Sean FRICKIN Monahan - Page 29 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

FlameZilla · 10-20-2013, 07:38 AM

On pace to score 58 goals if he plays 82 games. No way he can keep up that pace, but still... How can you send a player like that to junior?

sureLoss · 10-20-2013, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frequitude

6' 2", 185lb. He can handle the NHL physically. 82 games however is a concern.

Keep him up, send him to the WJC, and put him in the press box with Conroy from time to time to both manage the grind and learn the game.

He is close to 200lbs now. Not sure why people/articles/media still mention that he is around 185.

T@T · 10-20-2013, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

He is close to 200lbs now. Not sure why people/articles/media still mention that he is around 185.

"And, good news, the 18-year-old took his summer seriously in other ways to help his cause. Working on his leg strength and core after he left Calgary, he packed on 11 pounds of muscle to help his efforts in the faceoff circle (which means he weighed in on Wednesday at an even 200)."
http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/...809/story.html

Kaine · 10-20-2013, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerio

Jones is playing over 25 mins a night, Monahan is playing 15 with a lot of injuries. Apples to oranges.

Comparing the times on ice is far more pointless than you seem to believe. Defense often play far more minutes than forwards.

StrykerSteve · 10-20-2013, 08:24 AM

He's gone on record as stating he is now 6'2 200.

zoom · 10-20-2013, 08:38 AM

Monahan has earned the right to stay up individually, but the decision will be based on the 3-5 plan that Feaster and Burke have. When do they foresee the 'window' (to contending) opening and do they want to have an extra year of Monahan's eligibility on his first contract.

If the Flames are sellers this year (and i think they should be), they could be worse next year than this year (depending on FA pickups and what they get in return). If they continue the rebuild and go for younger players (not NHL ready or rookies) then you have Monahan burning two years with the 'window' firmly shut.

GGG · 10-20-2013, 08:39 AM

This game solidified the keep him argument for me. He went against San Jose's top 3 centers and didn't look out of place defensively. He was able to handle their size. He may have lost match ups but going up against these types of players is what will make him better, Not hot dogging it around the OHL where he will be one of the bigger players.

N-E-B · 10-20-2013, 08:56 AM

I think burning a year on his ELC is having way too much importance placed on it. It's not really the end of the world if they have to sign him a year earlier. Keep the kid up. I would much rather watch a losing Flames team with Monahan than without.

Vinny01 · 10-20-2013, 09:01 AM

Like others have said keeping him up is also key to the development of Sven. Keeping those kids together is a good thing they could become our dynamic duo pretty quick and are already developing some chemistry together. I am still comfortable with either decision the Flames make but I find it hard to justify sending him down without blatantly saying the team is going no where this year and they don't want to burn a year off his deal. The flames would never say that

EVERLAST · 10-20-2013, 09:08 AM

its been a long time since the days of Gary Roberts and Joe Niewendyk and I feel like I am getting a glimpse again of watching the old line of

Roberts - Neiwendyk and Loob when I watch

Sven - Monohan - Hudler

I wish there was another player on the team that could develop chemistry with da boys.

Maybe Cammy???

Hope hes back soon and can maybe get a few looks on that line as Cammy is a little more tenacious than Hudler ...not taking anything away from George (Hudler) at all because hes so awesome

Robbob · 10-20-2013, 09:08 AM

even Healy is putting forward rational case for why he should stay. I hate it when I agree with him.

devo22 · 10-20-2013, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

its been a long time since the days of Gary Roberts and Joe Niewendyk and I feel like I am getting a glimpse again of watching the old line of

Roberts - Neiwendyk and Loob when I watch

Sven - Monohan - Hudler

I wish there was another player on the team that could develop chemistry with da boys

I thought Stempniak was doing fine in the first games. Really like Hudler on this line though.

My guess is we'll regularly see a Sven - Monahan - Poirier line in a couple years

albertGQ · 10-20-2013, 09:23 AM

How did he do in the dot last night?

devo22 · 10-20-2013, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albertGQ

How did he do in the dot last night?

vs Pavelski: 1 for 3
vs Desjardins: 2 for 2
vs Thornton: 2 for 6
vs Couture: 1 for 1
vs Burns: 0 for 1

total 6 for 13 - 46 percent

Redrum · 10-20-2013, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbob

even Healy is putting forward rational case for why he should stay. I hate it when I agree with him.

