Get Chiasson OFF the Gaudreau line!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

I really don't know, I wouldn't waste much time speculating or being upset one poster mentioned Bouma.

I was merely pointing out that you seem against the idea to begin with (which is fine) and then seemed to write it off as being impossible because of the salary... which just isn't the case. There are many ways it could be logistically possible.

I also think it's quite possible a change of scenery could see him boosted substantially. We know he still has the shot, and as has already been pointed out, Colorado is so terrible and demoralizing their entire team (young stars included) have their stats suffering.


In my opinion he's a better stop-gap RW option than playing Chiasson over his head, and worth a shot if the acquisition cost is low.

I didn't say impossible. I said he cost too much. I'm not against moving Bouma, I'm all for it actually.

Sure there are ways it's possible. Let's trade Gio for Iggy. Hey, lots of cap space now!

Frankly I think he'd be no better than Chaisson offensively and way worse in his own end. The man is 39. Lanny's last season he was 36.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I didn't say impossible. I said he cost too much. I'm not against moving Bouma, I'm all for it actually.

Sure there are ways it's possible. Let's trade Gio for Iggy. Hey, lots of cap space now!

Frankly I think he'd be no better than Chaisson offensively and way worse in his own end. The man is 39. Lanny's last season he was 36.

In fairness Iggy looks and appears to be 15 years younger than Lanny if you compare photos of Iggy now to a 36 year old Lanny

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

So, just two years after this one.

I'd be fine with that. Cammalleri's five years younger and is a far better producer.

Hold up.

So a guy who is scoring at 0.250 GPG and .575 PPG playing LW on the second line, age 34, signed for 2 more years after this one at 5 million per is desirable...

but a guy who is scoring at 0.200 GPG and .450PPG playing RW on the fourth line, age 35, UFA at the end of the season is "too old, plays the wrong position, not producing, overpaid"

That doesn't make much sense to me. Where do you see the distinction? Especially considering the acquisition cost of a rental vs a guy we owe another 10 million to after this year.

[EVERLAST]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I'm of the opinion that Johnny needs to learn to work through and return some of the slashes, hacks and hits if he wants to remain being an impactful part of any team. The best way to do that is to play him with guys like Chiasson, Hathaway, Stajan. Attitude is sometimes a reflection of surroundings...
I loved seeing him crosschecking Smith the other night, he needs to do more of that. Plus, he can make ok players look good (e.g. Jooris). spreads out the skill.

We've had several players learn not to put up with slashes that were smaller

Hakan Loob
Joey Mullen
Theo
Jiri Hrdina
Cammalleri
Hustler
Byron

I don't always remember guys coming to theyre aid either ....agreed something needs to happen though.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I didn't say impossible. I said he cost too much.

You said:

"Even pro-rated, Iggy costs too much. And not just from a philosophical point of view, from a "can't fit him under the cap" point of view."


I pointed out that isn't the case, because Colorado can take on salary depending on what the trade is.

Again, while I disagree with your assessment we'd be no better off than with Chiasson, it's a fair opinion.

Trying to suggest it isn't possible because you feel that way is not. That part about "can't fit him under the cap" wasn't needed.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

You said:

"Even pro-rated, Iggy costs too much. And not just from a philosophical point of view, from a "can't fit him under the cap" point of view."


I pointed out that isn't the case, because Colorado can take on salary depending on what the trade is.

Again, while I disagree with your assessment we'd be no better off than with Chiasson, it's a fair opinion.

Trying to suggest it isn't possible because you feel that way is not. That part about "can't fit him under the cap" wasn't needed.

To repeat myself, it's not impossible, it's possible in farfetched scenarios. But it makes no sense financially. Bouma is the only meaningful salary that the Flames can give up (because they can fill that role). The money is way better spent elsewhere.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

To repeat myself, it's not impossible, it's possible in farfetched scenarios. But it makes no sense financially. Bouma is the only meaningful salary that the Flames can give up (because they can fill that role). The money is way better spent elsewhere.

It definitely depends on what the trade is, but for a 3rd time, "can't fit him under the cap" was outright false.

There are a lot of options at the end of the year as salaries become pro-rated and teams like Colorado look to sell off.

With him being a UFA the money could easily work out under a number of different scenarios regardless of you being inclined to suggest otherwise because you want to spin it as a bad idea.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

It definitely depends on what the trade is, but for a 3rd time, "can't fit him under the cap" was outright false.

There are a lot of options at the end of the year as salaries become pro-rated and teams like Colorado look to sell off.

With him being a UFA the money could easily work out under a number of different scenarios regardless of you being inclined to suggest otherwise because you want to spin it as a bad idea.

