Speculation: Armchair GM Thread - 2018/19 Season

[Flameshomer]

So why is Washington moving him for essentially spare parts?

I don't think they would. They might be interested in something like Jankowski though, and I would be interested too.

 

[SKRusty]

I would make that trade for Samsonov all day. People say he's better than vasilevsky, and he certainly performs at an unbelievable standard. I think Gillies could still turn it on but if it is just costing us him and Mangiapane and Kylington (effectively spare parts to us right now) you take it and run. Also I hate the term mortgaging the future when said players are actually older than some of our current roster core.

Samsonov would be the heir apparent to our #1 goalie spot, and an excellent way to bring him into the league would be as the 1B to a healthy mike smith playing 40-45 games.

Then why have none of the NHL teams drafted a goalie in the top 10 since 2010? Why have only 4 been drafted in the first round in the same time period?

If goalies were the commodity you say they are there would be much more of an emphasis put on drafting them. The truth of the matter is that the depth of goalies is far deeper than any other position. Chicago won the Stanley Cup with Crawford, Boston with Tim Thomas, Washington with Hotlby in one of his worst years of his career, Niemi in Chicago and so on.

Calgary has 3-4 good goalie prospects. Gillies and Parsons probably have the most untapped potential but Rittich is no slouch. If Gillies can clean up his game there is no reason to believe he can not be as good as any of the ones listed above. Samsonov is just the latest "can't miss" like Hutchinson, Korpisalo, or Jack Campbell (drafted the highest in the last 9 years).

The long and short of this is the 18 people in front of the goalie are more important to a teams success thus how teams today draft.

 

[Flameshomer]

Then why have none of the NHL teams drafted a goalie in the top 10 since 2010? Why have only 4 been drafted in the first round in the same time period?

If goalies were the commodity you say they are there would be much more of an emphasis put on drafting them. The truth of the matter is that the depth of goalies is far deeper than any other position. Chicago won the Stanley Cup with Crawford, Boston with Tim Thomas, Washington with Hotlby in one of his worst years of his career, Niemi in Chicago and so on.

Calgary has 3-4 good goalie prospects. Gillies and Parsons probably have the most untapped potential but Rittich is no slouch. If Gillies can clean up his game there is no reason to believe he can not be as good as any of the ones listed above. Samsonov is just the latest "can't miss" like Hutchinson, Korpisalo, or Jack Campbell (drafted the highest in the last 9 years).

The long and short of this is the 18 people in front of the goalie are more important to a teams success thus how teams today draft.

Lots to unpack here, and not much coherently. My argument was more that the pieces we were giving up in the proposed trade were not as significant as the piece coming back.

For comparison sake, here are Samsonov's numbers (he's currently 21) vs the KHL numbers of Bobrovsky and Vasilevsky at comparable ages:

Bob 19-20 yr old seasons:

2008-09	Novokuznetsk Metallurg	KHL	32	1	2	1636	68	0	1	2.49	7	20	2	865	0.927	-	-	-
2009-10	Novokuznetsk Metallurg	KHL	35	0	4	1964	89	0	1	2.72	9	22	3	1004	0.919	-	-	-

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Vasi:

2012-13	Ufa Salavat Yulayev	KHL	8	1	0	297	11	0	1	2.22	4	1	0	133	0.924	-	-	-
2013-14	Ufa Salavat Yulayev	KHL	28	1	2	1601	59	0	3	2.21	14	8	5	707	0.923	18	1	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Samsonov:

2016-17	Magnitogorsk Metallurg	KHL	27	0	0	1128	40	0	2	2.13	15	3	5	589	0.936	3	0	0
2017-18	Magnitogorsk Metallurg	KHL	26	0	2	1325	51	0	3	2.31	12	9	1	639	0.926	5	0	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The biggest difference between these three goalies and the ones you mentioned are that these three were all playing very successfully in a men's league. Bob and Vasi had very little trouble adapting that success; I would say it's pretty likely that Samsonov is in the same range of prospect. Further, the goalies you mentioned vary greatly. In the case of Korpi and Campbell, the hype was based off of Junior success (always a poor indicator, see Kidd, Pogge, Fucale, Etc, etc.) In the case of Hutchinson, the hype was based off of a very hot backup streak (more akin to a chad johnson IMO). Samsonov is not either of these. He is more akin to Vasilevky- a junior prospect of great acclaim who went on to dominate a foreign men's league.

