[Rumour] Friedman: Flames aggressive in trade market. Getting calls on Hudler.

[Wolfman]

I thought this thread was about Hudler?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

Wasn't planning on spending my night staring at a computer screen waiting to discuss the negatives of Deryk Engelland. And there is no mailbox to alert you of when someone replies to your post. Please enlighten me about the greatness that is Deryk Engelland

You're the genius who said we would be picking top five if Engelland was playing more than 12 minutes a night. Your argument was destroyed by the fact that it was Engelland who picked up the minutes - and his play - after Gio went down to help us make the playoffs and then win a playoff round.

Honestly dude, just admit that your hyperbole was off base and move on. Moving the goalposts like you are now just makes you look like an even bigger fool.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Azhouse

It is at this point (in recent history) that I have never been more proud to be a Flames fan.

How would I go about framing this picture? Needs to go on a wall.

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by DJones

How would I go about framing this picture? Needs to go on a wall.

It was my desktop throughout the playoffs.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You're the genius who said we would be picking top five if Engelland was playing more than 12 minutes a night. Your argument was destroyed by the fact that it was Engelland who picked up the minutes - and his play - after Gio went down to help us make the playoffs and then win a playoff round.

Honestly dude, just admit that your hyperbole was off base and move on. Moving the goalposts like you are now just makes you look like an even bigger fool.

Look up a term called sample size. Great we went 5-6 in the playoffs while giving Engelland big minutes. Having the worst possession numbers during the playoffs as well as having a losing record isn't great.

How about instead of personally attacking me you actually use stats to back up your arguments rather than making baseless claims about Engelland picking up his play when Diaz or Schlemko would have done a better job in the same position. Engelland was the worst possession defenceman on the team this year despite the fact he got to play with Brodie for ~35% of his minutes. Look at his WOWY numbers. He makes everyone he plays with a worse possession player with the exception of Simon Despres. I think him looking better for those 20 minutes were more a result of playing with a top 20 defenceman in the league rather than him magically getting better.

So he's a good fighter and a good character guy, we could have McGrattan do that with less minutes for 1/6th of the price. Being a good character guy doesn't win you Stanley cups, playing on a good team does, that's why Matt Cooke has a cup ring and Iginla doesn't. And fun fact great teams are always great possession teams, look at the Lightning, or the Blackhawks or the Kings. I know corsi is considered a swear word here but the best teams have the best corsis. Engelland is a terrible possession guy who should be played on the bottom pairing, a guy like Schlemko or Diaz would be much better served playing those minutes because they contribute on both ends of the ice.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

Look up a term called sample size. Great we went 5-6 in the playoffs while giving Engelland big minutes. Having the worst possession numbers during the playoffs as well as having a losing record isn't great.

How about instead of personally attacking me you actually use stats to back up your arguments rather than making baseless claims about Engelland picking up his play when Diaz or Schlemko would have done a better job in the same position. Engelland was the worst possession defenceman on the team this year despite the fact he got to play with Brodie for ~35% of his minutes. Look at his WOWY numbers. He makes everyone he plays with a worse possession player with the exception of Simon Despres. I think him looking better for those 20 minutes were more a result of playing with a top 20 defenceman in the league rather than him magically getting better.

So he's a good fighter and a good character guy, we could have McGrattan do that with less minutes for 1/6th of the price. Being a good character guy doesn't win you Stanley cups, playing on a good team does, that's why Matt Cooke has a cup ring and Iginla doesn't. And fun fact great teams are always great possession teams, look at the Lightning, or the Blackhawks or the Kings. I know corsi is considered a swear word here but the best teams have the best corsis. Engelland is a terrible possession guy who should be played on the bottom pairing, a guy like Schlemko or Diaz would be much better served playing those minutes because they contribute on both ends of the ice.

Why do people like you always dispute the character and leadership that guys like Engelland and Bollig bring to a dressing room even though these qualities are specifically pointed out by the coach and management as being important?

Is it because you know so much more about team building in the NHL than these seasoned professionals who actually get paid to do this?

For years under Feaster, this team sucked and got pushed around. Burke and Treliving take over, add some "TRUCULENCE" and leadership and the team makes the playoffs, and all you guys want is to get rid of that truculence and leadership.

