[Signing] Flames re-sign Joel Hanley (2 Years, $1.75M AAV)

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Wolven

You can't really rotate that many prospects through unless there are injuries or some vets moved out. Kuznetsov, Solovyov, and Poirier have to go through waivers now so you cannot just bounce them up and down from the Wranglers and you cannot carry that many on the active roster because of the logjam of 7th D vets.

There will probably be injuries, but I doubt any further vets are moved out. Are you really worried about Kuznetsov and Poirier being claimed on waivers? I agree there is always an element of risk regardless of player, but I do believe it is very low-risk. Solovyov has elevated risk in my opinion simply based on him having a good season while also not looking out of place at the NHL level in his previous call-ups. I don't care about the other vets. The 13th forward should be a vet you don't care about, as you want your prospects to play. Miromanov will most likely be sent down - ideally in my opinion anyway. I don't think he has much to offer. Bean is better than most give him credit for, but again, not a piece that you value long-term, even if he has probably has a bit more room to grow based on age.

Right now the group has 6 vets inked into the NHL group and Parekh because he is undeniable. That means there is room for 1 prospect that we have developed for ~5 years to make the team and the others are stuck behind Hanley, Bean, and Miromanov. (Also frustrating is that Hanley was just signed as a "7th D" but posters are all locking him in with Weegar.)

2 rookie defencemen is a lot to be developing at once. Any more than that would border on intentionally tanking, plus it would create an environment in which defencemen don't really develop as the team runs around in panic mode, and the team gives up high-danger chances against. Tough for Wolf to develop too. 2 for me is the max a team can legitimately develop in a season, and keep in mind that Bahl isn't exactly a seasoned vet either. This will be the first time in his career that he is the experienced leader on a pairing.


The reason you see Hanley - Weegar is that this was a very reliable pairing last season. Hanley may be a 7th, but together with Weegar, they made for a competent top 4 pairing. With Andersson's departure, this will become the most experienced pairing. Bahl, even though he does not have many years in the NHL, should provide enough leadership (and protection!) for Parekh. Conroy has already stated that he would love to see this pairing happen from the start, and thinks that they have the potential to become a long-term pairing. I tend to agree.


Pachal is a fine bottom pairing defender, but even his play diminished last season and he became a healthy scratch. Expecting two pairings led by Hanley and Pachal with rookies on each pairing is asking for trouble - you can't shelter both, and neither of them are reliable enough partners to keep that pairing afloat.

Bahl - Weegar
Solovyov - Pachal
Hanley - Parekh
X: Kuznetsov, Poirier

And then basically put it in the blender often to see what you can get out of each prospect. (Also, with this group Seabrook would be really earning his keep)

Again, putting all your eggs on the top pairing is tough. There is no way you can shelter either bottom pairing, and though I think Hanley has a lot to offer in terms of helping a prospect develop, he isn't strong enough to anchor a pairing Pachal definitely isn't. Teams would be feasting on the 2nd pairing (whichever one you want it to be), with limited ability to shelter the third pairing. I argue that it makes it really tough to properly develop a prospect, and it is more likely that you are just feeding them to the wolves. A shaky defence is tough on the entire team to develop. However, if over time you see the young players doing well, then by all means put things in a blender and see what happens. I just don't think they should start-off that way.



As for the 7th and 8th D, I think it makes more sense to send them down and let them play loads of minutes. There is only so much you can develop by hanging around vets and learning how to be a pro - valuable lessons to be sure. However, to really improve, players need to play. I feel Kylington really stagnated by being the 'bubble boy' that covid year in which he was limited to practices only, as well as the year that Treliving decided to spend some assets in acquiring defensive depth, relegating Kylington to the 7th defencemen, completely removing valuable development reps at the NHL level. Maybe Kylington wouldn't have developed much more than what he has, or maybe he would. I think playing time helps, and sitting for too long definitely hinders.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

2 rookie defencemen is a lot to be developing at once. Any more than that would border on intentionally tanking, plus it would create an environment in which defencemen don't really develop as the team runs around in panic mode, and the team gives up high-danger chances against. Tough for Wolf to develop too. 2 for me is the max a team can legitimately develop in a season, and keep in mind that Bahl isn't exactly a seasoned vet either. This will be the first time in his career that he is the experienced leader on a pairing.

