[Rumour] Incoming Flames shake up

[cross16]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Everyone universally recognized that these were the biggest needs heading into the off-season last year:

1) Starting goaltender (and backup goaltender to a lesser extent)

2) #4 defenseman

3) Top 6 RW


Tre went out and got Smith. It's worked out well.
He went out and got Lack. It didn't work out, but it provided the replacement level of competition necessary for Rittich to outshine him and earn the job going forward.

Before we had re-signed Stone, what exactly were the options for our #4 defenseman? Oh yeah, that's right...Matt Bartkowski. Can anyone sit here and tell me that you would have been satisfied with that going into the year?

Fact remains, the Hamonic trade was out of necessity and it was by far the best option out there in terms of the quality of player available. What other top 4 d-man was available via trade? What other free agents would have been a better option than Hamonic? Cody Franson? I honestly can't think of any. Tre had to make that deal for so many reasons, and the cost wasn't completely exorbitant.

We got a top 4 defender with a solid history in the NHL, plenty of high level NHL experience (including playoffs), 3 years of a sweetheart deal (4th highest paid defenseman on the team at just $3.875 M), not to mention that he checked the boxes of a physical defender who can skate and is strong in his own end (especially on the PK). The cherry on top is that he's a good fit for the roster in terms of background (Western Canada) and has already shown to be of extremely high character and does a large amount of charity work.

Look at what I just listed and tell me that Hamonic isn't worth what we paid. Just because the overall team results haven't been there, it doesn't mean the Hamonic add was a bad idea. Read the Haynes article from today and you'll see that the team has become one of the stingiest defensive teams in the league lately, and I think a large part of that is the stabilization that Hamonic gave the 2nd pair. As soon as I say that, I'm sure there will be a bunch of people throwing out some plays that he's made that were not great, but those plays have largely disappeared and if anything bad happens it's either bad luck (like off his skate the other night) or a Brodie gaff that he hasn't been able to cover for.

Besides which, we still haven't seen Hamonic play at his very best yet. When that happens, you'd be surprised at just how effective he can be. He's a great shutdown defender, and he can neutralize the best offensive players in the league when he's playing well.

Sorry for the long post, but I think Hamonic is a helluva player that we are being extremely short-sighted about. People are wringing their hands about a potential "lottery" pick in exchange for him, but what people often forget about a lottery is that the odds of winning are normally infinitesimally small. At worst, there's no way this team will end up with anything greater than a 15% chance of a top 3 pick, and I'm still pretty confident that this is a playoff team that is still going through some growing pains as they mature and become a real threat. It's far more likely that this pick will be in the 20s and won't result in an impact player. If it does, it won't be for several years anyway.

So I actually like Hamonic as a player and agree with you he is a good one. I don't think I like him as much as you as I think he is a good 4/5 dman, but not great, but i do like him. My issue really isn't with Hamonic, it's just the prioritization of assets. I thought getting a veteran scorer, I'm not really tied to positions so didn't necessarily have to be #1 RW, was the bigger need. I felt they needed someone who could take some pressure of the younger players and who could pick corners. While I think the Flames have talent up front, I think they lack natural shooters, as witnessed by their shooting %.

Even if we agreed on the priority of assets I would still question giving up 3 top 60 picks for a #4 dman. I'm certainly not in the camp of it being the worst trade ever but it wasn't one I liked.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by Bingo

People keep saying this but it isn't true.

They were 21st last season in team save percentage at .907
This year they are 17th at .910

They are getting killed by shooting percentage at 23rd in the league.

If they scored at the rate they did last year with their shots against and scoring differentials as is this team would be deep into the playoffs by now. (14th last season, 26th this season, and a full percentage point out, costing them 14 goals thus far)


Why are they low on the shooting percentage totem poll? Treliving was worried where the goals were going to come from, and the powerplay has been abysmal. That's a start.

But Smith hasn't saved this team. It's a false narrative.

Visually, many more poor quality perimeter shots compared with Hartley era. Not sure if that's actually true or not by the numbers

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Spinach

Lo 30 years ago, the Flames did move a young sniper who'd end up as one of the best goal-scorers of all time: Brett Hull. And that was for a #4-ish defenceman similar to Hamonic, as well as a backup goalie.

