If the Flames are trading Hanifin, he has to be in a good package and it has to be for a center.
Speculation: Armchair GM Thread - 2019/20 Season Part 2
- Thread starter Ace Rimmer
- Start date
- Status
If the Flames are trading Hanifin, he has to be in a good package and it has to be for a center.
Meh, I didn’t really see it. He’s more physical and that’s not nothing, but his skating holds him back so much. He cannot he relied on to effectively carry and distribute the puck as a result, and his back checking is also spotty as a result of that. He was also underwater analytically again despite getting mainly ozone starts against weaker competition.
Honestly, outside of his shot in the slot, there is a lot in his game that would be great for a #3C or passable or just decent as a #2C. He’s really just not good enough.
Boom Boom Apathy
I am the Professor. Deal with it!
- Sep 6, 2006
- 48,359
- 97,938
Nanuuk
Registered User
Let's do a comparison shall we? I've read before on these boards where posters feel Aleksander Barkov is a true #1C while Monahan is not.
Both have seven seasons in the league.
Monahan - Seven 20 goal seasons including three 30 goal seasons
Barkov - Five 20 goals seasons with one 30 goal season
Monahan - Points average 62 per year
Barkov - Points average 70 per year
Monahan - Face-off win average 50.3%
Barkov - Face-off win average 51.0%
Monahan - Hits 44 per year
Barkov - Hits 36 per year
Monahan - Takeaways 58 per year
Barkov - Takeaways 68 per year
Monahan - Giveaways 46 per year
Barkov - Giveaways 49 per year
Monahan - Career Corsi F0r % - 55.8
Barkov- Career Corsi For % - 55.1
Monahan is plenty good enough unless you think Barkov is a 2-3C as well.
Ainsy01
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2014
- 1,187
- 627
The flames are reportedly interested in everyone, as always. Flames have 16.9 million in cap space next season, and would have been in a really nice position if the cap went on projected routes of nearing 85 million (would have about 21.5 million and numbers would have required much less crunching). Alas, some of the targets the flames on honing in on are available for that same reason, so its a catch 22.
How would u spend the 17 million? Here is my shot.
2020 Cap space: 16.9 million. (years x AAV)
UFA's:
T. Hall - 7x7
Markstrom - 5-5
Brodie - 3 x 3.9 (long shot to sign that)
RFA's
Mangiapane - 2 x 1
Kylington - what is left. (qualifying offer?)
I dont think that the flames could afford to resign Hall and Markstrom, and the chances that both big dogs would sign in CGY is a bit of a pipe-dream. Which brings me to my next question, what is your priority this offseason? Is it bringing in a superstar to give Johnny Hockey some more sheltered minutes, a few more O-zone starts and a 2nd line match up? I think Johnny would thrive under that, so its a win-win.
Markstrom is close to being a vezina finalist this year, and is an actually faily-proven option at a relatively young age, and is available. This could end the goalie carousel in calgary for the forseeable future. Goalies are tough to forecast but its as good as it gets in terms of age and projection.
Brodie, would be tough to see walk. Hes been a staple on the blue line for a while and has been a top pairing guy. Not easy to replace, but he has been a flames whippping boy for a while, and the GM has literally traded him. Brodie is rumored to be coveted by several eastern conference teams ( Florida, Detroit and Toronto).
So, whats the play ?
How would u spend the 17 million? Here is my shot.
2020 Cap space: 16.9 million. (years x AAV)
UFA's:
T. Hall - 7x7
Markstrom - 5-5
Brodie - 3 x 3.9 (long shot to sign that)
RFA's
Mangiapane - 2 x 1
Kylington - what is left. (qualifying offer?)
I dont think that the flames could afford to resign Hall and Markstrom, and the chances that both big dogs would sign in CGY is a bit of a pipe-dream. Which brings me to my next question, what is your priority this offseason? Is it bringing in a superstar to give Johnny Hockey some more sheltered minutes, a few more O-zone starts and a 2nd line match up? I think Johnny would thrive under that, so its a win-win.
Markstrom is close to being a vezina finalist this year, and is an actually faily-proven option at a relatively young age, and is available. This could end the goalie carousel in calgary for the forseeable future. Goalies are tough to forecast but its as good as it gets in terms of age and projection.