Nevermind that the turnaround for this team coincidentally occurred after a line brawl versus the Canucks.

All of the play by play guys, be it Wills, Loubo, Ball, Hrudey, even Simpson and Hughson were praising Engelland for his play down the stretch and in the playoffs and yet you see it completely different from everyone who gets paid to comment, coach, or manage the game. No one is saying Engelland is Regher in his prime, but he's a solid bottom pairing defenseman who can fill in on the top 4.

[GioforPM]

Wait - you are first arguing sample size (about Engelland's minutes after Gio went down) and then point to stats from 11 games in the POs?

Then you say Engelland was the worst possession player for the year and ignore whatever his possession stats were for the time when he got better minutes (which is the time at itssue).

Sure Brodie made him look better. But maybe Diaz/Smid made him look worse.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

Look up a term called sample size. Great we went 5-6 in the playoffs while giving Engelland big minutes. Having the worst possession numbers during the playoffs as well as having a losing record isn't great.

Are you really going to whine about sample size to challenge my argument and then deliberately use a small sample size yourself?

But okay, lets go there. Your argument is that we would be drafting top 5 with Engelland playing more than 12 minutes a night.

At a very quick count, it seems Engelland played 46 regular season games where he saw more than 12 minutes of ice time. The Flames record in those games was 25-16-5. That is a .598 points percentage, or a 98-point pace. Or, one point better than we actually did.

AFTER Gio went down, Engelland played 20 games over 12 minutes - a majority of those over 20 minutes. The Flames went 12-5-3. A .675 points percentage, or a 111 point pace.

As a disclaimer, I did this quickly, so there is a risk of a small adding error. But you are unquestionably wrong in your assertion. The only question left is whether you are prepared to admit it, or if you are going to continue doubling down.

How about instead of personally attacking me you actually use stats to back up your arguments rather than making baseless claims.

How about instead of moving the goal posts because you got caught making an idiotic statement, you actually use stats to back up your argument that "If Engelland is playing more than 12 minutes a night all season we will be picking in the top 5."

I'm waiting.

[DJones]

I think going 5-6 with Engellend on the first pairing is a great sign. Dropping him down to third line pairing is exactly the right move and he should be fine with 12-15 minutes with a partner with a solid first pass.

You know when someone posts WOWY numbers the argument isn't going to go anywhere though haha.

[Red Menace]

Isn't this thread about Hudler?
Getting back to him, I think we all understand the concept of selling high, and he will quite likely not repeat his phenomenal stats from last year, so I can understand the idea to trade him now. But I do feel that he has been critical to the success of the young guys and I think we'd be better off having him stay around, and maybe even re-signing him. Certainly don't want 34 yr old Patrick Sharp ahead of him, and probably not any of the other names floating around.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

Isn't this thread about Hudler?
Getting back to him, I think we all understand the concept of selling high, and he will quite likely not repeat his phenomenal stats from last year, so I can understand the idea to trade him now. But I do feel that he has been critical to the success of the young guys and I think we'd be better off having him stay around, and maybe even re-signing him. Certainly don't want 34 yr old Patrick Sharp ahead of him, and probably not any of the other names floating around.

Put simply, I think trading Hudler for picks is to sacrifice any real shot at the playoffs next year. We're already iffy to make them anyway, so that isn't necessarily a huge risk.

The problem for a team in our place is the need to balance both long term and short term objectives. You don't want to sacrifice the former for the latter, but the practical business reality is that sacrificing the latter for the former isn't always ideal.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

Isn't this thread about Hudler?
Getting back to him, I think we all understand the concept of selling high, and he will quite likely not repeat his phenomenal stats from last year, so I can understand the idea to trade him now. But I do feel that he has been critical to the success of the young guys and I think we'd be better off having him stay around, and maybe even re-signing him. Certainly don't want 34 yr old Patrick Sharp ahead of him, and probably not any of the other names floating around.

Seems like everyone is on the same page. It's great if we keep him but there is a risk of overpayment. If we sell high now, we want to go young. No reason to trade him for another veteran.

If we trade him for really young or draft picks, finding a veteran UFA on a short term might be a good transition move.

