Speculation: Armchair GM Thread: Jagrbombs all around

[Calculon]

People have lost perspective less than 10 games into the season. No GM, unless they're Milbury reincarnated, or possibly a clone of McPhee, trades a player with Bennett's potential (even if said player aged all of 21 is struggling in a small sample size) for what could end up being a one year rental like Neal. It just doesn't happen; even NHL GM's aren't that stupid. Not to mention, you're selling on Bennett when his value's at an all time low. If the team was hellbent on trading him, at least give him a solid stretch on Backlund's wing to pump that value up.

Now, Suzuki's a terrific prospect but a strong WJC's from Fox and their value is roughly equal. And the team would silly to pay to move Brouwer right now; just wait a year or two so he can be bought out when needed.

And who knows, maybe if the Knights keep doing well, then at the draft offer up Brouwer straight up for Suzuki because you know, it's McPhee.

 

[Lunatik]

Do you know who Bennett reminds me of? Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson

 

[FerklundCGY]

Do you know who Bennett reminds me of? Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson

Do you know who Bennett reminds me of? Ryan Johansen

 

[Baxterman]

I find it sad that at this point I hesitate with trading Fox more than I do Bennett. I don't think Vegas would accept that unless they really like Bennett or Fox.

Plus Suzuki is really good. I think a lot of people here wanted him at 16 me included. Vegas has some great early returns on their first draft.

Vegas would do that deal in a heartbeat, if not faster.

I am not a Fox fan but not too much difference between him and Suzuki and any difference is more than made up in them getting Bennett for Neal who they are losing for nothing at the end of the season or getting a pick for at the deadline.

 

[Flameshomer]

Wouldn't trade Bennett for neal, but if we could add to Bennett and somehow get marner that would be cool

 

[Janks]

Do you know who Bennett reminds me of? Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson

I hope you're being sarcastic.

 

[Baxterman]

Wouldn't trade Bennett for neal, but if we could add to Bennett and somehow get marner that would be cool

To get Marner we would have to deal one of Gio, Brodie, Hamilton.

The Leafs have more than enough forwards already that they don't need Bennett and more than enough depth that the add on wouldn't make sense.

I doubt they trade Marner at all but if they do it would only be for a sure fire top pairing guy.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

With the Rangers need for RHD, and Bennett's struggles. Anyone up for Bennett and Andersson for Zibanejad?

 

[Flameshomer]

With the Rangers need for RHD, and Bennett's struggles. Anyone up for Bennett and Andersson for Zibanejad?

I get the sense that Bennett could probably put up the same point spread as zibanejad if put in similar positions to succeed, so I would say no at that price. I would entertain a one for one though!

Personally, I think we should use a Bennett+Andersson/kylington+small add to go after Reinhart+Nylander from Buffalo. Reinhart is in the dog house and the fans seem down about Nylander's season next year, but i think both would fit excellently here.

 

[CraigsList]

Yeah, the Leafs are not trading Marner unless Hamilton is coming back.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

I get the sense that Bennett could probably put up the same point spread as zibanejad if put in similar positions to succeed, so I would say no at that price. I would entertain a one for one though!

Personally, I think we should use a Bennett+Andersson/kylington+small add to go after Reinhart+Nylander from Buffalo. Reinhart is in the dog house and the fans seem down about Nylander's season next year, but i think both would fit excellently here.

Lol go to the Calgary-Buffalo trade proposal and look at how much Sabre fans overrate Reinhart. Bennett, Kylington, and Fox may not even be enough according to one poster haha.

 

[Skobel24]

Yeah, the Leafs are not trading Marner unless Hamilton is coming back.

Which honestly, I'd find very interesting come offseason. If some of these younger guys like Fox/Andersson/Kylington show they can step in, I'd seriously consider a deal around those two.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

As a Devils fan, I can offer up Palmieri or Hall for Bennett + Fox.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

As a Devils fan, I can offer up Palmieri or Hall for Bennett + Fox.

If Flames don't take that and run I don't know what to think of management anymore. Realistically though Shero wouldn't offer that haha.

 

[Skobel24]

As a Devils fan, I can offer up Palmieri or Hall for Bennett + Fox.

Holy f*** I would GLADLY do Hall for Bennett and Fox.

Gaudreau - Monahan - Hall
Tkachuk - Backlund - Jagr
Ferland - Jankowski - Frolik
Versteeg - Stajan - Lazar

 

[Flameshomer]

As a Devils fan, I can offer up Palmieri or Hall for Bennett + Fox.

