...did you read his post? The top 6, after having removed the actual top 6. Meaning slots 7-12. Meaning the entire rest of the forward group. Unless your argument is we had a better 13th forward eating popcorn in the press box. In which case, carry on.
1. You are correct, I have misread that post. Replaced my reply with more relevant stat.
2. Ths kind of thinking is exactly what has got us in the scoring depth trouble. Treliving seems to seriously underestimated how many NHL caliber forwards you need to get through the season. He's lucky we have had so few injuries, and we are still obviously short on forwards.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
We can definitely use hindsight to assess who was borderline NHL at the time. We can do the same with the current group two years from now. That's objective analysis. Quantifying one group as "legit" NHlers and the other as "AHL quality" is entirely subjective.
Correct. So I try something objective:
Goals scored by forwards from 7th onward.
2014-15: 64
2017-18(pace): 45
It could be that sheer quantity of guys competing for the job had pushed them to produce more. Or maybe it was coaching to some extent. But that depth used to score way more.
the point is actually that the team needed both, and depending on how you're looking at it, they needed both in equal measure.
In my opinion the team is actually lacking 2 middle six players that can score.
I think they thought going into this season that Bennett and jagr could get them an extra ~40 goals, but if course that hasn't come close to happening.
As it stands the team will probably finish 30 goals or so from the top 10 in the league when all is said and done. Basically, missing an elite first line scorer or 2 good middle six scorers.
I agree that the team needed both, and I still like the trade. Hamonic is going to become an increasingly important piece on the D over time.
I don't know about 40 goals from Bennett and Jagr, but it's safe to say they expected a lot more than 8.
The same can be said about Frolik and Versteeg. It's safe to say most people would have taken the over against 10.
That's 4 guys that were to be a big part of the middle 6, and they have a total of 18 goals in 50 games. Pretty safe to say that they would have been counted on for at least double that, to start the season.
Add in that the D aren't contributing enough, and that explains the difference between what was needed and what we've gotten.
I hope they weren’t counting on anything from Jagr. He was signed after training camp. If the summer plans were to get 40 hails from Bennett and player x well that is just poor planning. But Bennett’s production is certainly disappointing thus far.
Maybe they though they’d get more scoring from the D. But the team doesn’t play like they want offense from the back end. It’s strange.
Would anyone here make the Hamonic trade over again if given the choice?
Yes.
The team needed scoring depth and an upgrade in the top four defense this last summer, along with improved goaltending. Treliving filled 2/3 holes with a longer view of the situation beyond just this season. The Haminic trade is about the next two years as well.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Treliving has added parts at the cost of several 1-3 round draft picks. Which are not going to sit well with Flames fans not having a pick until the 4th and especially if they are low picks at the result of the Flames missing the playoffs. Pretty bitter pill to swallow if you think about it.
From the back and worth daily on CP those additions Treliving has made get scrutinized in CP weekly. Smith is the exception, he has lived up to being the much needed goalie. Only after Treliving went through what 3-4 cracks and failures adding a capable starter.
Treliving fired an accomplished HC to replace him with a very NHL unpolished HC who was not a current HC at the time but a guy responsible for the 26ish PK of the crappy Canucks.
Treliving added Cameron fired from Ottawa and he had the 29th PP.
Treliving hired duds, basement dwellers and has given up plenty of valuable draft picks and the Flames sit 5th in their division. Currently having lost the last 5.
Grading Treliving, Gilly, and Cameron is going to weigh heavily upon if they can not only get in the playoffs but win the first round.
Damn right Treliving and his bum hire(s) should be feeling the heat.
__________________
Last edited by Stay Golden; 01-31-2018 at 10:53 PM.
Would anyone here make the Hamonic trade over again if given the choice?
I'm trying to understand why the assets were spent on a defenseman when acquiring a top 6 scoring RW seemed a more immediate need. Would we really be that much worse off with a Gio-Hamilton, Brodie-Stone, Kulak-Andersson/Summer UFA back end, combined with the additional scoring help up front from the RW who was acquired? I think we'd be much better.
After acquiring Hamonic and drafting Valimaki I fully expected Brodie to be traded for a good scoring winger, Does anyone really believe that Rasmus Andersson would have that many more brain farts as Brodie this year that the extra scoring winger wouldn't make up the difference? I truly believe if this team had another pure shooter on the PP(and a PP coach) we would have at least 4-5 more wins
If this team misses the playoffs Treliving should be fired for not managing his strengths to fix his weaknesses, and I hope he takes the $3 million a year for nothing blowhard with him
Last edited by Snuffleupagus; 02-01-2018 at 04:39 AM.