[BrownDrake]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

Isn't this thread about Hudler?
Getting back to him, I think we all understand the concept of selling high, and he will quite likely not repeat his phenomenal stats from last year, so I can understand the idea to trade him now. But I do feel that he has been critical to the success of the young guys and I think we'd be better off having him stay around, and maybe even re-signing him. Certainly don't want 34 yr old Patrick Sharp ahead of him, and probably not any of the other names floating around.

I agree Red Menace but the issue is the term I think, if we could sign Hudler for 1 or 2 years at 6.0 per I would rather him than Sharp. Sharp does bring other elements that would be better than Hudler, tenacious on the fore check, speed and more cups...his term is perfect and doesn't effect us in 2017-18; trade Sharp at the deadline in a year and half for second round pick. People are going to be surprised at the Term Hudler gets offered next year, he is signing for 5 or 6 for sure, market is getting crazy. This management will not have two smallish forward under long term contract guaranteed, sell high for once and try to improve your return versus the deadline if at all possible. I don't see him under performing this year and putting up 45 to 50 points where this last season will be completely written off as fluke.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Are you really going to whine about sample size to challenge my argument and then deliberately use a small sample size yourself?

But okay, lets go there. Your argument is that we would be drafting top 5 with Engelland playing more than 12 minutes a night.

At a very quick count, it seems Engelland played 46 regular season games where he saw more than 12 minutes of ice time. The Flames record in those games was 25-16-5. That is a .598 points percentage, or a 98-point pace. Or, one point better than we actually did.

AFTER Gio went down, Engelland played 20 games over 12 minutes - a majority of those over 20 minutes. The Flames went 12-5-3. A .675 points percentage, or a 111 point pace.

As a disclaimer, I did this quickly, so there is a risk of a small adding error. But you are unquestionably wrong in your assertion. The only question left is whether you are prepared to admit it, or if you are going to continue doubling down.

This should pretty much end Cheerio, no matter what margin of error.

Also - not sure if Cheerio knows what sample size is.

[Roof-Daddy]

I'm no huge Engelland fan, and if the Flames can upgrade their #5 defenseman, I am all for it.....but the statement about the Flames drafting top 5 with him playing more than 12 minutes was definitely ridiculous given what happened this past season.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Also - not sure if Cheerio knows what sample size is.

Tiny Oh Henry's you find at Halloween, no?

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

Isn't this thread about Hudler?
Getting back to him, I think we all understand the concept of selling high, and he will quite likely not repeat his phenomenal stats from last year, so I can understand the idea to trade him now. But I do feel that he has been critical to the success of the young guys and I think we'd be better off having him stay around, and maybe even re-signing him. Certainly don't want 34 yr old Patrick Sharp ahead of him, and probably not any of the other names floating around.

No. It's about the Flames being aggressive in the trade market in general. What gave you the indication that it was a Hudler only thread?

[1qqaaz]

The thing with Engelland is that he appears to play a lot better when he gets more minutes. However, the top 4 will be healthy at the start of next season, and other than Gio, the top 4 are pretty durable. Most him his time will be in the bottom 2 where he performs quite poorly.

Another thing is that Engelland is very old and can face sharp regression at any time over the next 2 years. I get that he's a late bloomer, but he's the oldest skater on the team.

He also can't skate or shoot, and his hitting gets him out of position. I don't dispute that he has good character, but nearly every player on the team has good character. Character doesn't justify ridiculous contracts. Russell, Gio, Stajan, Wideman, Bouma, Backlund, Monahan, and Gaudreau all have good character and are not grossly overpaid like Engelland is.

Luckily, there's only 2 years left, and the cap isn't actually that high. It's just very high for what Engelland is and will be. He's a bit similar to what Sarich was in his latter years here.

[Hackey]

If Treliving can find a good deal out there for Hudler I am definitely all for it. Our days of high picks are likely over so we definitely need to explore options for adding quality young players into our lineup. Hudlers stock will likely never be higher and he is going to be due for a big raise soon. However if Treliving feels it is more beneficial to keep him I'm definitely fine with that as well.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

My 0.85 cents cause 2 Cents just ain't worth what it used to be.

So, since 2 cents is not worth what it used to be worth you have to decided to contribute 85/100 of a cent instead thus accelerating the depreciation of the value of opinions? Thanks, Obama.