[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[jayswin]

Yeah I'd say lindholm/Kadri is a decent 1-2 punch, probably around middle of the league or so.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Who would be better?

Edmonton - McDavid - Draisaitl
Vancouver - Pettersson - Miller
LA - Kopitar - Dubois
Vegas - Eichel - Stephenson
Colorado - MacKinnon - Johansen
Dallas - Hintz - Pavelski
St Louis - Kyrou - Thomas
Carolina - Aho - Necas
New Jersey - Hughes - Hirschier
Rangers - Zibanajed -Trochek
Islanders - Barzal - Nelson
Pittsburgh - Crosby - Malkin
Toronto - Matthews - Tavares
Tampa - Stamkos - Point
Florida - Barkov - Reinhart
Buffalo - Thompson - Cozens
Ottawa - Stutzle - Giroux

So the Flames pretty strong center depth is roughly the 18th best center depth out of 32 teams.

Kopitar-Dubois, Barzal-Nelson, Petterson-Miller, are debatable.
Also, some of these pairs are propped up by one very good player (Mackinnon, Barkov, Eichel)
So, the Flames are probably middle of the pack.

Add Backlund and I'd say the 1-2-3 punch is top 1/3 of the league.
Lose Lindholm and it is not pretty

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Who would be better?

Edmonton - McDavid - Draisaitl
Vancouver - Pettersson - Miller
LA - Kopitar - Dubois
Vegas - Eichel - Stephenson
Colorado - MacKinnon - Johansen
Dallas - Hintz - Pavelski(RW) - Johnston
St Louis - Kyrou(RW) - Thomas - Hayes
Carolina - Aho - Necas(RW) - Kotkaniemi
New Jersey - Hughes - Hirschier
Rangers - Zibanajed -Trochek
Islanders - Barzal(RW)- Horvat - Nelson
Pittsburgh - Crosby - Malkin
Toronto - Matthews - Tavares
Tampa - Stamkos(RW)- Point - Cirelli
Florida - Barkov - Reinhart(RW) - Bennett
Buffalo - Thompson - Cozens
Ottawa - Stutzle - Giroux(RW) - Norris

So the Flames pretty strong center depth is roughly the 18th best center depth out of 32 teams.

In a lot of those cases the other top C plays on the wing.
Draisaitl spends half of his TOI with McDavid.
Pavelski is a fixture with Robertson and Hintz.
Reinhart mostly played RW with Barkov while Bennett centered Tkachuk.
Stamkos was also often either on Point's or Cirelli's wing.
Tkachuk - Giroux - Stutzle was a line for most of the season.

You make a good point, but I have a hard time treating half those centers as centers. Technically they can play center, but if they play half or more of their time at wing can we actually consider them center depth?

Calgary is deep at center, and its centers almost never play with each other. Maybe that's something Calgary should try when trailing.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Who would be better?

Edmonton - McDavid - Draisaitl
Vancouver - Pettersson - Miller
LA - Kopitar - Dubois
Vegas - Eichel - Stephenson
Colorado - MacKinnon - Johansen
Dallas - Hintz - Pavelski
St Louis - Kyrou - Thomas
Carolina - Aho - Necas
New Jersey - Hughes - Hirschier
Rangers - Zibanajed -Trochek
Islanders - Barzal - Nelson
Pittsburgh - Crosby - Malkin
Toronto - Matthews - Tavares
Tampa - Stamkos - Point
Florida - Barkov - Reinhart
Buffalo - Thompson - Cozens
Ottawa - Stutzle - Giroux

So the Flames pretty strong center depth is roughly the 18th best center depth out of 32 teams.

Doesn’t Pavelski play on the wing with Hintz? How isn’t Horvat one of the two Islanders? Lots of talk Tavares is moving to the wing too. He did after the Leafs acquired ROR.

I would have Lindholm and Kadri somewhere in the middle of this list but, Frankly, these lists people dream up are meaningless

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Doesn’t Pavelski play on the wing with Hintz? How isn’t Horvat one of the two Islanders? Lots of talk Tavares is moving to the wing too. He did after the Leafs acquired ROR.

