be 1 or 2, but the first three teams pass on him, maybe there's something they're seeing that we aren't.

- Draft best player, sure, but if he's not coachable (either because of the player or coach) then move him while he's still a 4th overall pick and the rest of the league hasn't been given 6 seasons to figure he's really just a bottom-six.

- Probably most importantly, figure out your plan for the team is and stick to it. And then either draft a guy that fits into that plan, or draft a better guy and trade him for a better guy that fits into that plan. Or just move down and get some more picks.

I know this stuff is much easier with the benefit of hindsight, but picking 4th overall doesn't grow on trees, and it's not like we couldn't have capitalized on that better than what we did today.

(Having said that, and given the way events actually transpired, a second-round prospect and a second-round pick is a pretty great return.)

People talk about the rankings and how Bennett was #1 but on draft day it really was "Ekblad and 3 centres" and it just seemed like personal preference how they went. Reinhart went before Draisaitl, so what does that say? And at the time Edmonton was criticized for having no size so it seemed like they just picked the slightly bigger guy. No one was going "look how Bennett has dropped".

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Why would you pay Seattle if you already protected Gio?

Anyway, exposing Gio, having him taken, and having another $6.75M to spend on a UFA is a re-arming, not a rebuilding. Then sign Gio to an extension at 38-39 if you really want to.

The only reason you protect Gio is sentiment.

Sorry, I should have said they are protectining Gio or Tanev and paying blood money for the other one. I agree with you, BUT I believe the Flames and Sutter see Gio as still being integral to the team. I personally hope we trade Gaudreau, sign Hall, and fall ass backwards into Wright and Bedard.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You have to protect Tanev....thats a no brainer.

Leave Gio exposed....send Seattle a 4th to take Kylington?

Not so sure given how this season has gone.

All depends on what they're going to do with next year.

If it's retool and try and contend you probably keep Tanev. But if it's some sort of a rebuild, then maybe you're better off getting away from the final two years of Tanev's deal, and instead trade Giordano at the deadline for some value.

[CGY12]

Good return for both players traded. I'll give BT some credit, basically two 2nds and a 3rd for a backup UFA goaltender and a player who requested a trade is solid. Wish Sam Bennett the best, he brought the intensity in the playoffs, but his development and lack of progress is one of the major reasons the Flames are in the position they are in. My stance hasn't changed though, I want BT punted at the end of the year.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Imagine a scenario where we trade away so many players for picks and prospects that we only have like three or four players we even HAVE to protect...

Wait, is that even allowed? Wouldn't we be forced to make at least one player available?

You are required to make available 2 forwards and 1 defenceman who are under contract for the upcoming season and who have played at least 40 games in 2020-21 or a combined total of at least 70 games over the last 2 seasons. You are also required to expose 1 goalie who is either signed to an NHL contract for 2021-22 or an RFA at the end of this season.


If we assume the Flames will protect: Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund, Mangiapane, and Dube up front; Hanifin, Andersson, and Tanev on D; and Markstrom in goal; that would leave Lucic and Giordano to meet the skater exposure requirement and Parsons to meet the goalie requirement.

The Flames need to sign (or otherwise acquire) a qualifying forward to a contract for 2021-22 prior to the expansion draft in order to be compliant.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by getbak

You are required to make available 2 forwards and 1 defenceman who are under contract for the upcoming season and who have played at least 40 games in 2020-21 or a combined total of at least 70 games over the last 2 seasons. You are also required to expose 1 goalie who is either signed to an NHL contract for 2021-22 or an RFA at the end of this season.


If we assume the Flames will protect: Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund, Mangiapane, and Dube up front; Hanifin, Andersson, and Tanev on D; and Markstrom in goal; that would leave Lucic and Giordano to meet the skater exposure requirement and Parsons to meet the goalie requirement.

The Flames need to sign (or otherwise acquire) a qualifying forward to a contract for 2021-22 prior to the expansion draft in order to be compliant.

Has Parsons played enough games to be eligible?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not so sure given how this season has gone.

All depends on what they're going to do with next year.

If it's retool and try and contend you probably keep Tanev. But if it's some sort of a rebuild, then maybe you're better off getting away from the final two years of Tanev's deal, and instead trade Giordano at the deadline for some value.

No rebuild coming. Not in year 2 of a 3 year deal with Sutter.

Trade Tanev and then what? Go UFA shopping for a RS 2nd pairing guy? Isnt that what you just dealt?