The Canadiens are running a young D. Hutson, Guhle, Xhekaj, and Struble are all under 25 and now they've added old man Dobson who is 25.

I'm not saying that we should necessarily copy them but they made the playoffs while running a very young D group. It doesn't have to be a "tanking" strategy. Also, even if Kuznetsov, Solovyov, and Poirier came in as "rookies" they are all 23-24 years old with ~5 years of development in the Flames organization. They are not going to be as raw a 19yo Parekh.

I would rather see us load up on these young guys and have them split the spots:

LD Rotation - Weegar
Bahl - RD Rotation
LD Rotation - Pachal
LD Rotation: Kuznetsov, Poirier, Solovyov, Hanley
RD Rotation: Parekh, Kuznetsov

That could get each of those guys ~50 games in the NHL instead of having them play 0 games in the NHL and have Bean and Miromanov get those reps.

If you move Bean and Miromanov to the Wranglers (and they do not get claimed) then you can always call them up if any of Kuznetsov, Solovyov, or Poirier show that they are simply not ready or capable.

However, I suspect that if Weegar can make Hanley, the 34 year old undrafted waiver claim, look like a top 4 D then he can likey do the same with Kuznetsov, who is 23 and a more promising draft pedigree (mid 2nd).

I mean really, being 23 is like a magically power on this forum... unless you are a Flames prospect.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Wolven

The Canadiens are running a young D. Hutson, Guhle, Xhekaj, and Struble are all under 25 and now they've added old man Dobson who is 25.

I'm not saying that we should necessarily copy them but they made the playoffs while running a very young D group. It doesn't have to be a "tanking" strategy. Also, even if Kuznetsov, Solovyov, and Poirier came in as "rookies" they are all 23-24 years old with ~5 years of development in the Flames organization. They are not going to be as raw a 19yo Parekh.

I would rather see us load up on these young guys and have them split the spots:

LD Rotation - Weegar
Bahl - RD Rotation
LD Rotation - Pachal
LD Rotation: Kuznetsov, Poirier, Solovyov, Hanley
RD Rotation: Parekh, Kuznetsov

That could get each of those guys ~50 games in the NHL instead of having them play 0 games in the NHL and have Bean and Miromanov get those reps.

If you move Bean and Miromanov to the Wranglers (and they do not get claimed) then you can always call them up if any of Kuznetsov, Solovyov, or Poirier show that they are simply not ready or capable.

However, I suspect that if Weegar can make Hanley, the 34 year old undrafted waiver claim, look like a top 4 D then he can likey do the same with Kuznetsov, who is 23 and a more promising draft pedigree (mid 2nd).

I mean really, being 23 is like a magically power on this forum... unless you are a Flames prospect.

Kuznetsov 1
Poirier 0
Solovyov 15.


Those are the number of games that each prospect has played at the NHL level.



Let's contrast that with your example with Montreal - and I will use the stats up until the previous season, and not include games played last season, just to be clear.


Matheson: 547
Savard: 795
Barron (traded away in-season): 111
Xhekaj: 95
Struble: 56
Carrier (traded into Montreal in-season): 245
Mailloux: 1 (but only played a total of 7 games last season).
Hutson: 0


Though Montreal had some youth, Hutson and Mailloux (again, 7 games played last season) were the only really inexperienced defencemen. That's a world of difference. Look at how Montreal was able to shelter them with solid experienced partners. That's a drastic difference when comparing it with Calgary, especially if you include 3 rookies - AHL or from Junior.



I have been banging the drum that defencemen in the AHL - Solovyov, Kuznetsov and Poirier - should have all been cycling through the team as part of their development. Now we are at a crossroads with them. You can't throw this much inexperience into the lineup. You have ONE single defencemen that is accustomed to being the anchor on a pairing. One. This will be Bahl's first season where he is going to be asked to be the anchor.


It will be impossible to shelter 3 rookies. 2 is manageable - maybe. 3 I think is bordering on intentional tanking. This is why the Flames are rumored to be trying to trade for Byram, why they apparently in on Miller, why they wanted Hague back as part of the Rasmus deal (again, rumored). They don't seem to be very interested in running with 3 rookies.



I think that these three prospects - Kuznetsov, Solovyov and Poirier - all had legitimate enough upside that they should have been rotated through the bottom pairing for the last couple of seasons. Maybe the truth is that the Flames simply have decided that they are worth keeping in the organization to help shelter the next wave of prospects graduating from junior, but that they are not NHL caliber? I don't know. I think they should have been cycled through slowly with proper sheltering for the last 2 seasons, but they haven't been. They all have upside.


