GDT: Calgary @ Vancouver 8 PM MT (SN/SN1)

[JPeeper]

f*** off Troy Brouwer.

But more so, f*** Glen Gulutzan for continuing to put him with Bennett. f*** you.

All this talk from the coaches and GM about Bennett breaking out and they put him with the worst player in the league.

f*** off

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

If that is your list of bad moves then we are doing pretty decent. Stajan has been good in his time here. Waiving Byron and Jooris were fine moves and no loss at all. Re-signing Versteeg was a good move. Trading Granlund was a nothing move as he has no future here and isn't a lose at all. The 2nd round pick right now is at worst a neutral move, very unlikely a 2nd rounder turns out to be better than Lazar.

The only real negatives were the Bouma deal and Brouwer deal and those are pretty minor.

Byron scored 22 goals 43 points last year
Granlund scored 19 goals last year in only 69gp
That would have put them at 2nd and 4th on the Flames in goals last year . . . and yet those guys have "no value" lol. The Flames have nothing to show for giving them up . . "no loss at all".

Jooris was an effective, speedy energy player - much better option than F Hamilton / Glass
Lazar is looking more and more like a fringe NHL'er, not even close to worth a 2nd round pick
3.125M is waaay too much for a 4th line C in Stajan

Signing an awful player to a 4 year 18M contract is far from a "minor" mistake. Between Brouwer and Stajan they've got almost 8M locked up between 4th line players on the wrong side of 30. You could probably get the same caliber of players for 2-3M, which would leave 5-6M to sign a skilled top 6 RWer. . . I would think you would be more critical of such a waste of cap space, considering your disdain for Ferland on the top line.

 

[Baxterman]

It is a little concerning that our biggest issues heading into the pre-season- goaltending, "3rd line" and 6th d-man- have looked the worst for us and we still have huge issues there.

I am also not overly impressed with forcing the Versteeg-Bennett-Brouwer line that wasn't really great last year and that seemed like a poor idea heading into this year. I hope in the final game of the pre-season they try something else, that they are willing to use in the regular season, with Bennett to see if they can find some solution to his line rather than putting the two guys who seem to be struggling most with their offense (Bennett and Brouwer) together.

 

[JPeeper]

Never have I ever wanted Chiasson so much on the Flames, because at least in the playoffs, he looked really good with Bennett and Versteeg. And Brouwer was on the 4th line where he belongs if he is going to stay in the NHL.

 

[Baxterman]

Byron scored 22 goals 43 points last year
Granlund scored 19 goals last year in only 69gp
That would have put them at 2nd and 4th on the Flames in goals last year . . . and yet those guys have "no value" lol. The Flames have nothing to show for giving them up . . "no loss at all".

Jooris was an effective, speedy energy player - much better option thaette n F Hamilton / Glass
Lazar is looking more and more like a fringe NHL'er, not even close to worth a 2nd round pick
3.125M is waaay too much for a 4th line C in Stajan

Signing an awful player to a 4 year 18M contract is far from a "minor" mistake. Between Brouwer and Stajan they've got almost 8M locked up between 4th line players on the wrong side of 30. You could probably get the same caliber of players for 2-3M, which would leave 5-6M to sign a skilled top 6 RWer. . . I would think you would be more critical of such a waste of cap space, considering your disdain for Ferland on the top line.

Hard to see Byron putting up those points here. Plus he was also waived through basically the whole league and was a healthy scratch in Montreal so it wasn't like he was that player when we waived him. He had a career year last season with zero reason to expect him to repeat that or anything close to it.

Granlund put up points on a bottom 5 team being force fed minutes he doesn't get on a quality team. Using his stats in that situation isn't really useful or representative of what he can do. We saw what he could bring in Calgary and it wasn't much. Watching the Canuck games last year you would also see that he didn't bring much there either. He just isn't a very good player on a good team.

Jooris wasn't effective at all. He had a hot streak where he put up some points but for the vast majority of his career he was not NHL calibre. Which is why he struggled to maintain a full time gig last year and is on a one year minimum deal this year.

If you add Byron, Granlund and Jooris to this team we are no better off and struggling to find places for Granlund and Jooris to even play.