Now, the likelihood that the 1st in the Hamonic trade becomes a Brett Hull is practically nill. And the circumstances are different. Still, the 1988 trade didn't immediately lead to a deep playoff run, and the 2017 one may not either. As much as it stings to miss out on a chance to draft, say, 5th-15th, it's a move that could pay dividends beyond this season.

I'm not a huge fan of the Hamonic move myself, but it's nowhere near as bad as the Savard or Gilmour trades. And, as the Phaneuf trade didn't work out particularly well for either team, it's probably not comparable to the Hamonic one.

And Cliff Fletcher acknowledged at the time that Hull would be that projected sniper.

It got us a Stanley Cup...great trade.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by redforever

And Cliff Fletcher acknowledged at the time that Hull would be that projected sniper.

It got us a Stanley Cup...great trade.

Yeah I'm not sure why people keep bringing that up as a Stanley Cup > Brett Hull. You think the Kings would trade back one of their Stanley Cups to get rid of some of those bad contacts they have today? Of course not.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

My crappy cell phone would not let me quote your long post, but I would have done this instead in an ideal world.

1) Signed Alzner for 4.65 a year over 5 years (slightly more than Montreal signed him for)

2) Traded Brouwer and a 1st for Schenn (Brouwer would have to waive his NTC)

3) Signed Stone like we did.

That would have cost the Flames about 1.7 million more than we are currently spending.

And in a world where BT knows he is going to likely sign Stone (as I am assuming he did not do those two moves in isolation) I would not sign anyone and would have Kulak and Andersson as my 3rd pair but would get Schenn.

Treliving is an idiot for signing Karl Alzner. Horrible contract.

AaronGavey - 2020

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by cross16

So I actually like Hamonic as a player and agree with you he is a good one. I don't think I like him as much as you as I think he is a good 4/5 dman, but not great, but i do like him. My issue really isn't with Hamonic, it's just the prioritization of assets. I thought getting a veteran scorer, I'm not really tied to positions so didn't necessarily have to be #1 RW, was the bigger need. I felt they needed someone who could take some pressure of the younger players and who could pick corners. While I think the Flames have talent up front, I think they lack natural shooters, as witnessed by their shooting %.

Even if we agreed on the priority of assets I would still question giving up 3 top 60 picks for a #4 dman. I'm certainly not in the camp of it being the worst trade ever but it wasn't one I liked.

I'm with you as I have been saying for a few years now that top line RW has been the biggest need for this team. Ferland has acquitted himself well but this is still an area that is badly lacking.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Treliving is an idiot for signing Karl Alzner. Horrible contract.

AaronGavey - 2020

I think he is an idiot for signing GG as a coach.

I think he went after a top 4 dman when that was not as big of a need as a top 6 forward.

I do think giving up a 1st and two 2nds for Hamonic is an overpayment. I was just responding to the question of who I would sign in a world where I had the same mindset as BT (need 5 top four dmen and 4 of my top 6 prospects not in the NHL at the time being dmen). Under that circumstance I would have signed Alzner and tried to get Schenn.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah I'm not sure why people keep bringing that up as a Stanley Cup > Brett Hull. You think the Kings would trade back one of their Stanley Cups to get rid of some of those bad contacts they have today? Of course not.

Also, at the time, Hull was lazy as someone else mentioned, and he was out of shape.

Hull alluded to that himself later on...not sure if when he was with the Blues or with the Stars. But even Scotty Bowman said he became a complete two way player by the time he joined the Wings. There was obviously mutual admiration between the two of them.

Of playing for the 2002 Detroit Red Wings' Stanley Cup champions, Hull said: "I was lucky enough to feel what it was like to play for the old New York Yankees. I got to play with Babe Ruth and be coached by Casey Stengel. Scotty Bowman was one of the greatest coaches that ever walked the face of the earth."

