[Game Takes] Knights 5 Flames 0

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

A first overall pick would be great, but firing off everyone doesn't guarantee you're getting that pick, and if you're picking in the top 6-7 for the next 2 years anyway (which they will be regardless of further personel moves) you will be landing premium talent at key positions that will be playing sooner than later.

If you are picking 6-7 over the next few years, you be landing some decent talent that may make the NHL later than sooner.

If one of those two picks establishes himself as a regular contributor in 3 years, you’ve done a good job of drafting.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am fine trading Andersson, if the return warrants it. I am also fine extending him, for a reasonable price.

But keeping Andersson isn't about being semi-competitive, it's about showing the young guys how to be NHLers. It is better for a player's development to be on the 2nd or 3rd pairing, with easier matchups, and the ability to watch top-pairing guys be top pairing guys, than it is to throw the kids onto the top pairing and give them matchups they aren't ready for (like Buffalo is doing with Dahlin and Power).

It's also fine to have Honzek and Coronato and Pelletier in the A. Development takes time and requires patience from fans.

Further to your point.

[D as in David]

There are reasonable reasons for extending Ras to help with the development of the younger players. At some point in his new contract - and somewhat less so, Weegar's - he will block your hoped-for #1 pair. Will the cap have increased enough to have him playing down the pairings? If re-signed, maybe give him a front-loaded deal with higher trade/move protection in the earlier years and very limited protection in the later years so he could be more easily moved when they've filled the top-end of their D.

[GullFoss]

Kirkland might be an interesting example, where a lot of AHL guys can be an NHLer for a few nights based on adreniline and brute foce, but after the high wears off, it's hard to sustain that level game after game.

It might explain why a lot of call ups look really good initially, but they don't look as good after the high wears off. A lot of Flames prospects get a lot of hype based on a small sample size and then disapoint for a few seasons afterwards

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Kirkland might be an interesting example, where a lot of AHL guys can be an NHLer for a few nights based on adreniline and brute foce, but after the high wears off, it's hard to sustain that level game after game.

It might explain why a lot of call ups look really good initially, but they don't look as good after the high wears off. A lot of Flames prospects get a lot of hype based on a small sample size and then disapoint for a few seasons afterwards

I'm looking forward to the Jason Morgan 2.0 thread when Kirkland eventually gets waived.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I'm looking forward to the Jason Morgan 2.0 thread when Kirkland eventually gets waived.

It's a completely different situation because you can't do Costco based word-play with Jason Morgan. Kirkland is completely different brand of player.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Exactly.

Does a young player develop better or worse on a team that gets absolutely filled in every night for three years?

Does a young player develop better or worse on a team that has good players showing them how to manage highs and lows, and become professional hockey players?

If the answer to both is "doesn't matter" then by all means max out assets and trade everyone.

If the the answer is "better" meaning there is "some" value in keeping "some" players around to show them the way than you'd better factor that parameter into the equation.

I believe it's a factor. I have no idea how impactful that factor is, but it certainly isn't zero or negative.

I agree it's a factor. I question whether 'showing them the way' needs to come via a top pairing D that would command a king's ransom on the trade market and doesn't fit in your competitive window, or can come from elsewhere. There are a glut of veterans available at camp time every year on PTO. There's always the option to overpay a character veteran ALA Derek Engelland or Erik Gudbranson in free agency. Going this route, you'll be less competitive on the ice of course, but you still have the pillars for your team's culture in place, leaning on their experience to guide you through the hard times.

To me, you need to explore both paths. Yes to bringing in veteran leadership to set the culture, but absolutely move on from your top assets and maximize their value to the franchise via trade if they don't fit in your competitive window. I think it's potentially misguided to keep these players around on the premise of showing them the way, especially if their being on the team keeps you from securing a better draft position.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by traptor

I've changed my tune on Rasmus too.

You need some vets to insulate the kids.
Outside of Weegar we don't have anything on the backend.

If Flames keep sliding you won't be able to find a decent UFA to replace him.

Have 2 vet D doesn't feel like it's clogging too much.


Forward wise we have enough vets though. I rrally hope they don't sign Kuzmenko or Mantha.

I don't think Andersson's value will decrease by re-signing him. He is a talented top-4 RH dman who is in his prime and hasn't had any injury problems.

I used to be on the trade him side of things but have since switched sides.

I know its a bad comparable but seeing what Hanifin garnered on the trade market left a sour taste in my mouth, even though I think Andersson would net significantly more.

I just think with the plethora of solid D prospects we have in the pipeline it would be wise to insulate them by keeping the likes of Andersson, Weegar and Bahl around for awhile.

At the very least, I expect Parekh and Grushnikov to make strong pushes to make the team in the next 1-2 years to replace the likes of Bean, Barrie and Hanley and it would be good to have top 4 caliber vets around to mentor them and play the hard minutes as they develop.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I agree it's a factor. I question whether 'showing them the way' needs to come via a top pairing D that would command a king's ransom on the trade market and doesn't fit in your competitive window, or can come from elsewhere. There are a glut of veterans available at camp time every year on PTO. There's always the option to overpay a character veteran ALA Derek Engelland or Erik Gudbranson in free agency. Going this route, you'll be less competitive on the ice of course, but you still have the pillars for your team's culture in place, leaning on their experience to guide you through the hard times.

To me, you need to explore both paths. Yes to bringing in veteran leadership to set the culture, but absolutely move on from your top assets and maximize their value to the franchise via trade if they don't fit in your competitive window. I think it's potentially misguided to keep these players around on the premise of showing them the way, especially if their being on the team keeps you from securing a better draft position.

But that's saying a filler type veteran has the same value as a drafted and developed (recognized) veteran of the Flames.

Not sure that's the case.

A terrible team isn't attracting the best veterans. You would need to either go character (and have them bottom roster), or way over pay for the player to add them later.

And even if they were impactful (and expensive) they may not have the same affect as a home grown player that everyone identifies as a Flames player.

[traptor]

Yeah that's the thing. You can't easily replace him on a rebuilding team via UFA.

All you'll get is over paying dollar and term for the bottom of the barrel.

Hell also be 28. Most defence can be effective until their 35. And 7m will be equivalent to 4m in 6 or 7 years.


If the flames were a really attractive market I wouldn't be as worried about burning it down.

We don't have market advantages certain teams do, so we won't be able to attract talent whenever we're ready to turn it on.



Everything is dependent on if he even wants to be here though. Keeping him might not even be an option.

Return is also a huge factor.