Matthew Tkachuk and the 9 games - Page 3 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Erick Estrada · 10-29-2016, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edslunch

Treliving preaches taking time with prospects. While Tkachuk hasn't looked totally out of place he hasn't made the case that he's ready either. I think he goes back.

You look at the issue with the Oilers in burning the first year of Draisaitl's contract and the bind it's going to put them in this summer and seeing the Flames are already up against the cap I simply don't see a good reason to keep him on the team. He's been fine but lets not forget he's only got one OHL season under his belt and could probably benefit from playing top line minutes in junior one more year rather than bottom six minutes with the Flames. I don't think Poirier, Shinkaruk, or even Klimchuk would be a drop off from what Tkachuk is going to do this season so I would rather the Flames give some opportunity to players in the system that they need to evaluate before they are waiver eligible.

sureLoss · 10-29-2016, 09:43 AM

Treliving has said he is more worried about the 40 game mark than the 10 game mark.

While 10 games burns his first year of ELC, 40 games will count as a year towards UFA.

Justin · 10-29-2016, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devo22

I'm really curious as to what the decision is going to be. I think Tkachuk is one of the players where the NHL/AHL/juniors agreement really hurts - the AHL would probably be the best league for him right now.

My thoughts exactly. It's too bad he can't play in the AHL. It isn't that his skill level isn't there for the NHL, I'd just like to have him playing top minutes as oppose to 10-13 a night. He has nothing left to prove in Junior. It's a shame he can't play AHL.

N-E-B · 10-29-2016, 09:44 AM

Keep him. At the very least he gets under the other teams skin. We need more of that, not less.

kyuss275 · 10-29-2016, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Treliving has said he is more worried about the 40 game mark than the 10 game mark.

While 10 games burns his first year of ELC, 40 games will count as a year towards UFA.

That's the way i see it also.

I wonder if the plan is to keep Tkachuk up and then lend him to the world jr squad? I see him getting a better learning experience from that then going to Jr's right now.

Erick Estrada · 10-29-2016, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Treliving has said he is more worried about the 40 game mark than the 10 game mark.

While 10 games burns his first year of ELC, 40 games will count as a year towards UFA.

I think he learned a valuable lesson this season with Gaudreau and Monahan. I fully expect him to be sent down after he plays 10 games. It's the smart thing to do.

wwkayaker · 10-29-2016, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I wish it were possible for an NHL team to pay the junior team to relinquish their rights so Tkachuk could go to the AHL instead.

He wouldn't go to Stockton? Is that due to his age and means he would go back to his junior club?

PepsiFree · 10-29-2016, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I fully expect him to be sent down after he plays 10 games. It's the smart thing to do.

It's actually a bit short-sighted and stupid.

Erick Estrada · 10-29-2016, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwkayaker

He wouldn't go to Stockton? Is that due to his age and means he would go back to his junior club?

A very good junior club where he could take on more of a leadership role. It certainly doesn't look like it hurt Marner playing another year in London.

sureLoss · 10-29-2016, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwkayaker

He wouldn't go to Stockton? Is that due to his age and means he would go back to his junior club?

The NHL and the CHL have an agreement that any prospect drafted from one of the CHL leagues cannot be assigned to the AHL/ECHL unless:

They have already played 4 seasons in the CHL or they are 20 years old or older as of Dec 31 of that year or the team that holds their CHL rights season is over.

Erick Estrada · 10-29-2016, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's actually a bit short-sighted and stupid.

Like your post? Show me a player that's ever had his career sidetracked from going back down to junior. Treliving actually in his own words said just that last year which tells me he realizes this.

frodo_t_baggins · 10-29-2016, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caged Great

having watched Stockton, keep Tkachuk in the NHL at least for a while.

The only viable replacement for him is Jankowski and the Flames are not likely wanting to move him to the wing in the NHL.

Klimchuk has 8 points in 4 games, leads the A in +/-, plays the same position and looked decent in camp. Would he not be worth a look?

Erick Estrada · 10-29-2016, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frodo_t_baggins

Klimchuk has 8 points in 4 games, leads the A in +/-, plays the same position and looked decent in camp. Would he not be worth a look?

He's been on fire no doubt but my opinion is that you let him ride this hot play out for as long as possible in the AHL and if by late November he's still tearing it up then you reward him. He's kind of struggled in the pros due to injuries and other factors so I would hate to see his sold play this season get interrupted to maybe get lost in the shuffle on the Flames to where his confidence level drops. Shinkaruk has some NHL experience and I would probably call him up first as he's already proven he can put up points in the AHL.

darthma · 10-29-2016, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I think he learned a valuable lesson this season with Gaudreau and Monahan. I fully expect him to be sent down after he plays 10 games. It's the smart thing to do.

Well playing 10 games doesn't help anyone...

