Ryan Lambert article on sending Monahan down

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Why do so many people care if some idiot thinks Monahan should be sent back to junior? I think he should stay, but if someone disagrees, who cares? The guy seems like a jerk and he doesn't appear too intelligent so why are you all so concerned? Just ignore him, he's not very credible anyway, so why value his opinion? I get venting and all but seriously, just ignore the guy.

It's the scheduling. Without so many days between games this would have been a much shorter thread.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This only works with regards to contracts in groups, and in the event that a team is close. If the Flames were within three or four years of competing for the Stanley Cup, then it might make sense to save the year of Monahan's ELC. The Flames are most likely at least four years away, and this most likely makes the loss of one ELC year practically negligible.

Completely agree. I don't think it ever made sense to move Monahan back to the minors unless he was lost in the NHL. I'll be the first to admit I thought he'd need another year of experience (EDIT - clarification: when he was drafted, I thought he was a year or two out. I currently don't think Monahan will ever see another game in the CHL).

I never agreed with the reasoning behind sending him down if he looked NHL ready. What I posted seems to be the common line of thought though.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

No that's not all that needs to be said on the topic. You haven't provided any proof beyond "it's well established." Oh yeah, by whom?

He's confusing shots with real-time stats. These would include hits, blocked shots, giveaways and takeaways. These things mean different things in different arenas, which is one reason they're not very useful as stats. The other reason is it's misleading - you can't hit a guy unless you don't have the puck, can't block a shot unless someone's in your end trying to score. Similarly, the best players in the league tend to have the most giveaways because they're the ones trying to make plays and the puck's always on their stick.

So he's not wrong... well, yes, he's wrong, because he's got the wrong stat. Shots are not RTS, everyone knows what a shot is and it's extremely rare for a shot to be counted when there wasn't a shot, and it's even rarer for the counter to miss one.

[cowtown75]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Not sure if serious, but the most recent obvious example is refusing to retain any salary in the Bouwmeester trade, resulting in a worse return than we could have otherwise received.

This article was horribly written, but there are some legitimate reasons to send Monahan down before game 10. Of course, there are also legitimate reasons to keep him up. Thankfully, for the first time in a long time, I have faith in Flames management to weigh the options and make the right decision.

Umm, we dumped a 6 and a half million dollar contract that no one a year ago thought would be possible to move and turned it into Emile Poirier, Reto Berra and mark Cundari. And considering J-Bo was on his last year of contract also, I'd say we did better than expected- and we were smart enough not to retain salary to do it.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by cowtown75

Umm, we dumped a 6 and a half million dollar contract that no one a year ago thought would be possible to move and turned it into Emile Poirier, Reto Berra and mark Cundari. And considering J-Bo was on his last year of contract also, I'd say we did better than expected- and we were smart enough not to retain salary to do it.

We "dumped" that contract? The Blues gave him 27 million over 5 years about 3 months after we traded him. Bouwmeester was overpaid but only by about 1.2 million and only had a year and a half of his current deal left. He wasn't an atrocity.

Poirier is most likely the only good piece we got out of him. Berra is a 26 year old now playing in the AHL and Cundari's best case scenario looks to be as that of a bottom pairing guy. Those two pieces are dime a dozen.

Additionally we have ~13 million in cap space this year that's presently wasted. Before anyone twists that I don't mean you spend to the cap for the sake of it more so that it's sitting idle and would be of use to teams around the league. Our best realistic use of that right now is to parlay it into assets in exchange for helping a team or 2 out with cap problems right now....which is why it's baffling you think the Flames were "smart" to not retain salary. The owners continuously give the mantra that they'll spend what it takes so if they're true to their word there shouldn't be a problem on the bankrolling end.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Why do so many people care if some idiot thinks Monahan should be sent back to junior? I think he should stay, but if someone disagrees, who cares? The guy seems like a jerk and he doesn't appear too intelligent so why are you all so concerned? Just ignore him, he's not very credible anyway, so why value his opinion? I get venting and all but seriously, just ignore the guy.

Because it's fun to discuss Flames related items, that's why we're here.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Dagger

We "dumped" that contract? The Blues gave him 27 million over 5 years about 3 months after we traded him. Bouwmeester was overpaid but only by about 1.2 million and only had a year and a half of his current deal left. He wasn't an atrocity.

Poirier is most likely the only good piece we got out of him. Berra is a 26 year old now playing in the AHL and Cundari's best case scenario looks to be as that of a bottom pairing guy. Those two pieces are dime a dozen.

Additionally we have ~13 million in cap space this year that's presently wasted. Before anyone twists that I don't mean you spend to the cap for the sake of it more so that it's sitting idle and would be of use to teams around the league. Our best realistic use of that right now is to parlay it into assets in exchange for helping a team or 2 out with cap problems right now....which is why it's baffling you think the Flames were "smart" to not retain salary. The owners continuously give the mantra that they'll spend what it takes so if they're true to their word there shouldn't be a problem on the bankrolling end.

You contradict yourself. You say you don't mean to say they should spend to the cap for the sake of it, but then say it's baffling why it was "smart" not to retain salary. Which is it?