Brodie, would be tough to see walk. Hes been a staple on the blue line for a while and has been a top pairing guy. Not easy to replace, but he has been a flames whippping boy for a while, and the GM has literally traded him. Brodie is rumored to be coveted by several eastern conference teams ( Florida, Detroit and Toronto).
So, whats the play ?
Kranix
Deranged Homer
- Jun 27, 2012
- 18,228
- 16,273
Dack
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2014
- 3,915
- 3,546
There is no way the bolded is true. Monahan wasn't even a 50% CF player his first few years and over the last three he's only a 52.7% CF player but more importantly over the last three years he's been negative in most relative stats despite his linemates being in the positives. Hell over the last two years Monahan has the worst xGF% rel of any regular that's been here both years.
Also I have some doubts about Barkov being an elite center rather than an average 1C myself but I'd still take him any day of the week over Monahan. He's bigger, he PK's, he's not a liability in transition and his offensive game is multi-dimensional.
Ainsy01
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2014
- 1,187
- 627
The athletic recently put out an article bascialyl analyziing cup winning rosters and what they all had in common, and used it to put together a grocery list of players needed to contend. I wont share the article as it is pay to play but here is a summary of the list. How many do the flames currently have? and what are they missing.
- Elite first-line centre that’s among the very best players in the world.
- Elite first-line winger to support the elite centre.
- Two other top-line wingers on each of the top two lines.
- Top-line centre to play behind the elite centre.
- Two more top-six forwards for depth in the middle six.
- Elite No. 1 defenceman.
- A second No. 1 defenceman to play behind him.
- A top pairing defenceman to help anchor a strong second pair with the No. 2.
- Another top-pairing calibre defender to crush soft minutes on the third pair.
- A top 10 calibre starting goaltender.
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
I'm sorry, but most Stanley Cup winning teams don't have all that.
And frankly, that reads like a no duh list to me personally. Have three #1 D men and another top pairing guy!
Kranix
Deranged Homer
- Jun 27, 2012
- 18,228
- 16,273
Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,973
- 8,453
Many teams that have all that fail to get past the first round as well (ie: Tampa in different seasons).
TBH, I'd also be interested in seeing some analysis on the team that lost in the SC finals. I'd rather learn from the failure of the team that got the closest and figure out how to fix the failures to find success, than emulate the winner and miss out on small details that cause us to fall even before we make it to the finals.
It seems like it's splitting hairs, but it's well known you learn more from failures than successes.
EDIT: It also seems that the winning team had fluctuations in style like the LA/Boston bruiser/grinder types, then the speed and finesse types of Chicago and Pittsburg, back to the bruiser/grinder type in STL. If you forever chase and copy, you're doomed always to be an also ran and several steps behind IMO.
Last edited:
Nanuuk
Registered User
Volica
Papa Shango
- May 15, 2012
- 21,440
- 11,115
<looks at the past 5 years>
None of these teams have everything on this list.
I honestly think the list is like this:
- Elite top line centre, on either both ends of the ice. The premise here is a guy like ROR who has never really statistically been a top line centre in terms of products (no PPG seasons), but he's a guy who can dominate both ends of the ice. Same would go for when Boston last won, with Bergeron (Who at that time also never had a monster PPG+ season).
- A legitimate 2C. Not someone who is pegged into this role because there's no better option, but someone who either brings elite defence, secondary elite offence or a solid mix of both. Guys like Malkin, who are really a 1C in sheep's clothing, Backstrom, who is a 1C in sheep's clothing, Schenn who is by every metric a legit 2C, Brad Richards in 2015 was probably closer to a 3C at that time, but... to my next two points:
- An elite top line winger. Someone who will score at will during the playoffs, be a game breaker, be hard to control.
- A top line winger on the second line. A guy who on more than half of the other teams in the league would be on the top line. Someone who can drive offence, especially if the 2C is more of a two-way guy versus a Malkin-type.
- A great 3C. A 2C in a perfect world that is playing on the third line due to depth.
