[Rumour] McKenzie: Gaudreau & Flames are closing gap, but it's still a considerable gap.

[Alpine Fisher]

Okay great, we have some opinions. Here is my take:

Monahan:
- Younger than Gaudreau but 1 more year of NHL experience. Great Solid two way player. But I think we have seen most of his upside. His ceiling is probably Jonathan Toews who is a 65-70 point guy. Monahan has a great snipe and scores most of his goals in the slot, but doesn't control the play in the offensive end like Gaudreau can

Bennett:
- Has alot of pure talent and skill and tenacity, but not as great as a shot as Gaudreau in terms of accuracy. Has plenty of scoring opportunities but doesn't have great finish. He creates alot of scoring chances by going hard to the net.
Great playmaker, but not as great control with the puck as Gaudreau.
I think Gaudreau has him beat on:
- Controlling the play
- Playmaking
- Shot / Goal Scoring

I hope Bennett becomes a 70 - 80 point guy at some point in his career

Tkatchuk:
- Based on scouting reports I have read, his upside isn't so much raw skill, but rather compete level. Going hard to the net similar to Bennett.
- I don't think he is going to surpass 70 points a year, but I hope I am wrong.
- Doesnt seem like the type of guy that can control the play in the offensive zone or be a prolific playmaker.

[GioforPM]

I don't agree that a Monahan will "exceed" Gaudreau. But if his upside is Toews and Gaudreau's is the higher points scoring Kane, I'd take the Toews over the Kane every time.

[Alpine Fisher]

Originally Posted by mister yamoto

you are not being intellectually honest, ricardodw.

Thanks alpine fisher, that's my phrase of the day. I'm gonna use it at least twice at thanksgiving dinner tonight. I hope it sounds every bit as ridiculous when i say it as when jay feaster said it.

nm

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Gaudreau/Kane is a great comparison. Monahan/Toews is a bit ridiculous and unfair imo.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Bennett, Monahan and Tkachuck are very much far ahead of where Gaudreau is in his development cycle.

If you don't think that these guys would dominate the NCAA like Gaudreu was doing when he was their age?

Monahan would be coming out of his junior year. Bennett would be finishing his sophomore and Tkachuk would be starting his Freshman year.

It is not uncommon for skilled forwards to have pretty close to their best season they are going to have the time they are 22.

Stamkos had 200 NHL goals by the time he was Gaudreau's age.
Tavares 136

Gaudreau is at 54. When Monahan is Gaudreau age should have 140 NHL goals

Brett Hull had Zero goals at Johnny's age.

Datsyuk had zero goals at Johnny's age.

Patrick Kane had his best offensive season at 25.

Henrik Sedin had his best offensive season at 29

It is extemely common for players to have their best offensive seasons after the age of 22. It is not uncommon for elite players to not breakout until after the age of 22.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Alpine Fisher

If that is your best argument - making fun of posters - rather than engaging in thoughtful discussion, then you really have no argument.
Since this is a discussion forum, I encourage you to provide insight as to why Tkachuk, Monahan, Bennett have more upside potential than Gaudreau.

How do you actually go about quantifying upside and potential, then? If this *is your* best argument you best sign out and sign in again as one of your other personas.

[Aarongavey]

The issue as I see it is not possibly overpaying elite talent. It is keeping your 7th through 14th forwards at an average cap hit under 1.5 million and keeping your 4th through 7th dmen under 2 million on average and your backup goalie under 1.5 million. You do that and you have a 50 million for 6 forwards, 4 dmen and a goalie or roughly 4.5 million per player in that category. Go much above those numbers on filler players and you have a problem.

The current Flames are much above those numbers for filler players. Thus they have a hard time signing their elit talent.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The issue as I see it is not possibly overpaying elite talent. It is keeping your 7th through 14th forwards at an average cap hit under 1.5 million and keeping your 4th through 7th dmen under 2 million on average and your backup goalie under 1.5 million. You do that and you have a 50 million for 6 forwards, 4 dmen and a goalie or roughly 4.5 million per player in that category. Go much above those numbers on filler players and you have a problem.

The current Flames are much above those numbers for filler players. Thus they have a hard time signing their elit talent.

