[News] Flames place Shinkaruk, Poirier, and Wotherspoon on waivers UPD: All 3 clear

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe the Flames did "lose" this trade. What I find aggravating in this discussion is the insistence by some that this loss was seemingly significant. It wasn't, because even now it is difficult to imagine where Granlund realistically fits on today's Flames roster, and how he might provide a tangible upgrade. He is the type of player who is so inconsequential as to be practically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

In other words: the Flames project to be a playoff team today with the possibility that they compete for the Division and a feasible chance to win a playoff round. The replacement of a bottom-six player with Granlund does not really affect that potential outcome any more than it does with other realistic internal options.

Agreed. I also think that despite "losing" the trade as of the present moment, it was worth the shot at the time either way. Managers need the freedom to make some errors and take risks. At the time the potential downside was much less significant than the potential upside should Shinkaruk blossom.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I'm sure i'll get slammed for this, but i must ask....

Any reason to question our AHL system, regarding the growth and development of the prospects going thru our AHL system?

Some may point to Jankowski as the counter argument, but i suppose his NCAA experience has played a large role in preparing him for pro hockey.

This is a few camps in a row where our AHL prospects just simply don't seem like they have progressed to a point where they can actually play in the NHL....

Specifically for guys who played for Ryan Huska:

- Ferland has turned out great
- Granlund struggled to make the immediate transition for us, but seems to have gained a step in his skating since then. Ultimately though he is now a solid NHLer.
- Baertschi is a middle 6 NHLer. Can't knock the baby Flames for his trade request. Probably can knock Treliving for bringing in Mason Raymond to take his projected spot though.
- Klimchuk is about where you'd expect him to be. Talent might be the limit but last year looked great. Still has a year left on his ELC, could be due for his big year.
- Hathaway has hit his talent ceiling, and is a very polished tweener.
- Freddie Hamilton's struggles in the NHL seem to be more with usage than anything. Probably played his best hockey at RW in the NHL. Barely got ice time last year at RW. Blame Brouwer/Chiasson.
- Andersson is about where you'd expect him to be.
- Kulak has progressed since Junior. I haven't counted him out yet.
- Kylington is doing more than fine. Has progressed rapidly.
- Lomberg has progressed finely.
- Derek Grant "sort of" had his breakout with us. Signed himself a one way deal in Anaheim.
- Agostino probably wasn't given enough NHL opportunity. Signed himself a one-way deal in Boston.
- Ortio maybe wasn't given enough NHL opportunity. Or maybe he hit his talent ceiling. Who knows. Maybe he makes an NHL comeback at age 28.
- Max Reinhart wasn't all that talented. Not the only Reinhart brother to be a disappointment.
- Bill Arnold really wasn't all that talented. His best professional production came centering Baertschi and Poirier, he never had as much talent on his wings again after Baerschi's trade.
- Shinkaruk hit his talent ceiling. Vancouver traded him for the same reason we just waived him.
- Poirier is the biggest question mark. Might have had an inflated shooting percentage his rookie AHL year inflating expectations. Has also reinvented his game to be more of a pro in the offensive zone, rather than dangles and such. Might have been a bad idea.
- Wotherspoon hit his ceiling
- Morrison just... lacked the ability. Couldn't the side of a barn, let guys get behind him all the time. Just a dumb, dumb player.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Not sure what you're really talking about here since I've never professed to like goons or zero skill players. I prefer my gritty players to be skilled and be able to skate (ala Tkachuk and Ferland.)

But I know after 20 years of watching this league that you cannot win without some grit. Certainly you cannot win without skill either. But you need some players that bring both. Guys like Ferland, Tkachuk, Bennett, Backlund, etc.

Too many Granlund and Baertschi types and you'll be competing for the bottom of the league every year, not the Cup.

At its very core hockey is a bullies game. There will never be anywhere to run and hide on the ice, and that is why intimidation will always be a part of the game.