I would have Lindholm and Kadri somewhere in the middle of this list but, Frankly, these lists people dream up are meaningless

Yeah a few of those were off

Dallas - Hintz - Johnston/Duchene
St Louis - Thomas - Hayes
Carolina - Aho - Kotkaniemi
Islanders - Horvat - Nelson
Tampa - Point - Cirelli
Florida - Barkov - Bennett
Ottawa - Stutzle - Norris

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

In a lot of those cases the other top C plays on the wing.
Draisaitl spends half of his TOI with McDavid.
Pavelski is a fixture with Robertson and Hintz.
Reinhart mostly played RW with Barkov while Bennett centered Tkachuk.
Stamkos was also often either on Point's or Cirelli's wing.
Tkachuk - Giroux - Stutzle was a line for most of the season.

You make a good point, but I have a hard time treating half those centers as centers. Technically they can play center, but if they play half or more of their time at wing can we actually consider them center depth?

Calgary is deep at center, and its centers almost never play with each other. Maybe that's something Calgary should try when trailing.

I think Kadri is pretty overrated though. The reputation of being an elite two-way player is not really based on results.

Backlund is a fantastic third line center. Center isn't a weakness.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I think Kadri is pretty overrated though. The reputation of being an elite two-way player is not really based on results.

Backlund is a fantastic third line center. Center isn't a weakness.

Our biggest weakness is not in any position. It's in game breakers, we don't have a top 10 player in any position right now. Dosen't matter if it's C, LW, RW, LD, RD, or G. I hope Hubredeau, and Markstrom can rebound back to that, but as things stand we just don't have a player like Iginla/Kipper/Tkachuk/Gio that could will the Flames to a win.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Man your crap is old. Anyone that doesn't have your opinion has had the wool pulled over their eyes.
Rationale people can have different opinions.
Instead of berating them maybe learn to discuss with them.

Discuss things with them? You don't think that was tried??? Jiri, come on, hold up the mirror for second. Using you as an example, you dug your heels in and refused to acknowledge the obvious over his tenure. It takes two to have a discussion and a willingness to acknowledge the facts and the dependencies. A great example has always been the state of the development system. Someone points out that the system is in terrible shape you trot out it's not the poor drafting, it's the lack of draft picks - like the GM had nothing to do with the lack of picks. You can't have a conversation about something if someone doesn't see the connection between the two events and understand the guy controls both measures. Even though all sorts of media experts support the Flames have a poor development system and drafting has been historically poor the obvious is ignored.

You can look and see the same thing happened with the trade history, with the contract discussions, with the handling of Gaudreau and failure to get a contract done while the team had leverage, with the inability to find a coach, with cap management, and so on and so on. It was very obvious that the guy was middling at best, but the whole team sports thing kicked in and he became an epic manager. We are still seeing it. Even though the team has been left in horrible shape as an organization, the same tired defenses still come out. I mean, he went on to become the GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs! How do you have a rational conversation with that? Even on the heels of the Athletic's fan survey, and the Flames being dead last in confidence in management - as voted by their own fans (opposition fans had us at second worst!) - we can make the admission that this team has been poorly managed over the last decade and the guy who was in charge did nothing to improve the organization? And I'm the one whose crap is old?

[PepsiFree]

Some people really get bent out of shape over Treliving it seems.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Discuss things with them? You don't think that was tried??? Jiri, come on, hold up the mirror for second. Using you as an example, you dug your heels in and refused to acknowledge the obvious over his tenure. It takes two to have a discussion and a willingness to acknowledge the facts and the dependencies. A great example has always been the state of the development system. Someone points out that the system is in terrible shape you trot out it's not the poor drafting, it's the lack of draft picks - like the GM had nothing to do with the lack of picks. You can't have a conversation about something if someone doesn't see the connection between the two events and understand the guy controls both measures. Even though all sorts of media experts support the Flames have a poor development system and drafting has been historically poor the obvious is ignored.

You can look and see the same thing happened with the trade history, with the contract discussions, with the handling of Gaudreau and failure to get a contract done while the team had leverage, with the inability to find a coach, with cap management, and so on and so on. It was very obvious that the guy was middling at best, but the whole team sports thing kicked in and he became an epic manager. We are still seeing it. Even though the team has been left in horrible shape as an organization, the same tired defenses still come out. I mean, he went on to become the GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs! How do you have a rational conversation with that? Even on the heels of the Athletic's fan survey, and the Flames being dead last in confidence in management - as voted by their own fans (opposition fans had us at second worst!) - we can make the admission that this team has been poorly managed over the last decade and the guy who was in charge did nothing to improve the organization? And I'm the one whose crap is old?

This is just an example of the many posts I've had over the year where I acknowledge BT's strengths and weaknesses

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So you counter my point that you are taking too extreme and binary of view by offering up another extreme and binary view?

