2019/2020 Trade Speculation and Rumors 2.0

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

If the Canucks are re-signing Markstrom, does that mean Demko the Golden Knight Killer is available?

It Markstrom is signed and has anything that prevents him from being exposed in the expansion draft, yes.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The only two that apply to the flames are those two options because of the decisions they have made up to this point.

The reason scorched earth is necessary is because off the boom and bust cycle the flames have employed for 20 years.

If you're the St Louis blues you don't need to go scorched earth.

When you're making the least amount of picks in the entire league over a 5 year period you absolutely have to go scorched earth.

Those are the only two that you think apply to the Flames...but you'd be wrong.

There is still a young core of players on this roster whether you like to admit it or not.

Gaudreau - 27
Monahan - 25
Lindholm -25
Bennett - 24
Mangiapane - 24
Tkachuk - 22
Dube - 22

With Pelletier (19), Gawdin (23), Phillps (22) as pieces that aren't stars but could step into be NHLers based on their junior/AHL performance to date. Pettersen (20) is also ranked quite highly, had a good college career, and is signed to a deal.

And same thing on defense:

Andersson - 23
Hanifin - 23
Kylington - 23
Valimaki - 21

Those 4 are already NHLers at this point and based on how well regarded he is it looks like Mackey (24) will be an NHLer too. Kinnvall (23) is another guy that tore up the Swedish league last year as well that could surprise.

Honestly the biggest thing for this team would be a strong return for Gaudreau. If you could hit a home run with that trade and turn the last two years of 27 year old Gaudreau into longer term pieces it would extend the window of this roster.

And I was just looking at young pieces and excluded Backlund/Giordano. Right now Dallas is in the cup final with Benn (31), Pavelski (36), Radulov (34), Cogliano (33), Comeau (34), Perry (35), Sekera (34) playing contributing roles for them, and Tampa has a lot of 30+ year old pieces too. Boston/St.Louis weren't exactly young rosters in the last cup finals either. So not like you don't need some veterans in the mix come playoff time too.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The only two that apply to the flames are those two options because of the decisions they have made up to this point.

The reason scorched earth is necessary is because off the boom and bust cycle the flames have employed for 20 years.

If you're the St Louis blues you don't need to go scorched earth.

When you're making the least amount of picks in the entire league over a 5 year period you absolutely have to go scorched earth.

Once again ... no

Those aren't the only two that apply. You are literally jumping in lock step with the sunk cost fallacy.

These are human beings. They change over time. They become different finished products than you expected, or fit together in a way that you didn't envision.

With that you can change the course by managing the asset value of all your players, and the total asset value as a whole in an effective manner.

The Flames probably have about 25 assets that have an accumulated team value. That value is currency that can be used to alter the team in the near and medium term. Teams don't have to go scorched Earth or all in as the only two options.

I like rebuilds, I do. But rebuilding when Iginla, Kiprusoff and others are pushing deeper into their 30s is a different equation than a team with relatively young impact players that just don't seem to be the sum of their parts.

[Ped]

Look at the Caps - were told for years that Ovechkin and Backstrom, et al, couldn't win the Cup and were a doomed core.


They did move out some high-profile guys, but they also added to what they add with guys like Oshie, Niskanen, Orpik, etc.


It doesn't always work, but of course it can.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Ped

Look at the Caps - were told for years that Ovechkin and Backstrom, et al, couldn't win the Cup and were a doomed core.


They did move out some high-profile guys, but they also added to what they add with guys like Oshie, Niskanen, Orpik, etc.


It doesn't always work, but of course it can.

Is this an example of why the Flames core might not be doomed?

Because if it is, our core doesn't have a winger anywhere near as good as Ovy, it doesn't have a center anywhere near as good as Backstrom and the Flames core also doesn't have a Vezina caliber goalie like the Caps did with Holtby and while we do have a Norris caliber Dman like the Caps do, our guy is 37 years old now.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by bax

I don't think he's the guy you go with as your de facto starter for this season, but if possible I would like to hang onto him. Rittich has always had great tools, his struggles have been the mental side of the game and running into injuries. He needs to be able to ride the highs and the lows of a season.

