[News] Calgary Flames Garbage Bag Day Media Availability 10AM

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Did they predict that though? I'm pretty sure they would not have signed Neal if they had predicted Lindholm would have the year he did.

I think if they penciled in their lines that offseason it would likely have looked like:

Gaudreau - Monahan - Neal (as a Ferland replacement)
Tkachuk - Backlund - Lindholm (as a frolik replacement)
Dube - Ryan - Frolik
Bennett - Jankowski - Hathaway

If Dube hadn't been so awful I'm not even sure Mangiapane gets called up that year.

"About to pop" is, I think, a verbatim quote.

I think they had Lindholm penciled in as a second 1C, between Tkachuk and Dube or Bennett, with Backlund as a strong 2C. I think they expected Czarnik to play regularly as well.

i think the whole reason they got Lindholm was because they thought Bennett wasn't going to be the elite 1C they planned and they figured Monahan and Lindholm would be a good 1-2 punch down the middle.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Stanley

That's his (and our inept pro scouting) problem...they're terrible at evaluating talent especially at the forward positions...

This is why, inevitably, Treliving will need to go. He's not going to just suddenly figure out player evaluation. He's had 7 years of failure in this regard. If he had the ability to "figure it out" he would have done so already. There's no water to be squeezed from this stone.

[sa226]

With the abysmal season that this was, I'm ready to ship anything and anyone out. Especially with a team that needs a culture change. Many of us are in "Blow it Up"! mode.

But as a team that many would agree has no intention of tearing it down and rebuilding, I fail to see how losing Gio in the expansion draft makes the team better. Wouldn't it just make the team slightly worse and make it that much more difficult to compete?

I would argue the biggest culture change has already happened with Sutter coming in. In may ways, he's the captain now.

Something I can maybe get behind is to look at next year as a refresh year. Make the moves you can. Let Gio go, allow the kids to develop and take on larger roles, retool the forwards. Trade one or more of the core top 6, and then take a run in 2023 with a refreshed and straightened out group.

But if they're going to keep trying to squeeze blood from a stone, I don't see how letting Gio go accomplishes that.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by sa226

With the abysmal season that this was, I'm ready to ship anything and anyone out. Especially with a team that needs a culture change. Many of us are in "Blow it Up"! mode.

But as a team that many would agree has no intention of tearing it down and rebuilding, I fail to see how losing Gio in the expansion draft makes the team better. Wouldn't it just make the team slightly worse and make it that much more difficult to compete?

I would argue the biggest culture change has already happened with Sutter coming in. In may ways, he's the captain now.

Something I can maybe get behind is to look at next year as a refresh year. Make the moves you can. Let Gio go, allow the kids to develop and take on larger roles, retool the forwards. Trade one or more of the core top 6, and then take a run in 2023 with a refreshed and straightened out group.

But if they're going to keep trying to squeeze blood from a stone, I don't see how letting Gio go accomplishes that.

If the Kracken took Giordano, it would free up a ton of cap space to acquire a UFA like...I don't know...Dougie Hamilton? Oh, wait. There's that stupid culture again. He went to museums and stuff, can't have that here.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If the Kracken took Giordano, it would free up a ton of cap space to acquire a UFA like...I don't know...Dougie Hamilton? Oh, wait. There's that stupid culture again. He went to museums and stuff, can't have that here.

I would rather they not spend that money on another high priced UFA. It just hasn't worked out for this organization and the cap space would be better to hold on to as it would enable them take on more salary in a big trade.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

"About to pop" is, I think, a verbatim quote.

Are you thinking of Drew Shore? Or Lazar maybe?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

"About to pop" is, I think, a verbatim quote.

I believe that was with respect to Austin Czarnik. Lindholm was already playing a big role in Carolina's top six.

I think they had Lindholm penciled in as a second 1C, between Tkachuk and Dube or Bennett, with Backlund as a strong 2C. I think they expected Czarnik to play regularly as well.

I don't think they would have signed Ryan that same offseason to middle six dollars if they expected Backlund to play behind Lindholm and Monahan. Remember Backlund was just entering year 1 of a 5.25M deal... top six dollars.

