Friedman's 31 thoughts Post trade deadline edition

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Buffalo? Maybe I'm missing your point here or did you mean Boston?

Boston never really did a rebuild- they just keep re-tooling on the fly- only missed the playpoffs a few times in the last- missed the playoffs in 2006 and 2007 and 2015/2016. They drafted Kessel, then traded him to the Leafs after a couple of season for the picks that turned into Seguin and Hamilton. They picked up Macavoy in 2015 and Debrusk and some others in 2016 (famously skipping Connor and Barzal for a couple of guys that have yet to make it in the NHL) They drafted Pasternak late in the first round, Marchand and Lucic were 2nd and 3rd rounders, and they also got a good return for Lucic one year before UFA,

They have been very good managing their assets, I hope they continue the trend going forward.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Recent injuries not withstanding the flames have been incredibly fortunate this year with injuries. All the other Pacific teams with the exception of Los Angeles have had to weather more significant injury issues than the flames.

Healthy lineup vs healthy lineup, the flames would struggle to make the playoffs.

Luck is definitely a part of the game, but the flames have been extremely fortunate (knock on wood) to have avoided significant injuries to their top 6 players this year.

The Blues have been without their top scorer from last season for basically the whole year and are going to win the west.

If you look at WAR adjusted impact to the injury situation, the only team in the Pacific with a less impactful injury situation is Los Angeles.

There are only 4 other teams in the whole league this year less impacted by injuries than the flames have been this year : the kings, senators, canes and rangers.

It's important to look at the rest of the league when assessing where the flames fit into things. Where would the flames be if they were missing 17 games from Monahan and Backlund or Lindholm? Vegas had marchessault and karlsson out of the lineup at the same time I'm pretty sure.

20 games from Derek Ryan?

Injuries to a goalie?

I don't think it's out of line to call them a bubble team.

Gaudreau playing poorly is a heck of a lot different than not having him in the lineup at all.

Monahan, Gaudreau, and Backlund were pretty well MIA for a good portion of this season suffering through their worst seasons in some time so it's not a lot different than simply not having them in the lineup IMO. Plenty of games they were the worst players on the ice and elevating other players in their place may have led to better results. Their slumps are the reason the Flames are in this predicament of fighting for their playoff lives in the first place.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

The Flames are log jammed in the middle of the pack and just 2 points away from being 20th in the league overall since Ward took over. I don't think that screams "top team". We all know their play hasn't backed that up either. Top teams are consistent night in, night out.

They might be starting to get there now, but let's not get ahead of ourselves until we see a few more nights like the Boston game. Can we also please not use the Oilers as a barometer for anything other than being no good. Yuck.

I believe it was November 26th that ward took over.

The flames are 10th in points percentage since then.

11th in goals against.

7th in PP%

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Monahan, Gaudreau, and Backlund were pretty well MIA for a good portion of this season suffering through their worst seasons in some time so it's not a lot different than simply not having them in the lineup IMO. Their slumps are the reason the Flames are in this predicament of fighting for their playoff lives in the first place.

I'm sorry, but having to play Lucic or Bennett 18 minutes a night for an extended period of time is a heck of a lot worse than Gaudreau putting up .6 points per game.

Bennett - Backlund - Mangiapane is a million times worse than Tkachuk - Backlund - Mangiapane

[djsFlames]

They've been playing on the level of a top 16 / playoff team easily since late November.

It seems worse than it is because they have to compensate for a poor record in the first month and a half.

They've had bad hiccups against Edmonton and Chicago but are trending towards making it and likely will.

I don't see Minnesota or Arizona being threats at this point, they're too inconsistent. Beating out one of Winnipeg or Nashville is all they have to do.

I think they'll do better than that and land a top 3 divisional seed. I say that purely cause I really like the way the top players are going right now and it bodes well for them when thats the case.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm sorry, but having to play Lucic or Bennett 18 minutes a night for an extended period of time is a heck of a lot worse than Gaudreau putting up .6 points per game.

Bennett - Backlund - Mangiapane is a million times worse than Tkachuk - Backlund - Mangiapane

Backlund basically vanished playing the wing. When he wasn't invisible he was missing scoring opportunities that Tobias Rieder in an Oilers jersey would bury.
That's how bad the slumps have been this season. Monahan has spent a portion of the season in the witness protection plan. Gaudreau spent a good portion of the season turning over the puck like mad. Honestly these guys were hurting the team more than they were helping. There's a reason the Flames are two points behind a crap team like the Oilers and it's been that their top players have all had poor seasons. Just like the team had a collective high season they have followed with a collective low season. The truth is in the middle and the fact they even hold a playoff spot after prolonged stretches of really poor hockey is testament to the talent on this team that they are still right up there with teams that have overachieved in the Oilers and Canucks.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

They've been playing on the level of a top 16 / playoff team easily since late November.

It seems worse than it is because they have to compensate for a poor record in the first month and a half.

They've had bad hiccups against Edmonton and Chicago but are trending towards making it and likely will.