We got a first rounder and a couple prospects of questionable value for a defenceman who was largely overpaid and was riding the high of a good shortened season. Bouw got 5 from the Blues for the play that was seen during last season, which is arguably the best he has played in his entire time as a Flame. He was playing his best, and took a paycut.

There's no way of knowing a better offer was out there, it's not like teams were clamouring for Bouw by any account. It was smart to retain salary, because if you don't have to, you DONT. It was unlikely to get us a better prospect, and eating a couple million wasn't going to get them to throw in a second or a third.

As said, it was smart for them not to eat salary on a deal that would've likely turned out pretty similar either way. You eat salary to take advantage of teams and situations, eating salary in the St.Louis deal wasn't going to get us anything, St.Louis didn't need us to eat salary.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by strombad

You contradict yourself. You say you don't mean to say they should spend to the cap for the sake of it, but then say it's baffling why it was "smart" not to retain salary. Which is it?

What I meant was that we don't need to go out there and give the best FAs top dollar simply because we have the cap space and because both of them would make our team better right now. We should however be using it to gather assets that will grow with our group of guys and be ready when we're ready to make the jump like St. Louis or LA has in recent years.

We got a first rounder and a couple prospects of questionable value for a defenceman who was largely overpaid and was riding the high of a good shortened season. Bouw got 5 from the Blues for the play that was seen during last season, which is arguably the best he has played in his entire time as a Flame. He was playing his best, and took a paycut.

He was "largely" overpaid but you think that at 5.4 million he took a pay cut? Which, if you factor in the pay cut you say he took means he's what?...1 million overpaid for just over a year? That's hardly an immovable contract and with a year and a half left on it, and it's definitely not a handicapping contract. It's just a contract that could be a little nicer but is not awful.If a team thought it was awful we could easily have taken back salary and made him either fair value or a bargain contract and with our cap + playing situation that's hardly a big deal for us.

There's no way of knowing a better offer was out there, it's not like teams were clamouring for Bouw by any account. It was smart to retain salary, because if you don't have to, you DONT. It was unlikely to get us a better prospect, and eating a couple million wasn't going to get them to throw in a second or a third.

If you want to turn it into "well you don't know what's out there so therefore it's good" then that's your prerogative. But it is false that Bouwmeester wasn't clamoured after....assuming you have the same information the rest of us have. There was tons of rumours about teams like Detroit, Philly and Nashville(amongst others) being interested in him.

Why is it that when I question the return for Bouwmeester you say there is "no way of knowing" what other offers are out there but when I say that taking back salary would increase his value you categorically state that it wouldn't net us a second or third? Have something you'd like to share or would you like to re-examine who's contradicting there-self here?

But just for fun, I'd like to hear why we wouldn't get more for taking salary back on an asset. Would you honestly say that if we made Bouwmeester's contract a 5m cap hit for the taker that we wouldn't get more back...would there not be more teams able to accommodate the contract thus creating even more competition? Would he not represent value for a team that's adding additional pieces at the deadline? Would ~1.6 million free for an offseason not be useful? How about if we knocked his price down to 4m? 3m? What difference does it make to us right now if we have ~10 million in cap space as opposed to ~13 million for one season? It couldn't have been for off season spending because we were never going to be in the running for any of the top guys entering a rebuild, we weren't going to pay a goalie with Feaster signalling he wanted to try Berra and Ramo this year and 10 million in cap space is easily big enough to still take back salary, be it in the form of a dump or miraculously getting a superstar for picks and prospects.

So my question to you is, what is the competitive point of having so much cap space? It's definitely good to have some flexibility but we aren't using roughly 20% of what's available. What's the good in letting that much sit idle? For short-term purposes(say taking a contract for a year or 2) it does NOTHING for us. I don't think we're gonna have a NYR style off season any time soon and we aren't a team like Colorado where we have a glut of youngsters that will need to be paid shortly, or a Florida/NYI where there is a budget. Why not take advantage of the fact that we have owners who say they are willing to spend?

[edslunch]

Can we get back to bashing stats?

[strombad]

Stupid corsi

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

I am more wary of the PHYSICAL aspect of the game...a Center, at 19, and listed 6'2", 187, my question would be, is he ready to take the beating that an NHL Center must absorb? A year to grow/condition/strength training wouldn't be a negative...and femur, radial, and humerus growth plates would normally fuse by age 20...the kid may not yet be completely grown.

Just FYI, it's more like 24-25 before full fusion occurs in growth plates. The bulk of growth is usually done by Monahan's age, but I've seen guys grow plenty between 19 and 24 before. I even had a friend who was under 5 feet until he was 18 and then shot up to over 6 feet a year later. It depends on family history and genetics. (*also Jankowski's growth should be noted as another example)

I should also point out that even if there isn't fusion of growth plates at his age, it doesn't mean he will grow anymore either. Genetic pre-determination again.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Can we get back to bashing stats?