There's no way they signed Ryan to be 4C off the bat at 3M+ while moving a 5.25M center to 3C. None of that makes sense.

i think the whole reason they got Lindholm was because they thought Bennett wasn't going to be the elite 1C they planned and they figured Monahan and Lindholm would be a good 1-2 punch down the middle.

Sounds like revisionist history. IIRC Treliving was comparing Lindholm to Jere Lehtinen back then... a two way winger. They had also brought in a coach who had already insisted Lindholm play wing elsewhere.

As for Bennett, that's looking like a blatantly poor internal evaluation. Led all Panthers forwards in icetime yesterday.

[Bingo]

I saw the Lindholm "about to pop" quote around the contract signing I believe.

"We think Elias has had a good career to date," Calgary general manager Brad Treliving said. "But we believe there's even more there. So it was a question of finding that balance of the potential we believe he has and from their side wanting to manage the risk if and when he does pop here. We eventually came to a term and a number that worked for both sides."

[dammage79]

Boy did Lindholm pop.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I saw the Lindholm "about to pop" quote around the contract signing I believe.

That does use the word "pop" but seems to suggest that it was his agent expecting it. Contrast that with what he said about free agency that year:

Treliving: If you look at the free-agent list, everybody knows the big names out there. We’re looking more at players that are maybe not the sexy names. Maybe there’s a guy nobody’s heard of, but who is in the right age bracket, where there’s been a history of success on his resume, and we think he’s ready to pop. Will he? Don’t know. But our homework has shown that maybe he is. Is that a better bet? Maybe it is.

Duhatschek: Is it fair to say that today, everybody’s looking for the next Yanni Gourde and/or the next William Karlsson?

Treliving: It’s true, but you do that exercise all the time. ... But that’s where we’ve directed our energies. I’d rather take some value swings than give somebody six years at $6.5 million – if that makes any sense."

[GioforPM]

“We think he’s a real good player,” Treliving told Sportsnet 960. “Elias will probably be the first to tell you he hasn’t reached yet the offensive production that either he or maybe others thought he would by this time. We think he can be a player that’s gonna pop.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...ats-main-goal/

[GioforPM]

TBF, Treliving said it about Czarnik too.

[skcli]

He said the same for Curtis Lazar

[Scroopy Noopers]

Let me know when a GM brings in a guy and says “meh, he’ll be serviceable we think…”

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think the following statements are both true:

1) This team is very talented.
2) This team is not close to being a contender.

I do think this is a playoff team that has under-performed. FWIW, this is a better team than what it has shown so far. However, does it REALLY matter in the grand scope of things? What's the goal? To be the 1968-2004 St. Louis Blues, rarely ever missing the playoffs, but never being a serious contender, and never winning a cup during that time? Is that really the goal? If so, I argue that the Flames are not far from that goal. Sutter will make this a playoff team for sure, and IF the right match-up falls into their laps, then possibly even be a 2nd round team.

This team has some obvious holes, but it seems like the biggest hole is one that isn't very obvious to many. The biggest hole is on defence.

This is 2021, not 1921 or even 1980, or even 2000.

If Giordano is your best 2-way defencemen at 38 years of age, then you have a problem. Bigger problem yet is if next season he isn't on the team. Then it becomes an unmistakable glaring issue.

Tanev is the best traditional defensive defencemen (though he doesn't give you the physicality that you kind of expect as a defensive defencemen). However, he is 100% elite at it. To play through broken ribs? That's amazing. To play through broken ribs and have nobody even guess that he is doing so? That's completely otherworldly. I have no problem with Tanev and who he is as a defencemen. Give that guy his accolades - he deserves every one.

My argument is that Tanev only helps this team by helping them not to lose. That's fine if he is paired with a rover that can help this team to win. Then you have probably have an elite pairing.

Giordano + Tanev = almost an elite pairing at both ends of the ice.
Hanifin + Tanev = an elite shutdown pairing that helps you not lose, but does nothing else.
Hughes + Tanev = elite pairing.

I think a pairing should be one that helps you at both ends of the ice. Calgary doesn't have a good partner for Tanev. Hanifin is not offensive enough. Neither is Andersson.

In today's NHL, if your team does not have a top 4 that is good at both ends of the ice, then I argue that you are trying to play handicapped. You most certainly can have Tanev in your top 4, and even in your top pairing in a pinch, especially if his partner is a defencemen that puts up solid numbers.

