Should the Flames offer sheet Dylan Holloway?

[Paulie Walnuts]

[QUOTE=Phaneuf_Phan;9151871]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

Andrew Mangiapane was just traded for a late second rounder, and you're suggesting the Flames surrender an early second and an absolutely ridiculous cap hit for a significantly worse player.

No, Mangiapane was traded to free up $6M in cap space. To not include value of that in your assessment seems silly.

We didn't need cap space.

Mangiapane was traded because we got good value, and we are rebuilding.

The team is trading roster players for picks, not the other way around.

[Phaneuf_Phan]

[QUOTE=Paulie Walnuts;9151874]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf_Phan

We didn't need cap space.

Mangiapane was traded because we got good value, and we are rebuilding.

The team is trading roster players for picks, not the other way around.

You don't think a 22 year old with great potential is like a pick? I guess you're looking for a 7 year rebuild, I was thinking we could do it in 3.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

First off, we have no direct information about what Holloway would fetch on the trade market.

Secondly, if we did have that information, that still wouldn't tell us what Fitzgerald thinks of Holloway, unless he was one of the GMs attempting to trade for the player.

No kidding. Look, I have no desire to argue semantics with you. The other poster is of the opinion that Holtz is better than Holloway. I am of the opinion that Holloway is better. Pretty straight-forward.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No kidding. Look, I have no desire to argue semantics with you. The other poster is of the opinion that Holtz is better than Holloway. I am of the opinion that Holloway is better. Pretty straight-forward.

It's not arguing semantics when you appeal to expert opinion, and the expert you appeal to has not expressed any opinion.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by cali panthers fan

okay fine, but it's a bad comparison. St. Louis was a hall of famer. Holloway will not be that.

A better comparable might be carter verhaeghe (although it would still be a stretch). He was playing on the 4th line in tampa bay before he got a shot to be in the top six in florida.

k.

[Flames1217]

Where would he play ?

I would only consider offer sheeting a RW/C. Mercer sure but I don't see the need or fit with Holloway.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf_Phan

You don't think a 22 year old with great potential is like a pick? I guess you're looking for a 7 year rebuild, I was thinking we could do it in 3.

3 year rebuild is not in the cards any way you slice it. We are going to be bad for quite a while

[Robbob]

For a 3rd rounder I don't think twice. If it costs us a second, now I need to be convinced because our 2nd is probably around 40 next year.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Philosophically, an offer sheet is only smart if you're trying to acquire a high end or core piece that you can build around, someone who is the type of player you wouldn't be able to acquire any other way.

Ask yourself this question: Is Dylan Holloway a high end or core piece that you want to keep long term? Is this the type of player that is hard to find?

If the answer to those questions is "no" then why would you do this knowing you would give up a valuable draft selection (as the Flames are sure to pick early in the 2nd round again), and risk retribution?

It's not a smart choice, and reeks of someone just trying to hurt their rival instead of just running their own race.

I would disagree with this.

Philosophically, the use of an RFA is to allow teams to attempt to sign RFAs for more than their current team is willing to give them, in exchange for draft pick compensation. The higher the amount, the greater the comp.

You are arguably worse off offer-sheeting high-end / core piece players given the immense draft capital you have to give up. It is more cost effective to trade for a high end talent than offer sheet - think Mathew Tkachuk trade vs his potential offersheet.

There is definitely value in signing a player at 2-4 mil and surrendering a 3 or 2 round draft pick as compensation. Add in the cap issues a team has to deal with and it becomes more likely that a team cannot afford to keep them around - set themselves back cap wise trying to match.

[Phaneuf_Phan]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

3 year rebuild is not in the cards any way you slice it. We are going to be bad for quite a while

I hear you but Vancouver said the same thing 1 year ago. Things can improve faster than you think.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf_Phan

I hear you but Vancouver said the same thing 1 year ago. Things can improve faster than you think.

Canucks were a good team with good players that fell apart. Those same star players came together again. Totally different situation

[Phaneuf_Phan]

Things you probably wouldn't have said a year ago. Hindsight is a hell of a forecaster.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I would disagree with this.

Philosophically, the use of an RFA is to allow teams to attempt to sign RFAs for more than their current team is willing to give them, in exchange for draft pick compensation. The higher the amount, the greater the comp.

You are arguably worse off offer-sheeting high-end / core piece players given the immense draft capital you have to give up. It is more cost effective to trade for a high end talent than offer sheet - think Mathew Tkachuk trade vs his potential offersheet.

There is definitely value in signing a player at 2-4 mil and surrendering a 3 or 2 round draft pick as compensation. Add in the cap issues a team has to deal with and it becomes more likely that a team cannot afford to keep them around - set themselves back cap wise trying to match.

Agreed. I would be more onboard with a 'value signing' than with throwing big dollars and big comp at a higher end player.

And IMO, this would be an excellent value signing.

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

3 year rebuild is not in the cards any way you slice it. We are going to be bad for quite a while

Really, why? There is some luck involved but I don't think the Flames need to be super bad for many years before turning it around.

