Speculation: Armchair GM Thread: There are no solutions, only problems

[Skobel24]

If you can land Tavares, you keep Monahan and make it work. Move him to the wing if you need to, or roll with
Tavares/Monahan/Backlund/Jankowski as your center depth.

Gaudreau - Tavares - Ferland
Tkachuk - Monahan - Bennett
Klimchuk - Backlund - Frolik
Mangiapane - Jankowski - Brouwer
Hrivik/Lazar

Trade stone to clear a bit of space, bring up Andersson, and maybe take a chance on someone like Vanek

 

[Body Checker]

We need more speed up front

Stone, Lazar for kapanen, soshnikov

Call up Andersson

 

[crackdown44]

If you can land Tavares, you keep Monahan and make it work. Move him to the wing if you need to, or roll with
Tavares/Monahan/Backlund/Jankowski as your center depth.

Gaudreau - Tavares - Ferland
Tkachuk - Monahan - Bennett
Klimchuk - Backlund - Frolik
Mangiapane - Jankowski - Brouwer
Hrivik/Lazar

Trade stone to clear a bit of space, bring up Andersson, and maybe take a chance on someone like Vanek

If in this case you’re getting Tavares through free agency then the team would definitely have to let Backlund walk

 

[Baxterman]

If you can land Tavares, you keep Monahan and make it work. Move him to the wing if you need to, or roll with
Tavares/Monahan/Backlund/Jankowski as your center depth.

I think it is virtually zero that we get Tavares but I have a hard time seeing how we get him without giving up Monahan.

The only way it makes sense for the Isles to give up Tavares is in a huge overpayment and I don't see that kind of overpayment from the Flames without including Monahan.

In terms of signing him in FA there is even less of a chance of the Flames signing him. That is a clear cut zero percent chance of happening.

 

[Skobel24]

We need more speed up front

Stone, Lazar for kapanen, soshnikov

Call up Andersson

THey aren't gonna trade Kapanen for Stone and Lazar.

 

[Skobel24]

If in this case you’re getting Tavares through free agency then the team would definitely have to let Backlund walk

If Stone were dealt, I think it's possible. Granted, it depends on how much the cap increases by.

 

[Dack]

Stone > Monahan defensively (surprised anyone would argue this seeing as Stone has actually gotten Selke hype over the last few years) and he has the same amount of points in 6 less games played and he's on a much worse team.

So why is Monahan better? Is it because he's a center?

I don't expect it to ever happen or anything like that but what makes Monahan better.

Also not trading Monahan for an extended Tavares is just stupid. With the reasoning that he's 4 years older? If you thought we couldn't resign him I think that's valid concern but trading a mediocre 1C who has spent almost his entire career playing with a top 2-3 LW for a top 5 C probably vaults us into contention.

 

[The Gnome]

Stone > Monahan defensively (surprised anyone would argue this seeing as Stone has actually gotten Selke hype over the last few years) and he has the same amount of points in 6 less games played and he's on a much worse team.

So why is Monahan better? Is it because he's a center?

I don't expect it to ever happen or anything like that but what makes Monahan better.

Nothing, Stone is the better player. But if we lose Monahan, we lose our best center, offensively speaking. We cannot afford Stone, unless OTT simply wanted futures for him.

 

[Baxterman]

Stone > Monahan defensively (surprised anyone would argue this seeing as Stone has actually gotten Selke hype over the last few years) and he has the same amount of points in 6 less games played and he's on a much worse team.

So why is Monahan better? Is it because he's a center?

I don't expect it to ever happen or anything like that but what makes Monahan better.

Monahan is younger and a better scorer. That to me makes him clearly better. It might not be a huge difference but I think he is without a doubt the better player.

I don't think that as a winger Stone is that much better defensively than Monahan. If they switched positions I think Stone would be out of his depth defensively and Monahan would be more than adequate defensively. And while Stone is putting up similar numbers this year, Monahan did outscore him last year and the year before and is better goal scorer.

Stone is also two years older and yes the center thing is a benefit for Monahan that can't be ignored in my view.

 

[Dack]

Nothing, Stone is the better player. But if we lose Monahan, we lose our best center, offensively speaking. We cannot afford Stone, unless OTT simply wanted futures for him.

Fair enough. I don't believe that the position is the issue I think you can find success with a meh middle man similar to Anisimov in Chicago especially since both Stone and Gaudreau handle things Centers normally do. Gaudreau is a primary puck carrier and Stone is a very high level defender.

Monahan is younger and a better scorer. That to me makes him clearly better. It might not be a huge difference but I think he is without a doubt the better player.

I don't think that as a winger Stone is that much better defensively than Monahan. If they switched positions I think Stone would be out of his depth defensively and Monahan would be more than adequate defensively. And while Stone is putting up similar numbers this year, Monahan did outscore him last year and the year before and is better goal scorer.

Stone is also two years older and yes the center thing is a benefit for Monahan that can't be ignored in my view.

