Flames - how to cure the rot for 2019/20

[Split98]

What I've seen in the playoffs that I wish we saw more of is... truculence

Since Game 2, I've wondered what other teams were doing that Calgary would need to emulate to do well. Even if Calgary made it through Round 1, I wasn't sure how they were going to fare against Vegas. If anything, I wanted the more skilled SJ team over the punishing Vegas group. We'll see soon which recipe gets you into Round 2, but who knows what works deeper and deeper.

Then there's the STL/WPG series, where the bigger team lost - and they're out searching for answers. They could lose a coach and they're definitely going to end up losing huge pieces of their roster - their GM has said as much. Now Winnipeg fans are also hoping for the same answers, and I'd have suggested last week that Tre look a smidge East for inspiration.

What will it take to get Johnny to perform in the Playoffs?
Can our top line get it done in the Playoffs, or do we just have a really good 2nd line?
What will it take to get this team to perform past the All-Star Break?
I have guesses, but the answer in 2019-20 was looking to be as simple as 'goaltending'. Now, obviously, that doesn't even have a clear answer.
You send Monahan away, but how many regular-season points are walking out the door?

So, I haven't a clue.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by soulchoice

Yes. The flames were barely above .500 against playoff teams.

The Flames went 21-15-3 for a .577 points percentage against playoff teams.

On a quick count, the other two non-Tampa division winners were Nashville at 21-19-3 (.523) and Washington at 19-17-6 (.524).

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Couturier has more value than any Flames player, and you want to get him without giving up any of the Flames best players?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not at all what I said. All I implied was that trading one of the mentioned for couturier is just a lateral move mostly- we need to add a couturier level player without subtracting one of those. Not sure exactly how but trading brodie for a 1st+ then having 2 1sts to swing around might grease the wheels.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Not at all what I said. All I implied was that trading one of the mentioned for couturier is just a lateral move mostly- we need to add a couturier level player without subtracting one of those. Not sure exactly how but trading brodie for a 1st+ then having 2 1sts to swing around might grease the wheels.

I think lateral moves, or "hockey trades" are kind of the point, and really the most realistic way to tinker with the team.

After all, the Flames are/were a top tier team already. Adding anything gets increasingly difficult the closer to the top you are.

On the other hand, as a good team we have almost a full roster of pieces that are attractive to someone.

We're now at the tinkering phase, and things should mostly be about staying competitive and finding the right combinations of players for success.

Which is what we're discussing now; what (lateral) trades could be available and what would make sense.

[442scotty]

IF Tkachuk is committed to Calgary. IF! Then he needs to be taken off a shutdown line and be used in more of an offensive role.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Not at all what I said. All I implied was that trading one of the mentioned for couturier is just a lateral move mostly- we need to add a couturier level player without subtracting one of those. Not sure exactly how but trading brodie for a 1st+ then having 2 1sts to swing around might grease the wheels.

Getting Couturier for any Calgary player is not a lateral move, he is that good. That's why he is likely not available.

[TheScorpion]

Kasperi Kapanen would be an extremely appealing addition. 6'1" and blazingly fast. Not especially physical, but not small, either.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

IF Tkachuk is committed to Calgary. IF! Then he needs to be taken off a shutdown line and be used in more of an offensive role.

This is where I keep coming back to the thought that a Gaudreau-Point trade is a perfect match for both teams.

Make it into a bigger trade

Point+Miller for Gaudreau+Brodie+Jankowski

Flames top 6 would be:

Tkachuk-Point-Lindholm
Bennett-Monahan-Miller

This way Tampa also bolsters their D with the move and sends out salary in Miller to make the cap work. For the Flames they bolster their center ice position and allow Tkachuk to move up to top scoring option on the wing.

[Resolute 14]

Brayden Point is so awesome and #1C calibre players are so wonderful that the Lightning will be desperate to get rid of one?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Brayden Point is so awesome and #1C calibre players are so wonderful that the Lightning will be desperate to get rid of one?

