Speculation: Armchair GM Thread - 2020-2021

[Johnny Hoxville]

All day. Doubt we get a player like that for Monahan.

I still think we should trade Money for a high end RW prospects (and maybe a few sweeteners.) And then go after Cirelli, or Barzal with an offer sheet (ship Ryan off for peanuts in the case of Barzal). I would love if we could get Jack Quinn for Monahan. Also think other guys like Batherson+, Caufield, etc. could be huge finds.

Gaudreau-Cirelli-Lindholm
Mangiapane-Backlund-Tkachuk
Dube-Bennett-Leivo
Lucic-Simon-Nordstrom

Kakko might be tough, after the Rags getting Lafreniere, I wonder if they think getting a high end 2C would make them balanced.

Also I would love to add Cirelli in general.

 

[Volica]

All day. Doubt we get a player like that for Monahan.

I still think we should trade Money for a high end RW prospects (and maybe a few sweeteners.) And then go after Cirelli, or Barzal with an offer sheet (ship Ryan off for peanuts in the case of Barzal). I would love if we could get Jack Quinn for Monahan. Also think other guys like Batherson+, Caufield, etc. could be huge finds.

Gaudreau-Cirelli-Lindholm
Mangiapane-Backlund-Tkachuk
Dube-Bennett-Leivo
Lucic-Simon-Nordstrom

Cirelli only works as de facto 1C when there’s a Point type 2C, who is really a 1C on the team.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

If they out Lindholm and Bennett at centre why can't they keep Monahan at wing?

I assume the primary concern is simply that he's never played the position. I think it's an unfounded concern though. Unlike Bennett and Backlund, who really cover space in the D zone, thrive in open ice in transition with skaters flanking them, and benefit from the added space they can create on the breakout, Monahan's skillset isn't quite so particular. He's a decent faceoff guy who has good hands and decent vision on the cycle, and I think the faceoff part of that has led to him being a square peg in a round hole at centre.

 

[evdog]

Any thoughts on whether Kylington will be signed? He still seems to have some potential...

 

[DFF]

Any thoughts on whether Kylington will be signed? He still seems to have some potential...

He has no choice

 

[Ainsy01]

I am also pretty tired of having a $10 million 4th line. Just when we got rid of one (Stajan, et al. his last year or two) we go ahead and get Lucic.

If we are going to have overpaid guys, can they at least be top 6 guys like Patrick Kane (who I'd argue isn't even that overpaid).

This team without Lucic and Ryan on the 4th line would save the same $9 mil. I like Ryan, but we can only have one guy on the 4th line making decent money.

ELC player/Rinaldo-Nordstrom-Simon

would be a great 4th line and could have afforded us to have Hall long term.

Yes, I also agree. Why dont we just get overpaid players like Kane to play in our top 6 instead of Lucic. Why does Treliving still have a job honestly. Shedding horrible contracts like Lucic's is easy and done all the time elsewhere.

I also dont think Kane is overpaid at all. These are his stats since signing. His PPG rankings are right where his AAV ranking is (9th)

2015-16	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL	82	46	60	106	30	17	7	1	6	7	14
2016-17	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL	82	34	55	89	32	11	4	1	1	2	2
2017-18	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL	82	27	49	76	32	-20
2018-19	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL	81	44	66	110	22	2
2019-20	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL	70	33	51	84	40	8	9	2	7	9	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Rubi]

Any thoughts on whether Kylington will be signed? He still seems to have some potential...

Signed or traded... one or the other although I doubt he'll be traded unless it involves some big block buster trade involving Gaudreau and/or Monahan.

 

[Fig]

I assume the primary concern is simply that he's never played the position. I think it's an unfounded concern though. Unlike Bennett and Backlund, who really cover space in the D zone, thrive in open ice in transition with skaters flanking them, and benefit from the added space they can create on the breakout, Monahan's skillset isn't quite so particular. He's a decent faceoff guy who has good hands and decent vision on the cycle, and I think the faceoff part of that has led to him being a square peg in a round hole at centre.

Off topic: OK, while I get that the winger goal thing was turned into a joke on these forums for a bit, what were the basics of the concept that led the commentary about Monahan scoring winger goals and suited better on the wing?

You held to your guns for a long time about 1C Bennett and many are coming around on that concept. I'm wondering about the same about winger goals. I think some of us wouldn't be opposed to listening to it more earnestly now.

 

[User1996]

Off topic: OK, while I get that the winger goal thing was turned into a joke on these forums for a bit, what were the basics of the concept that led the commentary about Monahan scoring winger goals and suited better on the wing?

You held to your guns for a long time about 1C Bennett and many are coming around on that concept. I'm wondering about the same about winger goals. I think some of us wouldn't be opposed to listening to it more earnestly now.

I don’t think anyone is genuinely willing to call Bennett a 1C. They just hope he’s a better fit with Gaudreau because clearly he and Monahan aren’t working. Designing a lineup for fit does not mean people think Bennett is an actual 1C.