Stajan is not even close to being awful and at times has allowed that 4th line to at least hold its own with him there. When Granlund was the center on that line in the past they were dog crap and couldn't be used.

Yes the cap space from Brouwer isn't great but that extra money is likely wasted anyways as I can't think of a UFA worth 5-6M that we could have signed to play on the top line. Also every team has bad contracts so if that is the worst thing you can point then it isn't really that bad.

 

[CamPopplestone]

The defense needs to get used to Smith. Whether or not Smith ends up playing great is one thing, but he's going to pass the puck more. Also Smith is going to take time getting adjusted to pretty much an entire new D Corps and system.

I'm still on the Stone/Brodie train. I think Brodie/Hamonic will get better but not sold on the pairing yet.

I'd like to try Thachuk on the RAW with Gaudreau/Monahan, just to see if he can effectively play the right side. If he can, he's got way more potential than Ferland as a top line guy.

 

[Anglesmith]

Hard to see Byron putting up those points here. Plus he was also waived through basically the whole league and was a healthy scratch in Montreal so it wasn't like he was that player when we waived him. He had a career year last season with zero reason to expect him to repeat that or anything close to it.

And yet plenty of posters who watched the player in Calgary fully expected him to play in Montreal like he has done. It's not like it was a surprise to everyone. I have zero doubt that having Byron on the third line instead of Brouwer would make a significant difference to how the team plays. We would also have a top-notch penalty kill again.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay these bad moves. They are what they are. Signing Brouwer looks like a big mistake at this point. It may well lead to a buy-out if his season is a repeat of the last one. We've already had two buyouts under Treliving of players Treliving signed. That hasn't been an issue with previous GMs. These are real, tangible mistakes. His biggest moves, the Hamilton and Hamonic trades, have looked like good ones, but this is not a flawless GM with a flawless resume. There's a reason this team is not looked at league-wide as a contender right now, and it's because of weaknesses that the GM has not been able to fix in his years here.

I like Treliving as a GM. He's not perfect, though. It's mindboggling how willing people are to evaluate a GM by a completely different standard based on the way they present themselves. If Treliving had the bluster and salesmanesque personality of Feaster, he'd be getting skewered on these boards day in and day out.

 

[Baxterman]

Gaudreau-Bennett-Ferland
Tkachuk-Monahan-Versteeg
Frolik-Backlund-Lazar
Stajan-Jankowski-Hathaway
Hamilton/Brouwer

That's three, potentially four lines deep. Which is a lot better than the current lineup which is at most, two lines and a mishmash of parts.

That is an awful lot of heavy lifting for Gaudreau to do offensively for that line. People may like the potential of Bennett and Ferland but so far they have 2 full seasons of NHL hockey and highs of 36 and 25 points respectively. Yes Bennett is young and I expect him to be higher than 36 points this year and beyond but that is a big risk to have your top point getter playing with such unproven guys offensively.

Likewise if Versteeg takes a dip this year based on age, bad hip or both that 2nd line could be in trouble as well.

I do want to see some sort of change but that line-up seems to be very risky and relying on guys (Bennett Ferland and Versteeg especially) to take big steps forward or maintain a level that might not be realistic.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Hard to see Byron putting up those points here. Plus he was also waived through basically the whole league and was a healthy scratch in Montreal so it wasn't like he was that player when we waived him. He had a career year last season with zero reason to expect him to repeat that or anything close to it.

Granlund put up points on a bottom 5 team being force fed minutes he doesn't get on a quality team. Using his stats in that situation isn't really useful or representative of what he can do. We saw what he could bring in Calgary and it wasn't much. Watching the Canuck games last year you would also see that he didn't bring much there either. He just isn't a very good player on a good team.

Jooris wasn't effective at all. He had a hot streak where he put up some points but for the vast majority of his career he was not NHL calibre. Which is why he struggled to maintain a full time gig last year and is on a one year minimum deal this year.

If you add Byron, Granlund and Jooris to this team we are no better off and struggling to find places for Granlund and Jooris to even play.

Stajan is not even close to being awful and at times has allowed that 4th line to at least hold its own with him there. When Granlund was the center on that line in the past they were dog crap and couldn't be used.