Solovyov has nice size and plays a physical brand of hockey, plus he is fairly mobile and moves the puck better than he is given credit for. He also has a bit of offence in his game, though by no means will he be counted on to be a point producer.


Kuznetsov has great IQ, nice size, great skater, and he transitions the puck well.



Poirier might still be the gem. I won't forget how scouts in the Poirier draft stated that he "has the 3rd best hands in the entire draft, forwards included". Kid kept getting hurt with unrelated injuries (including a nasty cut). I would really like to see him get reps in the NHL.



I just don't think you can have 3 at once. You run the risk of creating a terrible environment for them, where they end up getting rattled. Then the entire team gets rattled. Dubynk was famously 'sucky' in Edmonton, but it was because he had built up a bunch of bad habits because the Oilers kept icing a defensively crappy team. He couldn't trust the players in front of him, so he started cheating. I believe it was Trotz that said this, and after a couple of years in a couple of organizations with better environments, Dubynk became a pretty good goalie. I wouldn't want to put Wolf in that position.


Remember this famous quote?:

“There is no greater springboard to development than failure,”


That was Craig MacTavish during the period where the Oilers had a lot of high-end picks, and they all got bungled in some manner. That's the Oilers' philosophy for development. Putting inexperienced players in positions that they are not ready for will cause regression.



If we don't see eye-to-eye on this, I think we have to agree to disagree, and wait to see what the Flames end up doing. I think a lot of this discussion is premature anyway - a lot of this will be decided by the prospects themselves, and how good they perform through camp and preseason. Maybe you are right, and the Flames just throw 3 NHL inexperienced defencemen in the lineup nightly. Maybe they do well with it, and they prove me terribly wrong. I guess we will see.


Also, just to be clear, it has nothing to do with age. I support the notion that Bahl is ready to be an anchor with Parekh. I think it is a big ask of him, but I would try it at least. He just turned 25 last week. Next week, Solovyov turns 25 - I would not want him to be an anchor on any pairing (and I really like him). Miromanov is turning 28 in a couple of weeks - I also wouldn't want him anchoring a line with a rookie. I think it takes a combination of NHL experience, as well as established level of play.


I think Hanley + Weegar will be the top defensive pairing this season (unless the Flames acquire someone more experienced). I don't think Hanley would be a strong anchor, except maybe on the third pairing. Hanley has been functioning well with Weegar in the top 4, and this year they will have to take over the tougher defensive matchups that I think Andersson and Bahl made, so that Huska can shelter Parekh a little.



That's just how I think the game. Maybe we just think it differently. What we agree on is that these 3 defencemen that we are talking about should have been given more reps at the NHL level by now.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Kuznetsov 1
Poirier 0
Solovyov 15.


Those are the number of games that each prospect has played at the NHL level.

...

Overall I do not disagree with what you are saying but I think my reaction is to swing harder into graduating prospects in a "retool" season where we are close to the point of wasting our D prospects. Every year it is the same conversation about signing a depth D vet and how the prospects will get a spot if they can beat the vet but then the Flames never give the player a shot because they need to stay in the AHL and "get more minutes".

It isn't just the team that says it, posters on this board are conditioned after decades to say the same thing. It is almost as if there is something wrong with the idea of leaving a spot open for promoting prospects and acknowledging that there is enough competition between the 5 or 6 prospects in the organization that all want to graduate.

At this point, I doubt any of Kuznetsov, Poirier, or Solovyov will gain anything from more time in the AHL and the Flames are unlikely to discover anything amazing from giving ice time to Hanley, Bean, or Miromanov. It becomes a lose/lose situation where one really starts to question what the heck the management group is doing developing these prospects for years and then never giving them room to graduate.

In response to this situation, I would use this year to get aggressive with promoting prospects and following through with the youth messaging that Conroy said he is doing. Weegar (550 GP), Bahl (221 GP), Pachal (138 GP), and Hanley (246 GP) are enough anchors / vets for the team. Let the other 4 spots go to Kuznetsov, Poirier, Solovyov, and Parekh. While they shelter the rookies they can run 4 vets and 2 rookies in a game and try to get to more balanced distribution by Christmas.

