[Rumour] Friedman: Flames have begun contract negotiations with Gaudreau

[rooster]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

I feel like you don’t even watch the games.

Gaudreau has always been able to generate offensive opportunities even in the playoffs. The problem has been execution on those chances whether it be failed breakaway or penalty shot attempts (doing the stupid five-hole move too much) or whoever he sets up not burying it.

If there was nothing being generated I would agree with you but you could even see in this years regular season Gaudreau shooting more on breakaways and once he got put with Lindholm and Tkachuk there was chemistry and chances being generated every shift.

This narrative that Johnny disappears or is too small for the playoffs just isn’t true.

Like I said execution has been the issue but that can be remedied by changing linemates and practicing new breakaway moves.

I won’t argue with you about Monahan because he isn’t as dynamic as Gaudreau and can disappear when the going gets tough.

Monahan only "disappears" when he is injured and needs surgery. Johnny is a softy to play against and always will be especially when the going gets rough in the playoffs. It's not in his nature to enjoy the nasty side of hockey. Same for most of this team.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rooster

Monahan only "disappears" when he is injured and needs surgery. Johnny is a softy to play against and always will be especially when the going gets rough in the playoffs. It's not in his nature to enjoy the nasty side of hockey. Same for most of this team.

Yes. Unfortunately....that is 'always.'

I like and respect Monahan, and I wouldnt suggest that he is fragile, but sometimes when the pieces dont fit you just have to move along.

Nature of the Beast.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Montreal making the finals was probably one of the worst things that could happen as it promotes the notion that all you need to do is make the playoffs and then anything can happen. Pretty much the game plan for the Flames since 2004.

Sutter already proved this notion with LA by winning two cups with the 8th and 6th seeds

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Vancouver and Hughes severely missed Tanev. Bet Benning wishes he resigned Tanev instead of acquiring Shmidt

Vancouver had the season from Heck!! Tanev and/or Hedman couldn't have helped Hughes over the mess that the Canucks had to deal with in 2020-21.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Sutter already proved this notion with LA by winning two cups with the 8th and 6th seeds

Those wins are only noteworthy because they bucked what is normal. It’s the exception that proves the rule and not a great strategy.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Those wins are only noteworthy because they bucked what is normal. It’s the exception that proves the rule and not a great strategy.

‘The exception that proves the rule’ is one of the silliest expressions in the English language. If there is an exception to a rule, you have disproved the rule, not proved it. Most of the time, quoting those words is just a way of pretending one hasn't already lost the argument.

There's a perfectly logical reason why Sutter's L.A. Kings were able to win two Cups as lower seeds. Their rosters were built for playoff hockey and playoff officiating. If they had tried to play the same style in the regular season, they'd have been shorthanded 10 times a game.

It was actually a very good strategy; but you have to have the horses. Most teams could not have made it work.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Sutter already proved this notion with LA by winning two cups with the 8th and 6th seeds

Darryl’s Kings teams are the 2002 Salt Lake squad compared to the 2021 Canadiens.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

‘The exception that proves the rule’ is one of the silliest expressions in the English language. If there is an exception to a rule, you have disproved the rule, not proved it. Most of the time, quoting those words is just a way of pretending one hasn't already lost the argument.

There's a perfectly logical reason why Sutter's L.A. Kings were able to win two Cups as lower seeds. Their rosters were built for playoff hockey and playoff officiating. If they had tried to play the same style in the regular season, they'd have been shorthanded 10 times a game.

It was actually a very good strategy; but you have to have the horses. Most teams could not have made it work.

OK, but building a team that is built for winning in the playoffs isn't quite the same as building a team to make the playoffs and hope that thy catch lightening in a bottle. The current version of the Flames is far from being built for playoff hockey.

Sutter's team also had a forward that was in Selke territory, a defenseman in Norris territory, and a Jennings winning goalie.

That Kings team also had something that most championship teams have, and that is at least one top 3 pick. Teams that don't draft high usually don't go on to win championships in the NHL.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

OK, but building a team that is built for winning in the playoffs isn't quite the same as building a team to make the playoffs and hope that thy catch lightening in a bottle. The current version of the Flames is far from being built for playoff hockey.