Typewriters>computers right?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Dagger

So my question to you is, what is the competitive point of having so much cap space? It's definitely good to have some flexibility but we aren't using roughly 20% of what's available. What's the good in letting that much sit idle? For short-term purposes(say taking a contract for a year or 2) it does NOTHING for us. I don't think we're gonna have a NYR style off season any time soon and we aren't a team like Colorado where we have a glut of youngsters that will need to be paid shortly, or a Florida/NYI where there is a budget. Why not take advantage of the fact that we have owners who say they are willing to spend?

There isn't one. What is the competitive point of using the cap space for the sake of using it? You categorically state we could've gotten more had we retained salary, but you don't know that. You'd have to be an idiot to assume that Feaster wasn't going to eat money had a GOOD deal come along that required it. He said it wasn't on option on that deal because he didn't, it saves face. Feaster says verbose sh*t like that all the time and NOW is when you believe him without questioning it at all? Please.

You need to factor in that you can only acquire things that teams are willing to part with. We got a 1st in a deep draft, a goalie who has been lights out in every international competition in the past 3 years and who is now doing very well it in the AHL and will likely make a great backup in a good system, and a guy who looks to be a solid 3rd pairing defenceman. That's a pretty good return for an average 1st pairing defenceman, don't over value Bouw. Sure, maybe we could've got more had we eaten salary, but what? Another Cundari? What good would that do us? We should just give teams money to collect all of the average things we don't want? If we had gotten a 2nd instead of a 1st, you'd have a point, but instead you don't because the return was good.

Your whole problem with the money is the fact that we're not spending it, even though Feaster has said we WOULD spend it in the right situations. You can either believe him, or you can not, and if you don't, you need to drop the whole "well ownership said we could spend..." thing. Do you think he's not doing his job? Don't you think with 13 million in cap space he's looking into taking advantage of teams that need relief? What we shouldn't do is take on garbage players (which you aren't suggesting) or a glut of throwaway prospects (which you are suggesting) that take time away from players WE chose and players WE are invested in. There is a contract limit you know. As well, teams aren't stupid, it was a deep draft, you think saving 2 million for one year was going to get them to give up more than their first? Please.

The whole problem with your position is that you aren't logically taking in the situation of other teams and just assuming that if we throw money at them, we'll get what we want. Anything we want is going to coveted by that team, and as we've seen this year, teams are forcing their cap to work this year because they know it's going back up next year. We can sit and wait until teams need to save money, but we can't force teams to want to save money.

Honestly, you think St.Louis or Detroit cares about two million for one year? Yet you casually believe we shouldn't? Teams having been spending above this current cap, so spending right TO this cap is likely no issue if it means they don't give up valuable picks or prospects.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Typewriters>computers right?

Some days, yes. I'm not anti-stat, I'm actually quite partial to team based stats in particular. I just object to a viewpoint that stats are all that matter, results and observation be damned

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Why do so many people care if some idiot thinks Monahan should be sent back to junior? I think he should stay, but if someone disagrees, who cares? The guy seems like a jerk and he doesn't appear too intelligent so why are you all so concerned? Just ignore him, he's not very credible anyway, so why value his opinion? I get venting and all but seriously, just ignore the guy.

[SuperMatt18]

I look at that team up north and then wonder if keeping Monahan up is the right move.

I look at Hall, Yakupov, and RNH. Those guys all looked good as rookies too, but I am not sure they really have developed into what they are supposed to be.

If we keep Monahan up we have to make sure we are committed to a plan for the kid and that we don't just throw him out there and run wild like they did in Edmonton.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I look at that team up north and then wonder if keeping Monahan up is the right move.

I look at Hall, Yakupov, and RNH. Those guys all looked good as rookies too, but I am not sure they really have developed into what they are supposed to be.

If we keep Monahan up we have to make sure we are committed to a plan for the kid and that we don't just throw him out there and run wild like they did in Edmonton.

You hit the nail on the head.

As long as improvement and coaching/teaching is the goal for the next 2/3 years, we won't repeat the debaucle of monumental, may biblical, proportions.

The problem is, as someone mentioned in another thread, that points and playing time were the most important focus for the oilers. Leave that to the fans. The team should expect more

[metroneck]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

Just FYI, it's more like 24-25 before full fusion occurs in growth plates. The bulk of growth is usually done by Monahan's age, but I've seen guys grow plenty between 19 and 24 before. I even had a friend who was under 5 feet until he was 18 and then shot up to over 6 feet a year later. It depends on family history and genetics. (*also Jankowski's growth should be noted as another example)

I should also point out that even if there isn't fusion of growth plates at his age, it doesn't mean he will grow anymore either. Genetic pre-determination again.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Monahan's projected final playing weight would be?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by metroneck

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Monahan's projected final playing weight would be?

To be completely honest, I would want to look at his family lineage before I answered that. His body type would mirror his parents', but considering he was listed at near 200 pounds already, he could possibly top out at a lean 210 or 215 if he really bulked up. I would say he will likely settle in around 205.

[Commandant]

Yes, its true that Monahan is playing 3rd and 4th line competition. However this level of competition is still greater than what he will see in the OHL.

The fact is Monahan is performing well against this competition, and the better players he plays against, the better it is for his development.

I don't think that going back to a league he's been in for 3 years (and dominated the last 2) will do as much for his development as staying in Calgary, even if he's playing 12:00 per night.