If they finish bottom 3-5 in this upcoming season (very likely), they will likely land a potential #1 center in the draft. They will likely have many other picks in the draft. This is something Conroy has done a good job with as the Flames have traded some solid assets for future picks.

For the start of 2025-26, the Flames may have the following players on the roster:
1. Top 3 pick
2. Zayne Parekh
3. Hunter Brzustewicz
4. Connor Zary
5. Dustin Wolf
6. Artem Grushnikov
7. Jacob Pelletier
8. Matt Coronato

Not to mention the following prospects who may also make the team:
1. Sam Honzek
2. Ilya Solovyov
3. Jeremie Poirier
4. William Stromgren
5. Matvei Gridin
6. Étienne Morin
7. Andrew Basha
8. Henry Mews

Then you got the following veterans still on the roster:
1. Jonathan Huberdeau
2. Nazem Kadri
3. Mikael Backlund
4. Blake Coleman
5. MacKenzie Weegar
6. Rasmus Andersson
7. Other players like Lomberg and Pachal and Miromonov

...

Then, you play out 2025-26 and land another Top 10 pick. All of a sudden, with a little luck, your core is set and ready to develop and take the next step for the 2026-27 season. If some of those veterans above leave, there will likely be many options in Free Agency to round out the roster with veterans, as the Flames will continue to have money to spend.

[Lewis_D]

Originally Posted by BigThief

Canucks were a good team with good players that fell apart. Those same star players came together again. Totally different situation

Not disagreeing about the Canucks but I think there's some scenarios where there can be a catalyst in a rebuild. There's been times (albeit not often) where a team will be in a full scorched earth rebuild and then their top prospects take the league by storm in addition to some lower-end prospects breaking out and then after year 2 or 3 they're able to bring in some big UFA signings, make a few trades and become a playoff team way quicker than expected.

Obviously lots of stars need to align and it's usually not as beneficial long-term to jump the gun, but I feel like it does happen from time to time - I could be remembering wrong because I'm smooth-brained but I feel like that's what happened with Chicago during the early years of the Toews-Kane era. With that being said though we have nowhere near the prospect pool to be thinking about that anytime soon and I think we should just stay the course.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Really, why? There is some luck involved but I don't think the Flames need to be super bad for many years before turning it around.

If they finish bottom 3-5 in this upcoming season (very likely), they will likely land a potential #1 center in the draft. They will likely have many other picks in the draft. This is something Conroy has done a good job with as the Flames have traded some solid assets for future picks.

For the start of 2025-26, the Flames may have the following players on the roster:
1. Top 3 pick
2. Zayne Parekh
3. Hunter Brzustewicz
4. Connor Zary
5. Dustin Wolf
6. Artem Grushnikov
7. Jacob Pelletier
8. Matt Coronato

Not to mention the following prospects who may also make the team:
1. Sam Honzek
2. Ilya Solovyov
3. Jeremie Poirier
4. William Stromgren
5. Matvei Gridin
6. Étienne Morin
7. Andrew Basha
8. Henry Mews

Then you got the following veterans still on the roster:
1. Jonathan Huberdeau
2. Nazem Kadri
3. Mikael Backlund
4. Blake Coleman
5. MacKenzie Weegar
6. Rasmus Andersson
7. Other players like Lomberg and Pachal and Miromonov

...

Then, you play out 2025-26 and land another Top 10 pick. All of a sudden, with a little luck, your core is set and ready to develop and take the next step for the 2026-27 season. If some of those veterans above leave, there will likely be many options in Free Agency to round out the roster with veterans, as the Flames will continue to have money to spend.

I doubt many of those vets listed will be here in 18 months and whatever team we ice from the other players listed will have a couple of years of growing pains. Then we have to hope they all develop as anticipated. lots of dice rolling over the next while

[Bonded]

[QUOTE=Phaneuf_Phan;9151878]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

You don't think a 22 year old with great potential is like a pick? I guess you're looking for a 7 year rebuild, I was thinking we could do it in 3.

Simple. You think he has great potential and other people don’t.

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

I doubt many of those vets listed will be here in 18 months and whatever team we ice from the other players listed will have a couple of years of growing pains. Then we have to hope they all develop as anticipated. lots of dice rolling over the next while

Sure, but I also don't think it will take 5-7 years for the Flames to start winning some games considering most of these players will be coming into the league in a staggered pattern. I can also see the Flames using the cap space to bring in veterans to compliment their young players even if those vets leave.

Someone like Zary will be 25 years old to start the 2026-27 season. Hunter Brzustewicz will be 22 early that season. Parekh will be 21 during that time (Hughes had 41 points in 56 games that year, which was his second season).. Wolf will be turning 26 that season.

While I agree a lot of luck is needed and they all need to properly develop, it's not like we are icing a team of 18 year old players in 2026-27.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I think Holloway has a chance to be a pretty good player (certainly more than a grinder) with opportunity. I would still say "no" to the offer sheet, as the 2nd would likely be at the very top of that round. It would make more sense for a different team (Van?) to go that route.

Having said that, starting some trade dialogue with the implicit threat of an offer sheet might be interesting. They are still in a cap bind and may be more open to a different deal.

[GioforPM]

If Holloway was a C it would make this a better proposition.