[PGT] Chicago 5 - Calgary 3

[Machiavelli]

^ Hamilton would be this team's point leader

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

1. All players are inconsistent even the best. Expecting complete consistency from a team or a player is absurd
2. Hockey is a team game, you don't build around one player. It wouldn't be Tkachuk's team, he would just be one of the more important parts.
3. Tkachuk just turned 22. It's highly unlikely we've seen the best from him. He could easily continue to get better. Even if it's just his consistency that he improves on, he'll grow.

I think this boils down to us needing more heart, more competitiveness, more grit, more fire. It's been a need for a while. It's why we dealt Hamilton (he lacked it), why we acquired Lindholm and Lucic, and why the loss of Hathaway has stung. I had reached a frustration point with Hamilton when Treliving dealt him and I'm quickly reaching that point with Gaudreau's careless, scared play this year.

Tkachuk is definitely a guy you build around because his style of play is needed in the playoffs. I think it's why you keep Bennett too unless somebody wants to really blow your socks off with an offer. I think you have to have some gritty, physical players to succeed in the playoffs.

A real test will be to see how Gaudreau plays from in the last half of the season, more so after the all star break. When things truly tighten up bot and each game becomes more intense for the stretch and playoff drive. Will the fire and desire be there? Or will he continue to slide and be the non factor for the team and show no compete.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

^ Hamilton would be this team's point leader

how do you know? he would be in a totally different situation playing with different players

Both Hamilton trades were good trades for the Flames IMO

[browna]

Originally Posted by dino7c

how do you know? he would be in a totally different situation playing with different players

Both Hamilton trades were good trades for the Flames IMO

And Gio would’ve never won the Norris last year.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

That was the influence that coach Q had on Kane as a youngster. Q and his moustache were never afraid to frown and staple his butt to the bench for a couple of shifts, as a youngster, if a lack of effort was perceived. Kane got the memo early, and it wasn't a recurring issue. Some think Kane is a "floater" and yes, he occasionally cheats the zone, but, if he is the high forward in a rotation, he DOES bust A on the back check. Consistent effort is a learned behavior, and a respected coach has every right to demand it.

IMO, that is a main reason that my guys have 3 cups over the decade, consistent 200 ft effort, whereas, a team, like the Oil, keep drafting "generational" talent, and failing, miserably.

If the coach can't demand the effort from JG, then, it is up to his veteran teammates to remind him that time is ticking on THEIR careers, as well as his, and failure due to lack of effort is not acceptable.

Great points especially about the learned behavior!

I think Gaudreau would have benefited from experienced taskmaster coaches, like Darryl Sutter, or Joel Quenneville who isn't afraid to sit a star player down at the first sign of lackluster play. Kane and Toews were made examples of and that mindset ran through the whole team. Both Quenneville and Darry Sutter have the ability to get teams to believing in one objective. Wards has a small sample size but I think lack of experience in recent coaches is leading to wayward players and some inconsistencies. This team should not be allowed to dictate play whenever they feel like it, but they do.

Hartley was good for Monahan and Gaudreau believing in them but also not afraid to bench them.

Joel Quenneville likely would have been an excellent fit for the Flames core players.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Treliving doesn't seem like a coward to me.

It comes down to what he believes in my mind. If he thinks this core is worth building around he won't move them. If doesn't he won't.

It’s not a question of being cowardly vs. brave. I don’t doubt Treliving is willing to trade players, the question is whether he will be willing to accept picks and prospects in return. Or if he will be allowed to do that.

[playmaker]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Both Hamilton trades were good trades for the Flames IMO

Not so sure about the first one. The players available with our 16th overall pick were
- Matthew Barzal
- Kyle Connor
- Thomas Chabot
- Travis Konecny
- Brock Boeser
They were selected as #16, #17, #18, #23, #24. Even the Flames couldn't miss on that one.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It’s not a question of being cowardly vs. brave. I don’t doubt Treliving is willing to trade players, the question is whether he will be willing to accept picks and prospects in return. Or if he will be allowed to do that.