If they do not learn to promote prospects in the D group now then how do we expect to promote guys like Brzustiewicz, Grushnikov, Mews or Morin in the future.

[Jay Random]

If you're running four vets on D and rotating four rookies in and out of the lineup, you're not doing justice to the development of any of those four rookies.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you're running four vets on D and rotating four rookies in and out of the lineup, you're not doing justice to the development of any of those four rookies.

If you are replying to me, I can't tell if you are being serious or making a joke based on what I said about our fans all being conditioned to say that Flames prospects need to stay in the AHL.

For the sake of discussion: I really like a plan to target a minimum amount of NHL experience for these prospects to find out what we have with them. You can break down the 6 spots we allot to games like this over 82 game season (492 available D spots):

Weegar = 82 games
Bahl = 82 games
Pachal = 76 games (same as last season)
Hanley = 60 games (up from 53)
Parekh = 48 games
Solovyov = 48 games
Kuznetsov = 48 games
Poirier = 48 games

In the first quarter of the season you can focus on the 4 vets being in most of the games but in the second quarter you can open up Hanley and/or Pachal's spots to increase more reps for the rookies.
- If any of the rookies look like they are settling in and earn their spot then give them a bigger allotment of games (I expect Parekh to do this)
- If any of them look like they are struggling and out of place then put them on waivers and bring Bean back up.

48 games in the NHL plus being around the team for training and practices will be more useful experience for these prospects than any more time in the AHL doing what they have been doing for the last 3 to 4 years. If you leave them in the AHL then you are just developing AHL players.

AHL games played:
Solovyov = 229
Kuznetsov = 216
Poirier = 163

I can't see how more AHL games will help any of these guys or the organization find out what they are capable of in the NHL.

I expect that this is a part of the conversation Conroy is having with them right now in their contract negotiations.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Wolven

If you are replying to me, I can't tell if you are being serious or making a joke based on what I said about our fans all being conditioned to say that Flames prospects need to stay in the AHL.

For the sake of discussion: I really like a plan to target a minimum amount of NHL experience for these prospects to find out what we have with them. You can break down the 6 spots we allot to games like this over 82 game season (492 available D spots):

Weegar = 82 games
Bahl = 82 games
Pachal = 76 games (same as last season)
Hanley = 60 games (up from 53)
Parekh = 48 games
Solovyov = 48 games
Kuznetsov = 48 games
Poirier = 48 games

In the first quarter of the season you can focus on the 4 vets being in most of the games but in the second quarter you can open up Hanley and/or Pachal's spots to increase more reps for the rookies.
- If any of the rookies look like they are settling in and earn their spot then give them a bigger allotment of games (I expect Parekh to do this)
- If any of them look like they are struggling and out of place then put them on waivers and bring Bean back up.

48 games in the NHL plus being around the team for training and practices will be more useful experience for these prospects than any more time in the AHL doing what they have been doing for the last 3 to 4 years. If you leave them in the AHL then you are just developing AHL players.

AHL games played:
Solovyov = 229
Kuznetsov = 216
Poirier = 163

I can't see how more AHL games will help any of these guys or the organization find out what they are capable of in the NHL.

I expect that this is a part of the conversation Conroy is having with them right now in their contract negotiations.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think Parekh is eligible for the AHL next season. If he plays 10 games in the NHL, it burns a year of his deal, so I don't think they Flames are going to send him back to junior if he reaches that and no way they scratch him for a half a season either.

He will either play 9 games or less in the NHL next year or be on the team full time. Unless I am wrong, which I could be.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Wolven

If you are replying to me, I can't tell if you are being serious or making a joke based on what I said about our fans all being conditioned to say that Flames prospects need to stay in the AHL.

I was being quite serious. Parekh, as FlamesAddiction points out, is not eligible for the AHL this season. If you play him only 48 games, that's all the hockey he is going to play all year. Sitting on his arse for nearly half the season is not going to be good for his development. A similar problem arises with the others you named, who are no longer exempt from waivers. You can't simply call them up and demote them at will, so if they're not playing, they're sitting in the press box. Having four such players on the roster at one time is simply going to damage the development of every one of them.

Incidentally, the spitball numbers you gave don't add up unless at least three of the four prospects are dressed for a number of games. That's a very dangerous tactic. Either you have to put two rookies together on the third pairing, or one of them has to play on each pairing including the top one. Either way, someone is liable to get caved in, which is also not beneficial to a player's development.