Vis a vis goalies not being selected high, that is because it takes longer to understand what their development path will look like. With Samsonov, who is already 21 and has played two full seasons in a mens league, that risk does not exist. I agree that Parsons is a good gamble longer term, but he had a troubling year last year. I'd rather bring in a higher caliber prospect like samsonov, and if we have an eventual duel materialize it will be a good thing. Gillies too has a good chance of success, but last year shook my confidence in him and I would be happy to look for an injection.

If we could base a trade around Jankowski or Mangiapane as the main piece, I think that's something you run with.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

If goalies were the commodity you say they are there would be much more of an emphasis put on drafting them. The truth of the matter is that the depth of goalies is far deeper than any other position. Chicago won the Stanley Cup with Crawford, Boston with Tim Thomas, Washington with Hotlby in one of his worst years of his career, Niemi in Chicago and so on.

I get your point, but you chose some odd, odd examples. Tim Thomas won the Vezina and the Conn Smythe. Holtby finished third in Conn Smythe voting, regular season aside.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

So why is Washington moving him for essentially spare parts?

Well because they have Holtby under contract long term. And they could use some depth

I would also have interest in Holtby.

All of Mangiapane, Gillies and Kylington have upside so it’s not like they are getting nothing back.

 

[SKRusty]

Lots to unpack here, and not much coherently. My argument was more that the pieces we were giving up in the proposed trade were not as significant as the piece coming back.

Vis a vis goalies not being selected high, that is because it takes longer to understand what their development path will look like. With Samsonov, who is already 21 and has played two full seasons in a mens league, that risk does not exist. I agree that Parsons is a good gamble longer term, but he had a troubling year last year. I'd rather bring in a higher caliber prospect like samsonov, and if we have an eventual duel materialize it will be a good thing. Gillies too has a good chance of success, but last year shook my confidence in him and I would be happy to look for an injection.

If we could base a trade around Jankowski or Mangiapane as the main piece, I think that's something you run with.

In regards to the development path most players drafted 10 or later face the same development path as goalies. Shinkaruk, Poirier, Klimchuck, Foo, Wotherspoon, Sieloff, Hickey, Fox, Jankowski and so on are all long term development projects. In their draft year there were many that were pegged for making the team "next year".

A trade involving Jankowski, Kylington, Mangiapane, Foo, Dube, Valimaki, Andersson, Phillips, or to a lesser extent Klimchuck shortens the window for winning a cup because as players hit UFA status and cost more it will be these players that will be expected to step into the line-up for more reasonable contracts. Not all these players will make it but are at this point the best bets to secure a roster spot some day.

Losing Jankowski at this point would be absolutely foolish. He is a younger better Backlund in the very least and quite possibly our best candidate to become our 2C. The only C with more hockey IQ is Sean.

Season	Lg	Player	Age	Tm	Pos	W	L	T/O	GAA	SV%	OPS	DPS	GPS	PS
2017-18	NHL	Pekka Rinne	35	NSH	G	42	13	4	2.31	.927	0.0	0.0	13.2	13.2
2016-17	NHL	Sergei Bobrovsky	28	CBJ	G	41	17	5	2.06	.931	0.0	0.0	14.9	14.9
2015-16	NHL	Braden Holtby	26	WSH	G	48	9	7	2.20	.922	0.0	0.0	12.1	12.1
2014-15	NHL	Carey Price	27	MTL	G	44	16	6	1.96	.933	0.0	0.0	16.2	16.2
2013-14	NHL	Tuukka Rask	26	BOS	G	36	15	6	2.04	.930	0.0	0.0	13.1	13.1
2012-13	NHL	Sergei Bobrovsky	24	CBJ	G	21	11	6	2.00	.932	0.0	0.0	9.2	9.2
2011-12	NHL	Henrik Lundqvist	29	NYR	G	39	18	5	1.97	.930	0.0	0.0	14.1	14.1
2010-11	NHL	Tim Thomas	36	BOS	G	35	11	9	2.00	.938	0.0	0.0	16.2	16.2
2009-10	NHL	Ryan Miller	29	BUF	G	41	18	8	2.22	.929	0.0	0.0	16.8	16.8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

