[News] Flames claim Beecher off waivers

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I always love the "there's no downside" comments that inevitably come with these moves. There's always a downside and here it is that a guy like Morton, who's done nothing but show he's ready for a shot, gets nixed for the shiny new toy that really has done nothing but underwhelm elsewhere.

Do I have a problem with the move to claim Beecher? Not really. There are many reasons he could work here, but there are just as many for him to continue to fail here as well. I personally think Morton is a better long term option but if both can be worked into regular play moving forward I'm fine with it.

Both players were free assets and not draft capital.

Nothing wrong with adding another free asset and seeing if he's better than the one you have.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Right. You have to really squint hard to see any material downside. Both Morton and Beecher should have a chance to play (as well as Kerins, Stromgren, etc.). It is, and will be, a looong season.

I might be misremembering, but it seems to me at least one his few NHL goals was against the Flames. I remember him and Geekie from the Bruins looked really good a couple of years ago.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

No downside. Whatever. But if you keep him please move a body out from the bottom six.

Piling up middle-botton six types isnt the way to improvement. We have a glut of those types already.

If he can win face offs and bring physicality then maybe he can help the team start with possession more than it has been.

I just don't get this sentiment...

They are rebuilding. Bringing in more young players, to see who can take the next step, is a good thing, no? Seems like what a rebuilding team should be doing, IMO (along with other rebuilding things)

First, I don't think we have a glut, but even if we do, what's the problem? We can sit around and hope that Morton grows into the role. Or, we can bring multiple guys in (King, Beecher, etc), and see who rises to the top.

It's so straight-forward that I can't believe we even need to discuss it, but here we are.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I always love the "there's no downside" comments that inevitably come with these moves. There's always a downside and here it is that a guy like Morton, who's done nothing but show he's ready for a shot, gets nixed for the shiny new toy that really has done nothing but underwhelm elsewhere.

Do I have a problem with the move to claim Beecher? Not really. There are many reasons he could work here, but there are just as many for him to continue to fail here as well. I personally think Morton is a better long term option but if both can be worked into regular play moving forward I'm fine with it.

Giving players a job is not the right way to do things. Competition is. Earning it is. If Morton can't beat out Beecher for a job (or vice versa), then they aren't NHLers. Simple as that.

Saying "I don't want to bring in another guy because I have Morton" is insane, IMO. It basically says 'Morton is the guy - that's the bar, that's our team'. I mean, do we not want to improve on that?

Again, maybe Morton turns out better. Maybe Beecher does. But isn't it better to give them both a shot as opposed to just hoping we were right all along with Morton? And not forcing him to get better?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Geordano

Should everyone get a participation trophy?

He got waived, so no there was no trophy. A classy move would be to say something positive about them to the media.

[musth]

Originally Posted by Southside

He can walk on water. How is his skating?

well, hes a better goalie, thats for sure

[stamps]

Morton Beecher Klapka playing together tonight… will be interesting to see that combination.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by 3thirty

Playing with Morton and Klapka so not taking his spot. Lomberg sits.

This is the way.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

There's always a downside and here it is that a guy like Morton, who's done nothing but show he's ready for a shot, gets nixed for the shiny new toy that really has done nothing but underwhelm elsewhere.

Originally Posted by 3thirty

Playing with Morton and Klapka so not taking his spot. Lomberg sits.

You were saying, Hot_Flatus?

If the downside is that Lomberg eats popcorn, is that a downside at all?

[dino7c]

played well, especially considering no practice with the team even

[Bingo]

I didn't think he was great.

Just game one with a new team, so you give him time.

His line got filled in but they've never played together before.

But I just didn't see any of that speed in deployment at all.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Giving players a job is not the right way to do things. Competition is. Earning it is. If Morton can't beat out Beecher for a job (or vice versa), then they aren't NHLers. Simple as that.

Saying "I don't want to bring in another guy because I have Morton" is insane, IMO. It basically says 'Morton is the guy - that's the bar, that's our team'. I mean, do we not want to improve on that?

Again, maybe Morton turns out better. Maybe Beecher does. But isn't it better to give them both a shot as opposed to just hoping we were right all along with Morton? And not forcing him to get better?

Lol Ok, it's insane to question there is always a downside with moves like this? That's a bizarre take. I quite literally said the move could easily work out in my post but the measuring stick for a move like that is insignificant....saying there's no downside is just dumb. What's wrong with giving a guy like Morton some runway when he's earned a proper shot? It's pretty obvious you're convinced I'm on some witch hunt to crush this move, when I quite clearly said I'm fine with it and merely questioned the logic of saying there's no downside at this point and time with many players in the system that can be looked at.