I think the Flames are in big trouble next season. This season they had 3 dependable defencemen on defence, and only one on offence. Next season - if everything stays the same - they have only 2 defencemen playing solid defence (maybe elite - Tanev is elite, and Hanifin has been very, very good if not close to elite), and zero offensive guys.

They are closer to a rebuilding team than a playoff team, much less a contender. How do I figure? They are entering the season as a young team with growing pains might - by hoping that their young players take a step forward.

Hanifin - took a gigantic step forward defensively this season. Absolutely huge. However, offensively? A step back, as well as probably not too high of ceiling as it is. He is good on the transition (very good), but his shooting and vision is very ordinary. I don't see him as a real offensive type, and don't see him getting more than 40 odd points in a season - good, but if he is your 'premier' offensive D, then I argue that your D as a unit is lacking.

Andersson - didn't take a step forward offensively or defensively. Was obvious that he wasn't ready for top pairing duty. This team needs him to take a step both defensively and offensively next season.

Valimaki - disappointing, but young. Still, this team needs him to take a big step forward at everything.

Kylington - ditto.

Mackey - well, I want to say ditto, but he was not disappointing as there were no expectations really. Still, he needs to take steps forward.

Stone was good defensively, and he has a nice shot, but he has always been poor on the transition. I think the Flames should re-sign him as he is fine for a 6th D, but then the argument is that he ends up blocking a young 2-way guy from getting the minutes he needs to develop, so I will be happy if the Flames re-sign him, and happy if they don't.

Nesterov - he didn't provide anything other than 'fine', which is great for a 6th D. However, what's the point? He is not big and physical, not great defensively, not great offensively, not great in transition - he is just 'fine' to me. Fine doesn't cut it if you can't be better than average at something.

When you are going to enter a season with one elite defensive D, and hoping everyone else is young and needs to take a big step forward, that sounds more like a rebuilding team, no? This team is going to look worse without Giordano next season, and that scares me.

Yes, letting Brodie walk was a huge mistake (elite-level shot-suppression, zone exits including forecheck evasion and transition, with high level of playmaking/vision). Getting pieces like Gustafsson, Forbort and Fantenberg instead of giving reps to a guy like Kylington was a huge mistake in hindsight - maybe he could have taken a step or two forward by now?

Flames are going to have to figure this out for next season. The defence needs to be revamped. You can't go into a new season hoping that pretty much everyone (except Tanev, who was elite at defence) takes a BIG step forward. The Flames this year are one of the lowest scoring team from the D in the league. Remove Gio's numbers, and suddenly it looks as if you are a "just blown it up to start a rebuild" level.


Other holes on the team:


Backup goalie - I am fearful that this team will have an 'automatic loss' backup again. Those years of Kipper + Automatic Loss Backup still haunts me.
Size/Physicality/Speed - this team needs to be bigger in the top 9. No, Ritchie and Lucic and Nordstrom don't count. That's the whole point - to not try to force someone into a top 9 spot - especially a top 6 spot. It was a huge mistake to have played Ritchie with Gaudreau and Monahan, but at the same time, that line needed a physical guy with some wheels (which Ritchie has) but with some complimentary skills too (which Ritchie absolutely does not have). Losing guys like Ferland and Bennett is unfortunate, as these guys are difficult to find, and you generally have to overpay in trades or the UFA market to obtain one.
Right Winger who is actually a RHS, who can play with skilled players and can fill the 'size/physicality/speed' hole on the team too.
Centre who can be an upgrade on what the Flames have. Tough to compete without one.
Better depth guys that can score, add to the speed and physicality too, and who are solid PK'ers. Essentially, Nordstrom would be ideal if he could get 10 goals and 10 assists a year playing off the 4th line. Hopefully bigger guys too - a big crash line that is good defensively, is fast, and can generate some offence every third game or so as a line.

Fix all of that - including defence, and you are a contender.

This team is talented. There are a lot of good pieces on this team. Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund, Mangiapane, Markstrom - that's a good portion of your core. It is just missing a better centre, a bit more size and physicality IN THIS CORE, needs a way better modern defence capable of not only helping you not to lose, but also helping you to win, and some better depth guys and maybe a legitimate RHS RW'er with a good shot.