Obviously there will be a shift there soon.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by Alpine Fisher

nm

My Dad always goes on a rant about the Turkey if it comes with an oddball amount of offal. WHY DO WE GET TWO HEARTS AND NO GIZARD!! WHERE DID WE BUY THIS?? CHERNOBL FARMS!!. Then I'm gonna say something and drop intellectual honesty into the sentence. If I make it through dinner I'll say it again somehow when the NDP comes up. No, for really Alpine Fisher, thanks for that.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Obviously there will be a shift there soon.

I totally agree, I am just saying in an ideal world I would take Derek Grant and throw a 3.125 million dollar Stajan overboard. And if in 3 years a Derek Grant wanted more money I would throw him overboard. 3rd and especially 4th liners are a dime a dozen. Paying more than a million dollars for a 4th liner means that 4th liner failed at some point in time or your GM is irresponsible in setting up their team.

Dropping an extra 500-750K on an elite 1st liner is much more tolerable for me than hoping Stajan can get 20 points for 3 million plus. You can always find a market for a legit elite player (see Phil Kessel), it is almost impossible to find a market for a bloated 3rd line contract.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Obviously there will be a shift there soon.

It's already happening in Chicago. More than half their roster makes less than $1 million per year: https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/blackhawks


People have been predicting this split between the top and bottom players since the cap was brought in. It's finally becoming a reality because the annual growth of the cap has slowed down in recent years and teams aren't able to save cap space by signing the big backdiving deals anymore.

[polak]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because Gaudreau is 23 years old and hasn't yet hit a p/gm. Forwards on average produce within 10% of their peak from ages 24-32, but many superstars have one of their very best seasons during their second full season (usually this is at 19/20, not 22). This indicates that Gaudreau might be capable of hitting 70+ again, but he also could like fail to do it regularly.

Monahan looks like a consistent 60+ point player with more room to grow, considering he's only 21. He's also a centre, which is a more valuable position and his plays a stronger defensive game.

Bennett is 20, has played one season (put up 36 points as a third liner), and has far far more room to grow. He too also plays centre.

Tkachuk is 18. We don't know what he is, he could be a 50 point banger, or he could be Corey Perry.

Gaudreau has the least remaining undiscovered upside of any of the young top draft forwards. In an NHL career, there is a VAST difference between putting up 78 points at 22, and doing it at 19. If you look at it from a historical perspective, he is unlikely to significantly improve, while Bennett, Monahan, and (obviously) Tkachuk are far more likely to improve.

Holy cow the logic hoops you'll jump through to try and make yourself feel better about the Flames potentially losing Gaudreau in order to make yourself believe they're making the right decision.

First you say that on average forwards produce within 10% of their peak from ages 24-32 but then you ignore that entire statement and imply that Gaudreau has probably already posted one of his best seasons outside of that age range? To me, if your first statement was true then that means we should expect him to get even better since he hasn't even turned 24 yet and is a good 5 NHL seasons away from his prime. Im assuming most of those superstars you refer to in your 2nd statement also broke into the NHL in the late 00's/early 2010's when scoring was higher and thus posted higher point totals earlier in their career. Quite convenient. Either way, trying to flip Gaudreau's early success as some sort of support for your theory that he could regress is quite the leap.

Monahan is a great player, I think his intangibles on ice have been overstated since the Gaudreau negotiations have gone south. The guy isn't physical, he's not an energy guy, he's not in the opponents face, he's not jumping into scrums or trying to talk to refs. He's a solid player and looks like a great ambassador for the team off the ice. That doesn't make up for the skill, talent and game controlling abilities that Gaudreau has over him in spades to some how put him over Gaudreau in importance to the team. If there's any player thats benefited from Gaudreau it's Monahan. Is he anything more than 20 goal, 50 point player without someone like Gaudreau feeding him the puck?

As for Bennett yes he can improve but if you want to look at past players development then you should know how much more likely it is for a 36 point rookie to never really break out into anything more than your 0.5 ppg dime a dozen player versus them developing into a top 6 scorer in the league.

