2019/2020 Trade Speculation and Rumors 2.0

[TheScorpion]

I don't think Jankowski being good defensively is a particularly new revelation.

That said, you won't be surprised to hear that Janko's xGF/60 of 2.05 was second-worst of any regular on the team, only behind Mike Stone.

Yes, Mike Stone had the worst xGF/60 and xGA/60 on the team. He was both the worst offensive player on the team and the worst defensive player on the team. That's, er, bad.

[Karl]

Jankowski is the very definition of do little harm but even less good. Lipstick on pig, a tall lanky pig.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I don’t doubt your stats but that should be sending off alarm bells about the state of this team.

or the value (or validity) of the stat

[TheScorpion]

expected goals is a pretty straightforward measure of shot quality that also incorporates quantity. you can debate the methodology behind how that "shot quality" is quantified (read more here: https://jetsnation.ca/2020/01/07/exp...els-explained/) but I think it's pretty sound, logically

you can isolate expected goals against and convert it into a rate per 60 (it's a cumulative stat). I think it paints a far clearer picture than, say, shot attempts

[Enoch Root]

I understand how it is calculated and what it's measuring

But if the results make no sense (Jankowski and Lucic with the best numbers) it warrants asking whether it's accomplishing what it is intended to accomplish

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I don't think Jankowski being good defensively is a particularly new revelation.

That said, you won't be surprised to hear that Janko's xGF/60 of 2.05 was second-worst of any regular on the team, only behind Mike Stone.

Yes, Mike Stone had the worst xGF/60 and xGA/60 on the team. He was both the worst offensive player on the team and the worst defensive player on the team. That's, er, bad.

Seems like we need to stop these deals for mid-late twenties 'second pairing' d-men.

Not proving to be worth the cost.

Rather give up those assets for a 2C, 10/10 times.

[TheScorpion]

I mean are the results really that ridiculous? Jankowski is a boring low-event player who doesn't generate offense but who doesn't allow anything either. Nothing happens when he's on the ice. That result makes plenty of sense.

Lucic generates a bit more and allows a little bit more. But he's still a pretty low-event player and his xG% is roughly 51%. I think that checks out. (For reference, Neal's xG% last year was dead last on the team among regulars at 48.4%)

There's definitely context to be found here. It's a lot more impressive when guys generate close to 3 xGF per game and allow closer to 2 xGA. When guys are allowing 2 xGA but also generating 2 xGF, it's indicative that they're basically average but not deleterious. I don't think anyone's suggesting that Lucic is elite defensively but he's certainly able to hold his own compared to many guys on the team.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I am actually on the side of Jankowski returning (at reduced salary). He had two strong years of 2-way play. This year, he looked bad, barely put up any points, but at least was still strong defensively.


I would bring him back on a one year deal and see if he can regain some form. Considering he was far from the only player to see regression this year, I think he has the benefit of the doubt there. However, it is all about risk - low dollar single year contract to see if he bounces back. If he doesn't, the bulk of the deal's cap hit should be off the books because the Flames waive him and send him to the NHL - so what? 950K?



It is really funny watching him play this year. His first 2 seasons he scored 'goal scorer's goals' all the time. Not 'lucky' ones, or ugly ones. The vast majority of his goals were fine looking skill goals. How on earth did that all disappear?

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

It is really funny watching him play this year. His first 2 seasons he scored 'goal scorer's goals' all the time. Not 'lucky' ones, or ugly ones. The vast majority of his goals were fine looking skill goals. How on earth did that all disappear?

I think that is a fairly easy explanation.

This year his most common linemates were a disinterested Frolik and Rieder who works hard but also was not producing. Last year and the year prior his most common linemates were Sam Bennett and a combination of Neal/Czarnik and Hathaway/Jagr. Combine the quality of linemates with the loss of almost 40% of his ES ice-time from the year prior and having an offensive zone starts of under 45% and it's a recipe for disaster offensively.

What people also ignore, or don't realize is that once Jankowski got the monkey off his back and scored his first goal, he produced just as much offensively as Bennett and Dube and more than Derek Ryan despite seeing 20-25% less ES ice-time than those players and getting a lower percentage of offensive zone starts. In fact the only player outside the top 6 to outproduce Jankowski from that point onward, was Lucic

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I am actually on the side of Jankowski returning (at reduced salary). He had two strong years of 2-way play. This year, he looked bad, barely put up any points, but at least was still strong defensively.


I would bring him back on a one year deal and see if he can regain some form. Considering he was far from the only player to see regression this year, I think he has the benefit of the doubt there. However, it is all about risk - low dollar single year contract to see if he bounces back. If he doesn't, the bulk of the deal's cap hit should be off the books because the Flames waive him and send him to the NHL - so what? 950K?



It is really funny watching him play this year. His first 2 seasons he scored 'goal scorer's goals' all the time. Not 'lucky' ones, or ugly ones. The vast majority of his goals were fine looking skill goals. How on earth did that all disappear?

The thing is, his qualifying offer is much higher than that, so Jankowski will be a UFA. I think the likelihood of Jankowski being a Flame next year is low

[flambers]

In terms of Jankowski, Flames won't qualify him.

My guess he won't have any interest in re-signing with the Flames and would sign else where.....

