[Rumour] TSN: Hanifin decision expected in coming days. D market waits on Tanev

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

To Edmonton: Christopher Tanev (50% retained)
To Calgary: Cody Ceci, Dylan Holloway (or a 2nd?), 2024 1st,

Then you work your magic and turn Ceci into something in the off-season/next TDL.

I'd do some of those sort of shenanigans (...if Holloway can be salvaged, yikes of a season...but, it is Edmonton and he is from Calgary, I can understand his suffering)

If you can turn Tanev into a multi-piece return including a 1st? Beautiful work.

Tanev could be the precise piece that pushes them to a cup.
Not worth the risk.

[Jiri Hrdina]

On Hanifin,
I see both sides. I think of the FAs he's the one you could re-sign. And I think valid points have been made that often that a good way to ensure an extended re-build is to gut your blueline completely.

But if the return is strong, and the interest from him to stay isn't there - then by all means extract the max value.

Re-sign or trade - both are acceptable outcomes.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Whoever gives the best return is who you make the trade with. I'm all for being petty but not at the cost of assets.

I’d just take a 1st from another team. Zero prospects on the Oilers are intriguing to me

[Redrum]

An Oiler 1st anywhere from like 2026 to indefinitely is basically a guaranteed top 5.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Goal posts haven't moved. Flames still aren't the Golden Knights. As such, Flames shouldn't navigate the NHL as though they are. This is precisely the point you seem to be (willfully?) missing.

I think we agree that the Flames can not sustainably replace talent in the free agency market. Where we seem to disagree is what to do instead. You seem to want to lock up non-generational talent long term well into their 30s. The problem with this is that you are locking up both cap space and a roster spot into a declining asset, and you're paying a premium for the privilege. This seems dumb?

"But this is how you build a team." Seems to be your counter argument? And I fundamentally disagree here. You don't need to pay the optional small market talent tax. It is actually advantageous in most respects not to.

No, you are entirely missing the point. If the Flames can't land a Stone level guy and if there's player on the team whi is the equivalent of that who will extend, it's not a mistake to do so.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So you want to make matters even worse? Nice.

If by worse you mean lean hard into developing talent, then yes.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

All through the 1990s, the Flames had to trade their top players to other teams, or else watch them walk as free agents. They couldn't afford to sign them.

Yes. But in the 1990's there was no salary cap, there was no relief for a weak Canadian dollar and the Flames' track record in drafting and developing talent was something of a sad joke. This is the forum that turned Rico Fata into a meme.

But even then there are cases where this strategy I am proposing worked. Nieuwendyk in his prime got us Iginla. Fleury in his prime got us Regehr.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You don't get the benefit of that talent if you trade it away the minute it's done developing.

Sure you do. You get the benefit on the incline. You arguably get a player's best years (23-27), then you cash in your chips.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

At some point you also need to win hockey games. Your plan doesn't include that stage.

If you focus on acquiring futures and you invest in your scouting and development eventually you will have a talent pipeline where you are able to graduate 2-3 players every season. Fast forward 9 years (from an 18 year old to 27) and you now have 18-27 players pushing for NHL roster spots. And they're all 27 years or younger. You now have an amazing problem. You have more players than you can use, so of course, you trade the pending UFAs for futures to replenish the talent pool. If your scouting and development teams have done their jobs, you'll have 2-4 valuable pending UFAs to trade at every trade deadline. And you should trade them, no matter where you are in the standings. The hope for a deep playoff run isn't worth the long term damage to your talent pipeline that losing highly valuable assets for nothing will impose. This is probably the most counter intuitive aspect of this approach, but the math checks out.

But to address your concern regarding winning. Most teams are cobbled together. Some drafted players, some free agent signings, some acquired through trade, etc. But with the approach above, the entire roster will effectively be developed together. Players will know each other from the day they are drafted to the day they are traded as pending UFAs. They will have up to 9 years to develop chemistry as opposed to the 1-2 year average most players in the NHL get. As such, again as long as scouting/development does its thing, you'll be able to maximize the team dynamic, which will result in better team performance, which leads to more wins.