I get the concerns that signing Gaudreau might put us in cap trouble in the future but Gaudreau maintaining his current prolific and game breaking play is without a doubt a better bet than one of Bennett and Tkachuk breaking out into a top 10 player that can replace him. Why? Gaudreau is already there. You know how many top 5 picks are currently playing in the league that will never amount to a top 10 player? To trade away the best and most important forward on the team because you're anticipating exponential development from two rookies, one of whom hasn't even played a game yet and the other who had a very average rookie season that didn't register as more than a blip in the hockey world, is quite optimistic and naive.

Yes one day we might have a situation where we have to trade 80 point Sam Bennett because of the lack of cap space, but in my opinion thats a much better problem to have than not having a game breaking player cause you traded away your top 6 in scoring, star winger and Bennett ended up following an average development curve and plateaued at a decent 50 point, 2nd centre.

You can always trade away star, game breaking talent but you can't just acquire it as you wish.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I have to laugh when I see people equate this to the Gilmour situation. Oh, not because there's no similarity between the contract disputes, but the mere idea that Treliving would make a trade as bad as the Gilmour deal makes me laugh. The guy has been probably one of the best GMs in the league at getting extremely good value in trades. IF Gaudreau were to be traded (he won't) you can bet that whatever we get back would not only fill Gaudreau's spot on the 1st line LW, but probably also would fill the 1st line RW spot too...and then throw a draft pick in just for shiggles.

[JiriHrdina]

The right comparison is Iginla. He held out coming off his entry deal and I think missed 3 games before signing

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I have to laugh when I see people equate this to the Gilmour situation. Oh, not because there's no similarity between the contract disputes, but the mere idea that Treliving would make a trade as bad as the Gilmour deal makes me laugh. The guy has been probably one of the best GMs in the league at getting extremely good value in trades. IF Gaudreau were to be traded (he won't) you can bet that whatever we get back would not only fill Gaudreau's spot on the 1st line LW, but probably also would fill the 1st line RW spot too...and then throw a draft pick in just for shiggles.

Somebody on here claimed BT would garner the same return as Doug Risebrough did with Gilmour?

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Gaudreau/Kane is a great comparison. Monahan/Toews is a bit ridiculous and unfair imo.

What's with people crapping on a 21 year old Monahan's upside?

Gaudreau is 2 years older yet has more room to grow than Sean?

So people's logic is that because Monahan had 62 then 63 point years in his second and third NHL seasons that he has plateaued?

I'd like to understand those posters' reasonings for thinking Monahan wont progress much beyond what he is. There were short stints in his early career where he looked like a dominant center. Flashes, just like with Sam. And people think Bennett is gonna go far. I don't think Monahan has yet brought everything he can. And some things that would make him even better can be taught/learned. He has the IQ, which can't really be taught. I just don't know why the new 'peak' to people around here is 21-23 years old. Because in reality it usually isn't. I don't know why Monahan can't find another gear like Scheifele has at 23, coming into his own as a center and being a more dominant player.

[burnin_vernon]

As someone who isn't really plugged into social media, what would be the most instantaneous way to get a phone notification on any signing news?

I just don't want to come to CP until this is done.

[heep223]

Imagine having to look Mark Giordano in the eye after you miss regular season games because you were holding out for $7.5M vs $7M?

I don't know why I keep thinking of that.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by burnin_vernon

As someone who isn't really plugged into social media, what would be the most instantaneous way to get a phone notification on any signing news?

I just don't want to come to CP until this is done.

Get the NHL app and set it to notify you whenever there's any Flames-related news.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Alpine Fisher

If that is your best argument - making fun of posters - rather than engaging in thoughtful discussion, then you really have no argument.
Since this is a discussion forum, I encourage you to provide insight as to why Tkachuk, Monahan, Bennett have more upside potential than Gaudreau.

This isn't about whether these players have more potential upside than Gaudreau (that misses the point entirely).

The actual issue for the Flames (and any team) is that growth isn't linear. We simply don't know which of these players will take a huge leap forward (beyond what any of us currently think), which will progress to their projected potential, which will progress less than hoped, and which will not progress at all from here.

The challenge is that the future is not certain. The Flames have a ton of excellent young players. Shooting their wad on the first one, a 23 year old, after 2 years, is risky.

Period.

No one is (or at least shouldn't be) saying that any of those players will be better than Gaudreau. But it is entirely reasonable to suggest that they might be. It would be awesome if they all become superstars.

I love Gaudreau. But the Flames have to be sensible and manage their risk.