I don't see Minnesota or Arizona being threats at this point, they're too inconsistent. Beating out one of Winnipeg or Nashville is all they have to do.

I think they'll do better than that and land a top 3 divisional seed. I say that purely cause I really like the way the top players are going right now and it bodes well for them when thats the case.

Let's hope so because, as it stands now, playing either St. Louis of Las Vegas in the first round would be no bueno.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Monahan, Gaudreau, and Backlund were pretty well MIA for a good portion of this season suffering through their worst seasons in some time so it's not a lot different than simply not having them in the lineup IMO. Plenty of games they were the worst players on the ice and elevating other players in their place may have led to better results. Their slumps are the reason the Flames are in this predicament of fighting for their playoff lives in the first place.

Pretty much this. If we are projecting this team beyond this season then it doesn't make much sense to limit the data set to just this year with everything that has transpired. When 2018–19 is combined with 2019–20 the Flames are well within the top-ten teams in the League. If we are happy to consider last year as an outlier, then I see no reason why we should simply accept the current results as normative moving forward. All things being equal, the Flames fall somewhere between these results: not a top-five team in the NHL, but also better than a bubble team.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is the biggest criticism for me of the idea that swapping out gaudreau for hall is an even lateral move.

At 6 million each I take Gaudreau, at 9 million for hall and 6.75 for Gaudreau, I definitely 10 times out of 10 take Gaudreau.

If the plan is to come back with a ramshackle defense, a 9 million dollar Taylor hall and no other substantial additions, I don't see this as a contending club.

And if you're not a contending club, just exactly what are you doing signing major ufa deals?

The flames cap situation for next year right now is 17 million in cap space with 13 players signed. Significant raise coming to Mangiapane (great work on that one), modest raise to Kylington, a backup (starter?) Goalie and 4 other defenders.

Unlike last season when the flames had an obvious cap cutting candidate in Frolik, this offseason requires more difficult decisions.

I'm not disagreeing that the flames are going to go hard after hall, the tea leaves are so clear it feels like borderline tampering. I just don't know how you square that with filling out the rest of the roster.

The thing with the performance to cap ratio of losing bargains like Hamonic and Brodie is that they are bargains because they weren't UFA deals. Signing ufa defenders means a downgrade in performance for the same cap hit. The flames are gaining about 9 million in cap space by losing hamonic and Brodie, but their replacement value is probably 11 or 12 million.

I hope there is a plan to address that. A short term bargain deal for Forbert is almost certainly part of that plan at this point I think, but I wonder if the flames feel like letting hamonic walk is even an option for them.

I can't help but think of Kent Wilson's Kulak article right now.

I like Gaudreau at 6.75 way more than Hall at say 10.0, agree 100%.

But that 6.75 is only for two more years and then one of two bad things will happen.

1. Gaudreau leaves for nothing
2. Gaudreau stays and signs for big dollars

I'm not even a Hall fan, but locking into Hall and allowing you to move Gaudreau for big futures is a net gain that I can't overlook, and I think Hall and his speed probably has better years 5-7 than Gaudreau will if he loses a step given his size.

Hall wanting to come here would be a window extending, asset adding moment that could really change the next 5-10 years.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Let's hope so because, as it stands now, playing either St. Louis of Las Vegas in the first round would be no bueno.

A series with VGK is most likely to go seven games, with everyone winning their home-dates in Games 1–6. Both teams struggle badly in the other one's rink.

[bax]

Hall has been counted on to be “the guy” on every roster he’s been a part of minus a brief stint in Edmonton with McDavid.

He’s a great player, but he’s not Crosby.

If the Flames can get him and retain Gaudreau then that wouldn’t be the case. He can just play and be one of the weapons on the team.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I like Gaudreau at 6.75 way more than Hall at say 10.0, agree 100%.

But that 6.75 is only for two more years and then one of two bad things will happen.

1. Gaudreau leaves for nothing
2. Gaudreau stays and signs for big dollars

I'm not even a Hall fan, but locking into Hall and allowing you to move Gaudreau for big futures is a net gain that I can't overlook, and I think Hall and his speed probably has better years 5-7 than Gaudreau will if he loses a step given his size.

Hall wanting to come here would be a window extending, asset adding moment that could really change the next 5-10 years.

Boy I sure hope you weren't one of the posters suggesting the mark stone contract is tough because it will look bad in 5 years.

[Roof-Daddy]

If the Flames decide to trade Johnny for a core retool this summer after signing Hall as speculated, and they want to get futures in return, I would be all over Buffalo for Cozens and their 2020 1st which should be top 10 as long as they dont win the lottery with it. They must be desperate to compete now as Im sure Eichel is getting restless, and how many top 5-10 picks is that team going to accumulate before they turn the corner. Their GM would probably salivate at the thought of Gaudreau along side Eichel.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Boy I sure hope you weren't one of the posters suggesting the mark stone contract is tough because it will look bad in 5 years.

Boy I sure hope you see the difference between moving a 1st and Valimaki for Stone, a guy you'd have to pay more because he really wants to go to Vegas vs a guy literally coming here for free by choice, not to mention the year closer to Gaudreau exiting as UFA.