The catch is that if the scouting/development teams fail in identifying and developing talent then there will be lean years where wins are hard to come by. But that is not much different from the antiquated methods hockey teams are managed today.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Running a perpetual farm team for other clubs, and paying those farm players NHL salaries, is a great way to lose money.

As opposed to spending to the cap and still being in sixth place in your division?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, you are entirely missing the point. If the Flames can't land a Stone level guy and if there's player on the team whi is the equivalent of that who will extend, it's not a mistake to do so.

If that Stone level guy's best years are already behind him then it is absolutely a mistake to lock him up long term.

If he isn't an elite talent, then it is also a mistake because you are locking someone up long term who will inevitably become replacement level.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Sure you do. You get the benefit on the incline. You arguably get a player's best years (23-27), then you cash in your chips.

If you focus on acquiring futures and you invest in your scouting and development eventually you will have a talent pipeline where you are able to graduate 2-3 players every season. Fast forward 9 years (from an 18 year old to 27) and you now have 18-27 players pushing for NHL roster spots. And they're all 27 years or younger. You now have an amazing problem. You have more players than you can use, so of course, you trade the pending UFAs for futures to replenish the talent pool. If your scouting and development teams have done their jobs, you'll have 2-4 valuable pending UFAs to trade at every trade deadline. And you should trade them, no matter where you are in the standings. The hope for a deep playoff run isn't worth the long term damage to your talent pipeline that losing highly valuable assets for nothing will impose. This is probably the most counter intuitive aspect of this approach, but the math checks out.

This is where your ideal approach turns into fantasy land for me. The Flames are already one of the best drafting and developing teams. It sounds great on paper but it is basically impossible to have 18-27 guys pushing for roster spots and 2-4 valuable UFAs to trade every deadline.

[DylanScores]

I think that Hanifin has told the Flames that he won’t resign.
They would have announced it already if he would have accepted their offer.
Conroy is probably waiting for the best offer/s and I hope I’m wrong!

[Jore]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

On Hanifin,
I see both sides. I think of the FAs he's the one you could re-sign. And I think valid points have been made that often that a good way to ensure an extended re-build is to gut your blueline completely.

But if the return is strong, and the interest from him to stay isn't there - then by all means extract the max value.

Re-sign or trade - both are acceptable outcomes.

Still having Andersson, Weegar, and Kylington is not gutting the blueline completely.

I've never been a huge fan of Hanifin and I don't see his value getting higher from here on. Imo he's not a cornerstone D that you try to keep at all costs. His value would be much better converted into assets that the Flames can use when they're ready to compete in the future.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bonded

This is where your ideal approach turns into fantasy land for me. The Flames are already one of the best drafting and developing teams. It sounds great on paper but it is basically impossible to have 18-27 guys pushing for roster spots and 2-4 valuable UFAs to trade every deadline.

Am curious what metric you are basing the claim that the Flames are one of the best drafting teams in the league upon?

To be clear, the 18-27 players includes the active roster. So on a 23 man roster you are a either 5 NHL players short or you have 4 more players than roster spots. Hopefully you land somewhere in the middle on a consistent basis, which is where your 2-4 pending UFAs come into play.

But as for the impossibility of having 2-4 pending UFAs, what do you think Toffoli, Zadorov, Lindholm, Hanifin and Tanev were coming into this season? Having 2-4 pending UFAs doesn't seem outlandish at all, we'll have multiple pending UFAs next season, too. How valuable they are long term entirely depends on drafting and development.

[getbak]

The only way you send Tanev to the Oilers is if they're sending back their first round pick... from 2015.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Am curious what metric you are basing the claim that the Flames are one of the best drafting teams in the league upon?

To be clear, the 18-27 players includes the active roster. So on a 23 man roster you are a either 5 NHL players short or you have 4 more players than roster spots. Hopefully you land somewhere in the middle on a consistent basis, which is where your 2-4 pending UFAs come into play.

