Oliver Kylington: a shilling for your thoughts...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

He takes a ton of penalties and doesn't draw very many. I was just using Evolving-Hockey's admittedly clunky terminology.

So does the guy in your profile pic.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How many penalties does, say, Tanev, draw.

Tanev takes very, very few penalties but doesn't draw many.

Giordano and Andersson were both pretty good at drawing penalties last year.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So does the guy in your profile pic.

At least Valimaki can drive play on offense!

I think the Flames' ideal lineup has both Kylington and Valimaki. But Valimaki isn't ready to play top four minutes yet, IMO.

I actually think Valimaki and Zadorov could form a pretty good third pair. Just wish Valimaki was a little bit quicker.

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think you're going to be disappointed pretty consistently if you expect teams that see themselves headed to the playoffs trading top pairing defensemen in order to avoid losing them for nothing.

That just doesn't happen ... or rarely if it does.

Columbus couldn't stomach it ... neither could Calgary. At least they won the play in and had some games to show for it.

In the end they gained a defenseman the same day they lost Brodie so the net difference was negligible.

I like the idea though ... we're just a bubble team so lets deal our impending UFA and restock. Just don't see it as likely.

Not that it's your point, but I would be interested in examples of teams that have this strict asset management approach and are successful. It is used as an example of why the Flames are bad but I struggle to think of teams that are so strict with asset management as some people want. Every team loses players each year.



Colorado almost lost their captain and did lose their starting goaltender for nothing. St. Louis lost their captain and best defenceman. CBJ. Except for those teams that are totally tearing it down, I can't think of a team that frequently trades its star players away if they can't get a contract.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Interesting. I was always under the impression (and have read it more than once) that retention was limited to 50% in total.

Maybe they found a loophole. I haven't seen this before but it happened twice this TDL.

Or maybe I'm reading it wrong (it wouldn't take away from my overall point that Gio would have been hard to trade even at 50%). Plus, contenders don't need a 1D. They need a 4D. Just like they don't need a 1C or a starting goalie, they need support pieces.

Also Gio had an NTC.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

Not that it's your point, but I would be interested in examples of teams that have this strict asset management approach and are successful. It is used as an example of why the Flames are bad but I struggle to think of teams that are so strict with asset management as some people want. Every team loses players each year.



Colorado almost lost their captain and did lose their starting goaltender for nothing. St. Louis lost their captain and best defenceman. CBJ. Except for those teams that are totally tearing it down, I can't think of a team that frequently trades its star players away if they can't get a contract.

Easy. Both those teams you mention are looked upon as contenders (or were, in St. Louis' case, though they also have a recent Stanley Cup). A team that is not a contender can't afford to allow value to simply to walk away. Doubly so when said team has a disadvantage of attracting UFAs and are often listed on NTCs. I doubt anyone would complain if Calgary had been a consistent playoff team with a run or two post 2015.


I see it both ways - sometimes you can just catch lightning in a bottle and go far. Sometimes it is prudent to be more proactive and plan a year or two out. A rebuilding team never buys at the deadline, and a contender never sells. Tougher calls to make when you are somewhere in-between, and absolutely essential to get it right when you are a smaller market Canadian team.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Maybe they found a loophole. I haven't seen this before but it happened twice this TDL.

Or maybe I'm reading it wrong (it wouldn't take away from my overall point that Gio would have been hard to trade even at 50%). Plus, contenders don't need a 1D. They need a 4D. Just like they don't need a 1C or a starting goalie, they need support pieces.

Also Gio had an NTC.

Not a loophole - AFAIK, a player can be traded twice with full retention (50%) each time.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Easy. Both those teams you mention are looked upon as contenders (or were, in St. Louis' case, though they also have a recent Stanley Cup). A team that is not a contender can't afford to allow value to simply to walk away. Doubly so when said team has a disadvantage of attracting UFAs and are often listed on NTCs. I doubt anyone would complain if Calgary had been a consistent playoff team with a run or two post 2015.


I see it both ways - sometimes you can just catch lightning in a bottle and go far. Sometimes it is prudent to be more proactive and plan a year or two out. A rebuilding team never buys at the deadline, and a contender never sells. Tougher calls to make when you are somewhere in-between, and absolutely essential to get it right when you are a smaller market Canadian team.

But you have not provided any examples of a team that "frequently trades its star players away if they can't get a contract."

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Finger Cookin]

Oliver Kylington is a defenseman that is on the verge of almost becoming an every day NHL player in his +7 season whose career summary on Wikipedia hasn't been updated in almost 3 years.

My two Kylings. Hope he sticks and continues to improve.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But you have not provided any examples of a team that "frequently trades its star players away if they can't get a contract."

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

That's not the argument I am making.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

That's not the argument I am making.

Well, it is what you posted in response to the question about which teams are regularly trading away their pending UFAs.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I have to think the former means that he takes more penalties than he draws, which is shocking for a defenceman


I have no clue how many penalties they think a replacement level player takes, but you'd think it would be very few since they would be limited ice time players.

I don’t think that’s how replacement level works. You have to assume equivalent ice time or else everyone who plays is better than replacement level.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don’t think that’s how replacement level works. You have to assume equivalent ice time or else everyone who plays is better than replacement level.

I always understood a replacement level player to be a scrub who barely makes the team as a “replacement”. But I admittedly haven’t looked at it hard.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Interesting. I was always under the impression (and have read it more than once) that retention was limited to 50% in total.

Nope — teams can retain 50% twice. Example is David Savard — Columbus traded him at 50% to Detroit, who immediately flipped him at 50% of that to Tampa. As a result, his $4.25 million cap hit went down to just over $1 million for the Bolts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Nope — teams can retain 50% twice. Example is David Savard — Columbus traded him at 50% to Detroit, who immediately flipped him at 50% of that to Tampa. As a result, his $4.25 million cap hit went down to just over $1 million for the Bolts.

Yes, that was the example that started this whole talk.

[TheScorpion]

Oh lol. Totally missed that part of the conversation, apologies.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Oh lol. Totally missed that part of the conversation, apologies.

No, you're good.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Reggie Dunlop]

A lot of my skepticism is going away. Oliver is really rounding out into a quality defenceman.

It took some time, as it often does with that position.

Many a thread created about the Flames prospects who came into their own only after leaving the organization.

It seems to me that it worked out the other way in this instance.

[Sofa GM]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

A lot of my skepticism is going away. Oliver is really rounding out into a quality defenceman.

It took some time, as it often does with that position.

Many a thread created about the Flames prospects who came into their own only after leaving the organization.

It seems to me that it worked out the other way in this instance.

Kylington I think is now a main stay in this lineup in my opinion… he brings an aspect that no other dman on the Flames does. If Zadarov draws in it will be for Valimaki

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Sofa GM

Kylington I think is now a main stay in this lineup in my opinion… he brings an aspect that no other dman on the Flames does. If Zadarov draws in it will be for Valimaki

I've mentioned this in another thread, but the appropriate partner for Zadorov is Kinnvall. If that guy can get healthy and get a shot, he could really round out our D corps.