- 2 additional top 6 forward in the top 9. So, minus the two top line-type winger, and the two centres, there should be a total of 7 players in the top 9 that could play in the top 6 of the majority of the league.
- A minute munching 1D
- A solid 2D that complements the 1D. This player doesn't have to be a #2 by nature, but someone who makes life easier on the 1D, whether that's covering the defensive side a bit more, transitions, being physical, whatever it may be.
- A #3, who in reality could be a top pairing D, but can anchor a second pairing.
- A #4 that compliments the #3.
- A #5/#6/#7 that DO NOT HURT the team. No. They don't have to be top pairing guys on your bottom pair. They have to be 12-16 minute guys who play a solid game, don't hurt you, and maybe help you in a scenario (PP, PK).
- A bottom line that brings energy, doesn't hurt you, and can score a timely goal. Perfect scenario is a #3 centre playing on the bottom line.
- A goalie who can get hot you don't need a top 10 goalie in the world. You need a goalie who can find another level or two during the playoffs. It's such a mental position, someone who will battle and not let in softies.
So looking over the Flames to see if they have the quota:
Have:
- Legit 2C. Backlund. Elite two-way player. Doesn't score as much as you'd hope, but always is positive game impact, and regularly out produces top lines head to head.
- Elite top line winger. Gaudreau. Has not found this gear in the playoffs, but has found it consistently during the regular season.
- Top Line winger on second line. Tkachuk. No need to discuss this further.
- 2 Additional top 6 forwards: Lindholm, Mangiapange, Dube. Calgary has a strength here in terms of solid top 6 players playing through their top 9.
- Great 3C. Sometimes. Bennett or Ryan have both proven to be able to do this for stretches.
- Minute munching 1D. Normally Giordano. This last playoffs was bad. This past season wasn't great. But he's been able to do that in the past.
- #2 to support 1D. Brodie was a stud supporting Gio over the past 5-6 seasons when put in that position. But, he's UFA, and there's less and less chance he returns.
- Stud #3. Ras. Check.
- #4 that compliments #3. I liked the Hanifin/Andersson pairing a lot. I thought they worked well together.
- 4th line. Check. Having Ryan there helps. Needs non-plug wingers like Janko/Rinaldo.
- Elite top line centre. Monahan is not offensively elite, and below average defensively.
- #2 to support 1D. Brodie was a stud supporting Gio over the past 5-6 seasons when put in that position. But, he's UFA, and there's less and less chance he returns.
- Minute munching 1D. Normally Giordano. This last playoffs was bad. This past season wasn't great. But he's been able to do that in the past. On both have/have not, because of the direction this seems to be heading.
- A great 3C. Is this Bennett? Maybe. He hasn't shown it outside of up to 10 game stretches.
- #5/6/7. This could be Valimaki. But if the rumours are true with looking to move Hanifin, I don't know if this is your #4, or a guy who'll anchor the bottom pair. Lots of questions in terms of how the bottom looks.
- Goalie who can find another gear.
Last edited:
Volica
Papa Shango
- May 15, 2012
- 21,440
- 11,115
Just so everyone's on the same page:
Sean Monahan's career 5v5, non-score/venue adjusted is:
0.494757308520242
Sasha Barkov's career 5v5, non-score/venue adjusted is:
0.51198916593643
SVA is about the same, changes in the thousandths decimal.
Dack
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2014
- 3,915
- 3,546
I see why. Unless you select for 5v5 or even strength it will use all situations which benefits guys like Monahan who only play 5v5 and the powerplay because while on the powerplay your team is automatically going to take 80+% of the shots. In his career Monahan is a 50% CF player at even strength but it's his relative impacts that concern me more.
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
Gaudreau - Bennett - Lindholm
As a trial, you give Benny the same linemates that Monahan gets. No more excuses, if Bennett fails with them, everyone shuts up about him forever.
Tkachuk - Monahan - Dube
All three guys can score, all can pass. Dube gives them more footspeed. Good opportunity for Dube to learn C on the fly where appropriate.
Mangiapane - Backlund - Ryan
Shutdown line, Mangiapane has a motor and can be physical, well balanced line
Lucic - ? - ?