Yes the cap space from Brouwer isn't great but that extra money is likely wasted anyways as I can't think of a UFA worth 5-6M that we could have signed to play on the top line. Also every team has bad contracts so if that is the worst thing you can point then it isn't really that bad.

That's completely ridiculous. Byron and Granlund would be significant upgrades over Brouwer / Glass / F Hamilton / Lazar, and Jooris would bring some speed and energy back to a forward group that is probably the slowest in the league. Granlund was one of Vancouver's best players tonight, and would have been their leading goal scorer last year had he not gotten injured.

And if you think Lazar is good value for a 2nd round pick, I guess the Canucks fleeced the Flames on the Baertschi trade? Between Sven and Granlund, the Canucks bagged 37 goals and 67 points last year, even though each guys missed over a dozen games . . .

This Flames forward group could be much better, and should be much better. But coaching and management just can't seem to stop shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Baxterman]

And yet plenty of posters who watched the player in Calgary fully expected him to play in Montreal like he has done. It's not like it was a surprise to everyone.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay these bad moves. They are what they are. Signing Brouwer looks like a big mistake at this point. It may well lead to a buy-out if his season is a repeat of the last one. We've already had two buyouts under Treliving of players Treliving signed. That hasn't been an issue with previous GMs. These are real, tangible mistakes. His biggest moves, the Hamilton and Hamonic trades, have looked like good ones, but this is not a flawless GM with a flawless resume. There's a reason this team is not looked at league-wide as a contender right now, and it's because of weaknesses that the GM has not been able to fix in his years here.

I like Treliving as a GM. He's not perfect, though. It's mindboggling how willing people are to evaluate a GM by a completely different standard based on the way they present themselves. If Treliving had the bluster and salesmanesque personality of Feaster, he'd be getting skewered on these boards day in and day out.

Well its not like Paul Byron exploded right when he got there. His first year there he put up the typical pedestrian numbers he had his whole career and then this year had a lucky career year that doesn't fit into place with the whole rest of his career. I guess posters here could all know more than all the NHL guys out there or it could have been an outlier that is unlikely to be repeated.

I guess I am "downplaying" the "bad moves" because I don't really see them having much (if any at all) of a negative effect on the team. Byron, Granlund and Jooris are not good enough players to play on a quality hockey team, which is what we should be aiming for. Bouma's contract hasn't stopped us from adding players and Stajan has been very good in his time here. Yes he is overpaid but again I haven't seen how that has hurt us in adding salary.

The worst move was overpaying Brouwer and that was better than the Hudler or Wideman deals. The only reason Feaster didn't have to deal with buyouts is that he built a team so bad that there was no need to buyout his terrible deals and he lucked out that others rejected the terrible deals he wanted to give them.

 

[BigRangy]

Brouwer a better deal than Hudler?

You're trolling at this point

Go to bed

 

[Baxterman]

That's completely ridiculous. Byron and Granlund would be significant upgrades over Brouwer / Glass / F Hamilton / Lazar, and Jooris would bring some speed and energy back to a forward group that is probably the slowest in the league. Granlund was one of Vancouver's best players tonight, and would have been their leading goal scorer last year had he not gotten injured.

And if you think Lazar is good value for a 2nd round pick, I guess the Canucks fleeced the Flames on the Baertschi trade? Between Sven and Granlund, the Canucks bagged 37 goals and 67 points last year, even though each guys missed over a dozen games . . .

This Flames forward group could be much better, and should be much better. But coaching and management just can't seem to stop shooting themselves in the foot.

For as much hate as Brouwer gets he is better than Byron and Glass and Hamilton shouldn't be on this team anyways so Byron being better than them has no real meaning anyways. I would prefer Lazar to Byron but even if not it is pretty much a wash at best.

And its great that Granlund was one of Vancouver's best forwards in a pre-season game, it doesn't change the fact that in the regular season he is a bad NHL player.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

That is an awful lot of heavy lifting for Gaudreau to do offensively for that line. People may like the potential of Bennett and Ferland but so far they have 2 full seasons of NHL hockey and highs of 36 and 25 points respectively. Yes Bennett is young and I expect him to be higher than 36 points this year and beyond but that is a big risk to have your top point getter playing with such unproven guys offensively.