As many have pointed out, Tree was good at some things and bad at others. Generally he got good value in trades (Hamonic trade being an exception), was good at signing RFAs, and the organization's drafting was better under his tenure.

He had some bad coaching hires, horrible UFA signings and bled too many picks.

I see few people who don't recognize that he had strengths and weaknesses or that are "blaming Murray for all the bad ones" and giving "Tree credit for all the good moves". I think most people here have a more balanced view.

I'm perfectly capable of discussing both what he was good at and what he was bad at.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Our biggest weakness is not in any position. It's in game breakers, we don't have a top 10 player in any position right now. Dosen't matter if it's C, LW, RW, LD, RD, or G. I hope Hubredeau, and Markstrom can rebound back to that, but as things stand we just don't have a player like Iginla/Kipper/Tkachuk/Gio that could will the Flames to a win.

It will be very interesting to watch the Flames this season. I could easily see them in the playoffs, or flaming out.

One interesting note. Iginla and Kopitar in their last year with Sutter as coach: 67 and 52 points respectively. The first year with a new coach: 94 and 92 points. Huberdeau is a nice sleeper pick for your fantasy hockey league IMO.

My biggest concern for the Flames would be something that many Flames fans are excited about. Coronato, Pelletier, Duehr, Ruzicka. As it stands the Flames are poised to start the season with what amounts to four rookie forwards. Ruzicka is an exception in that he has basically a season full of games, but hasn't established himself as an everyday player.

A couple of injuries to any of the other forwards and then you are looking at 5-6 rookies in the lineup at forward. Rookies generally aren't great at helping to win hockey games.

Fancy stats are another thing to watch. Last season the underlying stats were stellar. I think that is in part to Sutter being an exceptional coach, but also I think his system inflates those numbers to some extent.

Both Calgary and LA had a big drop off in fancies after Sutter left the bench. LA had a massive dead cat bounce and went from 85 points to 108 or something with awful underlying numbers then proceeded to fall off a cliff the next season. Calgary on the other hand went to middle of the pack in underlying numbers and sagged just a bit in the standings.

Like last season Calgary is a team that could swing either way. If I had to bet on it, I'd probably go with the Flames supplanting Seattle as the 4th seed in the division and making the playoffs.

[blender]

Sometimes a fan of our rival has the necessary objective viewpoint

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

The first thing that Brad said after Gaudreau left was that he's not going to overreact. Signing Huberdeau to an 8 year deal before watching him play a game was an overreaction! If Tre didn't want the risk of the guys he brought in a trade leaving, then he shouldn't have traded for upcoming UFAs.

The trade for Tkachuk itself was great. The Flames got great value, and flexibility by that move. They lost a lot of that flexibility before the off-season was over. They did it by signing Huberdeau, by trading Monahan and signing Kadri, which was also a bit of an overreaction IMO.

I was happy with those moves as well, mostly because I didn't want to see the Oilers send the Flames into a rebuild after how the playoffs went. Hindsight 20/20 those extra $7M-$17.5M in cap space could've really helped the Flames in this off-season, and really sped up any potential retool.

But Tre actually DID see him play before signing him. He saw what his scouts and the rest of the NHL saw- a LW that put up 115 points, including the record for most assists in a season by a LW with 85, playing with Bennett and Duclair. There was reason to believe that he would have great production on a Sutter team that tilted the ice night after night with a fast transition/ puck possession game. It was dumb-ass Sutter that decided we needed to change the offensive scheme to a high shot volume system because we apparently "lacked offensive talent".

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

It will be very interesting to watch the Flames this season. I could easily see them in the playoffs, or flaming out.

One interesting note. Iginla and Kopitar in their last year with Sutter as coach: 67 and 52 points respectively. The first year with a new coach: 94 and 92 points. Huberdeau is a nice sleeper pick for your fantasy hockey league IMO.

My biggest concern for the Flames would be something that many Flames fans are excited about. Coronato, Pelletier, Duehr, Ruzicka. As it stands the Flames are poised to start the season with what amounts to four rookie forwards. Ruzicka is an exception in that he has basically a season full of games, but hasn't established himself as an everyday player.

A couple of injuries to any of the other forwards and then you are looking at 5-6 rookies in the lineup at forward. Rookies generally aren't great at helping to win hockey games.

Fancy stats are another thing to watch. Last season the underlying stats were stellar. I think that is in part to Sutter being an exceptional coach, but also I think his system inflates those numbers to some extent.

