Thoughts on Treliving so far?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Then what's the excuse for not trading Russell? Another player coming off a career year and doesn't have a NMC. There was a market for middle pairing defensemen and it was widely stated that Russell was also available.

Why does there have to be an excuse? What if its because the Flames wanted to keep him?

For the market you keep thinking there is, Cody Franson signs for $3.325M with no acquisition cost and Johnny Oduya for $3.75 with no acquisition cost. Russell is at $2.6 with an acquisition cost. For $600k and $1.1M in savings, whats the return? A 3rd round pick? Is it worth it to us to do that, forcing Wideman or Engelland into the top 4? (or an injury away, i.e. Brodie, making them top 4) and since Smid was questionable, forcing Wotherspoon or Nakladal (no NHL experience) into your top 6?

[Lanny_McDonald]

@DoubleF

No, sometimes training camp isn't enough or is even fair. A vet can get hurt and not be exposed to the competition of camp but maintenance team just because he's a veteran. Another instance is where a player on a professional tryout contract comes in and gets more playing time in a rookie and that hurts the potential for that lucky to make the team. Sometimes training camp is not the best place to see a rookie crack the lineup. Sometimes veterans don't have to perform to the highest level to make the team. So no I don't think that the rookies get a real fair shake in training camp. And it really socks when you see a veteran playing so poorly keep his job simply because he has a one-way contract. That's Mason Raymond to a T.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Why does there have to be an excuse? What if its because the Flames wanted to keep him?

For the market you keep thinking there is, Cody Franson signs for $3.325M with no acquisition cost and Johnny Oduya for $3.75 with no acquisition cost. Russell is at $2.6 with an acquisition cost. For $600k and $1.1M in savings, whats the return? A 3rd round pick? Is it worth it to us to do that, forcing Wideman or Engelland into the top 4? (or an injury away, i.e. Brodie, making them top 4) and since Smid was questionable, forcing Wotherspoon or Nakladal (no NHL experience) into your top 6?

Well the Flames were actively looking for a trading partner in the off-season as they wanted to re-sign Schlemko to a cheap deal with no acquisition cost. That is a fact. It's all about asset management in this era. Am I saying Russell should be traded now? Obviously not, although I can almost guarantee Nakladal would be more steady on the bottom/middle pairing than Engelland, Wideman or Smid right now. He came to North America to play in the NHL and he's not going to re-sign with us if we give him 0 NHL games. By all accounts he's looked NHL ready since his first week in the AHL.

3rd round pick for Russell and Re-signing Schlemko for 1 mil would of been great asset management. Keep a FA who wants to stay in Calgary, 1.6 mil in cap relief and get a 3rd round pick for a player who was originally acquired with a 5th round pick.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Well the Flames were actively looking for a trading partner in the off-season as they wanted to re-sign Schlemko to a cheap deal with no acquisition cost. That is a fact. It's all about asset management in this era. Am I saying Russell should be traded now? Obviously not, although I can almost guarantee Nakladal would be more steady on the bottom/middle pairing than Engelland, Wideman or Smid right now. He came to North America to play in the NHL and he's not going to re-sign with us if we give him 0 NHL games. By all accounts he's looked NHL ready since his first week in the AHL.

3rd round pick for Russell and Re-signing Schlemko for 1 mil would of been great asset management. Keep a FA who wants to stay in Calgary, 1.6 mil in cap relief and get a 3rd round pick for a player who was originally acquired with a 5th round pick.

By your posts, I thought you were saying he should be?

So are you upset that Russell wasn't traded so we could re-sign Schlemko? I liked Schlemko alot because he can play up the lineup, but at the summer time he was a bottom pairing defenseman that can play up your lineup. Russell is a 2nd pairing guy who can play up your lineup (either this game or last led the team in TOI?). Totally different player.

For you to say he should be dinged for not trading Wideman for a 1st, I will say he should get kudos for not trading Russell+2nd rouder for a 5th rounder. So they even each other out.

[Phanuthier]

Wanted to add to my previous post : If Schlemko is $1.6M cheaper and can do the same job, why would the inquiring team give up a 3rd for said player if he can just get Schlemko for no acquisition cost?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

By your posts, I thought you were saying he should be?