Lol I would take that all day for hall. He would look fantastic on the top line wing.
Hall-Monahan-Gaudreau

 

[Dack]

As a Devils fan, I can offer up Palmieri or Hall for Bennett + Fox.

I think you would be the only one lmao. I get where you're coming from though while my confidence in Bennett has wavered this season, I'm very high on Adam Fox.

 

[Calculon]

A) Hall's 6M salary or even Palmieri's 4.65M salary doesn't work cap wise if the only roster piece heading out is Bennett. Flames currently have a shade over 2M in cap space; Bennett makes a little under 2M per. Adding a cap dump like Brouwer or Stajan would increase the price.

B) Hall has just two years left on his deal and I really doubt the Flames can afford him at 8M+ or whatever and Tkachuk at 5M+.

C) Hall's a cancer and a lottery lucky charm. Personal opinion obviously on the former. Since the rebuild is essentially over, and since the Flames don't even have a first round pick, no thanks. There's no point.

D) All that being said, the value is obviously lopsided in the Flames' favour. But Hall is also a pass first playmaker like Gaudreau which makes me doubt their effectiveness together. Maybe
Hall-Monahan-Tkachuk
Gaudreau-Jankowski-Ferland/Lazar/Jagr

E) Yet another left hand shot. Yes, these things matter. If the Flames are going to make a big trade and give up on Bennett, might as well do so for an actual need, e.g., Bennett+2019 1st for Simmonds.

F) F for Hall. Not a fan. Wish he was back on the Oilers.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

A) Hall's 6M salary or even Palmieri's 4.65M salary doesn't work cap wise if the only roster piece heading out is Bennett. Flames currently have a shade over 2M in cap space; Bennett makes a little under 2M per. Adding a cap dump like Brouwer or Stajan would increase the price.

B) Hall has just two years left on his deal and I really doubt the Flames can afford him at 8M+ or whatever and Tkachuk at 5M+.

C) Hall's a cancer and a lottery lucky charm. Personal opinion obviously on the former. Since the rebuild is essentially over, and since the Flames don't even have a first round pick, no thanks. There's no point.

D) All that being said, the value is obviously lopsided in the Flames' favour. But Hall is also a pass first playmaker like Gaudreau which makes me doubt their effectiveness together. Maybe
Hall-Monahan-Tkachuk
Gaudreau-Jankowski-Ferland/Lazar/Jagr

E) Yet another left hand shot. Yes, these things matter. If the Flames are going to make a big trade and give up on Bennett, might as well do so for an actual need, e.g., Bennett+2019 1st for Simmonds.

F) F for Hall. Not a fan. Wish he was back on the Oilers.

If we're trading Bennett I prefer not packaging the first, unless it's for a young cost controlled player.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Hall sucks. I'd rather have the guy who wants to win and the extra four million, not to mention a guy who could be our best prospect by the end of the year.

 

[InfinityIggy]

As a Devils fan, I can offer up Palmieri or Hall for Bennett + Fox.

Okay, no backsies.

 

[Dertell]

(I'm not sure where those posts should go. This is a reply to one posts in CGY vs NSH thread)

How is this a stupid saying? It's a formal rhetorical fallacy (ad hoc ergo propter hoc). Is everyone saying it correct to invoke the principle? No, of course not. There are many times when you can actually support your theory for the causative relationship. But saying "Kulak plays and our team has its two best games" is exactly the right sort of situation to respond with that, because it's not a causative relationship unless one is analyzing the games with massive confirmation bias. It's a lazy statement to make by OKG, and he's being rightfully called out for it.

By the way, I've been more confident in the third pairing with Kulak. I think he's much better than Bartkowski, and he would've done the team a big favour if he'd shown that in the pre-season instead of looking like a deer in the headlights at every opportunity. I think he's made the team better for those 10-14 minutes a night. But to say that the rest of the team has been playing better hockey because of a moderate improvement to the third pairing? That's just garbage, lazy analysis.

I don't think OKG meant the rest of the team, he meant the team, which Kulak and Bartkowski are part of. You can absolutely impact transition for and against in the 10-14 ES minutes. IIRC, bottom pair impact for ~15% of a team's ES play. If you don't think ~15% matters, play poker. OKG can go right ahead and confirm or deny, but I think he made that comment within the context of the discourse surrounding the blueliner. I'm skeptical he would've went for that framing if it wasn't for that; none of us are really thinking about just two games here, let's get real. Like I said, it just adds up.

"Correlation does not imply causation." is a stupid saying because, much like calling out "hypocrisy" or "contradictions", it doesn't get to the core of the opposition's argument, train of thought so at the end, it is useless. nobody, for example, believe margarine leads to divorce, despite correlation. people who wrongly believes causation tends to have a certain case of confirmation bias, so it's important to explain where the correlation actually comes from, then criticize those pre-established beliefs.