I don't see ownership wanting to try and sell the 25-40% new arena ticket price increases in the midst of a rebuild. Treliving probably has a pretty tight range of operations right now.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by playmaker

Not so sure about the first one. The players available with our 16th overall pick were
- Matthew Barzal
- Kyle Connor
- Thomas Chabot
- Travis Konecny
- Brock Boeser
They were selected as #16, #17, #18, #23, #24. Even the Flames couldn't miss on that one.

Who was actually taken with the pick?

And Lindholm/Hanafin on their current deals are tough to beat

you say "even the Flames couldn't miss that one" yet you skip over picks using hindsight

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

1. All players are inconsistent even the best. Expecting complete consistency from a team or a player is absurd
2. Hockey is a team game, you don't build around one player. It wouldn't be Tkachuk's team, he would just be one of the more important parts.
3. Tkachuk just turned 22. It's highly unlikely we've seen the best from him. He could easily continue to get better. Even if it's just his consistency that he improves on, he'll grow.

I think this boils down to us needing more heart, more competitiveness, more grit, more fire. It's been a need for a while. It's why we dealt Hamilton (he lacked it), why we acquired Lindholm and Lucic, and why the loss of Hathaway has stung. I had reached a frustration point with Hamilton when Treliving dealt him and I'm quickly reaching that point with Gaudreau's careless, scared play this year.

Tkachuk is definitely a guy you build around because his style of play is needed in the playoffs. I think it's why you keep Bennett too unless somebody wants to really blow your socks off with an offer. I think you have to have some gritty, physical players to succeed in the playoffs.

Who is expecting complete consistency? My point is that the scapegoating of the playoffs and the current season on Johnny Gaudreau is over reaching. Other players aren’t playing well and often that includes Tkachuk.

I like Tkachuk a lot and I hope he stays. Lots of people expect Gaudreau to leave after he reaches UFA and Tkachuk has the exact same risk. Maybe you didn’t mean to say it the way you did, but Tkachuk is not a player you “build around” IMO. He could though be an extremely useful piece on a good team.

I hear you on grit and competitiveness but I don’t like judging players “heart” too much. There are a lot of players on this team I could see being very successful on a team that is built differently.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It’s not a question of being cowardly vs. brave. I don’t doubt Treliving is willing to trade players, the question is whether he will be willing to accept picks and prospects in return. Or if he will be allowed to do that.

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

Great points especially about the learned behavior!

I think Gaudreau would have benefited from experienced taskmaster coaches, like Darryl Sutter, or Joel Quenneville who isn't afraid to sit a star player down at the first sign of lackluster play. Kane and Toews were made examples of and that mindset ran through the whole team. Both Quenneville and Darry Sutter have the ability to get teams to believing in one objective. Wards has a small sample size but I think lack of experience in recent coaches is leading to wayward players and some inconsistencies. This team should not be allowed to dictate play whenever they feel like it, but they do.

Hartley was good for Monahan and Gaudreau believing in them but also not afraid to bench them.

Joel Quenneville likely would have been an excellent fit for the Flames core players.

Hartley only benched the stars once, and that was for off ice violations. I dont remember him cutting ice time ever.

Ward isn’t exactly an inexperienced coach. He just doesn’t have NHL head coaching experience but he’s been in the NHL for a long long time. I know there’s a difference but I don’t think he’s afraid to cut ice time - he’s done it to Gaudreau and Monahan already.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I like Tkachuk a lot and I hope he stays. Lots of people expect Gaudreau to leave after he reaches UFA and Tkachuk has the exact same risk. Maybe you didn’t mean to say it the way you did, but Tkachuk is not a player you “build around” IMO. He could though be an extremely useful piece on a good team.

Tkachuk doesn't have the exact same risk because he's RFA at the end of his contract and there's a decent chance he'd be open to re-signing. Gaudreau being UFA at the end of his contract has a much chance higher of leaving imo.

How is Tkachuk not a player you build around? One of the our top forwards and just turned 22. How are "useful piece(s) on a good team" not players you build around? You build around your core do you not? Are we not currently building around guys like Tkachuk, Monahan, Gaudreau, Lindholm, Andersson, Valimaki, Hanifin? With potential from Mangiapane, Dube, Kylington, etc? Seems like a really weird semantics argument you're trying to make around Tkachuk not being a guy to build around. Super confusing.

[playmaker]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Who was actually taken with the pick?

