02-23-2016, 10:50 AM
|
#861
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
That's 7 out of 12 forward spots. Two or three of which are not top 6 guys. So over half the team is "core"? Then the Flames are going to be (a) a dynasty and (b) in deep deep cap trouble.
IMO a third line player probably is never a core guy.
|
He'd better be Bob Gainey in that case.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-23-2016, 10:51 AM
|
#862
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Why would we want Galchenyuk, a center, when we just flipped Granlund, a center, because he wasn't going to play on the top six with Bennett shifting back to play center?
Galchenyuk makes no sense unless you want him playing on the 3rd line - which you wouldn't.
|
He's played more LW than Centre in Montreal.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GoJetsGo For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-23-2016, 10:53 AM
|
#863
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
|
The only four forwards that are on my "no trade" list are Gaudreau/Monahan/Bennett/Frolik. Everyone else though can go in my opinion if the deal's right. Doesn't mean you trade everyone, but if the deal makes sense, why not.
__________________
Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 10:53 AM
|
#864
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poe969
Galchenyuk could be shifted to the wing if Bennett converts to centre. It's easier to move a C to wing.
|
Isn't that the major reason that there may be issues in MTL? Galchenyuk wants to play C and the coach wants him on wing?
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VladtheImpaler For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-23-2016, 10:57 AM
|
#865
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Not too sure what makes sense from Montreal if they are looking at Backlund.
No way they are moving their first this year now, they don't really have any d-men that would make sense value wise, and I highly doubt we are able to pry out Galchenyuk, Gallagher, or Pacioretty (although I would be jumping for joy with any of the three).
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:06 AM
|
#866
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
|
I'm not sure if habs want him at C and he wants to play wing or if it's the other way around. Either way, it seems to be straining the relationship between them.
As for having 7 forwards as part of the core...you realize this team that has all of those 7 forwards on it is a bottom 3 team in the league right? Are you saying that the team only needs to find those right 5 players to put us over the top. That's insane. I'd put us at having 3 core forwards that I wouldn't really consider trading unless it's an over payment; Monahan, Gadreau, Bennett. I don't think they'd trade Frolik because he just signed here and that's not something you want to do IMO. On D I'd say Brodie and Hamilton and I don't think too many people would trade for Gio so I didn't include him but he's part of the core.
This team is more than 5 forwards away from being good and it has too man bottom 6 players and prospects. In order to shore up the part that they're weak in, you have to deal from the spot that they're strong in and you won't get a lot of top 6 players for average bottom 6 players. Backlund is a really good bottom 6 player so he can be traded (as part of a package) for a top 6 player.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:10 AM
|
#867
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caged Great
The only four forwards that are on my "no trade" list are Gaudreau/Monahan/Bennett/Frolik. Everyone else though can go in my opinion if the deal's right. Doesn't mean you trade everyone, but if the deal makes sense, why not.
|
Frolik is absolutely tradeable. I like him but he's not even as valuable as Backlund and with the term on his deal there are risks involved with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poe969
I like Backlund but I don't think he's part of the "core"
|
There's "an outer" core, a core, and non-core.
Backlund, Frolik, and for the time being Hudler are outer core pieces for us. Their value will peak if and when we have a deep and successful playoff run as teams that make it to the "final four" generally see their players' value inflated. And you have to "let them go" rather than "look to upgrade on them". For us that will be when the decision on Backlund should be made in my opinion. He's not a core piece but he's an outer-core piece. You keep outer-core pieces around until you can't afford them - they're not just luxuries they're huge contributors. I'd add Bouma and Ferland to that mix though one is having a miserable season and the other is still looking to establish himself.
Last edited by GranteedEV; 02-23-2016 at 11:21 AM.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:15 AM
|
#868
|
Self-Retired
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Frolik is absolutely tradeable. I like him but he's not even as valuable as Backlund and with the term on his deal there are risks involved with him.
|
Wtf...
If anything, Frolik has been our most consistent player this season who brings it every night. I have not watched one game where it looks like he's mailing it in.
He's young enough to still improve but he's got all the intangibles that teams desire in a middle 6 forward with skill and grit.
The best comparison I heard during a Flames telecast last week (can't remember who said it, maybe Sutter or Cox) but they were saying he's a poor man's Hossa who does everything well and is one of the Best PK'ers in the league.
But not at the same level as Backlund? Cmon..
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:19 AM
|
#869
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
That's 7 out of 12 forward spots. Two or three of which are not top 6 guys. So over half the team is "core"? Then the Flames are going to be (a) a dynasty and (b) in deep deep cap trouble.
IMO a third line player probably is never a core guy.
|
I don't follow your logic. Why does it mean we would have to be a dynasty and why would it have to mean we're in deep deep cap trouble? Why can't a 3rd line guy be a core player?
Obviously my definition of core doesn't seem to jive with other people's. To me core is the people we're building around. I guess to some it means guys who are untouchable? I don't like using that word because anyone can be traded in the right deal
You have to have two lines of bottom 6 players. Those are important positions too. It's okay to consider your elite bottom 6 guys to be core. Detroit won several Stanley Cups where their bottom two lines played a big role. Guys like Helm, Abdelkader have been core guys for Detroit even though they played for years on checking lines.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:21 AM
|
#870
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgiTang
Wtf...
If anything, Frolik has been our most consistent player this season who brings it every night. I have not watched one game where it looks like he's mailing it in.
He's young enough to still improve but he's got all the intangibles that teams desire in a middle 6 forward with skill and grit.
The best comparison I heard during a Flames telecast last week (can't remember who said it, maybe Sutter or Cox) but they were saying he's a poor man's Hossa who does everything well and is one of the Best PK'ers in the league.