How many of those goalies have won a cup as a starter? 2 Tim Thomas and Holtby.... And Holtby did not even get the start against Columbus because he was having one of his worst years.

Amazingly some of the best goalies of the last decade have none as a starter in Carey Price, Lundqvist, Bobrovsky, Rinne, Kipper, Rask, Ryan Miller, and Roberto Luongo.

The last goalie to win the Conn Smythe was Quick and before that Tim Thomas. Both had very good defensive teams.

The last goalie to win the Conn Smythe without a good defense was Patrick Roy.

 

[Calculon]

With the Flames' cap issues moving forward, they need to keep as much of their cheap depth as possible.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Well because they have Holtby under contract long term. And they could use some depth

I would also have interest in Holtby.

All of Mangiapane, Gillies and Kylington have upside so it’s not like they are getting nothing back.

Don't get me wrong, as I like all those guys and I like Samsonov a lot too, I just think all three of those guys are prospects that the Flames value more internally than they will receive in trade value externally.

 

[Flameshomer]

In regards to the development path most players drafted 10 or later face the same development path as goalies. Shinkaruk, Poirier, Klimchuck, Foo, Wotherspoon, Sieloff, Hickey, Fox, Jankowski and so on are all long term development projects. In their draft year there were many that were pegged for making the team "next year".

A trade involving Jankowski, Kylington, Mangiapane, Foo, Dube, Valimaki, Andersson, Phillips, or to a lesser extent Klimchuck shortens the window for winning a cup because as players hit UFA status and cost more it will be these players that will be expected to step into the line-up for more reasonable contracts. Not all these players will make it but are at this point the best bets to secure a roster spot some day.

Losing Jankowski at this point would be absolutely foolish. He is a younger better Backlund in the very least and quite possibly our best candidate to become our 2C. The only C with more hockey IQ is Sean.

I really like how you juxtaposed the first batch of prospects who were can't miss with the current batch. That alone should help to prove to you that it's likely only one or two of that second group actually sustain NHL careers. No offence to them, it's just a very hard thing to actually achieve. Not all of our prospects (even the good ones) will achieve it.
Regarding the cup window, I'm not sure there is much we can do to keep it past the current 4-5 years window. Once Johnny and Money's current contracts are up we are in a whole heap of trouble. There will be enough turnover in the bottom half of our roster that I believe most of the prospects you mentioned will be immaterial, and I have my doubts that any will dramatically out perform their rookie contracts enough to boost the team significantly (as is what cup contenders hope for, like panarin in chicago). Really you need small contracts to become difference makers- outside of Valimaki and maybe Dube, I have doubts that any will be a difference maker at the NHL level.

On to the Jankowski point, which I see too frequently for my liking.

76

18

21

39

4

32

5

11

4

4

3

1

178

10.1

47.5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

72

17

8

25

-7

33

2

3

2

2

3

0

118

14.4

48.77

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

81

16

28

44

-8

18

6

9

0

1

4

1

153

10.5

54.48

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

23 year old season for three centres on the team right now. Which is Jankowski?

Not sure at all where this view of Jankowski as a natural heir to the top-6 has materialized from. He was given plenty of opportunity to drive a line last year and he couldn't.

