2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The Kent Wilson article in the athletic last week did a good job dispelling the Bennett's age position.

No I don't think it did at all. A lot of the players he compared weren't really similar at all in their upside at the time to Bennett's upside. They aren't a ton of great comparables really because Bennett should only be compared to other top picks like Yakupov. And I think the Yakupov comparison fails because Yakupov was always seen as a puck hog, create his own opportunities type player and Bennett didn't have the same concerns. You could compare him to Gilbert Brule but Bennett is bigger than Brule and had a higher skill level. There really aren't enough great comparables to make a compelling statistical argument. And individual players aren't averages either, they are each their own person with their own development, own struggles, different skills sets. Just because another pick failed to regain his offensive stride in his early 20's does not mean Bennett cannot. You don't have to believe he will but to write off the possibility is foolish IMO.

Originally Posted by Monahammer

So, because its most likely bennett does not improve notably from now, the question really has to be: is a marginally better bennett (i.e. a 40 point Bennett who plays decent defense) a bust as this organizations highest ever draft pick?
I think Yes, given the players picked after him, the need in our roster for exactly the type of player he was billed as, and the relative lack of success for this franchise post selection. It is also very discouraging that Sam seems to have taken two straight seasons of steps backwards rather than improvement.

Quite the opposite actually. It's very likely Bennett can still improve notably from now. MOST young NHLers continue to significantly improve in their early 20's. It would be an aberration or an exception if he did not improve.

Bennett isn't a "bust" as he's likely to be a long time NHLer. You can call that a disappointment if you want but bust is the wrong word to be using there. A true bust is a player that didn't turn into a useful NHLer at all. This talk of him being a bust is ludicrous.

Is it discouraging Bennett has not taken steps forward under GG? Yep. But IMO he wasn't frequently put in situations to succeed. He's clearly a streaky player who loses confidence in his offence when it dries up. It does not mean he can't break out and find his offensive game again. His skill level is still there. He has the size, skating, puck handling and shot to be a top two line NHLer. Does he always make the best decisions? No, but part of that comes with confidence, with not overthinking things, with realizing limitations, with getting in the groove, trusting your instincts and reacting and trusting your teammates instead of doubting yourself and the right play. Some people don't seem to realize how much of succeeding at the NHL level is psychological. Some people underrate how much a young player can start to doubt parts of their game and their instincts when they fail to experience the success the expect. Heck look at Paul Byron who so many on here lament losing. The kid looked to have zero offence on our team. He failed at breakaway after breakaway. In a different situation on a different line in his mid 20's and suddenly he breaks out and regains his offensive confidence at the NHL level and becomes a productive offensive NHLer. It wasn't too late for Byron in his mid 20's to massively improve so it certainly isn't too late for Bennett who is only just turning 22 this summer. Bennett has a big skill and size advantage on Byron. I've seen way too many kids blossom in their early to mid-20's to write kids with his skill level off.

It's not reasonable to think that he's peaked in those areas by age 21. At age 21 most players haven't even made the NHL yet. Very few players are fully developed by that age.

I think your statement that he's unlikely to significantly improve to be extremely questionable. I fully believe the opposite. Almost every young NHLer makes significant improvements in the age range from 22-25. And that's what we should expect from Bennett. To think he's peaked or must continue to go backwards is to take a very pessimistic view of the situation. I think some people are seriously jaded and not looking at him objectively because they are so disappointed that he didn't succeed as quickly as Tkachuk and Monahan did.

Gotta give Bennett more time to find his groove. His upside is too high to give up on at this point. All this talk of him not be able to improve, being a bust is pure foolishness IMO.

[dissentowner]

Bennett is going to break out into a beast, mark my words.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

IMO if you are lucky enough to land Tavares, you don't trade Monahan. You simply relish the fact that he's going to get a steady diet of weaker opposition than he usually faces when he puts up 30+ goals and 60+ points.

Hell, I even keep Monahan and Gaudreau together, and put Tkachuk with Tavares. Sit back and enjoy watching a Flames team with two legit #1 lines just because of those 4 players alone.

In my scenario my reasoning would be:
- Need the cap room from Monahan’s contract for Tavares and other top 6 wingers
- Jankowski needs a center spot above the 4th line
- I like keeping a strong defensive center in Backlund on lines 2/3
- I think Shore will be a great fit for the 4th line before he eventually goes on to show he can play more minutes
- We’d be strong at the center position so could make a trade to improve at some weaker areas and Monahan would command a monster haul
- I’m generally not that high on Monahan’s all around game

It’s all moot anyways since Tavares isn’t coming here.

[Monahammer]

I want both of you to be right so bad, I just don't think it will happen.

[Poe969]

Keep Monahan, play Janko on the wing with Backlund.

Tavares Tkachuk
Monahan Gaudreau
Backlund Janko
Shore Lazar

You still have Bennett, Ferland, Frolik, Brouwer and prospects.id like to think Brouwer is bought out and Frolik is maybe traded. If a team is willing to over pay for Ferland, I'd trade him too or keep him with SM and JG. Bennett should be given a chance with JT and MT but a kid like Foo would be nice to try in a situation like that.