Jeebus. "Can't fit him under the cap" was meant to be "in a realistic scenario". But since you want to right, at least semantically, yes, they can fit him under the cap IF they accept salary either equal to his or they retain and take on lesser (but still significant salary).

Look at it this way - let's say the Avs are convinced for some weird reason to retain 50% of Iggy's $5.33M That's $2.6M taken on by the Flames. The only piece going to the AVs can be a forward. Lots of people would love Wideman to go, and his salary would almost cover Iggy's but then we are short a defenceman, and with all due respect, Spoon/Kulak aren't taking second pairing minutes any time soon. So what forward can we divest for $2.6M? Bouma is $2.2. With LTIR this would work. But why? All we are doing is moving sideways, and so are they. So now they want picks or prospects to go with Bouma. Who do you want to send from the farm?

It just doesn't make sense.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Jeebus. "Can't fit him under the cap" was meant to be "in a realistic scenario".

That's the entire problem. You're taking it upon yourself to decide what does and doesn't make sense like it's gospel.

You don't like the idea, so you immediately tried to present it as not possible / extremely unlikely.

There are any number of different ways the salary could fit. Maybe someone else is moved in a different trade. Who knows who Colorado may or may not have interest it.

All I'm saying is it would be a lot more simple and conducive to discussion if you just stuck to saying you don't think it's a good idea rather than try and slant things to not being possible / likely because the idea rubs you the wrong way to begin with.

Either way, this isn't going anywhere. I'll leave it at disagreeing with your take and saying one last time I think it's a lot more do-able than you're trying to suggest.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Even pro-rated, Iggy costs too much. And not just from a philosophical point of view, from a "can't fit him under the cap" point of view. And can he still snipe on a regular basis? He had a great shot against the Flames, but not in motion, and from the middle of the high slot, not from his RW position.

Just confirming the numbers again:

The Flames would need $1,204,301 (pro-rated from $5,333,333) of cap space at the day of the deadline if they wanted to fit Iginla in under the cap. Factoring in that Smid's LTIR relief would also be pro-rated and cannot cover the full difference, we'd need to move someone with an total AAV of ~ 2 million.

However, salary retention is certainly a possibility - Iginla's actual dollars paid this year is 500k lower than his first two years, and he's an expiring contract, which may make owners more agreeable in eating a portion of the remaining few months to make it moveable.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Just confirming the numbers again:

The Flames would need $1,204,301 (pro-rated from $5,333,333) of cap space at the day of the deadline if they wanted to fit Iginla in under the cap. Factoring in that Smid's LTIR relief would also be pro-rated and cannot cover the full difference, we'd need to move someone with an total AAV of ~ 2 million.

However, salary retention is certainly a possibility - Iginla's actual dollars paid this year is 500k lower than his first two years, and he's an expiring contract, which may make owners more agreeable in eating a portion of the remaining few months to make it moveable.

That all seems right more or less. I just get back to why Colorado would do it, and who Calgary would give up for 2 months of Iggy. I'd bet they ask for a second plus Klimchuk. Which would be funny.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think Chaisson is playing exactly as the coaching staff wants, a North - South game. I like Chaisson, I think he provides screens and uses his big body in front and along the boards.

I personally feel Gaudreau is not suited for a North - South game nor do I really want him to play that way, it goes against his strengths. I want to see him hold on to the puck, pull up, cut to the middle and create scoring chances. East - West.

It's a strange situation in that GG's system works well for a North - South game and most of the team but it's not ideal for Gaudreau. Maybe he has to adapt, learn how to dump it deep let Chaisson or others battle to get it back and get open but him dumping it or playing along the boards is not his game.

The Gaudreau - Monahan - Hudler line were good because they each knew how to play in space and off the rush.

I think Gaudreau plays well with a triggerman (Monahan in past seasons but maybe Bennett) and a give and go, creative guy (Hudler).

I understand that against grinding big lines they suffered so ultimately you need someone who can play heavy but make those creative plays, read the ice and read Gaudreau. I think the only winger in the system who can fit that description is Pribyl but I don't know if he's ready.

Obviously Tkachuk is a player like that but why move him off Backlund's line? Also a right shot is preferred.

[FBI]

Yeah you just brought up another point about Chiasson that has been bugging me. He often skates a bit into the zone and then just dumps it into Johnny's corner. We all know Johnny isn't going to go in there body on body and come out with the puck. So what was the point of that chip and chase play?

[442scotty]

When Johnny is the only skilled puck mover on his line its too easy to shut the line down. Hudler was good at carrying the puck as well which made the line dangerous. So we need a younger Hudler maybe 3 inches taller...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I feel like Brouwer will be the best option, when he's healthy again.

He provides some size and vet presence on the top line. I don't want Ferland or Versteeg on the top line unless it is on the pp and they're playing great. Frolik needs to stay where he is and I think Bennett isn't a first line guy yet.

