2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well it’s pretty easy to fit in Gio, Brodie and Hamilton on their respective deals with where the cap is and will be. So I fail to see your point.

That’s said I’m fine with trading Brodie. You trade him because we’re deep on defense not because having too many 30 pt dmen is bad.

That's one in the same though. Nobody has said you can't win with 3 30 pt dmen. Just that maybe your better off having another game changer up front. And while doing that have a decent defensive replacement.

If I had a dollar for everytime someone asked why it's bad to have 3 30 pt d men. Rather than if you already have a couple focus on the rounded d play and offensive forward depth. I would have at least 12 bucks by now.

But again 3 30 pt dmen isnt BAD

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Again, no one has said this.

This whole thing started with a very strong implication that indeed, it *was* a bad thing.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

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.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by the2bears

This whole thing started with a very strong implication that indeed, it *was* a bad thing.

No it didn't. It started by mentioning that nearly all of the Stanley Cup winners in the cap era didn't have three of them. Incorrectly, I'll admit - I thought it was one, turns out it's two.

Giving the Cobra the benefit of pro rating Chicago's performance in the lockout year, that means 75% of teams won the Stanley Cup without half their defense breaking 30 points. Not giving Cobra the benefit of the doubt, 83% of champions did it with 2 or less.

When I see 75-83% of teams who won it all doing things a certain way, it makes me think the team that perpetually finishes 14th-18th might want to reconsider how they're going about achieving their goals.

[GioforPM]

I doubt any of the cup winners who had less than 3 30 point defencemen would have objected if another defenceman actually got 30 points. Look, I get the point that it's even better to have lots of scoring forwards. But that assumes that there is a finite amount of points - that it's a zero sum game. That's the flaw.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I doubt any of the cup winners who had less than 3 30 point defencemen would have objected if another defenceman actually got 30 points. Look, I get the point that it's even better to have lots of scoring forwards. But that assumes that there is a finite amount of points - that it's a zero sum game. That's the flaw.

How many defensemen are you putting on the ice in the last minute of play to save your season?

How many of our forwards do you really want on the ice to save our season? On a good day we have four. If Backlund is struggling, we have three.

Defensive scoring in the playoffs is pretty consistent no matter if you're Doughty, Chara, Keith or Niedermayer. Or Justin Schultz.

Again, this is nothing against Brodie. But we don't have a first line RW. Unless Bill Peters has come out and said #1 RW is Bennett's to lose. Ferland is not a 1st line player. Neither is Frolik.

Now, we can give JVR $49 million on Canada day - I think that sounds horrible. We don't have a 1st round pick. We do have no fewer than four blue chip defensive prospects, and also Wotherspoon. Plus day 2 veteran free agents who could be serviceable. The best way forward is to move a guy who can play on the number one pair for a guy who can play with Monahan and Gaudreau.

The forward depth of this team is dreck. It has been dreck for two years, and we've been running a 4F/1D power play for most of it. If we had six or seven legit forwards, Gulutzan might still have his throne.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

If I had a dollar for everytime someone asked why it's bad to have 3 30 pt d men. Rather than if you already have a couple focus on the rounded d play and offensive forward depth. I would have at least 12 bucks by now.

But again 3 30 pt dmen isnt BAD

Then you'd be making money in a really weird way.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Most teams don't have 3+ 30 point defencemen because they can't afford them. Flames' salary structure affords this to be the case by not having any 7+ million defencemen on the roster. It would be an issue (probably, but far from definitively) if the roster was too defensive heavy in the allocation of the cap. It isn't.


Without looking, I would bet that most teams that win the cup have less 'dead space' locked-up in buyouts and in players making an absurd amount relative to their production. Calgary has Brouwer - which isn't even that bad of a contract when compared to most teams around the league.



Treliving has provided Calgary with a really good cap allocation spread between Goalies, Defencemen and forwards, IMO. He just hasn't been too strong in signings from the FA market (though one could say that in avoiding long-term, high dollar contracts, he hasn't been bad at all).


I also think that since the lockout, the league is changing, especially when it comes to the mindset of defence. Gone are the days that the really defensively sound but offensively inept defencemen 'cash in' and get big paydays. I can't think of a version of Robyn Regehr getting that big of a percentage of the cap any longer.


The most critical component of managing the cap is dead weight, not necessarily the distribution of the cap between forwards and defencemen. You just can't have too many high priced but low performing contracts on your roster. If I have 6 30-point defencemen on my roster, but they account for a rather normalized spread on the cap between forwards and defencemen found in the NHL today, I am winning the cup.

[GreenLantern2814]

^^^How many defensemen are you icing to save your season in the final minute?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

^^^How many defensemen are you icing to save your season in the final minute?