And Lindholm/Hanafin on their current deals are tough to beat

you say "even the Flames couldn't miss that one" yet you skip over picks using hindsight

The fact that Boston selected Zachary Senishyn with our pick is quite irrelevant IMO. It was a stupid off the board pick by the Bruins in very deep draft. BPAs were clearly Barzal and Connor and it is almost guaranteed the Flames would take Barzal with 1C potential. Also, Kyle Connor would be the most dynamic skater and the 2nd most skilled player in our roster.

Tkachuk - Barzal - X
Gaudreau - Monahan - X

or

Connor - Monahan - X
Gaudreau - X - Tkachuk

look both very good to me, that's why I'm not convinced that trading that pick away was a good idea. 2015 was probably the deepest draft class of the decade.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by The Big Chill

Well that decade sucked.

Ugh, so gross to think about holistically.. we've seen the 2nd round twice the previous 3 decades combined...just yuck.

Man I wish I was old enough to have truly experienced 80s Flames hockey. Can't even imagine this team perennially being good and winning at least a round, I got on board just in time to experience all those first round choke jobs starting in the early 90s. Seen way too much of those

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Who was actually taken with the pick?

And Lindholm/Hanafin on their current deals are tough to beat

you say "even the Flames couldn't miss that one" yet you skip over picks using hindsight

Zachary Senyshyn (RW).

I believe Boomer has mentioned before that the Flames were going to select Travis Konecny with the pick had they kept it/that he knew the Flames organization really liked Konecny.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Tkachuk doesn't have the exact same risk because he's RFA at the end of his contract and there's a decent chance he'd be open to re-signing. Gaudreau being UFA at the end of his contract has a much chance higher of leaving imo.

How is Tkachuk not a player you build around? One of the our top forwards and just turned 22. How are "useful piece(s) on a good team" not players you build around? You build around your core do you not? Are we not currently building around guys like Tkachuk, Monahan, Gaudreau, Lindholm, Andersson, Valimaki, Hanifin? With potential from Mangiapane, Dube, Kylington, etc? Seems like a really weird semantics argument you're trying to make around Tkachuk not being a guy to build around. Super confusing.

If its super confusing, go argue with this guy.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

2. Hockey is a team game, you don't build around one player. It wouldn't be Tkachuk's team, he would just be one of the more important parts.

The problem is terms like "core" and "building around" aren't defined terms. I'm fine with Tkachuk being part of the core to use that term, but the big problem with the current approach was starting too soon with complementary players before you had the right high end pieces in place at the right positions.

So while Tkachuk is an excellent player, if he's your best player I'm not convinced you have a championship team. Hence I don't like the building around Tkachuk argument.

I hope you're right about him signing here but his contract was structured to provide him a clear path to UFA with the Flames having little to no leverage. At least Gaudreau did sign for some of his UFA years here.

Is there anything other than hope behind the belief Tkachuk wants to extend here more so than any other player?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is there anything other than hope behind the belief Tkachuk wants to extend here more so than any other player?

I expect Tkachuk wants to make a much money as possible.

Whether that is here or there, I'm not sure it matters that much to Tkachuk.

He wouldn't give away UFA years because he didn't need to, so he would retain as much leverage as possible.

When Johnny signed his RFA contract, players basically needed to give away at least one UFA year to get a decent AAV. Times had changed when Tkachuk signed his contract, he had different leverage.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I hope you're right about him signing here but his contract was structured to provide him a clear path to UFA with the Flames having little to no leverage. At least Gaudreau did sign for some of his UFA years here.

Is there anything other than hope behind the belief Tkachuk wants to extend here more so than any other player?

I had the same feeling as you based on the contract, but then changed my "feel" after his press conference.

He could be a marketing genius, but he sure came across as a lifer with the bright lights and microphones.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I had the same feeling as you based on the contract, but then changed my "feel" after his press conference.

He could be a marketing genius, but he sure came across as a lifer with the bright lights and microphones.

Every player "loves it here" on the day they sign a new contract. A presser means nothing compared to what happens on the ice.

If the team continues to stagnate or regress over the life of the contract, he's gone as soon as he can.

[442scotty]

Tkachuk should be a politician. Say what they want to hear then do whatever you want. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if he moves on when his contract is up.