Organizational depth on defence can be very useful. Look at the Ducks swapping out Vatanen for Henrique. If the Flames can find a similar match involving Brodie, Treliving needs to be all over that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Organizational depth on defence can be very useful. Look at the Ducks swapping out Vatanen for Henrique. If the Flames can find a similar match involving Brodie, Treliving needs to be all over that.
That doesn't make much sense though unless we're comfortable with:
Giordano - Hamilton
B. Kulak - Hamonic
Kylington - Stone
Would anyone here make the Hamonic trade over again if given the choice?
I'm trying to understand why the assets were spent on a defenseman when acquiring a top 6 scoring RW seemed a more immediate need. Would we really be that much worse off with a Gio-Hamilton, Brodie-Stone, Kulak-Andersson/Summer UFA back end, combined with the additional scoring help up front from the RW who was acquired? I think we'd be much better.
I would return Hamonic to the Isles for those picks in a heartbeat if i could.
Hamonic is a useful player but the price was steep. Those picks should have returned a player who could make more of an impact vs. #4 defenseman. Particularly based on how the Flames seem to use their defensemen.
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
That doesn't make much sense though unless we're comfortable with:
Giordano - Hamilton
B. Kulak - Hamonic
Kylington - Stone
I think it would be Andersson not Kylington
I do think there is risk in moving Brodie. There is a reason why puck moving mobile dmen are in demand. So I think the impact to the team and how they play could be more severe than we realize.
But I also agree he would probably be the guy that fetches the return they need up front.
I don't think this deal goes down this season though. I think it happens in the off-season, at the draft.
D is the deepest of the organization, with a strong 6 at the NHL level at 4 prospects that all have a fairly good chance of turning out (Fox, Andersson, Valimaki, Kylington)
After that there is no one though so you have to make sure you don't over play your hand. Chances are that 2 of the 4 prospects will turn out (though I feel pretty good about 3 of them).
I would return Hamonic to the Isles for those picks in a heartbeat if i could.
Hamonic is a useful player but the price was steep. Those picks should have returned a player who could make more of an impact vs. #4 defenseman. Particularly based on how the Flames seem to use their defensemen.
I think understanding the impact of dmen, particularly stay at home guys, is among the toughest things to evaluate as a fan.
I think he's been more solid in the last 20 games or so.
And part of the reason for the asking price was his contract.
I don't love the deal. Frankly I don't love any deal where 1sts are given up. But I understand why the deal was made.
I would return Hamonic to the Isles for those picks in a heartbeat if i could.
Hamonic is a useful player but the price was steep. Those picks should have returned a player who could make more of an impact vs. #4 defenseman. Particularly based on how the Flames seem to use their defensemen.
I'm generally pleased with the Hamonic trade. It doesn't bug me, but I do agree with the bold part.
We've invested a lot into our defence, but with how the system is structured, we don't play our d-men to their strengths. We simply have them fill in structured spots.
Giordano is Calgary LHD-Man #1.
Brodie is Calgary LHD-Man #2.
Kulak/Bartkowski is Calgary LHD-Man #3.
Hamilton is Calgary RHD-Man #1.
Hamonic is Calgary RHD-Man #2.
Stone is Calgary RHD-Man #3.
They fill pre-defined roles that aren't structured around getting the most out of the players, which bugs me to no end.
I think it would be Andersson not Kylington
I do think there is risk in moving Brodie. There is a reason why puck moving mobile dmen are in demand. So I think the impact to the team and how they play could be more severe than we realize.
But I also agree he would probably be the guy that fetches the return they need up front.
I don't think this deal goes down this season though. I think it happens in the off-season, at the draft.
D is the deepest of the organization, with a strong 6 at the NHL level at 4 prospects that all have a fairly good chance of turning out (Fox, Andersson, Valimaki, Kylington)
After that there is no one though so you have to make sure you don't over play your hand. Chances are that 2 of the 4 prospects will turn out (though I feel pretty good about 3 of them).
It should be Andersson and not Kylington, but that doesn't fit with lefty/righty narrative.
Would anyone here make the Hamonic trade over again if given the choice?
I'm trying to understand why the assets were spent on a defenseman when acquiring a top 6 scoring RW seemed a more immediate need. Would we really be that much worse off with a Gio-Hamilton, Brodie-Stone, Kulak-Andersson/Summer UFA back end, combined with the additional scoring help up front from the RW who was acquired? I think we'd be much better.
I would do Hamonic again easily. He's been very good for 3/4 of the year so far IMO. A top 4 D man to play with Brodie was easily as big a need as a RW. I think there was a thought Brouwer would play better, and Jagr was supposed to contribute more.
The order of priority was: goalie, top 4 dman, added scoring. On the latter Treliving hoped his winger scoring would come from Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Frolik, Brouwer (an improvement was hoped for), Ferland (turned out better than expected) and hopefully someone in camp, like Foo. Foo turned into Jagr and that just didn't pan out.
