2020/2021 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[TheIronMaiden]

Monahan is the superior player.
Monahan is clutch - measurably more clutch.


Playoffs:

Monahan
31gp 11g 11a 0.7ppg

Laine
24gp 8g 8a 0.666

Likewise, Monahan as over twice as many Game Winning Goals ( the 4th most in the history of the Flames)

All this aside, Monahan plays the more important position, and quite well. He has a 52.6 FO% . He logs big minutes against the top lines in the NHL.

2019/20
Monahan had 43 takeaways and 36 giveaways
Laine had 29 takeaways and 51 giveaways


Now, lets talk about the business side of things

Laine is on the last year of his contract that makes 6.75M a year

Monahan has two years left after this year and has a cap hit of $400,000 less.

Laine is truly a on dimensional player. He is damn good at that dimension, but in no world is he a replacement for Monahan.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Monahan is the superior player.
Monahan is clutch - measurably more clutch.


Playoffs:

Monahan
31gp 11g 11a 0.7ppg

Laine
24gp 8g 8a 0.666

Likewise, Monahan as over twice as many Game Winning Goals ( the 4th most in the history of the Flames)

All this aside, Monahan plays the more important position, and quite well. He has a 52.6 FO% . He logs big minutes against the top lines in the NHL.

2019/20
Monahan had 43 takeaways and 36 giveaways
Laine had 29 takeaways and 51 giveaways


Now, lets talk about the business side of things

Laine is on the last year of his contract that makes 6.75M a year

Monahan has two years left after this year and has a cap hit of $400,000 less.

Laine is truly a on dimensional player. He is damn good at that dimension, but in no world is he a replacement for Monahan.

This post has changed my mind, I was wrong and shouldn't just value Laine's glitzy goal scoring. Monahan >= Laine, Hanifin > Roslovic, so I wouldnt do the trade.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I personally expect to be pleasantly surprised by Monahan’s two way play this year. I think things will finally click for him, both physically and positionally. Especially if you get him on a line without Gaudreau. Of course, I could be out to lunch. That said, I still think Monahan is a lot more versatile than Laine, both in terms of his play and in terms of his contract going forward.

I definitely agree that Monahan has more dimensions to his game but Laine's one dimension is pretty ridiculous. Like if you played Laine with Johnny and on PP1, he would likely score an absurd number of goals.

[TheIronMaiden]

I know this is off-season for the fun of it talk.

Still, the Flames are not in a comfortable position down the middle.

Monahan is far and away the best Centre on the team.

Then Lindholm - who can do the Job, but is basically the only top 6 right shot the team has.

After that you have an aging Backlund. As good as he has been, he is not getting any better. Really some one needs to push him down the lineup so he is in a position to succeed.

After that it is real trouble.

Bennett - relatively unproven at the position/ in general.

Ryan - Capable of bottom 6 play only (lets hope he can still do that at 34).

Bottom line, this is the position the Flames need to acquire, not trade away.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

I definitely agree that Monahan has more dimensions to his game but Laine's one dimension is pretty ridiculous. Like if you played Laine with Johnny and on PP1, he would likely score an absurd number of goals.

People say stuff like this all the time, and it almost never pans out like we would imagine.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I know this is off-season for the fun of it talk.

Still, the Flames are not in a comfortable position down the middle.

Monahan is far and away the best Centre on the team.

Then Lindholm - who can do the Job, but is basically the only top 6 right shot the team has.

After that you have an aging Backlund. As good as he has been, he is not getting any better. Really some one needs to push him down the lineup so he is in a position to succeed.

It is not like Backlund is getting any worse, either. Last year was probably the best season of his entire career.

Bottom line, this is the position the Flames need to acquire, not trade away.

I tend to agree, but I also think that they still have a little time before this becomes an imminent problem.

[gilligans_off]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

People say stuff like this all the time, and it almost never pans out like we would imagine.

Some thought James Neal would pot 40 here too lol

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is not like Backlund is getting any worse, either. Last year was probably the best season of his entire career.

[/I]
I tend to agree, but I also think that they still have a little time before this becomes an imminent problem.

My philosophy on Veteran players ( or any player for that matter), is to put them in positions where they can succeed. A player like Frolik for example is a fine bottom 6 role player - his faults only showed when he was in the top 6.

