[Rumour] TSN: Hanifin decision expected in coming days. D market waits on Tanev

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I've been vocal on CP about how I think the Stars are the best scouting team in the league, so seeing them #1 in that analysis is a bit validating. But I won't lie, am surprised to see the Flames at #2, although as The Athletic explains, if you take Adam Fox out of the equation the Flames drop to12th.

That being said, The Athletic says this:

Which begs the question: why the hell wouldn't we give Tod Button more ammo?

Maybe we go from the second worst team in terms of futures allocation to the second best and see where things land?

Flames still drafted Fox. I don’t hold it against them. I agree they should give the scouting team more ammo but not to extreme you want. Don’t trade picks basically ever unless there is a surplus and avoid the UFA market would be a good start.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Why do people have this idea that Tanev is made out of thin glass? He's had only one significant injury in the last five years.

The man took a puck to the face, and the puck lost.

I think maybe because before he arrived in Calgary he seemed to get a significant injury every year. That was a genuine concern when he got here

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If that Stone level guy's best years are already behind him then it is absolutely a mistake to lock him up long term.

If he isn't an elite talent, then it is also a mistake because you are locking someone up long term who will inevitably become replacement level.

Except it turned out that despite his "advanced" age his best years were in front of him, or did someone else score that hat trick in the finals?

That other guy on the team you dismissed as not being a guy to extend, Marchessault? Conn Smythe.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I think maybe because before he arrived in Calgary he seemed to get a significant injury every year. That was a genuine concern when he got here

The year before he came he played a full season for the Canucks. He's basically played 4 out of the last 5 seasons injury free.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I think maybe because before he arrived in Calgary he seemed to get a significant injury every year. That was a genuine concern when he got here

Yeah, and just the way he plays in general. He seems due. He has had a few scares where he leaves the ice and comes back. Even though he hasn't missed significant time lately, he is probably never 100%.

[Jay Random]

My theory is that Tanev is bionic. All the breakable parts of his body were broken and replaced over the years, and now he's Robo-Jock.

The only natural part of his body still at risk is his tooth.

[camm13]

With the way he blocks shots and plays, he's a higher risk then most to get injured. He's fractured his leg from blocking a shot, knee injuries, fractured hand. He was a warrior to only miss a few games during that playoffs run, (torn labrum, separated shoulder, sprained neck). All it takes is one badly timed block shot or bad hit.

[sureLoss]

Friedman:

3. One exception may be Toronto. If the Maple Leafs trade this year’s first, they will have one pick in the top two rounds of the next three drafts (a first-rounder in 2026). It’s not impossible they decide to do move it, but they definitely prefer the opposite and aren’t interested in moving Easton Cowan, Matthew Knies or Fraser Minten (their most asked-about youth).

One case where I do believe they would have done so is if they had acquired both Chris Tanev and Nikita Zadorov, as they tried before the latter’s move to the Lions Gate Bridge. There’s no doubt in my mind the Maple Leafs want Tanev, but Calgary is holding to see if that first-rounder comes into play. It’s poker, but if Toronto really wanted to do that, it would be done already. We will see. He would help them, and they know it. (Maybe Toronto solves this by trying to trade for both Tanev and Noah Hanifin.) They are looking for another centre, as well.




4. I can only imagine how tired Tanev is of this, already. There are a lot of teams interested in him, but it’s a unique market. There are teams who aren’t ready to win this year, but are determined to be a playoff team next year (Ottawa). There are teams who aren’t yet sure if rentals make sense for them (New Jersey). There are teams who like him but find it tricky cap-wise and trade-wise (Boston, Tampa Bay, Toronto, Vancouver). I suspect Dallas lurks, which makes a lot of sense. Undoubtedly, there are others I’m missing. He’s the Taylor Swift of trade deadline coverage.

5. Other teams believe the Senators are extremely serious about Tanev — if not now, then if he hits the open market in the summer.

6. Noah Hanifin knows he owes Calgary a decision, and the expectation is it is coming soon.

21. Others to watch: I get mixed answers on Jacob Markstrom. It’s been mentioned to me several times — he doesn’t enjoy his name being out there, and Calgary is very, very sensitive to that. It’s got to be something the Flames can’t say no to, or a place Markstrom tells them he wants to go — which has not happened. Of course, that sounds like a negotiating ploy, but it’s the truth. Calgary’s preference is to leave him alone. He’s been very good. When that happens, business takes care of itself.

I don’t believe there’s been much talk around Dan Vladar.

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Friedman:

What realistically could Toronto offer for both of them. They have zero prospects and very few picks. Especially as they would need to send back a cap dump

[bluejays]

Is Treliving just trying to reassemble the Flames D? Giordano and Brodie (not his own moves), but now Tanev and Hanifin? Kinda lazy all in all to go back to who he's personally familiar with. Why not rely on your scouts and people outside yourself to find others?