But in all seriousness ... I don't like any of Stone, Gaudreau or Hall on long term contracts. I think they're a death sentance.

But the free tag on Hall and the futures for Gaudreau get Calgary out of a tough situation.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Boy I sure hope you see the difference between moving a 1st and Valimaki for Stone, a guy you'd have to pay more because he really wants to go to Vegas vs a guy literally coming here for free by choice, not to mention the year closer to Gaudreau exiting as UFA.

But in all seriousness ... I don't like any of Stone, Gaudreau or Hall on long term contracts. I think they're a death sentance.

But the free tag on Hall and the futures for Gaudreau get Calgary out of a tough situation.

Ok, but just follow this.

If none of those contracts are good, why sign any of them?

If you're going to deal gaudreau for futures, why then immediately complicate your future cap situation for a contract that won't be worth it?

Why not just keep that space open, sell even more pieces and have the cap available to re-sign tkachuk with a new core group in 4 years time?

What does signing hall to 9 or 10 million on a 7 year deal really get you if he's not even as good as gaudreau and the futures you get aren't major contributors until likely year 2 or 3 of that hall deal when the flames have to pony up 10 million+ to keep tkachuk?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by aaronck

Boston never really did a rebuild- they just keep re-tooling on the fly- only missed the playpoffs a few times in the last- missed the playoffs in 2006 and 2007 and 2015/2016. They drafted Kessel, then traded him to the Leafs after a couple of season for the picks that turned into Seguin and Hamilton. They picked up Macavoy in 2015 and Debrusk and some others in 2016 (famously skipping Connor and Barzal for a couple of guys that have yet to make it in the NHL) They drafted Pasternak late in the first round, Marchand and Lucic were 2nd and 3rd rounders, and they also got a good return for Lucic one year before UFA,

They have been very good managing their assets, I hope they continue the trend going forward.

Maybe it's not Boston but I was more questioning that Buffalo was a great team at rebuilding. That remains to be seen, IMO.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ok, but just follow this.

If none of those contracts are good, why sign any of them?

If you're going to deal gaudreau for futures, why then immediately complicate your future cap situation for a contract that won't be worth it?

Why not just keep that space open, sell even more pieces and have the cap available to re-sign tkachuk with a new core group in 4 years time?

What does signing hall to 9 or 10 million on a 7 year deal really get you if he's not even as good as gaudreau and the futures you get aren't major contributors until likely year 2 or 3 of that hall deal when the flames have to pony up 10 million+ to keep tkachuk?

Honestly I think we're aligned.

But I'm acting under the assumption that the Flames won't do the right thing and move Gaudreau before his contract expires, and will try to sign him. They don't want to have their chance at winning taken away and a retool forced.

So under that scenario, Gaudreau stays, they don't sign Hall, they don't get futures and keep the window building, and they end up in the same contract that they would have given Hall anyways, but two years down the road.

Or ...

They sign Hall long term as a free asset, move Gaudreau for futures and end up in a better situation overall.

If I was an owner I'd insist on a model built to look at not signing any players past the age of 33 to multi year contracts (own or UFAs), and whether that would result in lost playoff revenue or not? I think a case could be made that you'd keep the ball rolling longer, make the playoffs in more seasons out of ten, and get more kicks at a "run".

[Flash Walken]

I guess it is really something that we agree the flames wont handle this properly.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Honestly I think we're aligned.

But I'm acting under the assumption that the Flames won't do the right thing and move Gaudreau before his contract expires, and will try to sign him. They don't want to have their chance at winning taken away and a retool forced.

So under that scenario, Gaudreau stays, they don't sign Hall, they don't get futures and keep the window building, and they end up in the same contract that they would have given Hall anyways, but two years down the road.

Or ...

They sign Hall long term as a free asset, move Gaudreau for futures and end up in a better situation overall.

If I was an owner I'd insist on a model built to look at not signing any players past the age of 33 to multi year contracts (own or UFAs), and whether that would result in lost playoff revenue or not? I think a case could be made that you'd keep the ball rolling longer, make the playoffs in more seasons out of ten, and get more kicks at a "run".

These aren't the only options though.

These are the only options if you're a badly run organization.

That's how Chicago ends up with Seabrook and how the senators end up with Bobby Ryan.

At the end of the day you can't escape bad ownership which is where we find ourselves with this feanchise, which is really a shame, because the flames big time salaries are structured in such a way that you could easily turn this into a 3 or 4 year rebuild and still win with tkachuk if you wanted to.

There's just no desire from the top of the organization to be a real contender.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I guess it is really something that we agree the flames wont handle this properly.

We don't see a lot of ownership groups walk away from core stars instead of resigning them.

Tavares and Stamkos were taken to UFA, Tavares was lost.

Many teams throw money at guys and keep them regardless of how old they'll be at the end of the term ... Karlsson being the most recent insane example.

The Kings have Doughty and Kopitar on nasty contracts, Toews contract certainly pushing the envelope, Price, Benn.

This really isn't a Flames issue.