Backlund's time is coming sooner rather than later, and that's fine, not a slander to who he has been. That said, he will be a much more valuable player to the team in the right role. I don't think the Flames should gamble on keeping him in a 2nd line Center role longer than he can excel. It is as much about protecting the player, as it is about making the team the best it can be. If Backlund is pushed down to the third line it is best case scenario. If he is kept there because there are not better options, then it is trouble. There is some middle ground there of course - Backlund keeps the spot cause he deserves it ect... but you get the point.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by gilligans_off

Some thought James Neal would pot 40 here too lol

I mean, most thought it was a bullet proof 20 goals we were gonna get. We didn't even get half that. Or a third or that.

Hell, majority of humans following the sport of hockey figured the automatic 20 goals Neal was good for was going to happen. Kind 9f tough to mock anybody who thought otherwise.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

My philosophy on Veteran players ( or any player for that matter), is to put them in positions where they can succeed. A player like Frolik for example is a fine bottom 6 role player - his faults only showed when he was in the top 6.

I agree. Which is why I have no problem with playing a really solid top-six centre like Michael Backlund in a top-six role.

Backlund's time is coming sooner rather than later, and that's fine, not a slander to who he has been.

Sure, but "sooner" could be in one year or it could be in three. As of today, Michael Backlund is an excellent option to centre the second line.

That said, he will be a much more valuable player to the team in the right role. I don't think the Flames should gamble on keeping him in a 2nd line Center role longer than he can excel.

I totally agree, but I have yet to see any indication that Backlund is done excelling in his current role.

It is as much about protecting the player, as it is about making the team the best it can be. If Backlund is pushed down to the third line it is best case scenario.

This most certainly would be ideal, but it is not happening until the Flames have a better player than Backlund on their roster playing the position. As of today, they do not—not necessarily because they are weak at the position, but also because to the best of our knowledge Backlund is still a very good second line centre.

If he is kept there because there are not better options, then it is trouble. There is some middle ground there of course - Backlund keeps the spot cause he deserves it ect... but you get the point.

Yes, I do. Which is why I continue to maintain that this is not a pressing issue. As of today, Backlund is still a very good second line centre. The day will come when he can no longer do the job, but we are not there yet.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I mean, most thought it was a bullet proof 20 goals we were gonna get. We didn't even get half that. Or a third or that.

Hell, majority of humans following the sport of hockey figured the automatic 20 goals Neal was good for was going to happen. Kind 9f tough to mock anybody who thought otherwise.

But that is not what is happening, and it is also not really the point. The point is that player movements like the one suggested above seldom work out the way most of us hope.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This most certainly would be ideal, but it is not happening until the Flames have a better player than Backlund on their roster playing the position. As of today, they do not—not necessarily because they are weak at the position, but also because to the best of our knowledge Backlund is still a very good second line centre.

If I were the GM of the Flames this would be a principle concern. If ( and it is an if) Backlund declines this year the Flames are in a really tricky spot. It is not wise asset management to count on an aging player beating the odds. I know we've debated this a time or two before, and I don't wanna come off as a Backlund hater, I just think it is prudent for a GM to always look a year or two ahead.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

If I were the GM of the Flames this would be a principle concern. If ( and it is an if) Backlund declines this year the Flames are in a really tricky spot. It is not wise asset management to count on an aging player beating the odds. I know we've debated this a time or two before, and I don't wanna come off as a Backlund hater, I just think it is prudent for a GM to always look a year or two ahead.

Generally I agree, but the flames basically have a two year window to win now. Backlund needs to be a big part of that. And he’ll likely start falling off after that anyways.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Monahan is the superior player.
Monahan is clutch - measurably more clutch.


Likewise, Monahan as over twice as many Game Winning Goals ( the 4th most in the history of the Flames)

I'n not a big fan of Laine for sure, I like Monny quite abit more, so no argument from me on that.

But game winning goals is a hugely flawed stat. I don't believe it's even an official stat.

In a 7-3 game, the GWG is the 4th goal. Even if it gave you a 4-0 lead, and the 3rd goal for the other team was scored late in the game, changing the GWG for no real reason.

In my view the GWG should be the goal the put a team into the lead they never gave up. So, in my example, assuming the Flames never lost he lead (including a tie) after scoring the first goal, that first goal stands up as the GWG. That goal is certainly more important than that 4th goal. We've evens eem empty netters as game winners when the other team pots a late goal to bring them within 1.