Anyway, from the Leafs I'd look for a 1st, 3rd and Minten.

[Table 5]

If it's what gets the deal done, I'd settle for Toronto's 2026 1st for Tanev. Yeah, there's some opportunity cost there, but hey, it's still a first for Tanev, and maybe that turns out to be a better pick (although this year's looks pretty decent already if the Leafs remain where they are).

[Royle9]

Toronto really has nothing of interest if they think Knies and the 1st are off the table.

NJD have the most interesting pieces imo.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Is Treliving just trying to reassemble the Flames D? Giordano and Brodie (not his own moves), but now Tanev and Hanifin? Kinda lazy all in all to go back to who he's personally familiar with. Why not rely on your scouts and people outside yourself to find others?


Anyway, from the Leafs I'd look for a 1st, 3rd and Minten.

Because he falls in love. Everyone knows that.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Toronto really has nothing of interest if they think Knies and the 1st are off the table.

NJD have the most interesting pieces imo.

I like Dallas too.

They have lots of interesting future pieces

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If it's what gets the deal done, I'd settle for Toronto's 2026 1st for Tanev. Yeah, there's some opportunity cost there, but hey, it's still a first for Tanev, and maybe that turns out to be a better pick (although this year's looks pretty decent already if the Leafs remain where they are).

If I were the Flames I'd just take this year's pick. The team has shown a level of mediocrity that I don't think they'll shake. Keefe is too fair with them and sadly I think they're too comfortable with his kindness at this point. So if I were the Flames I'd take it this year. A lot of money will be coming off the books this off-season for them and who knows what can be done with that:

Bertuzzi - $5.5M
Domi - $3M (will probably resign for a discount given what he's said in the past)
Brodie - $5M
Giordano - $0.8M
Samsonov - $3.5M
Muzzin - $5.6M (IR)
Murray - $4.6M (IR)
Klingberg - $4.1M (IR)

Those are the bigger ones among others. About $17.5M. Guessing Reeves specifically gets bought out and they have some money they'll have to spend. So I'd guess Tanev gets paid big time to go there regardless. Myers they'll probably go after hard as well. Then go from there. So next years Leafs may be a lot better if they lock down proper D with their money opening up. I wouldn't want to take a chance on that future pick. This year they're toast.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I’d be curious about a Hanifin poll, whether you want him to stay or go. My vote changes daily.

[getoverit]

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But you have already stated that you want to get rid of that talent as soon as it turns 27. So you're developing it for other teams, and you are always guaranteed to lose on the ice.

I don't think a roster of predominantly 20-27 year olds that are a part of a top scouting and development system in the league is destined to lose any more than I think a team that just acquires top UFA talent from other teams to fill out the core of their roster is destined to win. But we can just disagree here.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So why do you want to do the same thing voluntarily?

In the 1990s the NHL was a game the Flames could not win. But today, even though I still think the Flames can not win the free agency game, I do think they can win the drafting and development game. Stop doing the former, focus on the latter.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, and you would have got rid of them both at age 27.

Considering Nieuwendyk was traded to Dallas when he was 28 for Jarome Iginla, yeah, pretty much.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You are focused entirely on offence, and too much on averages. Players' highest-scoring years are not necessarily their best years overall; and the best talents tend to have longer primes than other players.

I didn't say anything about offense? And I've repeatedly said I'm fine with retaining elite talent long term?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, you don't have more players than you can use. The median between 18 and 27 is 22.5, which is under the maximum size of an NHL roster.

If you have 22.5 NHL caliber players in your system I say you're doing pretty well overall? And you're only consistently playing 21 of them, which means you potentially have two players (rounding up) looking for a spot.

I wonder if there's a way to free up a roster spot while at the same time acquiring assets that will (if all goes right) will eventually replace the players I'm moving in...

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You just have a roster of young players who have all learned to lose together.

This is possible. But that could be the case anyway, so not much of a distinction?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In your books, deep playoff runs aren't worth anything. In fact, the plan you propose would keep your team out of the playoffs most years, and if you did by sheer luck make the dance, the inexperience of your roster would make them an easy out.

In my book, and in reality, playoff runs are crapshoots. So are draft picks. But unlike playoff runs, you can acquire more draft picks to improve your odds.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Hockey isn't a math problem, and neither is the entertainment business. You haven't explained why fans would buy tickets to watch you lose year after year after year.