 

[SKRusty]

I really like how you juxtaposed the first batch of prospects who were can't miss with the current batch. That alone should help to prove to you that it's likely only one or two of that second group actually sustain NHL careers. No offence to them, it's just a very hard thing to actually achieve. Not all of our prospects (even the good ones) will achieve it.
Regarding the cup window, I'm not sure there is much we can do to keep it past the current 4-5 years window. Once Johnny and Money's current contracts are up we are in a whole heap of trouble. There will be enough turnover in the bottom half of our roster that I believe most of the prospects you mentioned will be immaterial, and I have my doubts that any will dramatically out perform their rookie contracts enough to boost the team significantly (as is what cup contenders hope for, like panarin in chicago). Really you need small contracts to become difference makers- outside of Valimaki and maybe Dube, I have doubts that any will be a difference maker at the NHL level.

On to the Jankowski point, which I see too frequently for my liking.

76

18

21

39

4

32

5

11

4

4

3

1

178

10.1

47.5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

72

17

8

25

-7

33

2

3

2

2

3

0

118

14.4

48.77

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

81

16

28

44

-8

18

6

9

0

1

4

1

153

10.5

54.48

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

23 year old season for three centres on the team right now. Which is Jankowski?

Not sure at all where this view of Jankowski as a natural heir to the top-6 has materialized from. He was given plenty of opportunity to drive a line last year and he couldn't.

Without looking at the stats of anybody I am going to guess in this order Backs, Janko, Lindholm. Knowing both Lindholm, and Janko's totals made it kind of a dummy's move.
That said Backs was in season 3 or 4 as was Lindholm's .... Not their rookie season.

Janko got one game with any talent whatsoever ... Bennett (covered him in many posts), Foo, Brouwer, Lazar and so on do not equate to playing with real talent. With the train wreck of talent around him he still bettered Back's 23 year old season for CORSI. Bennett was given many more opportunities and well his failures are well documented. Lindholm played with Staal, Aho, Skinner, Rask and Williams... All of which are more talented than Jankowski's. So yeah what point are you trying to make?

 

[crackdown44]

I really like how you juxtaposed the first batch of prospects who were can't miss with the current batch. That alone should help to prove to you that it's likely only one or two of that second group actually sustain NHL careers. No offence to them, it's just a very hard thing to actually achieve. Not all of our prospects (even the good ones) will achieve it.
Regarding the cup window, I'm not sure there is much we can do to keep it past the current 4-5 years window. Once Johnny and Money's current contracts are up we are in a whole heap of trouble. There will be enough turnover in the bottom half of our roster that I believe most of the prospects you mentioned will be immaterial, and I have my doubts that any will dramatically out perform their rookie contracts enough to boost the team significantly (as is what cup contenders hope for, like panarin in chicago). Really you need small contracts to become difference makers- outside of Valimaki and maybe Dube, I have doubts that any will be a difference maker at the NHL level.

On to the Jankowski point, which I see too frequently for my liking.

76

18

21

39

4

32

5

11

4

4

3

1

178

10.1

47.5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

72

17

8

25

-7

33

2

3

2

2

3

0

118

14.4

48.77

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

81

16

28

44

-8

18

6

9

0

1

4

1

153

10.5

54.48

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

23 year old season for three centres on the team right now. Which is Jankowski?

Not sure at all where this view of Jankowski as a natural heir to the top-6 has materialized from. He was given plenty of opportunity to drive a line last year and he couldn't.

I’m not suggesting he’s a sure fire top 6 player. I’m just stating that I’d like to see him not buried on the 4th or moved to the wing. I even acknowledged his age in my post.

But to suggest that he was given plenty of opportunity last year is just not true and even if he was, to suggest he deserves to get buried because he couldn’t carry sub par linemates in his rookie season is just ridiculous

 

[Volica]

Losing Jankowski at this point would be absolutely foolish. He is a younger better Backlund in the very least and quite possibly our best candidate to become our 2C. The only C with more hockey IQ is Sean.

 

[CraigsList]

Not sure how it's funny? I firmly believe Jankowski has what it takes to be a 2C on this team as well. He has the tools to be a 1C but I do not think he gets there. I do think that he can surpass Backlund as the 2C, which would benefit this team greatly.

 

[SKRusty]

Not sure how it's funny? I firmly believe Jankowski has what it takes to be a 2C on this team as well. He has the tools to be a 1C but I do not think he gets there. I do think that he can surpass Backlund as the 2C, which would benefit this team greatly.