Virtanen stayed with the big club when he was drafted in Vancouver. And his game has stalled. He's been floating between the 4th through 2nd line, complaining about ice time, and just overall not doing much. Virtanen should be sent to the AHL, and he's in his 3rd? 2nd? pro season.

Tkachuk I think needs to play more big minutes. I think AHL. Also, we are still in 'Rebuild' mode. Our cupboards are not that full with prospects, so we need to groom the good talent that we have.

kyuss275 · 10-29-2016, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I think he learned a valuable lesson this season with Gaudreau and Monahan. I fully expect him to be sent down after he plays 10 games. It's the smart thing to do.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in this post? Are you saying that money and contracts should be the reason to send him down?

If so then i don't agree. Money should not enter the equation when deciding what to do with Tkachuk. Its whats best for his development that matters. The flames like every NHL club will always have cap issues, players being paid to much for what they provide, ect. If it was about money then what happends if they bring up a prospect and he goes "lights out"? Do they send him back because he is playing to well and its going to cost them money later? I don't think so.

Erick Estrada · 10-29-2016, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darthma

Well playing 10 games doesn't help anyone...

Virtanen stayed with the big club when he was drafted in Vancouver. And his game has stalled. He's been floating between the 4th through 2nd line, complaining about ice time, and just overall not doing much. Virtanen should be sent to the AHL, and he's in his 3rd? 2nd? pro season.

Tkachuk I think needs to play more big minutes. I think AHL. Also, we are still in 'Rebuild' mode. Our cupboards are not that full with prospects, so we need to groom the good talent that we have.

The AHL is a non-starter. If he doesn't play for the Flames he has to go back to London but I agree he needs to play more minutes. As well there's some immaturity in his game right now and maybe assuming some of the leadership void from Marner and Dvorak moving on will also be a positive.

Erick Estrada · 10-29-2016, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in this post? Are you saying that money and contracts should be the reason to send him down?

If so then i don't agree. Money should not enter the equation when deciding what to do with Tkachuk. Its whats best for his development that matters. The flames like every NHL club will always have cap issues, players being paid to much for what they provide, ect. If it was about money then what happends if they bring up a prospect and he goes "lights out"? Do they send him back because he is playing to well and its going to cost them money later? I don't think so.

Money always has to enter the equation in a salary cap world. Decisions like this will alter the possibility of keeping guys like Backlund around longer. He's been okay but it's not like removing him from the team is going to alter the success of the team one way or another as he's not a driver for the success of the team in any way. If his best asset right now is his ability to be a pest then it's pretty clear he needs to go back to junior and play top line minutes.

kyuss275 · 10-29-2016, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Money always has to enter the equation in a salary cap world. Decisions like this will alter the possibility of keeping guys like Backlund around longer. He's been okay but it's not like removing him from the team is going to alter the success of the team one way or another as he's not a driver for the success of the team in any way. If his best asset right now is his ability to be a pest then it's pretty clear he needs to go back to junior and play top line minutes.

Don't see it that way. One more year of Tkachuk on an ELC will not matter for Backlund's next contract, unless Backlund is signing one year deals. Backlund is going to get a 5 year deal wherever he ends up. As i stated in other post if another prospect lights it up and then gets more money on next contract, would they have sent him back to save money?

PepsiFree · 10-29-2016, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Like your post? Show me a player that's ever had his career sidetracked from going back down to junior. Treliving actually in his own words said just that last year which tells me he realizes this.

Show me a player that's ever had a better development curve because he got sent down.

...right, you can't, because there is no constant to measure against. There's just fact. Learning against better competition improves the learning curve. If you're playing in a lower league, you'll top out. Tkachuk may have learned everything he can in junior, he definitely hasn't in the NHL. They're different styles of game. Which logically sounds like a better option to learn to play in the NHL?

Insulting posts isn't going to convince anyone of anything. Let's stick to talking about the situation, ok?

Erick Estrada · 10-29-2016, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Don't see it that way. One more year of Tkachuk on an ELC will not matter for Backlund's next contract, unless Backlund is signing one year deals. Backlund is going to get a 5 year deal wherever he ends up. As i stated in other post if another prospect lights it up and then gets more money on next contract, would they have sent him back to save money?

I'm looking at things from a GM perspective as for Backlund to sign say another 3 year deal Treliving has to look at ability to fit him in each year over that three year period. Moving Tkachuk's ELC expiry one year back could be the difference depending on the expiring deals in that year of other players.

In regards to an AHL prospect coming in and lighting things up that's a good thing as sure he will get a raise but now you have more options as you can trade that player for better assets than you can with him buried in the AHL or maybe you move another roster player to keep him and his raise. It's never, ever a bad thing to have your developed players succeed int he NHL but that's not going to happen without opportunity.