Likewise if Versteeg takes a dip this year based on age, bad hip or both that 2nd line could be in trouble as well.

I do want to see some sort of change but that line-up seems to be very risky and relying on guys (Bennett Ferland and Versteeg especially) to take big steps forward or maintain a level that might not be realistic.

Adding Bennett to that line in place of Monahan would actually make things a lot easier for Gaudreau, as Bennett is a much better skater and puck carrier. It's not like that line struggled when they were put together - they had 6 points between the 3 of them and probably could have had 4 or 5 more.

If a 21 year old rookie Johnny Gaudreau can carry "valueless" players like Markus Granlund, Josh Jooris, and Paul Byron, I have think he'd probably do alright with a former 4th overall pick who almost scored 20 goals as a 19 year old rookie and an emerging power forward.

 

[Baxterman]

Brouwer a better deal than Hudler?

You're trolling at this point

Go to bed

Jiri Hudler in his last season was horrible.

I know it was funny that he didn't wear shoes to the award show but that was an awful contract in the last year.

 

[Baxterman]

Adding Bennett to that line in place of Monahan would actually make things a lot easier for Gaudreau, as Bennett is a much better skater and puck carrier.

Adding a guy who has a career total of 63 points over a guy who has two seasons of 63 points would make the offensive game easier for Gaudreau?

Look I like Bennett a lot but that is a huge steaming pile of crap.

I can get behind trying to spread out offense, I can get behind trying to kickstart Bennett but don't try to sell Bennett on that line being better for Gaudreau offensively than Monhan when his season totals are more impressive than Bennetts career totals. We have to see a lot more than 6 games and a few pre-season tilts before coming up with that assessment.

 

[Baxterman]

If this season goes south Treliving will be fired IMO this is his roster it's his second tandem of goalies, his coach and his D core.

I think it would obviously depend on how south things went and how it went that way (ie performance vs. injuries) but I have a hard time imagining that happens and if it does it being a positive thing for the Flames organization.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Adding a guy who has a career total of 63 points over a guy who has two seasons of 63 points would make the offensive game easier for Gaudreau?

Yes, because Monahan is a one dimensional offensive player who can't carry the puck and struggles to keep up. He provides minimal support in the neutral zone, making it that much easier for the opposition to double team Gaudreau.

Look I like Bennett a lot but that is a huge steaming pile of crap.

I can get behind trying to spread out offense, I can get behind trying to kickstart Bennett but don't try to sell Bennett on that line being better for Gaudreau offensively than Monhan when his season totals are more impressive than Bennetts career totals. We have to see a lot more than 6 games and a few pre-season tilts before coming up with that assessment.

Why are you getting so offended at the notion that Bennett is a better match for Gaudreau than Monahan?

Bennett's played 2 entire seasons in the NHL? Through their first 2 seasons, Monahan had 58 ES points, Bennett 50. Ignoring the fact that Bennett played most of his second season with garbage linemates while Monahan had true first line talents flanking him, Monahan also played ~200 more ES minutes in his first 2 seasons. So their ES P/60 were almost the same, despite the hilariously large gap in talent of their linemates.

Bennett was more productive in junior and had a more productive rookie year than Monahan before being put in a terrible situation his sophomore year. Meanwhile, Monahan was gifted the role of 1st line C and 1st unit PP duties as a sophomore . . . strange how that resulted in him scoring so many points.

It might take you a while to figure it out, but for most who pay attention, its pretty obvious that Gaudreau wouldn't miss a beat if they replaced Monahan with Bennett.

 

[Anglesmith]

Yeah, @Baxterman, I know you've tried now to explain your point about Brouwer's contract being better than Hudler or Wideman, but you're not making any sense yet. Both of those guys were effective NHL players for >half of the tenure of their deal. That's what you want with a UFA signing. Those contracts were successes by the standard of UFA deals. Them being with the team helped the team more years than it hurt the team.

Brouwer right now has one bad year in the books. He's not showing any signs that this year will be any better. Right now, every indication is that he will hurt the team every year of his deal. There is zero justification to have him better than either of those deals. Especially Hudler's, given Hudler had a lower cap hit. Give your head a shake.