[BigErnSalute_16]

This idea just popped into my head and wanted to see what you guys think of this:

Tampa will clearly be desperate to free up some cap this offseason and Tyler Johnson is probably the most expendable player there. What if the flames try to get Johnson cheap with the idea to flip him to buffalo along with Gaudreau?

Something like Jankowski and a 3rd for Johnson? Tampa gets a player that will probably do decently well there and clear a bunch of cap space in the process.

Buffalo gets a guy that can slot in as a second line centre on their team and a game breaking talent to pair with Eichel in Gaudreau.

Tampa probably wouldn't want to move Johnson within the division so I think it could open up an opportunity to create a more favourable package for buffalo thus allowing us to get a better return in the realm of Cozens, 8th and perhaps Ristolainen or something else, all without costing too much for the Flames. might even be able to recoup a third as well making the acquisition cost of Johnson essentially just Jankowski.

Anyways just spit balling, let me know what you think

[The Original FFIV]

Originally Posted by BigErnSalute_16

This idea just popped into my head and wanted to see what you guys think of this:

Tampa will clearly be desperate to free up some cap this offseason and Tyler Johnson is probably the most expendable player there. What if the flames try to get Johnson cheap with the idea to flip him to buffalo along with Gaudreau?

Something like Jankowski and a 3rd for Johnson? Tampa gets a player that will probably do decently well there and clear a bunch of cap space in the process.

Buffalo gets a guy that can slot in as a second line centre on their team and a game breaking talent to pair with Eichel in Gaudreau.

Tampa probably wouldn't want to move Johnson within the division so I think it could open up an opportunity to create a more favourable package for buffalo thus allowing us to get a better return in the realm of Cozens, 8th and perhaps Ristolainen or something else, all without costing too much for the Flames. might even be able to recoup a third as well making the acquisition cost of Johnson essentially just Jankowski.

Anyways just spit balling, let me know what you think

Chances are slim and none. And slim just left town.

Johnson has ntc. Can’t see him waiving from low tax Florida for high tax Canada. Besides, we won’t have cap room after treliving trades our first for aged, high salaried ex coyotes who he has a good book on *facepalm*

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by BigErnSalute_16

This idea just popped into my head and wanted to see what you guys think of this:

Tampa will clearly be desperate to free up some cap this offseason and Tyler Johnson is probably the most expendable player there. What if the flames try to get Johnson cheap with the idea to flip him to buffalo along with Gaudreau?

Something like Jankowski and a 3rd for Johnson? Tampa gets a player that will probably do decently well there and clear a bunch of cap space in the process.

Buffalo gets a guy that can slot in as a second line centre on their team and a game breaking talent to pair with Eichel in Gaudreau.

Tampa probably wouldn't want to move Johnson within the division so I think it could open up an opportunity to create a more favourable package for buffalo thus allowing us to get a better return in the realm of Cozens, 8th and perhaps Ristolainen or something else, all without costing too much for the Flames. might even be able to recoup a third as well making the acquisition cost of Johnson essentially just Jankowski.

Anyways just spit balling, let me know what you think

I don't think Tampa will care where they trade Johnson. They will just be happy if he waives his full NTC to go anywhere.

Also, I highly doubt he would waive his NTC to come to Calgary or Buffalo.

But who knows, stranger things have happened I'm sure.

[BigErnSalute_16]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I don't think Tampa will care where they trade Johnson. They will just be happy if he waives his full NTC to go anywhere.

Also, I highly doubt he would waive his NTC to come to Calgary or Buffalo.

But who knows, stranger things have happened I'm sure.

Forgot about the no trade clause but if he does waive for Calgary he wouldn't need to waive again to get flipped to buffalo, right? that's on the team if they want to honour it after a player waives iirc.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by BigErnSalute_16

Forgot about the no trade clause but if he does waive for Calgary he wouldn't need to waive again to get flipped to buffalo, right? that's on the team if they want to honour it after a player waives iirc.

I'm not sure, it probably depends on how it's written into the contract.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by BigErnSalute_16

Forgot about the no trade clause but if he does waive for Calgary he wouldn't need to waive again to get flipped to buffalo, right? that's on the team if they want to honour it after a player waives iirc.

NTCs travel with the player unless the acquiring team refuses to honor it and the player still waives for that acquring team.

In practice this means that it rarely happens that a NTC doesn't travel with a player after a trade because it is a pretty rare situation that a player will still agree to waive his NTC and not have it travel with him to the new team. A situation would need to occur that the player would prefer the trade would happen at the expense of losing his NTC.

edit: This may have also changed in the new updated CBA. As the MOU states that a NTC/NMC always travels in a trade.

[Flash Walken]

I think now the only time the NTC doesn't travel with the trade is if it hasn't come into effect yet such as with Bjugstad to Pittsburgh

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think now the only time the NTC doesn't travel with the trade is if it hasn't come into effect yet such as with Bjugstad to Pittsburgh

Exactly, same as when Philly sent Carter to Columbus before his mega contract and NtC kicked in.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think now the only time the NTC doesn't travel with the trade is if it hasn't come into effect yet such as with Bjugstad to Pittsburgh

Not anymore. From the MOU:

CBA §11.8 amended to provide that No-Trade and No-Move
clauses shall always travel with the Player in the event of an
Assignment (by Trade or Waivers) of the SPC.