I think there’s still a massive disconnect between OKG calling Bennett a 1C and people wanting Bennett to get a look at C with Gaudreau.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Bennett isn’t there yet, but if he can sustain his play from the playoffs, I’ll take that on our topline.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Off topic: OK, while I get that the winger goal thing was turned into a joke on these forums for a bit, what were the basics of the concept that led the commentary about Monahan scoring winger goals and suited better on the wing?

The gist of it is that top-end centres are more dangerous, dynamic creators with the puck ON their stick. So a goal like this:



Is textbook the kind of goals you want your centremen scoring. He supports his D (Stone) in the neutral zone, makes a move to gain entry, and then gets the puck on net without needing to get lost behind coverage. Even if that doesn't go in, it's shifted the opponents' defenses enough that you can have a winger like Lucic crash the net on the opposite side.

Contrast that with this:



That's a Monahan goal. He flares away from coverage and gets open, and then taps in the setup. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but the person doing the work with the puck there is Gaudreau. There's just nothing about that goal that says "this player's position was value-added to the sequence". That's what makes it a winger goal. Not because he was a winger on the sequence, but because he didn't need to be a centre. He could be playing on Backlund's wing and score the exact same goal, as I'm sure you've seen Tkachuk and Mangiapane score. But you'll rarely see him score a goal like the Bennett one above.

The fact that Gaudreau doesn't have a centre who can set him up a transition goal like this:



Is a direct contributor to the fact that he (Johnny) has to overhandle the puck way too much for a winger. Gaudreau should be the one sneaking behind coverage once in a while.

 

[Rubi]

I don’t think anyone is genuinely willing to call Bennett a 1C. They just hope he’s a better fit with Gaudreau because clearly he and Monahan aren’t working. Designing a lineup for fit does not mean people think Bennett is an actual 1C.

I think there’s still a massive disconnect between OKG calling Bennett a 1C and people wanting Bennett to get a look at C with Gaudreau.

I think he still has to prove that he's a 3C. Ten games does not make a season.
If he plays like he did in the playoffs, in the regular season... which he hasn't done so far... I may change my mind. Not ready to hand him the center position on the 1st line.
That's Lindholm's if Monahan isn't playing there. And rightly so.

 

[Mazatt]

It's the classic thing we run into every year with Bennett and the playoffs.
"He did good in the playoffs, so he belongs on the first line!"

"But it's a small sample size. See? He struggled in the regular season!"

"Ok, but he did good in the playoffs again! He belongs on the first line!"

Rinse and repeat with talk of Quality of linemates, deployment, PP time, injuries, etc. and you got yourself the yearly offseason plan of Flames fans.

 

[Corpus X]

It's the classic thing we run into every year with Bennett and the playoffs.
"He did good in the playoffs, so he belongs on the first line!"

"But it's a small sample size. See? He struggled in the regular season!"

"Ok, but he did good in the playoffs again! He belongs on the first line!"

Rinse and repeat with talk of Quality of linemates, deployment, PP time, injuries, etc. and you got yourself the yearly offseason plan of Flames fans.

 

[Corpus X]

I'm all for trying new things... as long as they don't affect me negatively.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

It's the classic thing we run into every year with Bennett and the playoffs.
"He did good in the playoffs, so he belongs on the first line!"

"But it's a small sample size. See? He struggled in the regular season!"

"Ok, but he did good in the playoffs again! He belongs on the first line!"

Rinse and repeat with talk of Quality of linemates, deployment, PP time, injuries, etc. and you got yourself the yearly offseason plan of Flames fans.

Goes to show how incompetent Glen Gulutzan and Bill Peters were at their jobs. Hopefully Geoff Ward is a breath of fresh air.

 

[Rubi]

View attachment 376033

As time moves on and today's youngsters grow up, most won't understand the meaning behind your cartoon. Its kind of sad that Charlie Brown will eventually be relegated to history's dust bin... to be forgotten.

 

[Fig]

The gist of it is that top-end centres are more dangerous, dynamic creators with the puck ON their stick. So a goal like this:



Is textbook the kind of goals you want your centremen scoring. He supports his D (Stone) in the neutral zone, makes a move to gain entry, and then gets the puck on net without needing to get lost behind coverage. Even if that doesn't go in, it's shifted the opponents' defenses enough that you can have a winger like Lucic crash the net on the opposite side.

Contrast that with this:



That's a Monahan goal. He flares away from coverage and gets open, and then taps in the setup. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but the person doing the work with the puck there is Gaudreau. There's just nothing about that goal that says "this player's position was value-added to the sequence". That's what makes it a winger goal. Not because he was a winger on the sequence, but because he didn't need to be a centre. He could be playing on Backlund's wing and score the exact same goal, as I'm sure you've seen Tkachuk and Mangiapane score. But you'll rarely see him score a goal like the Bennett one above.