Lots of options...

[Moneyhands23]

This will be a sad place when we go from Tavares talk to O'Reilly to Bozack talk

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

This will be a sad place when we go from Tavares talk to O'Reilly to Bozack talk

Not that worried really. The third option isn't Bozak.

I really think that Jankowski has been undersold. His rookie year he was learning the NHL pace, and had flashes. If there isn't a Taveres or ROR out there for Calgary, I honestly see just a tonne of potential in a Tkachuk Jankowski line.

I can't think of a third NHL centre I would target over just giving Janko the shot with more minutes and a high end winger.

[bigrangy]

I think a lot of people are going to be very disappointed in Jankowski next year based on the expectations I am seeing. He's hasn't shown the offensive abilities of a good top 9 C and he definitely hasn't shown the two-way game that you need for the bottom 6. I don't see Jankowski being a guy that you want to have down the middle of a good team right now. Sure he's young-ish, and he was a rookie, but he would have to take a huge step this summer to make me feel confident going into the year with playoff aspirations with him as the #3C.



I don't know exactly where he fits actually, maybe he'd be a good RW.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

I think a lot of people are going to be very disappointed in Jankowski next year based on the expectations I am seeing. He's hasn't shown the offensive abilities of a good top 9 C and he definitely hasn't shown the two-way game that you need for the bottom 6. I don't see Jankowski being a guy that you want to have down the middle of a good team right now. Sure he's young-ish, and he was a rookie, but he would have to take a huge step this summer to make me feel confident going into the year with playoff aspirations with him as the #3C.

I don't know exactly where he fits actually, maybe he'd be a good RW.

Huh? Methinks you're massively underrating the fact he was a rookie and learning the NHL game. Not to mention being paired with a 4th line grinder in Hathaway for a lot of the year who was a total black hole offensively.

Jankowski finished 65th in the league for goals from a centreman with 17. As a rookie. That's very much solidly in the top 90, therefore top 3 lines. Low assist total? Look no further than being paired with a snakebit Bennett and a low skill grinder in Hathaway for a huge chunk of the year. When he gets paired with Gaudreau and Ferland late in the season he exploded.

He's definitely a work in progress. But lets say you give him Matt Tkachuk on his LW and acquire a top two line RWer I think 20g, 50 points from him would be very achievable.

GG really did not set that 3rd line up to succeed halfway through the year. Stick a struggling centre in Jankowski with a struggling winger in Bennett and a 4th line grinder in Hathaway. Not a recipe to create a scoring line at all. Bennett and Jankowski should've been split up and played with veterans IMO to help get their offensive confidence up.

Jankowski was a top two line centre for a college champion. He was a good 1st line centre for our farm team as a rookie pro. He definitely projects easily as a top 3 centre when fully developed and likely a top two centre IMO. Natural progression should see him step it up next season. I expect bigger things out of Jankowski next year, why wouldn't we expect that? Given his development and progression it should be very achievable.

[bubbsy]

Jankowski, and yes, even Bennett are best suited for some patience and a coaching staff willing to put them in positions to succeed would definitely help

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Huh? Methinks you're massively underrating the fact he was a rookie and learning the NHL game. Not to mention being paired with a 4th line grinder in Hathaway for a lot of the year who was a total black hole offensively.

Jankowski finished 65th in the league for goals from a centreman with 17. As a rookie. That's very much solidly in the top 90, therefore top 3 lines. Low assist total? Look no further than being paired with a snakebit Bennett and a low skill grinder in Hathaway for a huge chunk of the year. When he gets paired with Gaudreau and Ferland late in the season he exploded.

He's definitely a work in progress. But lets say you give him Matt Tkachuk on his LW and acquire a top two line RWer I think 20g, 50 points from him would be very achievable.

GG really did not set that 3rd line up to succeed halfway through the year. Stick a struggling centre in Jankowski with a struggling winger in Bennett and a 4th line grinder in Hathaway. Not a recipe to create a scoring line at all. Bennett and Jankowski should've been split up and played with veterans IMO to help get their offensive confidence up.

Jankowski was a top two line centre for a college champion. He was a good 1st line centre for our farm team as a rookie pro. He definitely projects easily as a top 3 centre when fully developed and likely a top two centre IMO. Natural progression should see him step it up next season. I expect bigger things out of Jankowski next year, why wouldn't we expect that? Given his development and progression it should be very achievable.

I love Jankowski but I think he struggled as a center. Significantly moreso than Bennett ever did but it kind of gets lost in the mix for a few reasons (the fact that he never played wing, the fact that he got a linemate as solid as Bennett, and a bias towards his size). I wouldn't mind seeing Jankowski see some time higher up the lineup on the wing. I feel more comfortable with Bennett down the middle as his two-way game is more tight-checking IMO.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

That isn't reality.