Retool is a big ask to fill these holes. I will guess that a good retool will help get this team to that 1968-2004 level of the Blues - almost a certainty that they make the playoffs, occasionally win a round, but that's pretty much it.

I think a rebuild is more likely to result in an actual championship calibre team. Just too many holes now in too many places in the lineup. Hardest thing to get is an elite level centre, and the 2nd hardest to get is an elite-level defencemen. Everything else has been difficult enough to acquire - even cheap solid depth has been spotty at best, and support players have saddled this team with buyouts and cap heavy deals that sucked.

I am all for a retool, and I do think that if you bring this team back exactly the way it is today, that Sutter will make them a playoff team for sure. That's all it will be, however, at least in my opinion.

Anyone feel like this team has been playing a cruel version of 'whack a mole' for a few years now?

Monahan = a legit #1 centre for a while.
Gaudreau = elite game-breaker
Lindholm = top line RW'er, very good centre
Tkachuk = elite game-breaker
Backlund = Selke-level defensive centre
Giordano - Brodie - elite (best in the NHL, actually) pairing
Bennett - can't miss top-line centre that would be as good or better than Monahan

Just needed a legit goalie. Maybe support pieces. Got the goalie, now it seems need a better centre. Oh no, just traded what we thought was a dud and may actually be the best centre away. Oops, just let Brodie walk, and now Giordano is old - need a new top pairing! Need an actual decent coach. Not him. This one is a dud. This is a dud too. This one works! Oh no, too late!


I do think this team is talented enough to make the playoffs even with the holes, especially with Sutter having a better system and squeezing everything out of this core. I would bet money on it, barring any significant injuries. This same exact group should make the playoffs next season, but they will not be more than 1st round fodder, or at best a 2nd round exit because they got a really good match-up.



It is going to be interesting to see what happens this off-season.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Let me know when a GM brings in a guy and says “meh, he’ll be serviceable we think…”

Yeah even a broken clock...

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

For the forth line, I think maybe the Flames should sign washed-up veterans that are desperate for contracts. Like what they did with Versteeg.

Look at Tampa Bay's 4th Line:
Patrick Maroon - Tyler Johnson - Luke Schenn

Look at Calgary's 4th line:
Dominik Simon / Nordstrom - Derek Ryan - Brett Ritchie

Maroon: 18 points in 55 games
Johnson: 22 points in 55 games
Barclay Goodrow: 20 points in 55 games

Dominik Simon: 0 points in 11 games
Ryan: 13 points in 43 games
Ritchie: 8 points in 32 games (3 of them in the last game)
Nordstrom: 7 points in 44 games

So the Lightning's 4th line roughly triples the offensive production of the Flames 4th line.
By the way, Goodrow and Maroon both make 900k.

Look at the Toronto Maple Leaf's 4th line (Simmonds, Thornton, Spezza). Same thing. More production, still a low cap hit.

I think the best way to build a 4th line is to basically hand out contracts to UFAs that a former top 9 players.
Lee Stempniak could have been given a contract like this after the 2019 season. He probably would have produced much more than most 4th liners. He would rather have signed for league minimum on the Flames than nowhere. Same goes for guys like Glencross after the 2015 season.

If Soderberg, Cizikas, Martinook, Sutter, Cogliano and Perreault struggle to find homes this offseason, they are the ones who should be signed as 4th liners. Not only because they can actually contribute offensive, but they can play on the third line if necessary.

Don't guys like Ritchie, Rinaldo, Nordstrom, and Simon who have never really produced at any point anywhere.
In a league where parity is everyone, you can't afford to have your 4th line produced only a third of other teams' 4th lines.

Nice work. A pet peeve of mine is always hearing about how stars need to be your best players every night. I hate that because stars don’t score every game, if anything the average star forward scores in roughly 40-50 games per 82 game seasons. So in other words, they stars get shutdown a lot.

This is why your 4th line can’t be a black hole offensively, especially for a team like the Flames who don’t have elite superstars. If Toronto is going to have elite superstars and superior 4th line depth, than who’s going to have the scoring advantage in a 7 game series?

That’s why when I hear stuff like, “who cares, he’s a 4th liner.” It’s an incredibly poor take IMO. 4th liners play every game, they play roughly 20% of the game, so they should be EXPECTED to chip in. The Flames didn’t receive enough from their bottom tier forwards and that’s a major contributing factor as to why they’re out of the playoffs.