So are you upset that Russell wasn't traded so we could re-sign Schlemko? I liked Schlemko alot because he can play up the lineup, but at the summer time he was a bottom pairing defenseman that can play up your lineup. Russell is a 2nd pairing guy who can play up your lineup (either this game or last led the team in TOI?). Totally different player.

For you to say he should be dinged for not trading Wideman for a 1st, I will say he should get kudos for not trading Russell+2nd rouder for a 5th rounder. So they even each other out.

Well you obviously didn't read my original post and then got pissy about one of my responses.

Where is this Russell + 2nd rounder for a 5th rounder coming from? Smoking some sweet sheeba?

Russell was traded to the Flames for a 5th round pick. If you trade him for a 3rd round pick 3 years later that's good asset management. The Flames have the most expensive blue line in the league. It would of been nice to shave off a couple million while still having a serviceable bottom 4.

The Flames added Hamilton to the blue line while only subtracting Schlemko. They could have afforded to trade Russell.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Wanted to add to my previous post : If Schlemko is $1.6M cheaper and can do the same job, why would the inquiring team give up a 3rd for said player if he can just get Schlemko for no acquisition cost?

Because Russell is a serviceable #3 defensemen. We didn't need him as our #3 since we have Brodie, Gio and Hamilton. We needed a 4-5 defenseman which realistically could be Nakladal or Schlemko.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Well you obviously didn't read my original post and then got pissy about one of my responses.

I'm not pissy, relax. Its just a message board talking about a past time hobby.

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Where is this Russell + 2nd rounder for a 5th rounder coming from? Smoking some sweet sheeba?

Its coming from the same place that Wideman for a 1st came from

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Because Russell is a serviceable #3 defensemen. We didn't need him as our #3 since we have Brodie, Gio and Hamilton. We needed a 4-5 defenseman which realistically could be Nakladal or Schlemko.

Schlemko was a journeyman/fringe NHLer, not really a No 4 guy. Nakladal has no NHL experience. I can see why the Flames choose the direction they did, though I would have been comfortable either way really... but I really like Russell and I think he's leagues better than both.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Then what's the excuse for not trading Russell? Another player coming off a career year and doesn't have a NMC. There was a market for middle pairing defensemen and it was widely stated that Russell was also available.

Because it requires another team to make a trade? Because they wanted to keep him?

[Hackey]

I'd imagine the Flames kept Russell because they expected to be a lot better as a team than they have been. Russell would have helped achieve that. You could also make the arguement that Russell is worth more at the deadline than in the off season.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Because Russell is a serviceable #3 defensemen. We didn't need him as our #3 since we have Brodie, Gio and Hamilton. We needed a 4-5 defenseman which realistically could be Nakladal or Schlemko.

I don't see him as a serviceable #3. More like an adequate #5 that I wouldn't want to pay more than $2.5m for.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

...I can almost guarantee Nakladal would be more steady on the bottom/middle pairing than Engelland, Wideman or Smid right now. He came to North America to play in the NHL and he's not going to re-sign with us if we give him 0 NHL games. By all accounts he's looked NHL ready since his first week in the AHL...

Wow. Lots of "guarantees" and other assertions in these few sentences. Unlike you, I'm not really certain that Nakladal would be more steady on the Flames roster than one of Engelland, Smid, or Wideman. I haven't had the chance to watch much of him, and I do enjoy hearing positive reports from Stockton about his solid play this season, but that is surely not enough from which to make a good judgment and compare him to other players on the roster. how often have you seen him play?

Second, you are certain that he will not re-sign under these conditions? It remains to be seen how the rest of the season unfolds, but for now, he is still a first-year AHL player with no other North American professional hockey experience. I would expect that his options are quite limited, and his negotiating position with the Flames is not all that strong.