The fact that Gaudreau doesn't have a centre who can set him up a transition goal like this:



Is a direct contributor to the fact that he (Johnny) has to overhandle the puck way too much for a winger. Gaudreau should be the one sneaking behind coverage once in a while.

Can most of this be simplified down to some of the North-South vs East-West type of play we started hearing about for centre men, or is it more than that?

Or can we use the North-South vs East-West type of play concept and add more to it?

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Can most of this be simplified down to some of the North-South vs East-West type of play we started hearing about for centre men, or is it more than that?

I don't personally subscribe to these black-and-white concepts of North-South vs East-West. The Lightning won the cup playing a pretty North-South game last year, but the dynamic ability of guys like Point and Cirelli at their top two centre positions was still paramount to thier success, and I'd argue that on paper, Point would be classified as an East-West style player.

There's a lot of situational fluidity on how to identify these different situations and react. Bennett's actually great at it contary to popular belief. Other than Backlund, he's probably our best centre at walking the line between making plays and making safe plays. These kind of strong details in his game get lost when certain people try to boil the game down to the various extremes (Monahan scores points! Bennett doesn't score points!) (Bennett has tunnel vision [when his wingers are lagging so far behind the play that a risky drop pass would be the only option outside of a nonthreatening dump-in]! Monahan finds open ice!!).

Ultimately, I don't think east-west and north-south are useful descriptors. You play a direct game when there's no time and space being conceded. You play a higher risk-higher reward game when you can exploit the opponent. And every shift is different.

On a positional level though, you need to impact the game. You can't just coast on production while having no positional value-added.

Which brings me right back up to Point and Cirelli. Where's the Steven Stamkos part of that equation?

I'm not sure there is one. That doesn't mean Tampa wouldn't prefer to have Stammer back, but it means that they're probably worse with him back at centre, which would be blasphemous to the Flames organization's sensibilities. Players like Monahan and Stamkos have no positional value-added. You can make them play north-south, and they can. You can make them play east-west, and they can. But you can't make them into impactful centres, because they don't notably affect the game, shift-to-shift, from the middle of the ice where centres are required to spend most of their time in the defensive and neutral zones.

 

[Flameshomer]

I don't personally subscribe to these black-and-white concepts of North-South vs East-West. The Lightning won the cup playing a pretty North-South game last year.

 

[GumbyCan2]

Gaudreau - Bennett - Lindholm
Tkachuk - Backlund - Mangiapane
Leivo - Dube - Monahan
Lucic - Ryan - Simon

Dube gets two finishers on either Flank. And you can't complain about him getting to play with Sean Monahan, a 30 goal scorer.

Gaudreau gets two players who offset his weaknesses by playing a heavy cycle game while requiring him to drive the play less.

3M line stays intact, there's nothing wrong with them, and if Tkachuk were healthy in the playoffs that would be obvious.

4th line creates lots of chances, hopefully converts on them too.

I like this too. Or could try switching up Lindholm and Benny<>depending on opponent, draw side of ice, etc.
I actually do not recall seeing Johnny & Benny play together much? Would interesting to see if they could compliment each and build chemstry? Potential along with Lindholm for a very good line!
I have thought of trying Money on RW side of Backlund for some time now. Could provide finishing for Backlund's playmaking to increase production while having Tkachuk disturbing and disrupting the D and opposing Goalie, along the boards and where ever?
But Mangiapane has proven valuable , too, on this line, so...

 

[GumbyCan2]

If they out Lindholm and Bennett at centre why can't they keep Monahan at wing?

Thats my thought. If no offer more desirable for Money, try him on the RW with his finishing qualities and cutting back to his left to get a scoring shot off favourably, why not?

 

[GumbyCan2]

I don’t think anyone is genuinely willing to call Bennett a 1C. They just hope he’s a better fit with Gaudreau because clearly he and Monahan aren’t working. Designing a lineup for fit does not mean people think Bennett is an actual 1C.

I think there’s still a massive disconnect between OKG calling Bennett a 1C and people wanting Bennett to get a look at C with Gaudreau.

And with these thoughts, why do we have to call a line with Johnny on it '1st line'?
Try Bennett at center with him and ? on RW and put them out in sequence and ideal lineup matching, etc, not worrying about '1st libe' or 'top line' .

 

[Mazatt]

It's very fun to see Oilers fans even attempt to come close to trying to justify that Koskinen = Markstrom. Of course them being delusional is expected but I think an underrated part of us signing him is how they now get to act like a vezina calibre goalie is at all equivalent to Mikko Koskinen

 

[Flamesfan62]

It's very fun to see Oilers fans even attempt to come close to trying to justify that Koskinen = Markstrom. Of course them being delusional is expected but I think an underrated part of us signing him is how they now get to act like a vezina calibre goalie is at all equivalent to Mikko Koskinen

I’ve seen many oiler fans saying Koskinen will receive Vezina votes... not sure where they find this stuff but it gives me a nice laugh