Realistically, you can't expect the team to perform adequately if more than two defencemen with that little NHL experience are in the lineup at once. That means you really do need at least five NHL veterans on the roster – four regulars plus a spare in case of injuries. Somebody is going to get left in the AHL for an extended stretch.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I was being quite serious. Parekh, as FlamesAddiction points out, is not eligible for the AHL this season. If you play him only 48 games, that's all the hockey he is going to play all year. Sitting on his arse for nearly half the season is not going to be good for his development. A similar problem arises with the others you named, who are no longer exempt from waivers. You can't simply call them up and demote them at will, so if they're not playing, they're sitting in the press box. Having four such players on the roster at one time is simply going to damage the development of every one of them.

Incidentally, the spitball numbers you gave don't add up unless at least three of the four prospects are dressed for a number of games. That's a very dangerous tactic. Either you have to put two rookies together on the third pairing, or one of them has to play on each pairing including the top one. Either way, someone is liable to get caved in, which is also not beneficial to a player's development.

Realistically, you can't expect the team to perform adequately if more than two defencemen with that little NHL experience are in the lineup at once. That means you really do need at least five NHL veterans on the roster – four regulars plus a spare in case of injuries. Somebody is going to get left in the AHL for an extended stretch.

I did say that with my spitball numbers that the plan would be to start the first quarter of the season with a 4/2 split between the vets and the rookies and then try to move to a 3/3 split depending on how many rookies are showing they can handle the graduation.

My amateur assessment:
- I think Parekh will be able to carve out more time because of his skill but I wouldn't expect his rookie season to be 82 games. (In fact, it would be a unreasonable expectation for a 19yo rookie to play more than half the season outside of Buffalo)
- I also think that Solovyov and Kuznetsov will be able to earn more time because of their age and development. Solovyov and Kuznetsov are 24 and 23 years old and 215 pounds (according to their Wranglers bios) and are not going to be "kids playing against men"
- Poirier I hope will surprise us all as well but I would be more conservative with easing him into the NHL to avoid injury. I think he has the highest ceiling of the 3 Wranglers that should graduate but I could see him getting the smallest look at the NHL

Having said that... I am curious as to why you would think that 48 games is detrimental to a rookie's development.

Looking at last seasons' NHL stats:
- There were 0 NHL Dmen under 20 playing a meaningful number of games. Levshunov had 18 games with the Blackhawks
- 1 20 year old played 45 games (Mateychuk with CBJ)
- Hutson was the only 21 year old to play a full season but Mintyukov and Zellweger played 68 and 62 games respectively and the rest played less than 40
- With the 22 and 23 year olds you see 9 D who played 70+ games and then 55, 43, 42, and the rest are 30 or less

Drilling down into a few players:
- Schneider (NYR) is 23 now and in his 4th season. Going backwards he has played 80, 82, 81, and 43 games. **43 games as a 19 year old rookie**
- Power (BUF) had an 8 game cup of coffee and then 79, 76, 79 game seasons (I wouldn't use Buffalo as a good example of development or rookie handling)
- Clarke (LAK) got 9 games as a 20 year old, 16 games at 21, and 78 games now
- Edvinsson (DET) got the exact same treatment: 9, 16, 78
- Allan (CHI) just had his first season with 43 games

So, looking at the data there are more than a few examples of younger rookie D (18-20) only getting a cup of coffee and then getting sent back down. With the older rookies, a bunch of them are only getting 30-50 games as their introduction to the league.

I know that my proposal is aggressive graduation of prospects but that is only because the team has done such a poor job of graduating any D over the last few seasons. 3 graduating would also be great (Parekh, Solovyov, Kuznetsov).

As with any good plan, there would need to be milestones and evaluations to see what adjustments to the plan are needed. In the first quarter if one of the rookies show they are not ready then they get sent back down and Bean ends up back in the pressbox. But I wouldn't want to see Hanley, Miromanov, and Bean all get another 50-60 games each as I do not see them as a part of the future of the team.

Maybe you see data that I missed that shows how rookie D need more games?
Or is it just that you think Parekh is going to pull a Hutson (but 2 years younger)? I am definitely open to that, but I wouldn't plan on it.

[Goriders]

I thought Notjoe did a good job last season and deserves the contract. He was a good fit with Weegar