Considering it was Mark's rookie year, only played 72 games (coaching and managements wrong decision), and played with bottom 6 players he carved out a respectable CORSI and one less point than Sam Bennett who received several opportunities on the top units and power play time.

Name

Gm

G

A

P

+/-

ES/G

SHG

PPG

ATOI

TOI

Shift

SHg

sTOI

PPM

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1 Gaudreau, Johnny LW	80	24	60	84	2	15:52	0:01	3:32	19:25	1553:54	1716	21.5	0:54	.054
2 Monahan, Sean C	74	31	33	64	3	14:47	0:17	3:38	18:41	1382:28	1577	21.3	0:53	.046
3 Tkachuk, Matthew LW	68	24	25	49	-1	14:16	0:00	2:59	17:15	1173:03	1354	19.9	0:52	.042
4 Stewart, Chris RW	7	1	2	3	-4	10:46	0:00	0:00	10:55	76:22	99	14.1	0:46	.039
5 Ferland, Micheal RW	77	21	20	41	5	13:08	0:02	1:51	15:01	1156:29	1467	19.1	0:47	.035
6 Foo, Spencer RW	4	2	0	2	1	13:45	0:00	2:06	15:51	63:25	73	18.3	0:52	.032
7 Backlund, Mikael C	82	14	31	45	-21	14:31	2:22	2:08	19:01	1559:53	1868	22.8	0:50	.029
8 Jankowski, Mark C	72	17	8	25	-7	11:29	1:04	0:49	13:21	961:38	1266	17.6	0:46	.026
9 Hamilton, Dougie D	82	17	27	44	1	18:22	0:30	2:40	21:32	1765:32	2087	25.5	0:51	.025
9 Versteeg, Kris LW	24	3	5	8	-8	10:05	0:00	3:06	13:11	316:23	406	16.9	0:47	.025
11 Jagr, Jaromir RW	22	1	6	7	6	11:28	0:00	1:35	13:03	287:00	350	15.9	0:49	.024
12 Lomberg, Ryan LW	7	0	1	1	0	6:14	0:00	0:01	6:15	43:45	64	9.1	0:41	.023
13 Bennett, Sam LW	82	11	15	26	-18	12:20	0:42	1:21	14:24	1180:50	1497	18.3	0:47	.022

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Consider Mark had 0.003 less points per 60 playing with far less talent than Backs did. Backs played almost 600 more minutes than Jankowski and had only 20 more points.
Back's played 1:40 seconds PP more a game.

I will concede Back's played some of the hardest minutes but that just shows he is unable to compete against that level of competition. Some point out Back's low shooting percentage and while it was low he was closer to the mean last year than he was the two previous seasons meaning at best Back will be capable of 60 points.

If you just take minutes played into consideration Mark would have had 43 points to Backlunds 45. More PP time usually increases points by 15% which takes Mark to 49 points.

Now take into account Chucky's points ... I will argue Frolik and Backs were lucky they had Chucky along for the ride or there is a good possibility Frolik would have been sub 20 points and Backs would have been below 35.

Now are you SURE Backlund has more offensive skill than Jankowski has? How many more points does Mark get from the player depth? How many more PP minutes does Mark garner this year? How much more ATOI will Mark garner?

 

[Mobiandi]

It never ceases to amaze me how much Flames fans underrate Backlund. There's every reason to be excited about Lindholm and Jankowski but until they actually surpass what he has done, then Backlund is still our second best center by far. I would even argue he was our best center two seasons ago

 

[Skobel24]

I'd be really curious to see how well Backlund would do as a #1 playing in an offensive role.

 

[CraigsList]

It never ceases me to amaze how much Flames fans underrate Backlund. There's every reason to be exited about Lindholm and Jankowski but until they actually surpass what he has done, then Backlund is still our second best center by far. I would even argue he was our best center two seasons ago

I am not underrating Backlund. I'm just saying that the Flames would be an even deeper team if Janko became the 2C in a couple of years. We'd be screwed without Backlund.