Brouwer is a much better option at this point than any other player in the Flames lineup. Also, I have to think he's currently a better hockey player than Jarome Iginla.

[Par]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

When Johnny is the only skilled puck mover on his line its too easy to shut the line down. Hudler was good at carrying the puck as well which made the line dangerous. So we need a younger Hudler maybe 3 inches taller...

Ryan Strome would look good on Johnny's wing. If you can get Matt Duchene than it would be a killer line.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

That's the entire problem. You're taking it upon yourself to decide what does and doesn't make sense like it's gospel.

You don't like the idea, so you immediately tried to present it as not possible / extremely unlikely.

There are any number of different ways the salary could fit. Maybe someone else is moved in a different trade. Who knows who Colorado may or may not have interest it.

All I'm saying is it would be a lot more simple and conducive to discussion if you just stuck to saying you don't think it's a good idea rather than try and slant things to not being possible / likely because the idea rubs you the wrong way to begin with.

Either way, this isn't going anywhere. I'll leave it at disagreeing with your take and saying one last time I think it's a lot more do-able than you're trying to suggest.

You are refusing to even offer up a potential way that it makes sense. Salary-wise, cap-wise, trading pieces-wise. All you are doing is saying it can be done .

My opinion that Iginla isn't a fit on the team is completely separate from my opinion that a trade doesn't make sense from a perspective of what Calgary would give and what the cap would end up looking like.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are refusing to even offer up a potential way that it makes sense. Salary-wise, cap-wise, trading pieces-wise. All you are doing is saying it can be done.

Because it can, and much more simply than you suggested with your dismissive posts.

With expansion, there are a lot of different moving parts going into this trade deadline for every team. For all we know, multiple players could move.

I have no interest in trying to pigeon hole a trade to appease you. You just suggested the Avs would ask for 2nd + Klimchuck which is ridiculous in my opinion... but I feel I've wasted enough time with your spit-balling that I have no interest in going back and forth with what Colorado could want / offer. We have no idea, so it's an irrelevant discussion.

All I'm saying is your earlier suggestion the Flames would be very hard pressed / unable / unlikely to add $1,204,301 in salary was completely off the mark, and a means of you simply trying to leap from your feeling you think it's a bad idea into concretely concluding that trade is very logistically difficult. It really wouldn't be.


I really see no reason to keep going on with this.

[Enoch Root]

First of all, I agree that it is pretty much impossible in a cap world to have 6 legitimate top 6 forwards. No team does. You have to make do with one or two guys that are less skilled, to fill a role.

And I will readily admit, that when they signed him, I thought Chiasson could fill that role.

All they need is for him to do his job, win board battles, go to the front of the net, keep it simple, and knock pucks in when he gets set up.

Chiasson should have been able to do that. But he hasn't. Sure, he wins some board battles, but unfortunately, he hasn't kept it simple. He hasn't stayed out of the way. He kills play. Plays die on his stick. He isn't knocking in the gimmies.

And it's killing Gaudreau. You can see from Gaudreau's body language that he's frustrated. When the puck goes to Chiasson, there is almost a 0% chance that it will get to Gaudreau. And when Gaudreau sets up Chiasson, he isn't converting.

It isn't working. And it's affecting Gaudreau's play.

It's time to try something different.

Gaudreau - Bennett - Brouwer?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Because it can, and much more simply than you suggested with your dismissive posts.

With expansion, there are a lot of different moving parts going into this trade deadline for every team. For all we know, multiple players could move.

I have no interest in trying to pigeon hole a trade to appease you. You just suggested the Avs would ask for 2nd + Klimchuck which is ridiculous in my opinion... but I feel I've wasted enough time with your spit-balling that I have no interest in going back and forth with what Colorado could want / offer. We have no idea, so it's an irrelevant discussion.

All I'm saying is your earlier suggestion the Flames would be very hard pressed / unable / unlikely to add $1,204,301 in salary was completely off the mark, and a means of you simply trying to leap from your feeling you think it's a bad idea into concretely concluding that trade is very logistically difficult. It really wouldn't be.


I really see no reason to keep going on with this.

$1.2 is the added salary (for the remainder of the season) but they'd need to shed a $2M salary (not prorated I think) according to Gaskal's numbers.

It is, in fact, logistically difficult, which is borne out by the fact that no one has even tried to describe a scenario that works. Just saying "it's easy" doesn't make it so. The only reason Colorado does this is the same reason any seller does - to build for the future. So what can Calgary give that accomplishes this? Draft picks, obviously. But salary has to be moved as well. Then you get into who gets moved, netting enough room so you can get Iggy (and hopefully room for any other better pieces that are out there).