Most defensemen take longer than 3 years to develop. A young developing defenseman isn't all hype if he's unable to handle 20 minutes 3 years after being drafted. The majority can't and don't. There's no way Kylington is ready to be a top 4 dman. I suspect Andersson is not ready for that role either. Doesn't mean they are crap prospects.

Valimaki is the most likely of the bunch to be a top 3 defenseman. He'll probably see NHL time next year. But this idea that our young dmen are ready for top 4 time right now and have to be handed it is a little premature IMO. Probably far, far more likely that Kulak could play top 4 reasonably than either Andersson or Kylington. It's one of the toughest positions to play in the league. I'm pretty confident Brad Treliving is not going to be handing top 4 roles to raw rookies who've barely played in the league. And if he does do it, it's most likely to be Valimaki that is the exceptional one who plays early. But I highly doubt Valimaki is ready right away either.

Can we trade a top 4 dman? Yes because we have guys like Kulak and Stone who can probably play there. If guys like Andersson or Valimaki are breaking in next year its likely to be on the 3rd pairing.

Andersson has been getting cups of coffee in the NHL for two years. He's the best defenseman on Stockton. He has to be able to play at least bottom pairing minutes at this point, or he is in fact all hype.

I'm fine if Stone/Kulak plays up in the top-4. I think a Hamonic/Stone combo would be surprisingly effective.

But I don't buy for a second that we can't trade Brodie because we have no one to handle his minutes. And I think trading Brodie makes a lot of sense because the only team to win a cup with three 30 point defensemen in the cap era also had a 20 year old Pat Lane and 21 year old Toews, and was so incredibly deep they had Dustin Byfuglien playing 3rd line wing.

I don't see this team having quite that collection of talent.

Edit: The 2008 Red Wings also had three 30 point D- Lidstrom, Kronwall and Rafalski. So 10/12 winners did not.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

But I don't buy for a second that we can't trade Brodie because we have no one to handle his minutes. And I think trading Brodie makes a lot of sense because the only team to win a cup with three 30 point defensemen in the cap era also had a 20 year old Pat Lane and 21 year old Toews, and was so incredibly deep they had Dustin Byfuglien playing 3rd line wing.

I've never seen this brought up until you did. I'm not convinced it's a thing.

[Mattman]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I really hope the Oilers are that foolish.

Give up Klefbom and a former 1st overall pick who's still a decent center for an aging winger.

After they traded a winger who is better than Pacioretty (Hall), straight up for a d-man that is worse than Klefbom (Larsson)

I hate the term "aging". Every player in the NHL is "aging". I doubt you mean to imply he is regressing in skill and that the game has passed him by.

Pacioretty is 29. Has five 30+ goal seasons and if you watch any Montreal games from last season he is the only one playing with heart, every night, on a terrible Canadiens team. I would argue he's still in his prime.

That being said he's exactly the type of player the Flames could use, but he doesn't play RW. Too bad.

Oilers become a better scoring and disciplined team from that trade but in the long run seems pretty stupid to give up one of their better young defensemen.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

But I don't buy for a second that we can't trade Brodie because we have no one to handle his minutes. And I think trading Brodie makes a lot of sense because the only team to win a cup with three 30 point defensemen in the cap era also had a 20 year old Pat Lane and 21 year old Toews, and was so incredibly deep they had Dustin Byfuglien playing 3rd line wing.

I don't see this team having quite that collection of talent.

I'm not sure of your point. That you can have too many high scoring defencemen? FWIW the Pens last year had two above 30 (Letang and Schultz), one at 26 (Cole) and one at 19 points in 56 games (Daley), which is also close to 30.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

But I don't buy for a second that we can't trade Brodie because we have no one to handle his minutes. And I think trading Brodie makes a lot of sense because the only team to win a cup with three 30 point defensemen in the cap era also had a 20 year old Pat Lane and 21 year old Toews, and was so incredibly deep they had Dustin Byfuglien playing 3rd line wing.

I don't see this team having quite that collection of talent.

Any thought that teams with 3- 30 point d-men can't win the cup is senseless.

All this shows is that you don't need 3 -30 point d-men to win the cup.

[Nelson]

Jonathan Willis of The Athletic ranked Troy Brouwer as the player that most needs to be bought out.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Nelson

Jonathan Willis of The Athletic ranked Troy Brouwer as the player that most needs to be bought out.

Unless they need the cap space now, they might as well keep him another year before buying him out.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by the2bears

I've never seen this brought up until you did. I'm not convinced it's a thing.

It may not be something anybody else talks about, but go look up the cup finalists and see for yourself. Three 30-point D are redundant. You can get to the finals and lose that way, but given that only one winner has done it since 2006, it seems like the wrong way to skin that particular cat.

Another statistical quirk - no team in the cap era has won a cup with a player who scored 50 goals in that season. Only one has even made it to the Finals - Ottawa, with Dany "50 in 07" Heatley.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Any thought that teams with 3- 30 point d-men can't win the cup is senseless.

All this shows is that you don't need 3 -30 point d-men to win the cup.

One team in 13 years has done it. That tells me there are better ways to allocate our resources than to offensive defensemen.