That said, its not skill vs grit, rather it should be a combination of both that works in concert.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I'm sure i'll get slammed for this, but i must ask....

Any reason to question our AHL system, regarding the growth and development of the prospects going thru our AHL system?

Some may point to Jankowski as the counter argument, but i suppose his NCAA experience has played a large role in preparing him for pro hockey.

This is a few camps in a row where our AHL prospects just simply don't seem like they have progressed to a point where they can actually play in the NHL....

I don't know what the problem is. Drafting? Development? Twenty year long run of bad luck?

The popular opinion around here seems to be the drafting has been terrible but has improved since Sutter left. That is false. If anything, drafting development has gotten worse.

Good work by Treliving to convert draft picks into core pieces like Hamilton and Harmonic. Very unlikely any of the picks given up would be players of that caliber.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

The popular opinion around here seems to be the drafting has been terrible but has improved since Sutter left. That is false. If anything, drafting development has gotten worse.

There is a long list of promising and attractive picks from the last four years found both in the early and late rounds from goal to forward.

I'd take the time to list them, but you'll just come back with pointing out they're not in the league yet which will end up in several people pointing out to you how ridiculously premature your assessment is with the time it takes to draft and develop. There simply hasn't been enough time with this current regime in place to make anything close to an informed judgement nevermind your pessimistic leap.

But then again you're the same guy who said two days ago the Flames "aren't using this training camp to evaluate players like every other team in the league"... so I guess we shouldn't expect too much in the way of level headed assessments from you in the first place.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

The actual need at every single position for a hockey team is not hitting or facewashing or attitude.

It's scoring more goals than the other team. Intentionally handicapping your ability to outscore the other team to fill those aesthetic wants is not filling a need.

It's true that Lazar could become as good as Granlund is right now.
It's untrue that Lazar is as good as Granlund is right now.
And Brouwer, I'm not going to touch that can of worms.

Completely agree with your thoughts. The point wasn't about having a team that has a certain look or feel to create some sort of image or aesthetic as you put it, or even to build a team that plays the way we want or someone tells us we want (Burke).

As you put it, the only thing that matters is scoring more goals than the other team, no matter how you get there. I argue, that scoring more goals than the opposition isn't actually as simple as looking at a stat sheet and inserting player X over Y because they have more points or goals. Especially when we start to play with the fringe of the roster, which is what we are doing when discussing Granlund, Lazar and unfortunately Brouwer. my argument, would be an effective Lazar or Brouwer type player actually helps the Flames score more goals overall than having Granlund does, and that might not even be because an effective Lazar or Brouwer actually individually would put up more points than Granlund (although it could mean that).

It means that having that type of player doing well, allows the team to score more as a collective than it would if you insert Granlund as is.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

It means that having that type of player doing well, allows the team to score more as a collective than it would if you insert Granlund as is.

This is a perfectly fair view, but if you're going to say "X player may have less points than Y player, but he helps the team score more as a collective than Y player", you need to be able to have some convincing evidence for that. Because prima facie, Y player is helping more by being directly involved in scoring.

You're absolutely correct that a player can create offence without ending up on the scoresheet for a variety of reasons. Points aren't offence; they're an imperfect way of estimating a player's contribution to offence. It's also obviously the case that there's a whole other side of the game, keeping the puck out of your own net, that points have little or nothing to do with - which is why Patrice Bergeron is valuable despite only scoring 50-60 points. But if you're going to say that player X excels in those two categories enough to make up for their deficit in generating points (or more specifically, even strength goals), you have to point to something that would make someone believe that.

Taking Lazar vs Granlund as the example, I can't see anything you could use to objectively back up that statement.

[Itse]

Who knows, maybe Granlund will be the next Marek Svatos or Patrick O'Sullivan. Or Rostislav Olesz. Maybe he'll even be a Richard Park or a Lars Eller.