Hearing that he is working with a sports therapist is great news. I would gladly welcome Rittich back with another goalie. In a shortened season, a tandem is going to be even more important than it already was.

It's not that unusual for a goalie to put everything together late in the their 20's. Kuemper, Markstrom, Dubnyk, Talbot, Kipper, etc.

Rittich isn’t any of those guys, he’s Karri Ramo.

[shutout]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Once again ... no

Those aren't the only two that apply. You are literally jumping in lock step with the sunk cost fallacy.

These are human beings. They change over time. They become different finished products than you expected, or fit together in a way that you didn't envision.

With that you can change the course by managing the asset value of all your players, and the total asset value as a whole in an effective manner.

The Flames probably have about 25 assets that have an accumulated team value. That value is currency that can be used to alter the team in the near and medium term. Teams don't have to go scorched Earth or all in as the only two options.

I like rebuilds, I do. But rebuilding when Iginla, Kiprusoff and others are pushing deeper into their 30s is a different equation than a team with relatively young impact players that just don't seem to be the sum of their parts.

Hense you almost look at it as continual retooling of the roster.
Those players that reach the limits of age, salary requirements, free agent status need to be cycled out for futures to keep a continual rebuilding program in the franchise.
This also goes for players in their prime that are not proving to be difference makers or who are not playing to the abiltiy they are being paid for.
Different if the team has the ability to win it all and these players are peripharal in nature to help the team win. But if they are to be the front line difference makers in winning and that is not the case than they should be moved.

Case in point is that Gaudreau and Monahan have had a number of years and opportunities to show that they are worth what they are being paid in the playoffs to be difference makers in helping the team win. It is not happening and thus they should be traded for players in their early 20's or picks and prospects for the next group to make a push at winning.

Never moving forward with blinders on saying that this team needs to hold the course or contantly blowing the team up. Just a continual trimming of the pieces that dont fit.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by bax

I don't think he's the guy you go with as your de facto starter for this season, but if possible I would like to hang onto him. Rittich has always had great tools, his struggles have been the mental side of the game and running into injuries. He needs to be able to ride the highs and the lows of a season.

Hearing that he is working with a sports therapist is great news. I would gladly welcome Rittich back with another goalie. In a shortened season, a tandem is going to be even more important than it already was.

It's not that unusual for a goalie to put everything together late in the their 20's. Kuemper, Markstrom, Dubnyk, Talbot, Kipper, etc.

All of these guys had much better numbers by the time they were 28.
Dubnyk had 93.6% in his 28 year old season.
Kipper won a Vezina that year.
Cam Talbot's career save percentage at that point was almost 93%.
Kuemper had always had much better numbers than Rittich. Had 92.5% in his 28 year old season.
Markstrom is heavily overrated by CP in my opinion. But even he had had two 60+ game seasons by that point.

If Rittich really is something, he should do it this year. He has a year left on his contract, so there's no time like the present.

[bax]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Rittich isn’t any of those guys, he’s Karri Ramo.

Okay, can you explain why?

[Jiri Hrdina]

It's interesting to look at the Stars as well, as a team that has been similarly mediocre and update and down.
They had 5 straight years out of the playoffs from 2009 to 2013.
But they never really bottomed out drafting:
#8 - Scott Glennie
#11 - Jack Campbell
#14 - Jamie Oleksiak
#13 - Radek Faksa
#14 - Valeri Nichushkin

Classic example of a team not being bad enough to get the elite picks.

Since then they
2014 - Lost in Round 1
2015 - Missed
2016 - Lost in Round 2
2017/2018 - Missed
2019 - Lost in Round 2
2020 - Finals!

They never executed scorched earth but rather re-tooled some of the elements. They also got a high pick to get Heiskenen and he looks like a game changer.

