[Signing] Flames sign Blake Coleman (6 years, $4.9m AAV)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by chedder

Is this an assumption that Monahan is gone? Because there's no way he bumps down to 3rd line if he's healthy and still a Flame.

Gone or third line.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Domoic

Surprise there has been no Hall comparisons yet. Not the players - just the contracts.

I know Hall has been a divisive name on CP, but I would never have thought the Flames would end paying more for Coleman that what Hall signed for.

The fact they didn't is probably why

4.9<6

[Strange Brew]

It's nice to read some positive perspectives on this signing. I'm happy to see the guy play, now if we can just make a high end splash.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1420460139404877827

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by chedder

Is this an assumption that Monahan is gone? Because there's no way he bumps down to 3rd line if he's healthy and still a Flame.

Mony back to 1st line center when healthy. Lindy to RW

Or: keep Lindholm at Center, mony on 3rd line and #1 pp time.

Lots of options but considering Backlund Coleman are the 2nd line just do to minutes played, lots of 5v5.

[Mr.Coffee]

Gross. This is going to age like the Neal contract.

[Northendzone]

^ how many of these four or more year deals for FA's today will age well.

i believe burke once quipped that there are many mistakes made on FA Frenzy day

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Gross. This is going to age like the Neal contract.

No. The players are completely different.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No. The players are completely different.

Actually I see a lot of similarities. I don’t mind the NMC but the term and contract value are both too long and too high.

Calgary’s strategy to build through free agency is going to fail them again here. Again.

Contract will be bad in about 2-3 years and we’ll have 3 more years of regret after that. Like how we signed Neal to a bad contract in free agency.

Calgary needs to build through the draft over the long term. Eventually they’ll get it, but it sure is strange they have not yet.

[AC]

The big difference is Coleman is fast and an extremely hard worker.

Neal was at best a lazy floater that could snipe in the right situation.

[Muta]

NTC's dont mean much anymore, I don't put that much stock in them. Players waive them regularly when they're no longer wanted in their current location. If the Flames don't want Coleman and Coleman doesn't want that Flames, that NTC goes quickly out the window.

[dino7c]

Neal was one of the worst defensive players in the NHL but scored goals...not even close to the same

Neal was a healthy scratch in year one...I think it's a pretty safe bet this doesn't end up like Neal

[Mattman]

From what I've read he has the right attitude and at the end of the day that's what this team needs. Lucic has it and it makes his contract tolerable.

Maybe a bit too long on years, but I like this deal.

[Redrum]

Yeah, Coleman works hard, and he's fast. James Neal looks like his skate blades are serrated at the most urgent of times.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Actually I see a lot of similarities. I don’t mind the NMC but the term and contract value are both too long and too high.

Please explain.

Calgary’s strategy to build through free agency is going to fail them again here. Again.

Signing a second-line forward is not "building through free agency." Especially not for a team who has five of their drafted forwards manning the top-six.

Contract will be bad in about 2-3 years and we’ll have 3 more years of regret after that. Like how we signed Neal to a bad contract in free agency.

Again, completely different types of players. Neal and Brouwer both failed so spectacularly because of their foot speed and overall mobility, and their total uselessness away from the puck. Blake Coleman is nothing like that.

Calgary needs to build through the draft over the long term. Eventually they’ll get it, but it sure is strange they have not yet.

The Flames have drafted sixteen times in the past two years with half of those picks in the top-90. Their top forwards are all still under 28-years-old, and they had two defensemen under 25 in their top four. I guess you are bemoaning the fact that they haven't hosted a fire-sale for their top talent, but there is nothing remotely "strange" about the fact that they have not started shedding themselves of assets to embark on a full scorched-earth rebuild.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Neal was one of the worst defensive players in the NHL but scored goals...not even close to the same

Neal was a healthy scratch in year one...I think it's a pretty safe bet this doesn't end up like Neal

Neal also had off ice issues (that the Flames should have known about) that really made him an iffy investment.