But not at the same level as Backlund? Cmon..
|
To be fair, Backlund plays centre, has an almost identical but slightly higher ppg (over the last four seasons as well), is younger, and cheaper.
AKA - more valuable. Don't get me wrong though, I love Frolik. I just have trouble understanding how people continuously undervalue Backlund to the extent seen around these parts at times.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to prizefighterinferno For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:22 AM
|
#871
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
|
I said Backlund and second as starting point, could be more to trade package.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:22 AM
|
#872
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Frolik is absolutely tradeable. I like him but he's not even as valuable as Backlund and with the term on his deal there are risks involved with him.
There's "an outer" core, a core, and non-core.
Backlund, Frolik, and for the time being Hudler are outer core pieces for us. Their value will peak if and when we have a deep and successful playoff run as teams that make it to the "final four" generally see their players' value inflated. And you have to "let them go" rather than "look to upgrade on them". For us that will be when the decision on Backlund should be made in my opinion. He's not a core piece but he's an outer-core piece.
|
Hudler is likely getting shipped in the next week. He's as far from core right now as it gets.
If we make a deep playoff run we can start to talk about guys like Backlund and Frolik being expendable. For now they are quite clearly core guys IMO.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:25 AM
|
#873
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
|
I think what has everyone confused about it is because bottom 6 players usually flood the trade market and UFA market in the summer. Sure, teams need to have a good bottom 6 to win but more importantly you need a good top 6. That's why you're hearing more talk about Stamkos being a UFA instead of guys like Riley Nash. Bottom 6 is important but top 6 is more important.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:25 AM
|
#874
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
Hudler is likely getting shipped in the next week. He's as far from core right now as it gets.
|
I am completely in the trade Hudler for high value pick, but that's not the same as a non-core piece. The guy was our leading scorer a season ago! He's been a core piece until we couldn't afford him.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:25 AM
|
#875
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
I don't follow your logic. Why does it mean we would have to be a dynasty and why would it have to mean we're in deep deep cap trouble? Why can't a 3rd line guy be a core player?
Obviously my definition of core doesn't seem to jive with other people's. To me core is the people we're building around. I guess to some it means guys who are untouchable? I don't like using that word because anyone can be traded in the right deal
You have to have two lines of bottom 6 players. Those are important positions too. It's okay to consider your elite bottom 6 guys to be core. Detroit won several Stanley Cups where their bottom two lines played a big role. Guys like Helm, Abdelkader have been core guys for Detroit even though they played for years on checking lines.
|
It'd be a dynasty because no other team in recent history has had as many "core" players (look at Chicago - they just deleted Sharp and Saad - obviously not "core" enough"). And as was pointed out, the last core guy who played a third line role that comes to mind was Gainey - on a pre-cap dynasty.
And cap troubles because you pay core guys big money, and 7 would be far too many.
helm and Abdelkader are not core. They are very useful role players who were plugged in for other departing useful role players.
Last edited by GioforPM; 02-23-2016 at 11:31 AM.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:28 AM
|
#876
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
Hudler is likely getting shipped in the next week. He's as far from core right now as it gets.
If we make a deep playoff run we can start to talk about guys like Backlund and Frolik being expendable. For now they are quite clearly core guys IMO.
|
I'm guessing you think core means something a lot more different than everyone else does. For that statement to be true, I'd say until we make a deep playoff run... If guys aren't showing that they have what it takes to win, they shouldn't be considered core guys. There haven't been many Flames to show they can carry a team or push this team over the edge. If they can't do that, they're expendable.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:28 AM
|
#877
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
I don't follow your logic. Why does it mean we would have to be a dynasty and why would it have to mean we're in deep deep cap trouble? Why can't a 3rd line guy be a core player?
Obviously my definition of core doesn't seem to jive with other people's. To me core is the people we're building around. I guess to some it means guys who are untouchable? I don't like using that word because anyone can be traded in the right deal
You have to have two lines of bottom 6 players. Those are important positions too. It's okay to consider your elite bottom 6 guys to be core. Detroit won several Stanley Cups where their bottom two lines played a big role. Guys like Helm, Abdelkader have been core guys for Detroit even though they played for years on checking lines.
|
I would consider core players to be the top 3-4 forwards, top 2-3 defenceman and starting goalie.
Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, ???? (2016 1st rounder?)
Brodie, Giordano, Hamilton
???? (Hopefully Gillies)
Everyone else is either just a stop gap (Stajan) or a support player that can be replaced (Russell).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Before you call me a pessimist or a downer, the Flames made me this way. Blame them.
|
Last edited by codynw; 02-23-2016 at 11:33 AM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to codynw For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:31 AM
|
#878
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
|
Having 7 forwards as core players sounds very oilerish in that they over value all of their players. If all of those players were that good, they wouldn't be a perennial last place team.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:33 AM
|
#879
|
Taking a while to get to 5000
|
Nm...misread. carry on
|
|
|
02-23-2016, 11:35 AM
|
#880
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Paradise
|
Backlund's trade value is probably pretty high right now because he's been producing. That being said he is also looking more valuable to the flames the more he produces. If he can be a 15+g 42+pt guy than we could have 3 centers over15g and .5ppg - that is pretty good, really good in fact. Problem being can he continue producing at that level when he is transitioned into the 3rd line centre roll? Another thing to th8nk of is when Stajan is gone, Backlund will likely be only 'Veteran' Center on the team. I think the right thing to do is to hold on to him and I hope he isnt traded.
If they have plans of moving him I would hope they have plans of bringing in another center around the same age (26-27) with a more physical upside.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 PM.
|
|