Flameshomer
Likeaholic
I don't think they would. They might be interested in something like Jankowski though, and I would be interested too.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.So why is Washington moving him for essentially spare parts?
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.
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 | - | - | - |
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 |
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 |
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.
So why is Washington moving him for essentially spare parts?
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.
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 |
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.
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.
76 | 18 | 21 | 39 | 4 | 32 | 5 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 178 | 10.1 | 47.5 |
72 | 17 | 8 | 25 | -7 | 33 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 118 | 14.4 | 48.77 |
81 | 16 | 28 | 44 | -8 | 18 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 153 | 10.5 | 54.48 |
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.
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
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 23 year old season for three centres on the team right now. Which is Jankowski?[TBODY] [/TBODY]
81 16 28 44 -8 18 6 9 0 1 4 1 153 10.5 54.48
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 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.
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
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 23 year old season for three centres on the team right now. Which is Jankowski?[TBODY] [/TBODY]
81 16 28 44 -8 18 6 9 0 1 4 1 153 10.5 54.48
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.
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.
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.
Name | Gm | G | A | P | +/- | ES/G | SHG | PPG | ATOI | TOI | Shift | SHg | sTOI | PPM |
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 |
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
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'd be really curious to see how well Backlund would do as a #1 playing in an offensive role.
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.
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.
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.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