"We knew he wanted to play on a winning team," Bowman said about signing Hull as a free agent that season. "We had a lot of great individual players and he fit in perfectly. He became a very good two-way player. We used him to kill penalties. We had a strong lineup and he was particularly strong in the playoffs.

https://www.nhl.com/news/good-times-...areer/c-504957

[Spinach]

Originally Posted by redforever

And Cliff Fletcher acknowledged at the time that Hull would be that projected sniper.

It got us a Stanley Cup...great trade.

It was asked when the Flames have traded futures of the magnitude of the picks Treliving dealt for Hamonic. Brett Hull is the answer. And Hull is likely many times better than whatever the 1st-rounder will be.

Obviously, if the Hamonic deal ends up leading to a Cup, then you make that trade every time.

[sempuki]

Ken King is an idiot for not making Aaron Gavey GM. Everyone knows trolling message boards is your best source of hockey talent.

[CsInMyBlood]

Hamonic has been VERY underwhelming thus far. He reminds me of a poor mans Cory Sarich but Sarich was very physical and would throw massive hits every so often.

I really hope things change for him because if not we lose this trade easily.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Picks have established value. The price the Flames paid for Hamonic raised eyebrows around the league. It's not often you see someone who isn't a front-line star player traded for a 1st and two 2nds. We'd be laughing at the Oilers right now if they made that deal.

I don't know how picks have established value particularly in the lottery era. You have several unknowns that will dramatically change the value
- Where the Flames finish in the standings
- What the pick ends up being
So really the value ends up being some sense of the predicted finish for the Flames combined with the relative odds of where they would pick based on that finish - combined with the odds of getting players of various quality at that pick.

I don't think the trade raised eye brows. If i recall it was considered to be fair value.

I'm not in love with the deal. I generally believe teams should hang on to their firsts with an iron grip. But as an asset weak franchise it was currency BT had to peddle. The Flames likely overpaid in that they were the team willing to pony up the asking price, but I also strongly believe that if they didn't - they would not have gotten the player.

You can debate whether or not they should have walked away rather than pay that price, but for a guy with established strong performance, on the right side of 30, signed to a good contract - the price makes sense to me.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Hamonic has been VERY underwhelming thus far. He reminds me of a poor mans Cory Sarich but Sarich was very physical and would throw massive hits every so often.

I really hope things change for him because if not we lose this trade easily.

I think he's been much better for the last month.

[_Q_]

Sure Hamonic has looked underwhelming, but so does everyone else because the coach sucks.

You could start prime aged Gretzky, Lemieux and Sakic up front with Lidstrom and Bobby Orr on the back end and they would struggle to get anything going under this system.

[Mass_nerder]

Soooo...no shakeup?

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Hamonic has been VERY underwhelming thus far. He reminds me of a poor mans Cory Sarich but Sarich was very physical and would throw massive hits every so often.

I really hope things change for him because if not we lose this trade easily.

This is a really odd take, because he's been very solid over the last five/six weeks after getting off to a rocky start (which was understandable).

He's much more mobile and a better puck-mover than Sarich ever was.

[killer_carlson]

i'd do the Hamonic trade again today. I like the guy. I think he's done what I expected him to do. I'd have him playing with a different partner mind you, but i'm pleased with the player.

If the Flames are sellers at the deadline, it will be a new GM making the call. This team is too good to be in a position to sell. If we were to be in that position, the coach and GM would be replaced first.

[Vinny01]

The thing about Hamonic he was not brought in to be a typical number 4 D. The Flames wanted 2 pairs that on most teams in the league would be top pairs. It didn’t matter if it was Gio-Hamilton or Brodie-Hamonic the opposition was going to go up against an elite pair.

Hamonic has been a fine top 4 blueliner but has not been close to the top 2 Dman the Flames paid for.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

This is a really odd take, because he's been very solid over the last five/six weeks after getting off to a rocky start (which was understandable).

He's much more mobile and a better puck-mover than Sarich ever was.

Yeah that was an odd take...Sarich will always have the big hit against the Sharks but other than that he was a very average d man for a team that failed to meet expectations. Calling Hamonic a poor mans Sarich after 35 games is pretty silly...Hamonic is 27 and is about to pass Sarich's career point totals

[Moneyhands23]

Doesnt look like much of a shake up. Dissapointed