 

[Baxterman]

Yes, because Monahan is a one dimensional offensive player who can't carry the puck and struggles to keep up. He provides minimal support in the neutral zone, making it that much easier for the opposition to double team Gaudreau.

Struggles to keep up? In what world does Monahan struggle to keep up?

Why are you getting so offended at the notion that Bennett is a better match for Gaudreau than Monahan?

Bennett's played 2 entire seasons in the NHL? Through their first 2 seasons, Monahan had 58 ES points, Bennett 50. Ignoring the fact that Bennett played most of his second season with garbage linemates while Monahan had true first line talents flanking him, Monahan also played ~200 more ES minutes in his first 2 seasons. So their ES P/60 were almost the same, despite the hilariously large gap in talent of their linemates.

Bennett was more productive in junior and had a more productive rookie year than Monahan before being put in a terrible situation his sophomore year. Meanwhile, Monahan was gifted the role of 1st line C and 1st unit PP duties as a sophomore . . . strange how that resulted in him scoring so many points.

It might take you a while to figure it out, but for most who pay attention, its pretty obvious that Gaudreau wouldn't miss a beat if they replaced Monahan with Bennett.

I am not offended at all, it just makes zero sense to me.

And who are these "most who pay atention"? The only place I have read or heard about splitting Monahan and Gaudreau is here. I listen to local radio and don't hear them talking about it, I listen to national radtio and don't hear them talking about, I see some newspaper articles and don't see them talking about it.

As for the Bennett/Monahan comparisons at some point who gives a crap what you did in Junior. Here is what I have seen Gaudreau and Monahan work well together. Monahan has outproduced Bennett in their careers despite whatever excuses you try to come up with to explain. Those two things are facts.

I don't see why you would split up something that has worked well for the team on the chance that Bennett might work out better despite everything showing us that it is more likely he will work out worse.

If there was a problem that needed fixing then sure go ahead. If 20 games into the season things aren't working out then go ahead switch things up. But this sure seems like trying to fix something that isn't broken based on basically nothing at all.

 

[Baxterman]

Yeah, @Baxterman, I know you've tried now to explain your point about Brouwer's contract being better than Hudler or Wideman, but you're not making any sense yet. Both of those guys were effective NHL players for >half of the tenure of their deal. That's what you want with a UFA signing. Those contracts were successes by the standard of UFA deals. Them being with the team helped the team more years than it hurt the team.

Brouwer right now has one bad year in the books. He's not showing any signs that this year will be any better. Right now, every indication is that he will hurt the team every year of his deal. There is zero justification to have him better than either of those deals. Especially Hudler's, given Hudler had a lower cap hit. Give your head a shake.

You are right the Hudler one is a stretch based on me really having a bitter taste in my mouth about how awful Hudler was in that last half year with the team and not really liking him overall before, during or after the contract.

But the Wideman deal was terrible from the start. He was awful for Calgary every minute he was on the ice. There is no way that was a good or effective deal at all. It was awful the moment it was signed and got worse from then on.

 

[Mr Snrub]

You right the Hudler one is a stretch based on me really having a bitter taste in my mouth about how awful Hudler was in that last half year with the team and not really liking him overall before, during or after the contract.

But the Wideman deal was terrible from the start. He was awful for Calgary every minute he was on the ice. There is no way that was a good or effective deal at all. It was awful the moment it was signed and got worse from then on.

Wideman's play during Giordano's injury was the single biggest reason we made the playoffs in 2015. You're simply talking out of your ass here.

 

[Anglesmith]

You are right the Hudler one is a stretch based on me really having a bitter taste in my mouth about how awful Hudler was in that last half year with the team and not really liking him overall before, during or after the contract.

But the Wideman deal was terrible from the start. He was awful for Calgary every minute he was on the ice. There is no way that was a good or effective deal at all. It was awful the moment it was signed and got worse from then on.

Wideman got results. Results which at least partially justified the deal. Whether you liked how he played stylistically or not, he got results. He was signed as an offensive defenceman, and he put up good points here, and was a huge factor in the team returning to the playoffs and winning a series. I would be fine if Brouwer was even worse visually if I could look at his body of work at the end of the season and see that he'd made a positive impact, all things considered. I think without any argument, the Flames made the playoffs last year in spite of him.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Struggles to keep up? In what world does Monahan struggle to keep up?