GWG is not an official stat because any way you want to define it, it's flawed.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by heep223

Generally I agree, but the flames basically have a two year window to win now. Backlund needs to be a big part of that. And he’ll likely start falling off after that anyways.

I don't think we should trade the guy, I am arguing that if the Flames make a trade, the only center involved should be one in return (unless Ryan is on the move, one can dream). My reasoning for this is calling into question how much longer Backlund will be a legit 2nd C option.


Mangiapane and Kyllinton are two names that come to mind if the Flames want to improve their position at center. However, it would have to make sense, and it likely wouldn't because the Cap is ####ed league wide ( including for the Flames), and trading during covid seems like a big mess with test ect...

So yeah, this year the Flames roster will look a lot like it does now. Which is probably fine. Next year however, things might be ugly if a better center doesn't come into play.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I'n not a big fan of Laine for sure, I like Monny quite abit more, so no argument from me on that.

But game winning goals is a hugely flawed stat. I don't believe it's even an official stat.

In a 7-3 game, the GWG is the 4th goal. Even if it gave you a 4-0 lead, and the 3rd goal for the other team was scored late in the game, changing the GWG for no real reason.

In my view the GWG should be the goal the put a team into the lead they never gave up. So, in my example, assuming the Flames never lost he lead (including a tie) after scoring the first goal, that first goal stands up as the GWG. That goal is certainly more important than that 4th goal. We've evens eem empty netters as game winners when the other team pots a late goal to bring them within 1.

GWG is not an official stat because any way you want to define it, it's flawed.

Really good point it is a flawed stat, but no more flawed than +/-.

That said, GWG is an official stat, and it is not as irrelevant as you are asserting. the NHlL 2019 press release had this to say

70 - Percentage of games decided by one goal or multiple goals with at least one ENG (222 GP), the second-highest such percentage in League history (72% in 2015-16 and 2018-19).

With that in mind, it does indicate some level of "clutchness" if you want to call it that. But maybe clutch is not what GWG proves and I was wrong. Scoring goals after having a lead shows killer instinct. The fact the Flames were did not have that lead to them blowing multiple 3 goal leads in the playoffs. The Flames need more players who pile on goals in blowouts not less.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Really good point it is a flawed stat, but no more flawed than +/-.

That said, GWG is an official stat, and it is not as irrelevant as you are asserting. the NHlL 2019 press release had this to say



With that in mind, it does indicate some level of "clutchness" if you want to call it that. But maybe clutch is not what GWG proves and I was wrong. Scoring goals after having a lead shows killer instinct. The fact the Flames were did not have that lead to them blowing multiple 3 goal leads in the playoffs. The Flames need more players who pile on goals in blowouts not less.

So scoring goals with a big lead is clutch, as is presumably any goal in a close game. How about scoring a goal when 3 behind to get your team back into the game.

Ovie is the best clutch player in the game, because ever goal he scored falls into those categories.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Monahan is the superior player.
Monahan is clutch - measurably more clutch.


Playoffs:

Monahan
31gp 11g 11a 0.7ppg

Laine
24gp 8g 8a 0.666

Likewise, Monahan as over twice as many Game Winning Goals ( the 4th most in the history of the Flames)

All this aside, Monahan plays the more important position, and quite well. He has a 52.6 FO% . He logs big minutes against the top lines in the NHL.

2019/20
Monahan had 43 takeaways and 36 giveaways
Laine had 29 takeaways and 51 giveaways


Now, lets talk about the business side of things

Laine is on the last year of his contract that makes 6.75M a year

Monahan has two years left after this year and has a cap hit of $400,000 less.

Laine is truly a on dimensional player. He is damn good at that dimension, but in no world is he a replacement for Monahan.

Laine is a 23 year old RFA when is contract expires, Monahan is an 28 year old UFA when his contract expires.
This is huge. Control and age account for a lot.

However, I agree with the conclusion. Laine is not a replacement for Monahan.

[Sandman]

Laine is just a guy who seems to have things he'd rather be doing than give 110% of himself to help his team win. It's still early in his career, but he may never be the player he was projected to be.

[sureLoss]

PLD wants a change of scenery?

Pierre LeBrun @PierreVLeBrun
Pierre-Luc Dubois is not in Columbus as camp approaches and remains unsigned. And now there are rumblings from a few teams around the league that Dubois may be looking for a change of scenery. Maybe wishful thinking on their part. But stay tuned on this one.