Stone played 11 less games last year and has 4 less points. He's also shoots right which is a nice plus. He's only 2.5 half years older than Monahan as well it's a difference but I don't think it's a big deal. Maybe Stone wouldn't be great defensively as a center and well Monahan would be fine as a winger Stone gets Selke hype he's one of the best defensive wingers in the game.

The biggest issue with Stone is his health.

 

[Sparky93]

Fair enough. I don't believe that the position is the issue I think you can find success with a meh middle man similar to Anisimov in Chicago especially since both Stone and Gaudreau handle things Centers normally do. Gaudreau is a primary puck carrier and Stone is a very high level defender.

The Iggy era Flames beg to differ

 

[Dack]

The Iggy era Flames beg to differ

Who was the LW who was on Stones level? Huselius? Tanguay? Cammileri was the only one and he was here for one season. I also think those older teams had more holes than the current Flames.

Good point though it's not a line you see very often Panarin-Anisimov-Kane was amazing though.

 

[Sparky93]

Who was the LW who was on Stones level? Huselius? Tanguay? Cammileri was the only one and he was here for one season. I also think those older teams had more holes than the current Flames.

Good point though it's not a line you see very often Panarin-Anisimov-Kane was amazing though.

Prime Tanguay was one of the best set up men in the league, Iggy maybe the best trigger man

 

[Baxterman]

Fair enough. I don't believe that the position is the issue I think you can find success with a meh middle man similar to Anisimov in Chicago especially since both Stone and Gaudreau handle things Centers normally do. Gaudreau is a primary puck carrier and Stone is a very high level defender.

The Blackhawks had success with that because they had Toews as the top line center to take away a lot of the responsibilities of that line. And that success was a personal success of those guys the team did not do well and has been trending in as Toews has declined as well.

Also Gaudreau and Stone are not Kane and Panarin.

My biggest concern with a Stone-Monahan deal is even if you say that Stone is better (which I already said I disagree with but will ignore for this discussion) it is a pretty slight improvement at best. I don't see the slight improvement being worth giving up the years of control, potential for Monahan to improve and huge hole the team would have at center.

To me it seems like that move would just move our hole at top 6 RW to top 6 (more likely #1) center. I just don't see how the slight improvement is worth the downsides of the deal.

 

[Skobel24]

Who was the LW who was on Stones level? Huselius? Tanguay? Cammileri was the only one and he was here for one season. I also think those older teams had more holes than the current Flames.

Good point though it's not a line you see very often Panarin-Anisimov-Kane was amazing though.

I'd argue Tanguay and Cammalleri (in their prime), were both better.

 

[Dack]

Prime Tanguay was one of the best set up men in the league, Iggy maybe the best trigger man

True maybe I'm understating him but I didn't think he was that high end. I thought he was more like a post prime Vanek level player.

 

[Dack]

The Blackhawks had success with that because they had Toews as the top line center to take away a lot of the responsibilities of that line. And that success was a personal success of those guys the team did not do well and has been trending in as Toews has declined as well.

Also Gaudreau and Stone are not Kane and Panarin.

My biggest concern with a Stone-Monahan deal is even if you say that Stone is better (which I already said I disagree with but will ignore for this discussion) it is a pretty slight improvement at best. I don't see the slight improvement being worth giving up the years of control, potential for Monahan to improve and huge hole the team would have at center.

To me it seems like that move would just move our hole at top 6 RW to top 6 (more likely #1) center. I just don't see how the slight improvement is worth the downsides of the deal.

Fair in this scenario the Backlund line is taking the tougher matchups something they already do and I think at this point that line as a whole is an improvement on the Toews line of the past few years.

 

[Dack]

I'd argue Tanguay and Cammalleri (in their prime), were both better.

Okay I don't remember enough about the league back then to really argue it. But If Stone were to continue his current point a game pace I'd say he's better than either seeing as he'd be matching their point totals in a lower scoring era while being very good defensively.

 

[Baxterman]

Fair in this scenario the Backlund line is taking the tougher matchups something they already do and I think at this point that line as a whole is an improvement on the Toews line of the past few years.

I disagree but as stated the Blackhawks with the Panarin-Anisimov-Kane line had zero round wins in the play-offs so I am not sure that we should be trying to copy that format.

And who is the Anisimov in this scenario and how are we getting him and paying Backlund and Stone?

I am not sure how Gaudreau-Center X-Stone + 3M is really any better than Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland + 3M. It seems like it is a pretty similar group to me.

 

[Dack]

I disagree but as stated the Blackhawks with the Panarin-Anisimov-Kane line had zero round wins in the play-offs so I am not sure that we should be trying to copy that format.

And who is the Anisimov in this scenario and how are we getting him and paying Backlund and Stone?

I am not sure how Gaudreau-Center X-Stone + 3M is really any better than Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland + 3M. It seems like it is a pretty similar group to me.

I think Stone + Gaudreau is better than Monahan + Gaudreau.