In the world where is much slower than his linemate?

I am not offended at all, it just makes zero sense to me.

If Monahan is such an elite player, he should be able to replicate his production without Gaudreau (you would hope a guy getting 6.4M/year could do that). Meanwhile, we would expect to see a significant increase in Bennett's production, like we see with everyone who plays with Johnny. Wouldn't that result in more offense for the team? How would that not make sense?

And who are these "most who pay atention"? The only place I have read or heard about splitting Monahan and Gaudreau is here. I listen to local radio and don't hear them talking about it, I listen to national radtio and don't hear them talking about, I see some newspaper articles and don't see them talking about it.

As for the Bennett/Monahan comparisons at some point who gives a crap what you did in Junior. Here is what I have seen Gaudreau and Monahan work well together. Monahan has outproduced Bennett in their careers despite whatever excuses you try to come up with to explain. Those two things are facts.

I don't see why you would split up something that has worked well for the team on the chance that Bennett might work out better despite everything showing us that it is more likely he will work out worse.

If there was a problem that needed fixing then sure go ahead. If 20 games into the season things aren't working out then go ahead switch things up. But this sure seems like trying to fix something that isn't broken based on basically nothing at all.

So did Gaudreau and

Ferland
Bennett
Hudler
Jooris
Granlund

Gaudreau has shown the ability to create with just about anyone. Everything we've seen from Bennett and Gaudreau when together would indicate that the two have great chemistry, probably even moreso than Gaudreau's chemistry with Monahan. The Flames could be sitting on a potential gold mine, yet you want to to wait it out because there is risk in trying something new?

The odds that Bennett turns into a 70+ point 2 way beast is far greater than the odds of that line busting. It sounds like you're either a) afraid of change, b) concerned that Monahan's production drop off will be too great for Bennett's increase to make up, or c) want to torture Sam Bennett for growing the beard of a champion. What am I missing?

 

[Baxterman]

In the world where is much slower than his linemate?



If Monahan is such an elite player, he should be able to replicate his production without Gaudreau (you would hope a guy getting 6.4M/year could do that). Meanwhile, we would expect to see a significant increase in Bennett's production, like we see with everyone who plays with Johnny. Wouldn't that result in more offense for the team? How would that not make sense?




So did Gaudreau and

Ferland
Bennett
Hudler
Jooris
Granlund

Gaudreau has shown the ability to create with just about anyone. Everything we've seen from Bennett and Gaudreau when together would indicate that the two have great chemistry, probably even moreso than Gaudreau's chemistry with Monahan. The Flames could be sitting on a potential gold mine, yet you want to to wait it out because there is risk in trying something new?

The odds that Bennett turns into a 70+ point 2 way beast is far greater than the odds of that line busting. It sounds like you're either a) afraid of change, b) concerned that Monahan's production drop off will be too great for Bennett's increase to make up, or c) want to torture Sam Bennett for growing the beard of a champion. What am I missing?

I guess what you are missing in my main argument and the fact that you keep trying to shoe horn this notion that I am concerned about Monahan production dropping which I have never said, implied or been worried about in any way. It is clear that you are down on Monahan and the fact that you keep trying to steer this about him says a lot more about your thoughts on him than mine. If the team wins I could care less if Monahan goes 0-0-0 in 82 games.

Now given the options I would say that yes I am afraid (or more like leery) of change when it appears to be change for change sake. The main argument I have seen for Bennett-Gaudreau is that Gaudreau can create with anyone. Well if that is the case lets go Gaudreau-Lazar-Brouwer and have him pump those guys up. If Bennett has more potential than Monahan then he should be fine carrying his own line and coupled with Monahan carrying his line, Backlund/Frolik and Gaudreau creating with anyone we have 4 great lines.

I don't see it as simple as Gaudreau being able to create with anyone. I also haven't seen enough from Bennett to think that some pre-season chemistry will translate to NHL regular season success. We have also never seen that Bennett has more chemistry with Gaudreau than with Monahan.

 

[Lunatik]

I'm reading this thread and praying stupidity isn't contagious. So much cluelessness, so much overreaction. The regular season hasn't even started and I am already embarrassed to be cheering for the same team as half the people in here.