Sutter's team also had a forward that was in Selke territory, a defenseman in Norris territory, and a Jennings winning goalie.

No argument there. But we've seen the Flames have regular-season success and then promptly die in the playoffs, and we've seen a number of other teams do the same. The Oilers have done it often, and the Maple Leafs do it so reliably you could set your watch by them. Perhaps building a team to win in the playoffs, knowing that you won't win any President's Trophies by doing so, is a better way to go. In which case you haven't got ‘an exception that proves the rule’, but a different rule altogether.

That Kings team also had something that most championship teams have, and that is at least one top 3 pick. Teams that don't draft high usually don't go on to win championships in the NHL.

Somebody in another thread went into that in detail. It turns out that all but two of the teams in the NHL have had at least one top-3 pick – and one of those two won a championship anyway.

If you start with the assumption that a top-3 pick is necessary, almost every championship team you look at will seem to confirm it; but almost every non-championship team has had top-3 picks as well. It isn't a meaningful criterion.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Before coming to Calgary all Johnny Gaudreau has done is put up big performances in big games his whole life. His junior career? Dominant. His college career? Dominant. The world Juniors? Dominant. Team North America? Dominant. Gaudreau is not the problem.

None of those tournaments pitted him against grown men playing NHL playoff hockey every second night for weeks on end. Like it or not, it’s a different game.

[3rd Degree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Before coming to Calgary all Johnny Gaudreau has done is put up big performances in big games his whole life. His junior career? Dominant. His college career? Dominant. The world Juniors? Dominant. Team North America? Dominant. Gaudreau is not the problem.

Wow. Who cares what he has done at other levels? Answer the three questions honestly.

He’s soft. Has no killer instinct. Isn’t built for playoff hockey and is easily neutralized when the whistles get put away. If he doesn’t play his best hockey when it matters most, is he worth top line money? A team built around Johnny will be perpetually in the dead zone. Not good enough to win and not bad enough to draft high. How many years of mediocrity will this fan base tolerate? It’s beyond insanity doing the same thing over and over and over and over and expecting a different result.

[3rd Degree]

Compare Johnny to Patrick Kane in his prime. Can you spot the difference?

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by 3rd Degree

Compare Johnny to Patrick Kane in his prime. Can you spot the difference?

I know Patrick Kane had a much better supporting cast when those teams won the cup.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

None of those tournaments pitted him against grown men playing NHL playoff hockey every second night for weeks on end. Like it or not, it’s a different game.

And they were short tourneys (and Team NA was 2-1 and didn’t advance, finishing 3rd out of 4 in their pool).

Pavel Brendl also dominated every other level before the NHL: WHL, WJC.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Vancouver had the season from Heck!! Tanev and/or Hedman couldn't have helped Hughes over the mess that the Canucks had to deal with in 2020-21.

Vancouver was out of it after two weeks covid excuses aside

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by 3rd Degree

Compare Johnny to Patrick Kane in his prime. Can you spot the difference?

I don't think anyone is suggesting to pay him 10.5M

at 7 he is a bargain

[3rd Degree]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

I know Patrick Kane had a much better supporting cast when those teams won the cup.

Any difference in tenacity?

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by 3rd Degree

Any difference in tenacity?

I don’t think anyone here has said Johnny is better than Kane. One makes 10.5 for a reason, the other does not. However Kane had a much better supporting cast.

[Vinny01]

The only reason I was on the trade Johnny bandwagon was because I was one who believed he had no intention on staying here past his current deal especially with the lack of success and all the other benefits of playing in the East for him.

If the Flames can get him signed under $9M I am all in. 8x8 seems like the realistic number to me and we have to hope and trust the cap will be on the rise.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The only reason I was on the trade Johnny bandwagon was because I was one who believed he had no intention on staying here past his current deal especially with the lack of success and all the other benefits of playing in the East for him.

If the Flames can get him signed under $9M I am all in. 8x8 seems like the realistic number to me and we have to hope and trust the cap will be on the rise.

I think that is in the ballpark of what it will take, assuming he’ll even sign.

Johnny holds all the cards at this stage, and I doubt there will be any discount.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk