Fair enough. But let's say they sign Jagr and then a guy like Poirier comes in and absolutely crushes it at camp.
For some reason, I still think they send down Poirier and keep up Jagr. That's sort of my point is all. Hell, I bet they still keep up Brouwer and send down Poirier.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Fair enough. But let's say they sign Jagr and then a guy like Poirier comes in and absolutely crushes it at camp.
For some reason, I still think they send down Poirier and keep up Jagr. That's sort of my point is all. Hell, I bet they still keep up Brouwer and send down Poirier.
Well, I agree - there's no world in which Jagr or Brouwer get sent down. However, if Poirier goes lights out, it seems likely to me that Stajan could easily become the 13th forward, and then Lazar gets shifted to 4th line Centre duty and then bingo - there's your roster spot for Poirier. You then ride that situation out, and if the season dictates that hey, we should trade Stajan or someone...you act accordingly.
Yeah Lazar could still get bumped but not Stajan. I don't think Stajan gets sent down either. Liked in the locker room and good character, plus again that's not really the role for Poirier, he's a scorer.
Would that 4th line be leaned on to score? I dunno...
Anyway my only point was that the concerns that signing vets bumps possible youngsters that may be better fits as potentially legitimate.
I don't see why people still feel that the Flames don't give rookies a chance. There is a lot of youth on the team that we can say that will be on the team this upcoming season.
None of the Flames prospects in Stockton were 'deserving' of NHL time last season with the exception of Jankowski and Hathaway. However, Jankowski was a 1st year pro. Hathaway is a 4th liner - a 4th liner that creates a lot of chaos, and that I also feel should have had a full season last year, but a 4th liner nonetheless.
Flames were extremely lucky to have a rather healthy roster for the season. Will they be so lucky this season?
After Jankowski, I don't see another NHL-ready prospect. Poirier for me is probably the next closest, but that is assuming he returns to form. Pribyl is the other guy that I think may be ready sooner rather than later, but he hasn't had any luck with injuries.
I would rather have too much depth than not enough depth. You can never tell with injuries.
On top of this, is anyone on the farm BETTER than Jagr is right now? A valid and very solid argument can be made that having a prospect step up and further his development is a smart idea, and I can't argue with that. However, Jagr simply isn't just any old vet. He is Jaromir Fricken Jagr, who brings a tonne of experience and mentorship ability. I think by having him on the team for a season will also likely impact the existing youth for seasons to come.
At any rate, I simply don't think that an opening night roster is the same as the roster in November, or December, or January, etc. Flames were extremely fortunate to be so healthy. Anyone bank on that again this season? I wouldn't.
Also, I expect Lazar to be a fixture in the line-up this season. Flames will make room for him. He isn't going to ride the bench, and there is no way in the world that he will be sent down to the NHL - he would be claimed faster than you can you say 'crap!'. I know the Oilers would put in a claim on him right away. Lazar adds a lot of speed and grit to a line-up, plus he I do believe he possesses way more offensive ability than what he has showed thus far.
Like I said in my previous post, the season is a war of attrition, and so are the playoffs. Adding another body that can not only provide ~50 pts while also bringing in a tonne of intangibles is nothing to sneeze at, as long as the contract itself makes sense (cap hit + term).
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Let's say we sign Jagr, our 14 forwards likely look like this
Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Bennett, Frolik, Backlund, Ferland, Versteeg, Jagr, Brouwer, Stajan, Lazar, Jankowski and Hamilton/Hathaway/Foo/Gazdic/whoever. You can shuffle guys around the lineup and fit guys in. Our top 9 would likely look like
Gaudreau Monahan Ferland
Tkachuk Backlund Frolik
Versteeg Bennett Jagr
And then you have many options for the 4th line. I think we could have a good 4th line with the guys listed and you can make room for anyone. Injuries will happen, so guys can move up. Ferland may not stick on the top line and he could always move to the 4th line. Does it matter if a young gun starts the season on the 4th line, press box or in Stockton? Not in my opinion, many things will change.
I say sign Jagr and you have an extra guy who can still produce.
Yeah Lazar could still get bumped but not Stajan. I don't think Stajan gets sent down either. Liked in the locker room and good character, plus again that's not really the role for Poirier, he's a scorer.
Would that 4th line be leaned on to score? I dunno...
Anyway my only point was that the concerns that signing vets bumps possible youngsters that may be better fits as potentially legitimate.
Your talking hypotheticals instead of looking at what has actually happened.
A couple of off seasons ago Raymond was coming off a terrific season and wouldn't be sent down. There wasn't anyway that Russell could be traded, they liked him too much. Glencross wasn't going to be moved in a playoff run. Bollig was a character guy so he wasn't getting demoted. Bouma. Colborne. Grossman. McGrattan. Etc. Etc. Etc. All guys that supposedly would never be moved but were to make way for other players.
There is nothing about this generation of Flames coaching and management to suggest they won't move/bench/demote guys like Versteeg and Stajan to make room for a young guy that is ready to make an impact.
There is zero reason to worry that a veteran could hypothetically take the spot of a kid when that hasn't happened with this coach or GM. In fact the opposite has consistently happened.
Fair enough. But let's say they sign Jagr and then a guy like Poirier comes in and absolutely crushes it at camp.
For some reason, I still think they send down Poirier and keep up Jagr. That's sort of my point is all. Hell, I bet they still keep up Brouwer and send down Poirier.
That shouldn't be on Jagr though. It should be on Brouwer or Lazar who he surpasses. It's not like Jagr is going to be the 12th best forward on the roster, he is a clear upgrade on many of our bottom six forwards.
Your talking hypotheticals instead of looking at what has actually happened.
You're speaking about a hypothetical as well. You have no idea how well Jagr will be fit into the team, adapt to the style of play, or if he even has anything left in the tank at 45 years of age. You're making a massive assumption that he is going to be better than anyone instead of considering the very likelihood that he will not be able to compete. This is why he doesn't have a contract yet, why teams are not tripping allover themselves to sign Jagr. Time catches up with everyone, and teams assume risk by extending contracts to older players. To me, this is a risk management issue more than it is anything else.
Quote:
A couple of off seasons ago Raymond was coming off a terrific season and wouldn't be sent down.
What? Mason Raymond never had a "terrific" season in Calgary. He had a good start out of the gate and became hot garbage by Christmas in his first season. People were demanding him be dumped in the summer of 2015, and were pissed when he made the team and did nothing all of 2015-16, until they sent him down in Februray of 2016. Then the Flames bought him out that summer. So yes, Mason Raymond and his contract was trouble and hindrance to a player getting their chance.
Quote:
There wasn't anyway that Russell could be traded, they liked him too much. Glencross wasn't going to be moved in a playoff run.
Again, what? Russell and Glencross were in trade rumors for quite some time. But the Flames couldn't make an equal roster move until these players were dealt or the roster limit was expanded after the trade deadline. But both of these players are kind of irrelevant to the discussion because they were still players that were contributing, and were moved as a result of expiring contracts, not to make room for other players.
Quote:
Bollig was a character guy so he wasn't getting demoted. Bouma. Colborne. Grossman. McGrattan. Etc. Etc. Etc. All guys that supposedly would never be moved but were to make way for other players.
Bollig is the only player that was demoted out of camp. The only ONE. Bouma was bought out after a horrible season. Colborne was not offered a contract. McGrattan was demoted mid-season, but only because his role in the game had disappeared. None of these guys were demoted to make room for a kid knocking at the door.
Grossman is actually the exact scenario were should be afraid of with Jagr. Grossman was signed because of his veteran presence. He stunk on ice in camp and no one wanted him around. But in the lineup he was, keeping a kid who outplayed him sitting in the pressbox, not getting the opportunity they deserved. And Grossman proved all the naysayers correct but costing the Flames at least two games as a result of his putrid play. He just couldn't keep up, and the error was glaring. But the damage had been done and the team had to terminate the contract before American Thanksgiving.
That is the concern with bringing in old slow guys.
Quote:
There is nothing about this generation of Flames coaching and management to suggest they won't move/bench/demote guys like Versteeg and Stajan to make room for a young guy that is ready to make an impact.
There is zero reason to worry that a veteran could hypothetically take the spot of a kid when that hasn't happened with this coach or GM. In fact the opposite has consistently happened.
Except that there are plenty of examples to show this has happened, and will continue to happen. You just presented many of them, even if you tried to spin them as examples of the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love
That shouldn't be on Jagr though. It should be on Brouwer or Lazar who he surpasses. It's not like Jagr is going to be the 12th best forward on the roster, he is a clear upgrade on many of our bottom six forwards.
And if both Brouwer and Lazar out play Jagr? It is very likely that Jagr is going to the weakest player on the roster, who they are going to have to shelter by playing him with a strong two-way player. Bringing him in to play with Bennett, and saddling Bennett with the defensive responsibilities, would be a huge gamble.
One last point that keeps coming up that is actually being incorrectly used to suggest that vets will get bumped if a young player shows their mettle. Monahan, Bennett, and Tkachuk are very different cases and can't be used as examples of the team forcing a player into the lineup. The Flames hands were very much tied in those situations because of the options they had in playing the player. If they elected to send them down, they were gone for the season and could only play in junior. That is a very different scenario than being able to send a player to the minors and let them play there, recalling them if they desire. These guys were play them, or lose them for the season moves. If anything, this is another example of contract status hurting the guys in the minors, because if other courses of action were possible, it is likely Bennett and Tkachuk would have been sent to the minors and not kept on the NHL roster. Same thing happens around the league, and it is a systemic problem. Players only get the chance to play because of opportunity, and this loophole in the agreement between the CHL and NHL provides opportunities not available to all players.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Grossman is actually the exact scenario were should be afraid of with Jagr. Grossman was signed because of his veteran presence. He stunk on ice in camp and no one wanted him around. But in the lineup he was, keeping a kid who outplayed him sitting in the pressbox, not getting the opportunity they deserved. And Grossman proved all the naysayers correct but costing the Flames at least two games as a result of his putrid play. He just couldn't keep up, and the error was glaring. But the damage had been done and the team had to terminate the contract before American Thanksgiving.
That is the concern with bringing in old slow guys.
And if both Brouwer and Lazar out play Jagr? It is very likely that Jagr is going to the weakest player on the roster, who they are going to have to shelter by playing him with a strong two-way player. Bringing him in to play with Bennett, and saddling Bennett with the defensive responsibilities, would be a huge gamble.
First of all, the bolded won't happen. Jagr is still 3x the player that either Brouwer or Lazar are.
Secondly, did you just equate Nicklas Grossmann to Jaromir Jagr? I know you have some larger points that might be valid, but that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Jagr would turn out just like Grossmann...it's hard to have a conversation with you about this after you pull out a gem like that one.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Glencross was 100% moved to make room for Ferland. I heard Bob Hartley in an interview after the season. Why else do you trade a player in the midst of a playoff run?
Grossman compared to Jagr what a joke?
Jagr scores 46pts last year and he is going to fall completely off a cliff?
The reason he is not signed is likely due to his contract demands which obviously would have softened over the summer. He is also not going to a team like Vegas, Vancouver, or back to NJ as those teams are destined for the lottery.
A big wall of text and an extremely weak arguement. The Flames are going to try and ice the best team. Look at last ear hey left some opportunity on the blueline and the likes of Wotherspoon and Kulak disappointed forcing the poor Grossman move which also didn't work.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vinny01 For This Useful Post:
You're speaking about a hypothetical as well. You have no idea how well Jagr will be fit into the team, adapt to the style of play, or if he even has anything left in the tank at 45 years of age. You're making a massive assumption that he is going to be better than anyone instead of considering the very likelihood that he will not be able to compete. This is why he doesn't have a contract yet, why teams are not tripping allover themselves to sign Jagr. Time catches up with everyone, and teams assume risk by extending contracts to older players. To me, this is a risk management issue more than it is anything else.
What? Mason Raymond never had a "terrific" season in Calgary. He had a good start out of the gate and became hot garbage by Christmas in his first season. People were demanding him be dumped in the summer of 2015, and were pissed when he made the team and did nothing all of 2015-16, until they sent him down in Februray of 2016. Then the Flames bought him out that summer. So yes, Mason Raymond and his contract was trouble and hindrance to a player getting their chance.
Again, what? Russell and Glencross were in trade rumors for quite some time. But the Flames couldn't make an equal roster move until these players were dealt or the roster limit was expanded after the trade deadline. But both of these players are kind of irrelevant to the discussion because they were still players that were contributing, and were moved as a result of expiring contracts, not to make room for other players.
Bollig is the only player that was demoted out of camp. The only ONE. Bouma was bought out after a horrible season. Colborne was not offered a contract. McGrattan was demoted mid-season, but only because his role in the game had disappeared. None of these guys were demoted to make room for a kid knocking at the door.
Grossman is actually the exact scenario were should be afraid of with Jagr. Grossman was signed because of his veteran presence. He stunk on ice in camp and no one wanted him around. But in the lineup he was, keeping a kid who outplayed him sitting in the pressbox, not getting the opportunity they deserved. And Grossman proved all the naysayers correct but costing the Flames at least two games as a result of his putrid play. He just couldn't keep up, and the error was glaring. But the damage had been done and the team had to terminate the contract before American Thanksgiving.
That is the concern with bringing in old slow guys.
Except that there are plenty of examples to show this has happened, and will continue to happen. You just presented many of them, even if you tried to spin them as examples of the opposite.
And if both Brouwer and Lazar out play Jagr? It is very likely that Jagr is going to the weakest player on the roster, who they are going to have to shelter by playing him with a strong two-way player. Bringing him in to play with Bennett, and saddling Bennett with the defensive responsibilities, would be a huge gamble.
One last point that keeps coming up that is actually being incorrectly used to suggest that vets will get bumped if a young player shows their mettle. Monahan, Bennett, and Tkachuk are very different cases and can't be used as examples of the team forcing a player into the lineup. The Flames hands were very much tied in those situations because of the options they had in playing the player. If they elected to send them down, they were gone for the season and could only play in junior. That is a very different scenario than being able to send a player to the minors and let them play there, recalling them if they desire. These guys were play them, or lose them for the season moves. If anything, this is another example of contract status hurting the guys in the minors, because if other courses of action were possible, it is likely Bennett and Tkachuk would have been sent to the minors and not kept on the NHL roster. Same thing happens around the league, and it is a systemic problem. Players only get the chance to play because of opportunity, and this loophole in the agreement between the CHL and NHL provides opportunities not available to all players.
Point missed.
One, I never said that Jagr will be a fit. I said that not signing Jagr because it will block kids is false. If you don't like the players fit that is another argument entirely.
Two, you can micro analyze every transaction if you want, but it's a pointless excercise. The Flames are clearly willing to move veterans when necessary and they have clearly given opportunities to rookie players over Trelivings tenure. Concerns that Jagr will prevent Jankowski, Foo, or any other rookie from making the team because they won't move a Stajan/Versteeg/Brouwer/etc are not justified.
And if both Brouwer and Lazar out play Jagr? It is very likely that Jagr is going to the weakest player on the roster, who they are going to have to shelter by playing him with a strong two-way player. Bringing him in to play with Bennett, and saddling Bennett with the defensive responsibilities, would be a huge gamble.
What evidence do we have that supports this?
And just last season Jagr was possession boosting a youngster named Sasha Barkov who is head as shoulders above a player like Sam Bennett offensively and defensively. He did for Barkov what Versteeg & Brouwer have proven they couldn't do for Bennett. We would be very lucky to have to "saddle" Bennett with Jagr. It would do wonders for his development.
First of all, the bolded won't happen. Jagr is still 3x the player that either Brouwer or Lazar are.
Yet he is without a contract and no concrete indications that one is coming. If Jagr is such a beast, why are your Panthers not all over bringing him back? It's not like the Panthers are loaded with talent. If the Panthers are steering clear of him, that says a lot about what he has left in the tank. If Jagr was 3x any player, he would have teams beating down his door. Fact of the matter is that he is a player that has to play in very specific situations to provide any value to the team. Unfortunately, it is pretty evident that there aren't many in the business that think he has the ability to play in those situations, or a team can invest in a specialist in that regard, and that includes your Panthers.
Quote:
Secondly, did you just equate Nicklas Grossmann to Jaromir Jagr? I know you have some larger points that might be valid, but that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Jagr would turn out just like Grossmann...it's hard to have a conversation with you about this after you pull out a gem like that one.
I equated the situation, not the player. The situation being an old and slow player the Flames tried to shoehorn into the lineup because he brought a certain quality. Unfortunately speed matters and if you can't skate at the level to play the game any more, you shouldn't get a contract. Like it or not, Jagr is a player that struggles to keep up with the pace of the game. His one big strength, puck control along the boards, is useless if he can't get into the zone in a timely manner to use that strength. It was extremely obvious last season that his wheels have started to fail him. I mean if you really want to have a conversation about this you have to look at players objectively and understand what they bring to the table.
I get that the fantasy hockey guys look at possible lineups and point production, but are you really suggesting saddling the Flames weakest two way center with a guy who struggles to keep up with pace of the game? Also, if the team had not already signed Versteeg, I might be more inclined to support Jagr as a PP specialist. But Versteeg is in that role. Bringing in another player with similar limitations in when and where they can contribute seems like a wasted roster spot and contract.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Yet he is without a contract and no concrete indications that one is coming. If Jagr is such a beast, why are your Panthers not all over bringing him back? It's not like the Panthers are loaded with talent. If the Panthers are steering clear of him, that says a lot about what he has left in the tank. If Jagr was 3x any player, he would have teams beating down his door. Fact of the matter is that he is a player that has to play in very specific situations to provide any value to the team. Unfortunately, it is pretty evident that there aren't many in the business that think he has the ability to play in those situations, or a team can invest in a specialist in that regard, and that includes your Panthers.
This is the question the big Jagr backers haven't been able to answer.
Controlling the pace of the game is not equal to "struggling to keep pace with the game".
Jagr slows things down, and is effective because of it.
If you're trying to tell that players who fail to "keep up with the pace of the game" can't play in the NHL then Joe Thornton would have been out of the NHL a half decade ago.
Just looking at the skill set required to play in the NHL these days. If you can't keep up to the pace of the game, there just isn't room for you in the game anymore. The game has become a kamikaze track meet out there, and those with footspeed problems are getting dropped quickly.
Quote:
And just last season Jagr was possession boosting a youngster named Sasha Barkov who is head as shoulders above a player like Sam Bennett offensively and defensively. He did for Barkov what Versteeg & Brouwer have proven they couldn't do for Bennett. We would be very lucky to have to "saddle" Bennett with Jagr. It would do wonders for his development.
So wait, you're saying that Barkov is head and shoulders above Bennett in every facet of the game, but it was Jagr who made Barkov better, not the other way around? I would argue that Barkov did more for Jagr than Jagr did for Barkov. You're suggesting that Bennett, the weaker player offensively and defensively, is going to become a better player having a slower less defensively aware player on his line, because he's Jagr of course? We would be lucky to saddle Bennett with the 2007 version of Jagr. The 2017 version, not so much.
Please review Jagr's goals from last season, just so we can get by the sentimentality of what Jagr once was, and instead focus on what he is today.
This is the question the big Jagr backers haven't been able to answer.
Probably wants too much money? Maybe wants two years? Who knows. The information we do have suggests he would be a useful contributor if he can be signed in the 3's. If not, save the cap.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
From what I see of those goals, Jagr is a terrific net-front presence. It seems incredibly difficult to knock him off the puck. In theory, that should be Brouwer's role, but Chiasson was thrust into it a lot last year as Brouwer struggled. Big bodies for the front of the net are incredibly useful on the powerplay, and you can never have enough of them.
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