 

[SKRusty]

It never ceases me to amaze how much Flames fans underrate Backlund. There's every reason to be exited about Lindholm and Jankowski but until they actually surpass what he has done, then Backlund is still our second best center by far. I would even argue he was our best center two seasons ago

Not under rated. I want Jankowski and Lindholm to push Backs but the reality is offensively Backlund does not have the skills the other 2 are blessed with.

I'd be really curious to see how well Backlund would do as a #1 playing in an offensive role.

Backlund has played with Johnny a fair bit but Johnny needs a finisher as a center and that is not Backlund's game at all.

I am not underrating Backlund. I'm just saying that the Flames would be an even deeper team if Janko became the 2C in a couple of years. We'd be screwed without Backlund.

I would love to see all 4 Backlund, Lindholm, Jankowski, and Bennett pushing Monahan for 1C. The reality is the only player that may be capable of doing so MAY be Lindholm if he realizes everything his potential has to offer.

I do however see Lindholm, Backlund, and Jankowski pushing one another to be the best they can be. Sam to this point needs to just worry about becoming successful at the NHL level.

 

[Volica]

Not sure how it's funny? I firmly believe Jankowski has what it takes to be a 2C on this team as well. He has the tools to be a 1C but I do not think he gets there. I do think that he can surpass Backlund as the 2C, which would benefit this team greatly.

Jankowski's processor speed is too slow, and while physically gifted, he still needs to put on 15-20 pounds. I fully expect him to be Calgary's 4C this year. We wouldn't of had to go out and pick up 2 natural centres in the offseason if we thought Jankowski would easily surpass Backlund.

At this point, he's a non-puck dominant centre. We're not sure what the finished product looks like, but we'd have to get an exponential curve to see him as a 2C, let alone a 1C. Not ruling it out, because his progress curve has been excellent; but it's unlikely.

He struggled at the NHL last year. He was often outmatched. Keep in mind, outside of 4 goals in the last game of the season in a meaningless game Vegas didn't really even play in; and a hot streak from Bennett in November/December, Jankowski scored 7 goals the rest of the way. That's still decent production from a rookie, but we're also looking at a guy who'll be 24 by the start of the season.

I expect him to carve out a bit more of an offensive Brian Boyle type career. Late bloomer who's a great internal asset. I see a 15-20/13-15 type centre, big, wins draws (Eventually), and plays with the puck a lot.

 

[Mobiandi]

Not under rated. I want Jankowski and Lindholm to push Backs but the reality is offensively Backlund does not have the skills the other 2 are blessed with.

Backlund put up 47 pts two seasons ago playing with rookie Bennett, Frolik and Colborne. He then followed it up with 53 pts and was the main reason we made the playoffs. Jankowski got 8 assists this season and a quarter of his goals against a Vegas team that was trying not to get injured. That isn't to say I don't like Jankowski but he faded hard after the bye week. Playing with Aho and being given a lot of PP time, Lindholm still hasn't reached Backlund's career highs in points even with the latter being slaughtered with defensive assignments.

It's true the 3M line had a down year offensively but it's way off base to suggest Backlund is being carried by Tkachuk. He's a damn good player in his own right and still finished with 45 pts last season

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Backlund put up 47 pts two seasons ago playing with rookie Bennett, Frolik and Colborne. He then followed it up with 53 pts and was the main reason we made the playoffs. Jankowski got 8 assists this season and a quarter of his goals against a Vegas team that was trying not to get injured. That isn't to say I don't like Jankowski but he faded hard after the bye week. Playing with Aho and being given a lot of PP time, Lindholm still hasn't reached Backlund's career highs in points even with the latter being slaughtered with defensive assignments.

It's true the 3M line had a down year offensively but it's way off base to suggest Backlund is being carried by Tkachuk. He's a damn good player in his own right and still finished with 45 pts last season

Lindholm didn't even really play with Aho that much, plus in 2016-2017 Lindholm had one of the best primary assist generation 5on5 in the league.