Also the Blackhawks sucking isn't because of that line it's because they had and still have no bottom six and one top pairing d man who's on a harsh decline and they're paying a Glorified Backlund (not what he always was but it's what he is now) 10.5 million a season so they cant fix any of this stuff. I was thinking Bozak who wouldn't cost too much to acquire or keep but again this is a fantasy scenario it's not happening I just think since Stone> Monahan and Bozak>= Ferland that the new line combo would be better than the old one.

 

[Baxterman]

I think Stone + Gaudreau is better than Monahan + Gaudreau.

Also the Blackhawks sucking isn't because of that line it's because they had and still have no bottom six and one top pairing d man who's on a harsh decline and they're paying a Glorified Backlund (not what he always was but it's what he is now) 10.5 million a season so they cant fix any of this stuff. I was thinking Bozak who wouldn't cost too much to acquire or keep but again this is a fantasy scenario it's not happening I just think since Stone> Monahan and Bozak>= Ferland that the new line combo would be better than the old one.

I disagree that Stone-Gaudreau is better but even if they are how much better? Does that pairing take us to the top of the division in your view? Is it good enough that we are a solid play-off lock? I mean I think at best the change to a Stone-Gaudreau over Gaudreau-Monahan still has us as a play-off bubble team, at that is with the rosiest of glasses viewing Stone.

I think Stone-Bozak-Gaudreau is at the very best a slight upgrade over Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland the center depth of the Flames would be bottom 10 in the league. Bozak would be an enormous whipping boy among the fanbase and asked to be doing way more than he is capable of.

You brought up the success of the Kane line as a reason for making the move so I was just pointing out that they really haven't had that much success with that model. Sure the line might not be the reason for them having success but you can't really piont to many (any?) team that has had success building around 2 wingers with poor center depth.

 

[Dack]

I disagree that Stone-Gaudreau is better but even if they are how much better? Does that pairing take us to the top of the division in your view? Is it good enough that we are a solid play-off lock? I mean I think at best the change to a Stone-Gaudreau over Gaudreau-Monahan still has us as a play-off bubble team, at that is with the rosiest of glasses viewing Stone.

I think Stone-Bozak-Gaudreau is at the very best a slight upgrade over Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland the center depth of the Flames would be bottom 10 in the league. Bozak would be an enormous whipping boy among the fanbase and asked to be doing way more than he is capable of.

You brought up the success of the Kane line as a reason for making the move so I was just pointing out that they really haven't had that much success with that model. Sure the line might not be the reason for them having success but you can't really piont to many (any?) team that has had success building around 2 wingers with poor center depth.

No I can't. I don't know of a team who's actually tried it in the past few years because I don't know a team that has two top 10 wingers one of which is top 3.

I don't know that it would be better but right now we're a bubble team with meh playoff chances. So there's not really anywhere to go but up. Burke said you should either be getting better or worse no one should be sitting in the middle of the league neither contending nor rebuliding.

I think Stone-Gaudreau would be a lot better I think that without Gaudreau Monahan is a 50-55 point player and that Stone with Gaudreau would put up point a game numbers.

Contending teams seem to have a center better than Monahan and I don't know how you improve that without getting really lucky in the draft so I was trying to think outside the box for a solution that could possibly improve the team.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

While I think arguably it's going to be difficult to improve our center depth without it costing an arm and a leg, I'd rather work on upgrading our roster as a whole. A top six RW, to bump Fro down to the third line, Janko and Bennett producing more would go a long long way, and overhauling our 4th line.

 

[Baxterman]

Contending teams seem to have a center better than Monahan and I don't know how you improve that without getting really lucky in the draft so I was trying to think outside the box for a solution that could possibly improve the team.

I obviously think a lot more of Monahan than a lot of players here so I don't think the issue is as bad as some but I do realize that we do not have Crosby, Kopitar, Toews (at his Cup winning level) here.

I think the better solution would be to trade from our strength, defense, to add another top 6 center similar to Monahan so that we could potentially have two offensively competent lines built around Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Center X.

I mean if we don't think Monahan is good enough to be the #1 C on a contending team and that being in the mushy middle is the worst then shouldn't we consider rebuilding? As much as OKG want to push the agenda I have a hard time seeing Bennett and Jankowski ever coming close to being as good as Monahan let alone top level #1 C's on a contending team.

 

[crackdown44]

This discussion is all well and good but people seem to forget that Ottawa have no interest in moving Stone and Tavares is going to resign in New York. Targeting players is fine but the reality is that you’re not going to get a dynamic, young, cost controlled, first line right winger from a rebuilding team without an extreme overpay, which would be dumb.

If Tavares hits free agency I’m all for pursuing him, but I don’t think it’s something that should be depended on either.

Even with the way Neal and the Knights are performing I wouldn’t be surprised if he resigns either. It’s not easy to just add top 6 talent, it’s nearly impossible to add young top 6 talent