So the movie industry tracks box offices, the television industry tracks ratings, YouTube tracks view counts, Netflix tracks subscribers all because it is not a numbers game?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, that's because teams don't develop talent evenly at all positions. Trades and FA signings are a way to improve positions of weakness. Now you want to take even that away.

Where did I say that? Please quote me.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No they won't, because every year three of the best and most seasoned players will be sold for picks.

If they are the best players then that's a pretty uneven drafting/development record. But even so, all it means is more futures for your top notch scouts to work with.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Most NHL teams keep their core players a lot longer than 1-2 years. Guess what? Most NHL teams keep their core players past age 27, which is exactly when you want to get rid of them. Players have a shorter time together when you arbitrarily sell them off at a certain age.

Most teams struggle to remain competitive or in some cases are never competitive. So following what most teams do seems stupid?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No it doesn't, because you keep selling off talent just as it's getting mature enough to win anything.

If they're an elite talent we can keep them. Otherwise they're replaceable.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The only way your system is even possible is if most of the other teams are managed by those ‘antiquated methods’ so you can take advantage of them.

Not only are they, but you're actively advocating for those antiquated methods. Please pick a side.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Half the teams in the NHL spend over the cap. Spending to the cap is simply the minimum price of even trying to compete.

And I am saying that is wrong. Evidenced by the fact that more than half these cap strapped teams are out of a playoff spot. So maybe this whole "trying" business is just deluded bull####?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But I suppose that's all right, because your plan is set up to make sure a team never becomes competitive. I guess spending 80% of the cap instead of 100% is meant to make up for some of the huge financial losses because nobody wants to see your crappy product.

If a fanbase doesn't want to watch the best scouted and developed team in the league, then I guess the market has spoken. But it seems you prefer modern day mediocrity, so not sure you're the best person to judge?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Here, by the way, is another number for you: If you are graduating an average of 2.5 players per season, and dumping them all 9 years after being drafted, then you need those players to start graduating at age 18 to fill a roster. You need the whole 9 years from each and every one of them. That means nobody worth keeping stays in junior or college, nobody plays in the AHL, and every year you have four to six teenagers who really aren't ready for the NHL being pushed into jobs too soon.

You're thoroughly confused. The 9 years mentioned previously is the time the players spend in the same system. I never said they'd be in the NHL for 9 years. Furthermore your math assumes that players from the same draft class are graduating at the same time. I did not make this claim, either. What I did say is the goal of the scouting/development team should be to graduate 2-3 players per season, but that would be graduating from the talent pool as a whole. So in one season you might have a 19, a 21 and a 23 year old graduating.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you are even a wee bit realistic, and suppose that your players on average won't be NHL-ready until age 21, you need to graduate FOUR players every year to fill a roster. And since you don't want to ‘cobble together’ anything with trades or signings, you had better hope and pray that each year's crop miraculously fills exactly the same positions as the players you dumped for futures the previous season.

Never said you couldn't trade or sign players. Futures are futures, sign all the undrafted players your scouts think are worth a damn.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The whole idea is altogether too silly for words. There's a reason why nobody does business this way, and it is not ‘antiquated methods’. It's because the purpose of an NHL team is not to develop talent, but to win hockey games and entertain paying customers.

Yet your preferred approach is to spend to the cap to end up sixth in the division? And to double down and lock up the aging talent long term that got you to that sixth place finish? That doesn't just seem silly, it seems stupid. But it's "business as usual", so keep doing it, I guess. Brilliant.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by bluejays

If I were the Flames I'd just take this year's pick. The team has shown a level of mediocrity that I don't think they'll shake. Keefe is too fair with them and sadly I think they're too comfortable with his kindness at this point. So if I were the Flames I'd take it this year. A lot of money will be coming off the books this off-season for them and who knows what can be done with that:

Bertuzzi - $5.5M
Domi - $3M (will probably resign for a discount given what he's said in the past)
Brodie - $5M
Giordano - $0.8M
Samsonov - $3.5M
Muzzin - $5.6M (IR)
Murray - $4.6M (IR)
Klingberg - $4.1M (IR)

Those are the bigger ones among others. About $17.5M. Guessing Reeves specifically gets bought out and they have some money they'll have to spend. So I'd guess Tanev gets paid big time to go there regardless. Myers they'll probably go after hard as well. Then go from there. So next years Leafs may be a lot better if they lock down proper D with their money opening up. I wouldn't want to take a chance on that future pick. This year they're toast.

Look how Treliving spends money on awful free agents without thinking.
I’d take a lottery ticket no protection of their 2026 first.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

My theory is that Tanev is bionic. All the breakable parts of his body were broken and replaced over the years, and now he's Robo-Jock.

The only natural part of his body still at risk is his tooth.

LOL, his one and only bionic tooth to repel pucks!