The Flames are a last place team nibbling around bringing in waiver wire players when what really needs to be done is ship out pending UFAs and veterans and start planting the seeds for next year and beyond.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Lol Ok, it's insane? Grandstanding much? I quite literally said the move could easily work out, but saying there's no downside is just dumb. What's wrong with giving a guy like Morton some runway too? You're just manufacturing a scenario where I'm on some witch hunt to crush this move when I quite clearly said I'm fine with it and merely questioned the logic of the claim at this point and time.

The Flames are a last place team nibbling around bringing in waiver wire players when what really needs to be done is ship out pending UFAs and veterans and start planting the seeds for next year and beyond.

How does making a waiver claim of a guy that is as young or younger than most of their options for the role he plays (including Morton who is years older) stop them from shipping out pending UFAs and veterans?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I didn't think he was great.

Just game one with a new team, so you give him time.

His line got filled in but they've never played together before.

But I just didn't see any of that speed in deployment at all.

Agreed - the line didn't do much and he was largely unnoticeable.

I would prefer to see him at C, where his skating would be more useful and effective. I think Beecher has more upside than Morton, and I think they should switch the two, with Morton on wing and Beecher at C (and eventually, Pospisil on wing).

I am very much looking forward to a line of Pospisil - Beecher - Klapka

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Lol Ok, it's insane to question there is always a downside with moves like this? That's a bizarre take. I quite literally said the move could easily work out in my post but the measuring stick for a move like that is insignificant....saying there's no downside is just dumb. What's wrong with giving a guy like Morton some runway when he's earned a proper shot? It's pretty obvious you're convinced I'm on some witch hunt to crush this move, when I quite clearly said I'm fine with it and merely questioned the logic of saying there's no downside at this point and time with many players in the system that can be looked at.

The Flames are a last place team nibbling around bringing in waiver wire players when what really needs to be done is ship out pending UFAs and veterans and start planting the seeds for next year and beyond.

Okay, so what is the downside? You still haven't presented one.

Your argument seems to be that there are other things to do. Yes there are, but how does taking a chance on another player deter doing those things? A team can do multiple things at once, and has a 50 man roster to manage.

Why should we just give Morton more runway? Can't we give Morton runway, and let him try to prove himself AND give Beecher a shot? The classic example of a franchise that just 'gives' the spot to the kid they've got is EDM - they've been doing it since the Hall-Eberle days and it has literally never worked for them.

But maybe it will work for us!

[Badgers Nose]

Beecher looked good considering he had no practice time with the team. He stood up for Morty when he got knocked head first into the boards. That was good to see.

He seems to have a modest assessment of his game; classic 4th liner PK guy. Someone was saying younger Rooney. That’s OK. I don’t know why you wouldn’t grab that for free on a shory contract like this guy has.

As for Kerins. Huska said he thinks the game at a high level and that Rory has a bright future in the NHL. I don’t think we have to take these roster movements as punitive.

Beecher is not costing any of the kids we are excited about their NHL game time.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Giving players a job is not the right way to do things. Competition is. Earning it is. If Morton can't beat out Beecher for a job (or vice versa), then they aren't NHLers. Simple as that.

Saying "I don't want to bring in another guy because I have Morton" is insane, IMO. It basically says 'Morton is the guy - that's the bar, that's our team'. I mean, do we not want to improve on that?

Again, maybe Morton turns out better. Maybe Beecher does. But isn't it better to give them both a shot as opposed to just hoping we were right all along with Morton? And not forcing him to get better?

It’s funny that people are now concerned about Morton, who no one mentioned at all as a prospect over the last couple seasons. It’s like there just has to be a negative.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s funny that people are now concerned about Morton, who no one mentioned at all as a prospect over the last couple seasons. It’s like here just has to be a negative.

Morton is also in the same age range as other players some are desperate to move.

If Morton is someone we need giving opportunity to develop, then I suppose Frost, Farabee, Bahl, and Pachal should be given tons of time yet before we move on or block their opportunity. Sharangovich and Bean too, why not?

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Bingo

His line got filled in but they've never played together before

User moves to strike the term filled in

[Strange Brew]

I think people want to give Morton a chance because he has produced at the AHL level and he is the age where he's not going to get any better playing in that league.

It makes sense that people have a bias towards prospects that they have followed for a period of time.