Yeah we probably lost that trade, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[ForeverFlameFan]

How do we lose a trade where we were never going to be able to give the ice time to Granlund like Vancouver has?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

How do we lose a trade where we were never going to be able to give the ice time to Granlund like Vancouver has?

We are giving ice time to Stajan and a useless Brouwer so why wouldn't we be able to again?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

How do we lose a trade where we were never going to be able to give the ice time to Granlund like Vancouver has?

He'd likely have been better than Bouma, so there's that? Slight upgrade on the 4th line.

(More likely he'd have replaced Chiasson with about the same points.)

[dieHARDflameZ]

Who cares if we lost one relatively meaningless trade? For the most part, Treliving has fared very well in that department.

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Noone will claim any of these guys...if they cant make the Flames they wont make any other team.

I agree. All 3 of them are going to be in Stockton together next week. Shinkaruk and Poirer hasn't shown anything for the other team to notice. Wotherspoon is difficult to gauge. He'll have some good games, bad games or not really noticeable at all.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Not sure what you're really talking about here since I've never professed to like goons or zero skill players. I prefer my gritty players to be skilled and be able to skate (ala Tkachuk and Ferland.)

But I know after 20 years of watching this league that you cannot win without some grit. Certainly you cannot win without skill either. But you need some players that bring both. Guys like Ferland, Tkachuk, Bennett, Backlund, etc.

Too many Granlund and Baertschi types and you'll be competing for the bottom of the league every year, not the Cup.

Thanks FDW for articulating what I was thinking.

I would add that hockey is not just scoring more goals than your opponent, it's also about preventing the opposition from scoring-grit and toughness helps in this department too.

[Phil1111]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Thanks FDW for articulating what I was thinking.

I would add that hockey is not just scoring more goals than your opponent, it's also about preventing the opposition from scoring-grit and toughness helps in this department too.

My thoughts too. I always hated Ryan Kesler when he played for Vancouver. He was always winning tough battles and playing injured. Now he is out for 5 months (hip).

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Phil1111

My thoughts too. I always hated Ryan Kesler when he played for Vancouver. He was always winning tough battles and playing injured. Now he is out for 5 months (hip).

You can still hate Ryan Kesler.

[DJones]

why did I just read that many posts on Granlund haha.

On a good team he's a third liner with no grit but not enough skill to be a top 6er.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

We are giving ice time to Stajan and a useless Brouwer so why wouldn't we be able to again?

About 5 minutes per game less for Stajan. Haven't looked up Brouwer. Granlund got ice time similar to Versteeg. And scored less.

[FireGilbert]

There was no room on the team for Granlund and the trade was good asset management at the time. In hindsight maybe the Flames should have been more patient and shopped him around for a 2nd rounder or a different prospect but you can't really fault them for going after a high potential former first rounder. I wouldn't write Shinkaruk off quite yet though. He still has potential and provides some nice depth in the event of injuries on the top lines.

The biggest disappointment today by far is Wotherspoon. He has been given every chance to make the team in the past few years but seems to have stagnated or even gotten worse.

[bubbsy]

really unclear why this seems to be a somewhat contested topic.

The flames took an asset from a position of organizational strength, which they may have lost on waivers given an influx of players potentially making a push, and traded it for a former 1st rounder prospect who was having a pretty solid year of development in the AHL. At the time, I would argue most would have considered it a solid wager the flames made, and considered it a flames 'win' on the prospect potential.

The prospect potential doesn't seem to have been realized, and the player the flames traded has become a decent middling forward on a team that finished bottom 3 that year, and a bottom 2 the year after (full year with the team). So, at this point, unless shinkaruk continues to develop into something at the NHL level (not counting on it), the canucks won the trade. If granlund turned into a bonafide top 6 player, sure there'd be some regret. That isn't the case here.

If the opportunity comes up again, where a middling forward/prospect is traded for a former first round pick who seems to be developing at a decent rate, I'd be happy to see the flames make a similar bet..