This one depends who is back next season. Spots appear to be open for some AHL talent, perhaps Gawdin gets a look.
As a trial, you give Benny the same linemates that Monahan gets. No more excuses, if Bennett fails with them, everyone shuts up about him forever.
Tkachuk - Monahan - Dube
All three guys can score, all can pass. Dube gives them more footspeed. Good opportunity for Dube to learn C on the fly where appropriate.
Mangiapane - Backlund - Ryan
Shutdown line, Mangiapane has a motor and can be physical, well balanced line
Lucic - ? - ?
This one depends who is back next season. Spots appear to be open for some AHL talent, perhaps Gawdin gets a look.
Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,973
- 8,453
What about Buddy Robinson and Alan Quine?
I don't fully understand why Gawdin is often a name above Phillips... but OK, I'll acknowledge that his talent is turning heads.
On the LD front, I realized something:
Gio
Hanifin
Valimaki
Kylington
Forbort*
----
Mackey
Poolman
We have way too many LD/nearly ready LD prospects. We need RD bad.
If the Hanifin thing goes through and we're not convinced on Valimaki, is there a vet LD/RD swing or just a 1 year #4 LD that's available? Can we convert Kylington to RD or are we going to have to trade him? Who is going to be 7th dman if we don't want a kid munching popcorn?
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,973
- 8,453
That's fair. Another name that's been tickling the back of my mind is E2. I think he could surprise and steal a spot as well.
Speaking of prospects... one thing I have been wondering about (that no one probably ever thinks of except as a last thing) is the 13th forward and 7th dman. With Ward in the fold, I wonder if we consider kids in that role vs vets. Hear me out.
Yes, having a kid munching popcorn usually isn't a good way to develop kids. But what if the the 12th and 13th forward were also prospects and chained and the 6th and 7th dman roles as well?
As in, sink or swim, 12th forward and 6th dman only play 3-4 games in a row with reasonable ice time. After that, he swaps with the 13th forward and 7th dman. Every 3-4 games you do this, every few months rotate the worst of the two (or both) back to the AHL and bring in a new kid/set of players to experiment with again. This heavily benefits a guy like Kylington who in many of our opinions has paid his dues and deserves more NHL time it also allows us to ease in a guy like Valimaki who has been out for a bit.
For instance, a guy like Dube said that experiencing the NHL before going back down to the AHL to focus on development was important. We are only contemplating 2 spots for newbies which kinda limits that opportunity. We also had coaches who leaned heavily on vets (Peters and GG) and we saw little growth from kids during that time. Ward leaned on the kids and gave them rope. They flourished. The last guy to allow that to happen was Hartley and during his tenure, failures or not, the kids did have opportunities to develop far more than we've seen in GG and Peters.
So what if on D, we are looking at something like...
Gio - Andersson
Hanifin* - X
Y - Y
Trade/Valimak/Kylington/Mackey/Yeselin/Poolman
Forward we're looking at
Lucic/X - X - X/Lucic
Quine/Buddy/Phillips/E2/Gawdin? (Assuming their play doesn't merit sitting Lucic over them).
If the answer is that it's worth considering, I'd be interested in some borderline depth moves and see if we can utilize the 4th line to significantly double/triple our speed of borderline prospect development vs other teams and not letting guys like Czarnik languish.
Last edited:
Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,973
- 8,453
Really? That's weird. I feel like Phillips is a sandpaper type who currently can kinda play a bit here and there a la Lomberg, but less fighting and a potential middle 6 ceiling.
Kinda fair point on Robinson, but when I saw him play on our roster, he actually kinda looked like a guy who was a late bloomer and constantly learning how he has to adapt to stay long term in the NHL, kinda like Ryan. I can totally see why we want Gawdin to succeed as he's younger, but IMO, I wouldn't write off Robinson as an NHL regular.
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
Phillips is tiny though. Most NHL coaches don't like tiny guys on their "energy" line. I think he's gonna get a top 9 role or not at all. I'd love to be wrong, as I think he's got NHL upside for sure.
Could be on Robinson, but I'm *hoping* that a lot of veteran bottom six guys will get pinched and we can really flesh out our 4th line/injury depth this year.
- Status