But my point is they are an example of a team not executing scorched earth but rather just re-tooling and now they are in the finals.

Perhaps in a cap world you take your shots, as best you can, as long as you've got enough pieces in place.

Thinking out loud.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by bax

Okay, can you explain why?

Sure

159 GP 2.85 .906 5 SO - Ramo

115 GP 2.82 .908 3 SO - Rittich

That’s why.

[dammage79]

Woof

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It's interesting to look at the Stars as well, as a team that has been similarly mediocre and update and down.
They had 5 straight years out of the playoffs from 2009 to 2013.
But they never really bottomed out drafting:
#8 - Scott Glennie
#11 - Jack Campbell
#14 - Jamie Oleksiak
#13 - Radek Faksa
#14 - Valeri Nichushkin

Classic example of a team not being bad enough to get the elite picks.

Since then they
2014 - Lost in Round 1
2015 - Missed
2016 - Lost in Round 2
2017/2018 - Missed
2019 - Lost in Round 2
2020 - Finals!

They never executed scorched earth but rather re-tooled some of the elements. They also got a high pick to get Heiskenen and he looks like a game changer.

But my point is they are an example of a team not executing scorched earth but rather just re-tooling and now they are in the finals.

Perhaps in a cap world you take your shots, as best you can, as long as you've got enough pieces in place.

Thinking out loud.

When Tree took over, and generally at any season ticket holder session, he's openly discussed a team learning to crawl, then learning to walk, then learning to run. It was about making the playoffs, then consistently making the playoffs, then finding playoff success.

If you look at the Flames - it took until Year 5 and then Year 6 of Tree's tenure for them to consistently make the playoffs. If they make it next year, the hope has to be the lessons learned both from a player and from a management perspective start to pay off. You have to just continue to build and develop, and ignore all this talk of "windows". The only true way to win a Cup is to consistently build a good team - and it has taken the Flames years and some mistakes to finally get any level of consistency from season to season. Now that they have? Well, it's time to trust the process.

I think Tree has very clearly learned that he can't continue to drag his feet in the goaltending department. Talbot and Rittich let the team down huge in these playoffs - and hey, we're rumoured to be in on pretty much every available goalie. Tree needs to execute and get that primetime goalie.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think goaltending let them down in the elimination game, but overall, it was pretty solid. I think there were other parts of their game that were a concern throughout the playoffs, specifically the play of the so-called best players, that you need to be productive.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think goaltending let them down in the elimination game, but overall, it was pretty solid. I think there were other parts of their game that were a concern throughout the playoffs, specifically the play of the so-called best players, that you need to be productive.

It still leads me to trading Gaudreau. Im fully aware the size argument is going to get blowback from some, but I really think a top line with a more dogged puck hound would be more beneficial. Maybe its as simple as swapping Tkachuk with Johnny. Who knows.

[bax]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

All of these guys had much better numbers by the time they were 28.
Dubnyk had 93.6% in his 28 year old season.
Kipper won a Vezina that year.
Cam Talbot's career save percentage at that point was almost 93%.
Kuemper had always had much better numbers than Rittich. Had 92.5% in his 28 year old season.
Markstrom is heavily overrated by CP in my opinion. But even he had had two 60+ game seasons by that point.

If Rittich really is something, he should do it this year. He has a year left on his contract, so there's no time like the present.

Of course, not every situation is going to be the exact same, but just from watching Rittich he has always had the ability. He was an all star this season and the team's best player on a lot of nights in the first half.

Like I said earlier if he continues to develop the mental side of his game and he can avoid some of these injuries there is no reason he can't get better and better.

Dubnyk also had a sub .900 SP in the AHL just the season prior. No, these situations aren't exactly the same. They are just a handful of examples showcasing that goalies have a unique development curve.

I don't think using just save percentage to determine a goalies development is very accurate either. Every team and situation is different.