Dammit, now we know we have to send him down.

strombad · 10-20-2013, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devo22

vs Pavelski: 1 for 3
vs Desjardins: 2 for 2
vs Thornton: 2 for 6
vs Couture: 1 for 1
vs Burns: 0 for 1

total 6 for 13 - 46 percent

46% is pretty darn good for a rookie who hasn't even cracked 10 games yet against one of the best teams in the league. It shows he is steadily improving.

Table 5 · 10-20-2013, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOOM

Honestly, who cares about Monahan's contract?

The Flames have tons of cap to spend and can hopefully spend that on awesome young players.

I hate this type of short-term thinking. Yes, we have a ton of cap room...at the moment. But in a few years, that might not be the case, and that extra few million a season might be the difference in keeping existing players or acquiring other talent. If a lot of these young guys (Sven, Gaudreau, Poirier, Klimchuk, Jankoswski, Gillies etc. as well as more mature guys like Brodie) pan out, they'll all be wanting some serious money. At some point money will be tight again...it's best to guard against that as much as possible.

Sutter gave out NTC's like it was candy because there was the ability to do so... then a few years later, we were stuck with a bunch of players we just couldn't move and it set us back a few years. Let's not make the same mistake by being careless with contracts when we have a lot of space.

There are many reasons to keep up Sean Monahan...but a "who cares, we have a ton of cap space" argument should not be one of them.

indes · 10-20-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

I hate this type of short-term thinking. Yes, we have a ton of cap room...at the moment. But in a few years, that might not be the case, and that extra few million a season might be the difference in keeping existing players or acquiring other talent. If a lot of these young guys (Sven, Gaudreau, Poirier, Klimchuk, Jankoswski, Gillies etc. as well as more mature guys like Brodie) pan out, they'll all be wanting some serious money. At some point money will be tight again...it's best to guard against that as much as possible.

Sutter gave out NTC's like it was candy because there was the ability to do so... then a few years later, we were stuck with a bunch of players we just couldn't move and it set us back a few years. Let's not make the same mistake by being careless with contracts when we have a lot of space.

There are many reasons to keep up Sean Monahan...but a "who cares, we have a ton of cap space" argument should not be one of them.

On the flip side of that sending him down because we might have to pay him more 1 year earlier is just as ridiculous. Nothing to do with his contract status should have any impact on sending him down or keeping him up. It ends up being a pretty ridiculous argument either way.

If the Flames think that saving a year on Monahan's ELC is more important to them winning a cup in the future than properly developing him, we don't have to worry about all those players being worth lots because they won't develop properly.

GGG · 10-20-2013, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strombad

46% is pretty darn good for a rookie who hasn't even cracked 10 games yet against one of the best teams in the league. It shows he is steadily improving.

And against a pretty good faceoff team with Pavelski and Thorton always being over 55% faceoff guys.

Oling_Roachinen · 10-20-2013, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

I hate this type of short-term thinking. Yes, we have a ton of cap room...at the moment. But in a few years, that might not be the case, and that extra few million a season might be the difference in keeping existing players or acquiring other talent. If a lot of these young guys (Sven, Gaudreau, Poirier, Klimchuk, Jankoswski, Gillies etc. as well as more mature guys like Brodie) pan out, they'll all be wanting some serious money. At some point money will be tight again...it's best to guard against that as much as possible.

Sutter gave out NTC's like it was candy because there was the ability to do so... then a few years later, we were stuck with a bunch of players we just couldn't move and it set us back a few years. Let's not make the same mistake by being careless with contracts when we have a lot of space.

There are many reasons to keep up Sean Monahan...but a "who cares, we have a ton of cap space" argument should not be one of them.

Not the best way to inspire loyalty in the young players by costing them a million dollars when they'll have to go back to juniors and earn their $200 a week. If a player isn't ready, or would be better off developing in juniors, it's one thing. If you're sending him back because you don't want to pay him essentially, you wont have to worry in a couple years when he's bolting as a UFA anyways.