You can’t have a guy play 40-50 games and give you 1 goal, that’s unacceptable. The Flames would do themselves a big favor by finding some really high quality 4th liners, because if they can win their matchups most nights, then that’s 20% of the game right there. Win enough shifts, win enough match ups and I like this team’s chance of winning enough games to get back to the dance.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I think the following statements are both true:

1) This team is very talented.
2) This team is not close to being a contender.

Great write-up. The only thing I don't agree on is Bennett, but I don't want to derail another thread in that direction.....

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Nice work. A pet peeve of mine is always hearing about how stars need to be your best players every night. I hate that because stars don’t score every game, if anything the average star forward scores in roughly 40-50 games per 82 game seasons. So in other words, they stars get shutdown a lot.

This is why your 4th line can’t be a black hole offensively, especially for a team like the Flames who don’t have elite superstars. If Toronto is going to have elite superstars and superior 4th line depth, than who’s going to have the scoring advantage in a 7 game series?

That’s why when I hear stuff like, “who cares, he’s a 4th liner.” It’s an incredibly poor take IMO. 4th liners play every game, they play roughly 20% of the game, so they should be EXPECTED to chip in. The Flames didn’t receive enough from their bottom tier forwards and that’s a major contributing factor as to why they’re out of the playoffs.

You can’t have a guy play 40-50 games and give you 1 goal, that’s unacceptable. The Flames would do themselves a big favor by finding some really high quality 4th liners, because if they can win their matchups most nights, then that’s 20% of the game right there. Win enough shifts, win enough match ups and I like this team’s chance of winning enough games to get back to the dance.

The 7 forwards we will end up protecting for the expansion draft are really our only valuable ones we have at the NHL level, all things considered.

The rest were playing too high in the lineup or are overpaid for what they bring.

Depending on how you want to classify Lucic, that’s 4-5 regular forwards that just aren’t good enough.

It’s no real mystery why we struggled to score and failed to make the playoffs.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Nice work. A pet peeve of mine is always hearing about how stars need to be your best players every night. I hate that because stars don’t score every game, if anything the average star forward scores in roughly 40-50 games per 82 game seasons. So in other words, they stars get shutdown a lot.

This is why your 4th line can’t be a black hole offensively, especially for a team like the Flames who don’t have elite superstars. If Toronto is going to have elite superstars and superior 4th line depth, than who’s going to have the scoring advantage in a 7 game series?

That’s why when I hear stuff like, “who cares, he’s a 4th liner.” It’s an incredibly poor take IMO. 4th liners play every game, they play roughly 20% of the game, so they should be EXPECTED to chip in. The Flames didn’t receive enough from their bottom tier forwards and that’s a major contributing factor as to why they’re out of the playoffs.

You can’t have a guy play 40-50 games and give you 1 goal, that’s unacceptable. The Flames would do themselves a big favor by finding some really high quality 4th liners, because if they can win their matchups most nights, then that’s 20% of the game right there. Win enough shifts, win enough match ups and I like this team’s chance of winning enough games to get back to the dance.

Presumably you have more than one star, so if you have a couple 30 goal scorers and a few more 20 goal men, they cover each other off. We are really talking top 6. I’d expect 70-75% of the offence from top 6 players, considering they are also the ones on the power play. Maybe 15-20% from the third line and my better Dmen, and then if I can get 10% of my goals from the 4th I’m good.

TB had 12 goals (out of 180 total) from their present bottom 4. Canes had 14 of 175. Vegas, a team without a lot of elite firepower, had 11 of 190. Calgary was worse, and mixed up lines too much to analyze, but the best bottom 4 you could imagine - say Ryan, Ritchie and Leivo, scored 12 of out Calgary’s 155 goals. Obviously those guys each saw higher line duty, though so the analysis is flawed. That said, put that exact line together and I could see 12 goals anyway. 4 goals apiece? Sure.

BUT Calgary is not getting anywhere with none of the top guys scoring 20 in 56. Winnipeg is a pretty meh PO team and they had 3 guys over 20. Only Nashville and the Isles didn’t have any 20 goal men. And I sure doubt they get past the first round.