Both Calgary and LA had a big drop off in fancies after Sutter left the bench. LA had a massive dead cat bounce and went from 85 points to 108 or something with awful underlying numbers then proceeded to fall off a cliff the next season. Calgary on the other hand just went to middle of the pack in underlying numbers and sagged just a bit in the standings.

Just like last season Calgary is a team that could swing either way. If I had to bet on it, I'd probably go with the Flames supplanting Seattle as the 4th seed in the division and making the playoffs.

I know we're completely derailing this thread, so that's the last post I'll add about this. First of all, I agree that Huberdeau can rebound, and I have high hopes for Dube. That said, I don't expect most of our top players to have career years. Some players will be better and some will be worse than last year. How Huska and his system will affect our players still remains as an unknown.

As for the prospects not helping us win games, here we'll have to disagree. Pelletier looked like a polished NHLer and was doing a lot of right things away from the puck. Duehr was the motor that was driving that 4th line after he got on it, and his play was shifting momentum in our favor game in and game out. Coronato and Ruzicka are unknowns, but I really liked how Coronato's line was pushing the puck up the ice in his one game against SJ. I don't think we'll lose many games because of rookie mistakes, but I do expect the PK to be worse.

As an aside: I'm pretty sure that Iggy's point jump had something to do with a certain Alex Tanguay signing with us that off-season, and Huselius breaking out after getting acclimated.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Having a 1-2 punch of Lindholm and Kadri is pretty strong top 6 centre depth.

On a lottery team maybe.

This team has three 2Cs and zero top 6 RWs. That's a huge problem.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

It will be very interesting to watch the Flames this season. I could easily see them in the playoffs, or flaming out.

One interesting note. Iginla and Kopitar in their last year with Sutter as coach: 67 and 52 points respectively. The first year with a new coach: 94 and 92 points. Huberdeau is a nice sleeper pick for your fantasy hockey league IMO.

My biggest concern for the Flames would be something that many Flames fans are excited about. Coronato, Pelletier, Duehr, Ruzicka. As it stands the Flames are poised to start the season with what amounts to four rookie forwards. Ruzicka is an exception in that he has basically a season full of games, but hasn't established himself as an everyday player.

A couple of injuries to any of the other forwards and then you are looking at 5-6 rookies in the lineup at forward. Rookies generally aren't great at helping to win hockey games.

Fancy stats are another thing to watch. Last season the underlying stats were stellar. I think that is in part to Sutter being an exceptional coach, but also I think his system inflates those numbers to some extent.

Both Calgary and LA had a big drop off in fancies after Sutter left the bench. LA had a massive dead cat bounce and went from 85 points to 108 or something with awful underlying numbers then proceeded to fall off a cliff the next season. Calgary on the other hand just went to middle of the pack in underlying numbers and sagged just a bit in the standings.

Just like last season Calgary is a team that could swing either way. If I had to bet on it, I'd probably go with the Flames supplanting Seattle as the 4th seed in the division and making the playoffs.

THN sees it the way you do- 4th in the division, with Seattle out.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

On a lottery team maybe.

This team has three 2Cs and zero top 6 RWs. That's a huge problem.

Nah, bad take.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Sandman

But Tre actually DID see him play before signing him. He saw what his scouts and the rest of the NHL saw- a LW that put up 115 points, including the record for most assists in a season by a LW with 85, playing with Bennett and Duclair. There was reason to believe that he would have great production on a Sutter team that tilted the ice night after night with a fast transition/ puck possession game. It was dumb-ass Sutter that decided we needed to change the offensive scheme to a high shot volume system because we apparently "lacked offensive talent".

Tre did see him play but not under the coach he extended(or was about to extend) to 2 more years. He didn't see him play with any of our players. It's excusable when we as fans misjudge a player's fit, but managers should know better, have more information, or wait for more information before such a large commitment is made.

We all saw Neal have how many consecutive 20G seasons before signing him here? That's all we could hear that summer how we can just bank on 20G because he's that consistent. Sounds familiar? Remember how Huberdeau's points will replace Gaudreau's and Kadri's will replace Tkachuk who should be an 80P player without Gaudreau. That's a fine assessment from a fan or the media, but that's also what distinguishes good GMs from bad ones, and that's why they're paid the big bucks, and we're not.

[Jay Random]

So you're saying that nobody is qualified to be a GM unless he has the power to see into the future? I'd like to know who you think is qualified, then. You, maybe?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

On a lottery team maybe.

This team has three 2Cs and zero top 6 RWs. That's a huge problem.

Not just three 2Cs. Three True #2 Cs.