2.


How many forwards are you icing to save your season in the final minute? 3, right?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

2.


How many forwards are you icing to save your season in the final minute? 3, right?

Four as the roster is currently constructed, five in a perfect world.

But there's no reason for Brodie to ever be on the ice in a 'season on the line' situation. Nobody would put three D out. If we have to have two, we're obviously sending Dougie and Gio.

If we have to protect a lead in the last 30 seconds, it's still Dougie and Gio over Brodie. And if they can't go, I want Hamonic and Stone to move people out of the way or block the shot.

It boils down to this: trade a player who will not be on the ice at either end when your season is on the line for someone who will be.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Because they had three months off and only played 48 games. They were all fresh, nobody was injured or tired from last year's playoffs. That's likely a huge reason why the conference finalists that year were the previous four Cup champs. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston and LA. The cream was able to rise to the top because it didn't have to grind through 82 games.

Production tapers off. Remember the Countdown to 100 pts thread for Johnny? He of the 82 points? At 48 games, he had a look at it.

Based on your premise, then in a short season, teams would score more goals I guess.

During the lockout year, the average team scored 2.72 goals per game.

In the last 13 years, the only time teams averaged less goals per game was in 2012-2013, when they averaged 2.71.

It seems like maybe the goalies and d-men also were fresh as, in fact, teams were scoring less.

This year scoring per team was actually the highest in the last 12 years. Johnny didn't taper off because scoring is down in full seasons. He tapered off because he tapered off. You can't use a single stat for one player to say that production tapers off as the season progresses. There were many players who's production increased as the season wears on.

And to say that "the cream rises to the top" in a short season makes zero sense.

It would actually rise to the top in a longer season, as things like randomness will even out over a longer period. You have a 16 game season with 16 teams making the playoffs with each round being a winner take all 10 game series would result in literally anyone winning.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Production tapers off. Remember the Countdown to 100 pts thread for Johnny? He of the 82 points? At 48 games, he had a look at it.

Actually seems to be the opposite. In the 2018 calendar year there were 30 players that performed at a point-per-game or higher. From the start of the season to December 31, 2017, there were only 22.

Players like Malkin, McDavid, Hall, MacKinnon and Crosby all had substationally better second halves.

And then there's Ratanen who had 51 points in his last 43 games, and 30 in his first 39.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Actually seems to be the opposite. In the 2018 calendar year there were 30 players that performed at a point-per-game or higher. From the start of the season to December 31, 2017, there were only 22.

Players like Malkin, McDavid, Hall, MacKinnon and Crosby all had substationally better second halves.

And then there's Ratanen who had 51 points in his last 43 games, and 30 in his first 39.

Yeah if anything I would say it's substantially weighted in the opposite and Johnny is just an outlier this year. Monahan every year except this one, Tkachuk this year, and Iginla every year of his career are notable second half performers from our own team.

[Roof-Daddy]

Geez you guys.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

No it didn't. It started by mentioning that nearly all of the Stanley Cup winners in the cap era didn't have three of them. Incorrectly, I'll admit - I thought it was one, turns out it's two.

Actually, it started out with you saying there was none, and teams with 3 d-men with 30 points cannot win the SC in the modern era.

Instead it's 3, and a couple that were exceptionally close.

You're whole theory has turned to mush.

[Saqe]

I really wish there was a separate trade speculation and trade rumors thread.



Because this thread is 95% speculation and fantasy trades, which is fine, but I always come here hoping for rumors.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Saqe

I really wish there was a separate trade speculation and trade rumors thread.



Because this thread is 95% speculation and fantasy trades, which is fine, but I always come here hoping for rumors.

The problem is that the rumor only thread would get pushed back so far from lack of activity/ polluted by people tweaking the rumored proposals, thereby making it just another version of this thread.

[Toonage]

Usually a rumor that has legs or is being widely reported tends to get its own thread. This one will always be what it is.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

^^^How many defensemen are you icing to save your season in the final minute?

So your argument is based on a hypothetical last game of the season where you are one goal behind? how many of your Stanley Cup winners who had less than 3 30 point scorers were in that situation?

How about we aim for having good forward and defensive depth? Or maybe Brodie should just try and score less than 30 points.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Last year, Nashville had 3, and were close to having 3 with 40. Their top 3:

49, 40, 38

Pitt had: 51, 34 and 26

This year, Vegas had: 41, 36, 29

That's 3 of the last 4 cup finalists. To say having 3 30-point guys is in some way detrimental is ridiculous.

Pittsburgh also had Daley with 19 points in 56 games or so, pro rated to 28 points.

Pittsburgh's great forward scoring didn't prevent them from having good scoring defence - as long as cap management permits it.