I'm not advocating making Rittich the #1 going into next year, but he's not a guy I'm giving up on yet either.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think goaltending let them down in the elimination game, but overall, it was pretty solid. I think there were other parts of their game that were a concern throughout the playoffs, specifically the play of the so-called best players, that you need to be productive.

Yeah, Monahan and Gaudreau's 5 on 5 play was not good enough for sure - but no, Talbot was not good enough in the Dallas series.

He allowed 6 low-danger goals in 6 games - and he had a shutout in Game 3.

In game 3 he allowed 0 low-danger goals. In game 6 he allowed 3 low-danger goals. So you can argue that he won the team Game 3, but lost the team Game 6 - and then that leaves the remaining games where he just was not good enough. In games 1, 2, 4, and 5 he allowed 3 low-danger goals - 3 low-danger goals in 4 games? Compare that to Khudobin (5 low-danger in 18 games), Lehner (2 low-danger in 16 games), Vasilevsky (2 low-danger in 17 games)...Talbot was nowhere near good enough in the Dallas series. He played well in the qualifying round but fell apart in the actual playoff series.

The whole idea that Talbot was the MVP or their best player is just not true. The Flames played a mostly structurally strong series against Dallas, and their goaltending sunk them.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think goaltending let them down in the elimination game, but overall, it was pretty solid. I think there were other parts of their game that were a concern throughout the playoffs, specifically the play of the so-called best players, that you need to be productive.

You can’t win without a goalie. Talbot was their MVP, but he isn’t a 60 game starter, and we should cease pretending there are ways to overcome not having a 60-game starter. You can do it when you’re the 2009 Blackhawks, and only then if your opponent has to start Michael Leighton.

You can’t win when the playoffs are bleach to your top line’s hydrochloric acid.

You can’t win in either case, but the 60-game starter is the rock upon which you build the church.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It's interesting to look at the Stars as well, as a team that has been similarly mediocre and update and down.
They had 5 straight years out of the playoffs from 2009 to 2013.
But they never really bottomed out drafting:
#8 - Scott Glennie
#11 - Jack Campbell
#14 - Jamie Oleksiak
#13 - Radek Faksa
#14 - Valeri Nichushkin

Classic example of a team not being bad enough to get the elite picks.

Since then they
2014 - Lost in Round 1
2015 - Missed
2016 - Lost in Round 2
2017/2018 - Missed
2019 - Lost in Round 2
2020 - Finals!

They never executed scorched earth but rather re-tooled some of the elements. They also got a high pick to get Heiskenen and he looks like a game changer.

But my point is they are an example of a team not executing scorched earth but rather just re-tooling and now they are in the finals.

Perhaps in a cap world you take your shots, as best you can, as long as you've got enough pieces in place.

Thinking out loud.

Or the Blues. No high draft picks since 2008, and quite often no first rounders. Granted, they won a rounds a couple times, and once won two rounds, before being out again. But they just constantly tinkered until they got it right.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yeah, Monahan and Gaudreau's 5 on 5 play was not good enough for sure - but no, Talbot was not good enough in the Dallas series.

He allowed 6 low-danger goals in 6 games - and he had a shutout in Game 3.

In game 3 he allowed 0 low-danger goals. In game 6 he allowed 3 low-danger goals. So you can argue that he won the team Game 3, but lost the team Game 6 - and then that leaves the remaining games where he just was not good enough. In games 1, 2, 4, and 5 he allowed 3 low-danger goals - 3 low-danger goals in 4 games? Compare that to Khudobin (5 low-danger in 18 games), Lehner (2 low-danger in 16 games), Vasilevsky (2 low-danger in 17 games)...Talbot was nowhere near good enough in the Dallas series. He played well in the qualifying round but fell apart in the actual playoff series.

The whole idea that Talbot was the MVP or their best player is just not true. The Flames played a mostly structurally strong series against Dallas, and their goaltending sunk them.

It's been so long since the Flames have had consistently solid goaltending, that whenever a goalie does play well, fans immediately jump to the 'he won the game for us', 'he was our best player', mantra.