 

[Anglesmith]

I don't think OKG meant the rest of the team, he meant the team, which Kulak and Bartkowski are part of. You can absolutely impact transition for and against in the 10-14 ES minutes. IIRC, bottom pair impact for ~15% of a team's ES play. If you don't think ~15% matters, play poker. OKG can go right ahead and confirm or deny, but I think he made that comment within the context of the discourse surrounding the blueliner. I'm skeptical he would've went for that framing if it wasn't for that; none of us are really thinking about just two games here, let's get real. Like I said, it just adds up.

"Correlation does not imply causation." is a stupid saying because, much like calling out "hypocrisy" or "contradictions", it doesn't get to the core of the opposition's argument, train of thought so at the end, it is useless. nobody, for example, believe margarine leads to divorce, despite correlation. people who wrongly believes causation tends to have a certain case of confirmation bias, so it's important to explain where the correlation actually comes from, then criticize those pre-established beliefs.

I agree with the last part here. But how does that make the statement invalid? How does it, in general, make the statement a bad one? It's perfectly valid to point out when people are claiming, but not supporting, a causal relationship.

Here's what OKG actually said to prompt the retort:

Brett Kulak is one of the most overrated Flames ever

- Flames play their two best 5v5 games since he finally plays

OKG has just pointed out a correlation. And this encompasses not just the third pairing playing better, but the Flames, as a whole, playing better at 5-on-5, which is true... they did.

He then said that Kulak swings momentum for the Flames, as justification for this claim.

I think you'll agree that not a lot of thought was being put into this argument except the fact that OKG has been pumping Kulak's tires for a while, wants desperately for him to have a positive effect on the team so he can be right, and thus is looking for anything to grasp onto.

Kulak played well. He is a better player than Bartkowski, and thus when he's on the ice, he improves the team relative to Bartkowski. That's enough said at the end of the day. No need to pretend he somehow is helping the rest of the team while he's on the bench.

 

[Dack]

Kulak = Nylander??????

Nah but seriously I think he's a good bottom pairing d man. I said in my predictions that I think by the end of the season Kulak > Stone. I just hope that they don't bench him when he inevitably makes a mistake or has a bad game.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

pretend he somehow is helping the rest of the team while he's on the bench.

Pretend?

So either

1) "Momentum" isn't a psychological factor in games
or
2) the Flames have had as many momentum swings in these games associated with our third pair getting trapped in their own zone, usually resulting in goals against, or penalties against, or desperate line changes on the fly. And yes - at times penalties have been taken with Bartkowski on the ice by other individuals because of Bartkowski's inability to deny zone entries or exit the defensive zone early and efficiently.

I don't think there is anything "desperate" or "pretentious" about claiming (2). It's observable.

Now am I saying Kulak is some superstar who makes guys complete passes better while he sits on the bench? No. I am saying that guys are getting more high ground on line changes and more regular ice time when our third pair does not produce wild swings in momentum. I'll even define momentum - extensive shifts where one team is living in the other team's zone. And finally, the only goal our third pair was on the ice for against in the last two games was a failure by the forwards to manage the puck, which is in contrast to the momentum swings that have occured with Bartkowski on the ice on nothing sequences that end up in a fire drill.

There is causation between having three strong pairs playing well and the team as a whole playing well VS having two strong pairs playing well, a third pair that is struggling, and the other two defense pairs (and the forwards) losing out on easier shifts.

Can I prove it? I probably could if I went back and dug up the video during and after every Kulak shift - but I really shouldn't have to. You're hyperbolizing a claim that is both sensible and simultaneously moreso an indictment of Matt Bartkowski than any unique praise of Brett Kulak.

Now if you insist that "Momentum" isn't a psychological factor in games so be it - or you to some degree admit that my claim has merit. Having good players at the bottom of your roster is beneficial to having liabilities at the bottom of your roster. I said this same sort of thing when people were claiming that the difference between Bollig and Byron was irrelevant if neither was scoring. Players can contribute in many ways that actually have on-ice effects. Now I will say some things - like hitting or fighting - may not have the same results on what I observe to be "momentum shifts" as things like disciplined stickwork, clean breakouts, tight gap control. controlled zone entries.

TL;DR - I never said Kulak is amazing. But I do contend that when one group is playing well on the ice, it does influence the context that allows other lines to perform to their full capability. Especially when the rest of your roster is not Team Canada that can make something out of nothing every shift.