[1Nite]

Originally Posted by Muta

NTC's dont mean much anymore, I don't put that much stock in them. Players waive them regularly when they're no longer wanted in their current location. If the Flames don't want Coleman and Coleman doesn't want that Flames, that NTC goes quickly out the window.

It's just to make sure he doesn't get traded to the oilers.

[Mr.Coffee]

Yeah, again, it’s not the player that is the same.

It’s the fact that you sign a bad contract that will be a boat anchor, and Neal was a good comparison for that. The circumstances of signing a UFA to a ridiculous contract, like this one will prove to be in due course.

At the time everybody thought Neal was great too, and going to be great at that time. Go back and read the thread. People were not cruising in here talking about how Neal was slow and going to be a healthy scratch, obviously. Neal had just taken Vegas deep and was instrumental in their run. Coleman just helped take the Lightning to a Cup.

Just a prediction, relax. Contract isn’t great.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I am a big fan of this deal.


Let's start with the cons first:

• Term - 6 years is a long time given his age of course. I would say it will probably end up being 2 years too long. However, this is the price of doing business on UFA day. Given Coleman's underlying stats, his offence might slow down in years 5 and 6, but I would bet he at least remains as an effective defensive player.
• LHS - when will the Flames find more RHS?? lol

Pros:

• His versatility will really shine through to many on here - plays a physical 200ft game without cheating
• His effort level is infectious
• He is damn strong on the forecheck - why did Sutter continue to throw Ritchie on the 1st line over and over and over again? Ritchie was really good on the forecheck. Coleman is even better than Ritchie on the forecheck, but with WAY better puck skills and IQ, as well as a really good shot.
• Speaking of his shot.. he has a good shot!
• He is fast, and he will help this team play faster
• He is physical too - won't shy away when games get physical, and won't back down from a fight (even Tom Wilson)

As for "is he better than Bennett" for the Flames.. who cares? You know what, Bennett is traded already. Bennett was already becoming a much better player under Sutter before he was traded away, because Bennett is a player that thrives under a coach like Sutter. Coleman is too. Sutter will love him, and Coleman will love the ice-time and favouritism that Sutter is likely to give Coleman - and that's ok, because unlike the "Kyle Cliffords and Brett Ritchies", Coleman is a legitimately good player with hands.



I don't know how the lines end up going down - and I would bet that the Flames are not finished yet this off-season, but I imagine it will be something like:


Gaudreau - Lindholm - Tkachuk
Mangiapane - Monahan - Coleman
Dube - Backlund - Pitlick
Lucic - X - Ritchie/UFA/Farm


That's not bad. That makes every line have a bit of physicality, gives the Flames 2 legitimate scoring lines with a very strong shut-down line that will also provide 2nd line levels of scoring (I am betting) and with a more traditional 4th line that really provide a lot of energy and wear down forwards.


Might be a bit early to say this... but this team is starting to remind me more of the '04 Flames. Faster, much more gritty, loads of character. Defence worries me - but hey, defence worried me like crazy outside of Regehr and Lydman too!



I won't lie - I am still very hopeful for an Eichel trade. I am still worried about a lack of offensive punch from the defence. However, with Sutter coaching this team and everyone having received the memo about "better train a bit harder this off-season!", this team is going to be an absolute nightmare to play against physically, and will be playing much faster too.


Looking forward to any other moves, and really looking forward to seeing how this team plays next season.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Please explain.


Signing a second-line forward is not "building through free agency." Especially not for a team who has five of their drafted forwards manning the top-six.


Again, completely different types of players. Neal and Brouwer both failed so spectacularly because of their foot speed and overall mobility, and their total uselessness away from the puck. Blake Coleman is nothing like that.


The Flames have drafted sixteen times in the past two years with half of those picks in the top-90. Their top forwards are all still under 28-years-old, and they had two defensemen under 25 in their top four. I guess you are bemoaning the fact that they haven't hosted a fire-sale for their top talent, but there is nothing remotely "strange" about the fact that they have not started shedding themselves of assets to embark on a full scorched-earth rebuild.

Large sized winger who puts up modest points, just took their respective teams deep on playoff runs and sign over valued UFA contracts. These would be the similarities.