But as for the impossibility of having 2-4 pending UFAs, what do you think Toffoli, Zadorov, Lindholm, Hanifin and Tanev were coming into this season? Having 2-4 pending UFAs doesn't seem outlandish at all, we'll have multiple pending UFAs next season, too. How valuable they are long term entirely depends on drafting and development.

Yeah, this season and next are the tail end of a failed core. Having 2-4 valuable UFAs to trade every deadline is a crazy expectation. I don’t really count Zadorov as a valuable UFA though.

The athletic ran an analysis. https://theathletic.com/5084336/2023...t-picks/?amp=1. Basically ranked teams by actual results vs expected results.

[Heavy Jack]

Poitras is out for the rest of the year for shoulder surgery in Boston.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/bruins-...urgery/sn-amp/

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If by worse you mean lean hard into developing talent, then yes.

But you have already stated that you want to get rid of that talent as soon as it turns 27. So you're developing it for other teams, and you are always guaranteed to lose on the ice.

Yes. But in the 1990's there was no salary cap, there was no relief for a weak Canadian dollar and the Flames' track record in drafting and developing talent was something of a sad joke. This is the forum that turned Rico Fata into a meme.

So why do you want to do the same thing voluntarily?

But even then there are cases where this strategy I am proposing worked. Nieuwendyk in his prime got us Iginla. Fleury in his prime got us Regehr.

Yes, and you would have got rid of them both at age 27.

Sure you do. You get the benefit on the incline. You arguably get a player's best years (23-27), then you cash in your chips.

You are focused entirely on offence, and too much on averages. Players' highest-scoring years are not necessarily their best years overall; and the best talents tend to have longer primes than other players.

If you focus on acquiring futures and you invest in your scouting and development eventually you will have a talent pipeline where you are able to graduate 2-3 players every season.

That's actually pretty normal, whether you are focused on futures or not.

Fast forward 9 years (from an 18 year old to 27) and you now have 18-27 players pushing for NHL roster spots.

No you don't, because most of them have already graduated to fill the holes you left by cashiering everyone who turned 27.

You now have an amazing problem. You have more players than you can use, so of course, you trade the pending UFAs for futures to replenish the talent pool.

No, you don't have more players than you can use. The median between 18 and 27 is 22.5, which is under the maximum size of an NHL roster.

You just have a roster of young players who have all learned to lose together.

If your scouting and development teams have done their jobs, you'll have 2-4 valuable pending UFAs to trade at every trade deadline.

And all you'll get for them is more futures, to continue the cycle of never winning.

And you should trade them, no matter where you are in the standings.

In other words, every time your team is in danger of becoming good, you should get rid of your top players so you can continue losing.

The hope for a deep playoff run isn't worth the long term damage to your talent pipeline that losing highly valuable assets for nothing will impose.

In your books, deep playoff runs aren't worth anything. In fact, the plan you propose would keep your team out of the playoffs most years, and if you did by sheer luck make the dance, the inexperience of your roster would make them an easy out.

This is probably the most counter intuitive aspect of this approach, but the math checks out.

Hockey isn't a math problem, and neither is the entertainment business. You haven't explained why fans would buy tickets to watch you lose year after year after year.

But to address your concern regarding winning. Most teams are cobbled together. Some drafted players, some free agent signings, some acquired through trade, etc.

Yes, that's because teams don't develop talent evenly at all positions. Trades and FA signings are a way to improve positions of weakness. Now you want to take even that away.

But with the approach above, the entire roster will effectively be developed together.

No they won't, because every year three of the best and most seasoned players will be sold for picks.

Players will know each other from the day they are drafted to the day they are traded as pending UFAs.

The two or three guys drafted in the same year will. So what?

They will have up to 9 years to develop chemistry as opposed to the 1-2 year average most players in the NHL get.

Most NHL teams keep their core players a lot longer than 1-2 years. Guess what? Most NHL teams keep their core players past age 27, which is exactly when you want to get rid of them. Players have a shorter time together when you arbitrarily sell them off at a certain age.

