Friedman: Flames have begun extension talks with Gaudreau & Eichel speculation

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

I don’t think those 2 guys will have big enough role to change the way the team plays but yeah they add toughness, physical from Zadorov, maybe mental from Lewis

You mentioned mental toughness being the concern in your original post.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Pretty bad when the most passionate discussion on this forum is the vaccine mandate and Dustin Penner

What does that have to do with the Flames?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Zadorov and Lewis

Don't forget Pitlick.

[ComixZone]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1430715895844950018

https://twitter.com/user/status/1430716069795311617

[GreenLantern2814]

How crazy is it that for 30 years, the Flames have built themselves around wingers who wore 14, 12 and 13.

It’s like Vancouver only being led by Swedes - Naslund to The Sedins, and now Petterson.

[Bonded]

Monahan should have sat out an entire season.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

What does that have to do with the Flames?

Nothing

[CsInMyBlood]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Monahan should have sat out an entire season.

Monahan should have been traded a couple of years ago when it was obvious he was on a downward spiral.

[Jiri Hrdina]

A couple years ago (2018-19) he had 82 points, a career high
Unless you are saying he should have been traded after last season.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A couple years ago (2018-19) he had 82 points, a career high
Unless you are saying he should have been traded after last season.

Exactly. I don’t think anyone wanted to trade Monahan after that season although many people are now using 20/20 hindsight to say that the flames should have traded him immediately after he put up 82 points and looked like a legit #1 centre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A couple years ago (2018-19) he had 82 points, a career high
Unless you are saying he should have been traded after last season.

Yup, it was pretty reasonable to expect a bounce back season from him and then he didn't and his value is probably too low to make it worthwhile. If Monahan was traded right after that 2018/19 season, I would have been mad and I bet most people would have.

[Monahammer]

I still don't want to trade Monahan! If we trade Tkachuk we definitely don't need to in order to acquire Eichel. If Tkachuk is staying we might need to for salary purposes, but IMO trading him shouldn't just be some off handed thing we need to accomplish. Especially with how he started last season. People are quick to forget, but he looked awesome in the first 10-15 games.

First 15 GP 2G 10A 12P 0.8ppg

Actually, looking at it, he seemed to be doing fairly consistently until about game 26 ( 7G 13A 20 points 0.77ppg) - he had started shooting more after a slow goal scoring start but his overall ppg was consistent. This game was against Montreal on March 13th, he had 2goals.

Then he started to slide. Went 5 straight games without a point, only had 3 assists in the next 13 games, and only put up 8 total points in the remaining 24 games (3 of which came in another game against *Montreal* on April 23rd.) Discounting that one game he put up 5 points in 23 games. Abysmal.

So perhaps he got injured again or tweeked the injury in that March 13th game?

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

https://twitter.com/user/status/1430715895844950018

https://twitter.com/user/status/1430716069795311617

Could someone explain what is being shown here? I assume it means Monny has declined and taken JG's rating with him?

[Monahammer]

I would be interested in seeing those charts broken up for Monahan to game 26 of last season vs Monahan of the last 24 games, vs the total season. I think it was two different players.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I would be interested in seeing those charts broken up for Monahan to game 26 of last season vs Monahan of the last 24 games, vs the total season. I think it was two different players.

25 ish games really isn’t a large enough sample to draw any conclusions from unfortunately. Most of these analytic guys usually only go as low as 60 games. These charts are looking at the past 3 seasons.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A couple years ago (2018-19) he had 82 points, a career high
Unless you are saying he should have been traded after last season.

Hard to trade a guy though after a disaster season

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I still don't want to trade Monahan! If we trade Tkachuk we definitely don't need to in order to acquire Eichel. If Tkachuk is staying we might need to for salary purposes, but IMO trading him shouldn't just be some off handed thing we need to accomplish. Especially with how he started last season. People are quick to forget, but he looked awesome in the first 10-15 games.

First 15 GP 2G 10A 12P 0.8ppg

Actually, looking at it, he seemed to be doing fairly consistently until about game 26 ( 7G 13A 20 points 0.77ppg) - he had started shooting more after a slow goal scoring start but his overall ppg was consistent. This game was against Montreal on March 13th, he had 2goals.

Then he started to slide. Went 5 straight games without a point, only had 3 assists in the next 13 games, and only put up 8 total points in the remaining 24 games (3 of which came in another game against *Montreal* on April 23rd.) Discounting that one game he put up 5 points in 23 games. Abysmal.

So perhaps he got injured again or tweeked the injury in that March 13th game?

Isn’t that about where the team bottomed out and he got moved to the 2nd line?

[Stanley]

Let's just face the fact that most of our 'core' trade chips are at their weakest trade value this off-season. It's either Eichel or status quo.

[Braden]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Could someone explain what is being shown here? I assume it means Monny has declined and taken JG's rating with him?

Basically says
Gaudreau has been very good, despite Monahan being not very good

[zamler]