Im not worried about Tanevs contract...maybe the final season he starts slowing?

Im fine just exposing Gio and dont believe Seattle would grab a 38 year old guy with one year left, which leaves the defense in tact to start. Then you see how the season and Gio are going and decide on dealing him next TD if needed.

Im not sure Kylington is someone the Krackens are interested in or not, but sliding them a late round pick to grab him and keep your existing defense together seems reasonable.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Imagine a scenario where we trade away so many players for picks and prospects that we only have like three or four players we even HAVE to protect...

Wait, is that even allowed? Wouldn't we be forced to make at least one player available?

Well last time Vegas picked a guy that was a pending UFA that everyone knew would sign with them.
So yeah - it's one of the few advantages of being an asset-weak org.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I guess I'm just saying this should be a learning experience.

- If a guy is supposed to be 1 or 2, but the first three teams pass on him, maybe there's something they're seeing that we aren't.

- Draft best player, sure, but if he's not coachable (either because of the player or coach) then move him while he's still a 4th overall pick and the rest of the league hasn't been given 6 seasons to figure he's really just a bottom-six.

- Probably most importantly, figure out your plan for the team is and stick to it. And then either draft a guy that fits into that plan, or draft a better guy and trade him for a better guy that fits into that plan. Or just move down and get some more picks.

I know this stuff is much easier with the benefit of hindsight, but picking 4th overall doesn't grow on trees, and it's not like we couldn't have capitalized on that better than what we did today.

(Having said that, and given the way events actually transpired, a second-round prospect and a second-round pick is a pretty great return.)

Sam was ranked consistently in the top 4, but was only #1 on a couple. So I don't view it as that teams passed on him - there was just better players.
At the time I thought #3 would be either Sam or Leon. I didn't think he would go higher than 3.

You also have to look at who went after:
#5 - Dal Colle
#6 - Virtanen
#7 - Fleury
#8 - Nylander
#9 - Ehlers

So you have to go 4 spots later to get to a better guy. Not likely to have happened that way.

And I don't think this is a fair criticism

"figure out your plan for the team is and stick to it. And then either draft a guy that fits into that plan, or draft a better guy and trade him for a better guy that fits into that plan. Or just move down and get some more picks."

The plan when they drafted him was that he was a top line forward. That's the plan. Things change. How can you say "draft a better guy". Well yeah. Obviously. How do you do that at the time. They drafted the guy they thought was the best at that spot.

They could have traded him earlier but the risk in doing that is the guy pops elsewhere.

Just because it didn't work out doesn't mean that the wrong decision was made at the time, or at various points along the way.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by getbak

You are required to make available 2 forwards and 1 defenceman who are under contract for the upcoming season and who have played at least 40 games in 2020-21 or a combined total of at least 70 games over the last 2 seasons. You are also required to expose 1 goalie who is either signed to an NHL contract for 2021-22 or an RFA at the end of this season.


If we assume the Flames will protect: Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund, Mangiapane, and Dube up front; Hanifin, Andersson, and Tanev on D; and Markstrom in goal; that would leave Lucic and Giordano to meet the skater exposure requirement and Parsons to meet the goalie requirement.

The Flames need to sign (or otherwise acquire) a qualifying forward to a contract for 2021-22 prior to the expansion draft in order to be compliant.

I thought Domingue qualified for expansion exposure and why he was signed to begin with.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not so sure given how this season has gone.

All depends on what they're going to do with next year.

If it's retool and try and contend you probably keep Tanev. But if it's some sort of a rebuild, then maybe you're better off getting away from the final two years of Tanev's deal, and instead trade Giordano at the deadline for some value.

That was my thinking. You have to consider the potential assets you get at the TDL next year when Gio has no term left. I think you can get something pretty good.

Plus Tanev has been terrific this year, but that doesn't mean he will be through the life of the contract. He probably won't be.

So all those factors have to be weighted
- Near-term and long-term salary implications
- Current and future quality of play for each player
- Potential return for Gio at the deadline next year
- Probability that Gio gets claimed
- Probability that Tanev gets claimed.

Let's say Gio can get you a late 1st at the TDL next year. Do you protect him to try and get that type of asset?

Right now Tanev is probably worth more as a player on the roster, but by next TDL Gio could be worth more as an asset to the organization

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Has Parsons played enough games to be eligible?

There's no games played requirement for goalies. He just has to be an RFA or under contract for next season.

For the Vegas expansion, the Flames used Tom McCollum for their exposure requirement in goal.