As such, again as long as scouting/development does its thing, you'll be able to maximize the team dynamic, which will result in better team performance, which leads to more wins.

No it doesn't, because you keep selling off talent just as it's getting mature enough to win anything.

The catch is that if the scouting/development teams fail in identifying and developing talent then there will be lean years where wins are hard to come by. But that is not much different from the antiquated methods hockey teams are managed today.

The only way your system is even possible is if most of the other teams are managed by those ‘antiquated methods’ so you can take advantage of them.

As opposed to spending to the cap and still being in sixth place in your division?

Half the teams in the NHL spend over the cap. Spending to the cap is simply the minimum price of even trying to compete.

But I suppose that's all right, because your plan is set up to make sure a team never becomes competitive. I guess spending 80% of the cap instead of 100% is meant to make up for some of the huge financial losses because nobody wants to see your crappy product.

Here, by the way, is another number for you: If you are graduating an average of 2.5 players per season, and dumping them all 9 years after being drafted, then you need those players to start graduating at age 18 to fill a roster. You need the whole 9 years from each and every one of them. That means nobody worth keeping stays in junior or college, nobody plays in the AHL, and every year you have four to six teenagers who really aren't ready for the NHL being pushed into jobs too soon.

If you are even a wee bit realistic, and suppose that your players on average won't be NHL-ready until age 21, you need to graduate FOUR players every year to fill a roster. And since you don't want to ‘cobble together’ anything with trades or signings, you had better hope and pray that each year's crop miraculously fills exactly the same positions as the players you dumped for futures the previous season.

The whole idea is altogether too silly for words. There's a reason why nobody does business this way, and it is not ‘antiquated methods’. It's because the purpose of an NHL team is not to develop talent, but to win hockey games and entertain paying customers.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

To Edmonton: Christopher Tanev (50% retained)
To Calgary: Cody Ceci, Dylan Holloway (or a 2nd?), 2024 1st,

Then you work your magic and turn Ceci into something in the off-season/next TDL.

I'd do some of those sort of shenanigans (...if Holloway can be salvaged, yikes of a season...but, it is Edmonton and he is from Calgary, I can understand his suffering)

If you can turn Tanev into a multi-piece return including a 1st? Beautiful work.

Gross

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Yeah, this season and next are the tail end of a failed core. Having 2-4 valuable UFAs to trade every deadline is a crazy expectation. I don’t really count Zadorov as a valuable UFA though.

The athletic ran an analysis. https://theathletic.com/5084336/2023...t-picks/?amp=1. Basically ranked teams by actual results vs expected results.

I've been vocal on CP about how I think the Stars are the best scouting team in the league, so seeing them #1 in that analysis is a bit validating. But I won't lie, am surprised to see the Flames at #2, although as The Athletic explains, if you take Adam Fox out of the equation the Flames drop to12th.

That being said, The Athletic says this:

It might be surprising to see Calgary this high but it makes sense once you consider context. The Flames only had 74 picks which is the second fewest of all teams from 2007-2018. We’re measuring teams’ success relative to their draft ammo and in the Flames’ case, they got a strong bang for their (limited) buck.

Which begs the question: why the hell wouldn't we give Tod Button more ammo?

Maybe we go from the second worst team in terms of futures allocation to the second best and see where things land?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Tanev could be the precise piece that pushes them to a cup.
Not worth the risk.

I agree, not worth the risk.

Or, Tanev could get injured right after the trade and we could find joy in the Oilers getting screwed. Not that I would want Tanev to get injured, but with him, it's always a possibility.

I still wouldn't do it though. I'd rather give Tanev to the Canucks or Avs for much less than trade him to the Oilers for anything.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Gross

Absolutely Agree. Why would Calgary want that Junk?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Or, Tanev could get injured right after the trade and we could find joy in the Oilers getting screwed. Not that I would want Tanev to get injured, but with him, it's always a possibility.

Why do people have this idea that Tanev is made out of thin glass? He's had only one significant injury in the last five years.

The man took a puck to the face, and the puck lost.