Third, I already mentioned how much I enjoy the reports about prospects from the terrific observers on this site who do watch them regularly. However, I also believe there to be a tendency while watching players in the AHL to overestimate their effectiveness in the NHL. By all counts, Granlund is an AHL sensation, and yet, struggles offensively in the NHL. We saw this with Wotherspoon, who looked terrific in Adirondack last year, and overwhelmed from time to time during training camp.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by New Era

@DoubleF

No, sometimes training camp isn't enough or is even fair. A vet can get hurt and not be exposed to the competition of camp but maintenance team just because he's a veteran. Another instance is where a player on a professional tryout contract comes in and gets more playing time in a rookie and that hurts the potential for that lucky to make the team. Sometimes training camp is not the best place to see a rookie crack the lineup. Sometimes veterans don't have to perform to the highest level to make the team. So no I don't think that the rookies get a real fair shake in training camp. And it really socks when you see a veteran playing so poorly keep his job simply because he has a one-way contract. That's Mason Raymond to a T.

How is it not fair? But that wasn't even my point or yours from before. Your argument was that the kids didn't have an opportunity. If a kid can't beat out a regular or PTO in training camp, why should they get a chance for a cup of coffee?

Kulak was given a shot after working his tail off in camp. He looked ok for a bit, then a bit shaky, so was sent down for more development. That is likely the scenario that most of the other prospects would face.

Rather than argue theoretical situations, pray explain to me which LWers in training camp weren't given a fair shake because of Raymond or whatever PTO players we had on LW (did we even have any?) and perhaps are still unfairly in development. Agostino, Klimchuk, Mangiapane, BVB, Elson, someone else?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I gave Treliving a C grade. It's been the deals that he hasn't been able to complete that have left me wanting more from him.

His biggest failure was not trading Wideman in the offseason. Coming off a career year and with the Hamilton signing there was absolutely no reason to keep Wideman on the roster. He went from being worth a 1st round pick to being untradeable.

In case there was confusion, this is the quote I was replying to.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

How is it not fair? But that wasn't even my point or yours from before. Your argument was that the kids didn't have an opportunity. If a kid can't beat out a regular or PTO in training camp, why should they get a chance for a cup of coffee?

Kulak was given a shot after working his tail off in camp. He looked ok for a bit, then a bit shaky, so was sent down for more development. That is likely the scenario that most of the other prospects would face.

Rather than argue theoretical situations, pray explain to me which LWers in training camp weren't given a fair shake because of Raymond or whatever PTO players we had on LW (did we even have any?) and perhaps are still unfairly in development. Agostino, Klimchuk, Mangiapane, BVB, Elson, someone else?

Kulak outplayed both Russell and Wideman in camp. He was fully deserving of his position after camp. He was even better than both of those defensemen in his limited playing time while up, but as soon as Brodie came back, bye bye Kulak. You call that fair? The only reason those other two guys didn't get sent packing is because of their status. That ain't fair. That makes it very tough for a guy to get his opportunity when guys playing like garbage are all but assured of a spot solely on their contract. Same thing happened to Granlund. Deserved to be up from the start of the season but still got sent down, because of his contract status. That is opportunity being #### blocked by contracts and the number of veterans in camp, something the GM is responsible for. I'd much rather see a rotation of several young guys from the farm than seeing Raymond and Bolig eating up a spot on the roster.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Kulak looked good at first, but faded as he played more games. I don't think he's ready for the 20+ mins a game Russell and Wideman get, regardless of your opinion on them as players.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Kulak looked good at first, but faded as he played more games. I don't think he's ready for the 20+ mins a game Russell and Wideman get, regardless of your opinion on them as players.

He wouldn't be playing 20+ minutes a night. He'd be playing 3rd pair. Odds are one of the other vets would be shuffled up the lineup.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by New Era

He wouldn't be playing 20+ minutes a night. He'd be playing 3rd pair. Odds are one of the other vets would be shuffled up the lineup.

You don't think he'd benefit with more playing time in the minors? Maybe you're right, but I would rather see him get more minutes in Stockton over the course of a season.

[JiriHrdina]

Yeah I don't think it is accurate to say Kulak was better than any veteran dman. In fact, as he played more games, he looked more and more over his head.
And Granlund also hasn't shown STILL that he is an NHLer. Right now he looks like a tweener.