Well they got swept in the playoffs which means the roster needs a tear down.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Brayden Point is so awesome and #1C calibre players are so wonderful that the Lightning will be desperate to get rid of one?

Johnny Gaudreau is a superstar in his own right one that could come $3M less for the next 3 years. Lightning have Hedmen just under $8M, Stamkos at $8.5M, Kucherov at $9.5M. Can they afford another contract in the 9-10 range?

I don’t think trading Point for Gaudreau would be considered desperate. I do think a deal of that magnitude is extremely unlikely

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I just finished the You Be The Boss Poll in the Herald.
My Keep Him list:
Andersson
Bennett
Dube
Gaudreau
Giordano
Hamonic
Hanifin
Kylington
Lindholm
Mangiapane (give him a raise)
Monahan
Neal
Ryan
Rittich
Smith
Tkachuk (give him a raise)
Valimaki

Treliving
Peters

I hate that "give him a raise" part of these polls every year. I get that it's mostly for the casual fans, but even most casual fans understand that the salary cap and guaranteed contracts are a fundamental part of the NHL.

It's insulting to give an option that has no basis in reality AND goes against what you'd want if you're a fan of your team even if players could be given raises for great seasons.

[Harry Lime]

The Point thing is coming up entirely due to the contract issues on the Tampa side.

Personally I can see Monahan being the player, as he can slide into the 2c spot on Tampa for 2M less than what Point could potentially make.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Getting Couturier for any Calgary player is not a lateral move, he is that good. That's why he is likely not available.

I disagree with that. And if not, why would philly even consider moving him?

I'm not ready to give up on Monahan, gaudreau, tkachuk or lindholm based on one playoff series. Monahan has been the best player on the ice in past playoffs, it was tkachuk and Lindys first time. Gaudreau is more worrisome as his lack of post season play is now notable across several seasons, but I think the problem isnt necessarily with him in this case, it's that no one stands up for him in the toughest times.
I would move anyone on the roster right now aside from those four in a hockey trade, but I honestly subtracting any one of them makes the lot of them worse.

Reoint for Monahan. That is an interesting one, point is dynamic. But I think it would exasperate the gaudreau issues- two dynamic small players would play amazingly well sometimes but longer term you need a little salt to your pepper. No disrespect to point, hes no slouch and he is tough for his size, but hes another pint sized guy. Two on one line seems pushing it

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I disagree with that. And if not, why would philly even consider moving him?


it

I can’t imagine why Philly would move Couturier, I doubt they would.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cannon7]

Why do we want Point? He's smaller than Monahan and just as soft. His offensive numbers may also be inflated given his linemates. Sure he's a Calgary kid an a great skater. But centering Gaudreau I'm not sure what he brings?

(not saying I wouldn't consider a Monahan<>Point swap, as long as the additional assets needed on the Flames side were reasonable)

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Why do we want Point? He's smaller than Monahan and just as soft. His offensive numbers may also be inflated given his linemates. Sure he's a Calgary kid an a great skater. But centering Gaudreau I'm not sure what he brings?

(not saying I wouldn't consider a Monahan<>Point swap, as long as the additional assets needed on the Flames side were reasonable)

His line mates were Palat and Tyler Johnson.

Granted, he was playing other teams 2nd units. But his line mates have little to do with his success in my opinion.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

His line mates were Palat and Tyler Johnson.

Granted, he was playing other teams 2nd units. But his line mates have little to do with his success in my opinion.

Johnson is pretty darn good IMO.

But yeah, I think Point is really good and in both zones as well. The local kid stuff doesn't sway me either way, though.

[Husky]

I would like to see the Flames utilize Lindholm as a center. And go for a legit top 6 rw.

Gaudreau - lindholm - bennett (or new guy)
Tkachuk - Monahan - new guy (or bennett)
Jankowski - Backlund - new guy (or prospect)
Magipane - Ryan - Hathaway (resign)

Unless mgt feels like Neal can contribute i think they should buy him out. Quickly move on.

[Husky]

Another option is to offersheet rantanen. Second times a charm for OS Avs?