Confirmed with Link: Flames claim Chris Stewart off waivers

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
From naturalstattrick.com - he has 60.33 min with Money and 77.85 with Johnny. So about 4 games-ish. Not sure on points, still sorting through the data set at work.

His most frequent F teammate is Janks with 553.15 min and Hath with 258.67 min (followed by Jagr at 138.93 min, Brouwer at 105.95 min, Lazar at 105.07 and Ferly at 99.95 min)

That tells me he's had a very minimal stint with Johnny and Monahan over the season.

Data set here:
Sam Bennett - Teammates - On Ice - Natural Stat Trick
I was referring to more than just this season. I think he's had similar amounts of playing time with them in the past two.
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
Am I the only one that thinks Stewart is probably even a downgrade from Brouwer??

He has 9 goals to Brouwers 4 and I doubt he has been getting the kind of PP time with the 1st unit this year that Brouwer has.
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
It's embarrassing to have a waiver pick up on your first line. GG is just hoping for some lottery luck.

GG doesn't believe in Bennett. They should just trade him if all they want from him is bottom 6

Why?

Its not like they are saying he is a top 3 forward on the team they are starting him there for a game when their first choice guy (who isn't much better) is out injured.

I imagine if you look around at a lot of teams there would be some odd line-ups due to injuries for almost every team.

I mean look at the the guys the Pens play on their 1st line with Crosby even when their team is healthy.
 

Dack

Registered User
Jun 16, 2014
3,911
3,544
Stewart is essentially Troy Brouwer he scores a little more but he's somehow worse in other areas. I wouldn't play him above the 4th line. So using him as the first line RW while Ferlands out should be "fun".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Janks

Janks

Pope Janks
Jan 7, 2010
7,728
1,700
Calgary
Stewart is essentially Troy Brouwer he scores a little more but he's somehow worse in other areas. I wouldn't play him above the 4th line. So using him as the first line RW while Ferlands out should be "fun".
I think Stewart would be a fine 3rd liner with Janks and someone like Mangia.

To have GG come in and plunk him on the first line to start the game shows me enough to want him fired at the end of the season. It’s incredibly myopic to take Bennett off the top line for someone who was benched for 10 of the last 15 games and was waived by a struggling team. I’ve lost all faith in GG between this and Brodie continually put on the left side because of his handedness fetish. He clearly doesn’t set up players for success, only play them according to his X’s and O’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Hoxville

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
Is there a team or a bunch of teams out there that are playing Lws on the right or RW on the left?

It seems like a pretty common thing for teams to do but today it seems like many people are painting GG as a crasy person for prefering to have guys on the same wing as they shoot and grew up playing.

Also it seems way more myopic to force Gaudreau to play on his wrong wing to try and force Bennett into looking better rather than just slot in a natural RW who likely fits better in that spot anyways.
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
Everyone glad we tried that experiment for 2.5 periods? Yea, me too.

1.5 and sure.

It certainly wasn't a difference in the game.

Plus I thought the concern was that GG was going to keep him there forever and Bennett was designed to rot away with the worst linemates anyone has ever seen.
 

Janks

Pope Janks
Jan 7, 2010
7,728
1,700
Calgary
1.5 and sure.

It certainly wasn't a difference in the game.

Plus I thought the concern was that GG was going to keep him there forever and Bennett was designed to rot away with the worst linemates anyone has ever seen.
He was there to start the 3rd period, so that’s at least 2. But good counting.

The concern was never that GG wouldn’t figure it out that he isn’t a top line player. The concern is that it sends a terrible message to Bennett that he’s not worth top line minutes, but waiver fodder is. The other concern is that it comes back to GG being overly concerned and stubborn on handedness.
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
He was there to start the 3rd period, so that’s at least 2. But good counting.

The concern was never that GG wouldn’t figure it out that he isn’t a top line player. The concern is that it sends a terrible message to Bennett that he’s not worth top line minutes, but waiver fodder is. The other concern is that it comes back to GG being overly concerned and stubborn on handedness.

It looked to me like Bennett was on the top line to start the third but it really doesn't matter all that much either way.

Is Tkachuk getting the message that he isn't top line worthy but waiver fodder and Bennett and Ferland are?

If Bennett is focusing on how "unfair" it is that he got bumped for a game and not that his play made it easy to bump him then we should be concerned about where his head is at. Much better players have been moved down the line-up to try and get things going for the team than him and been just fine.

As for GG being overly concerned for handedness he has played two guys on the wrong side in the top two RW spot for the whole season, when Ferland went down he moved a LHS to fill his RW spot for the next 2 games. I have a hard time seeing how trying out a new guy in the spot for less than a game negates those things at all.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
Stewart definitely seems to be a low-motor player, but he did make a few nifty plays tonight. Had a few almost-assists, but our finishing combined with Bishop's play tonight meant that no one got rewarded for anything.

As expected, the third line was way better with Bennett on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vali Maki Sushi

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,391
11,074
Stewart definitely seems to be a low-motor player, but he did make a few nifty plays tonight. Had a few almost-assists, but our finishing combined with Bishop's play tonight meant that no one got rewarded for anything.

As expected, the third line was way better with Bennett on it.

I've been saying it for a while.
Calgary's pursuit of a offensive winger was to give Bennett a linemate that could keep up.

After his tier of player, there's a huge drop-off for his line mates. I know this board has a love/hate with Jankowski; people who peg him as sure fire top 6''er, others who think he's AHL fodder... The guy's an average bottom 6'er at this point in his career. In a perfect world he'd be our 4th line centre and we'd have a guy like Brassard who'd fill that 3C slot.

My fear is without Ferland, and Bennett playing on the top line; that our bottom 6 will suck the soul out of this team with their play.
 

King In The North

Sean Bennett
Jul 9, 2007
11,992
2,355
Winterfell
I've been saying it for a while.
Calgary's pursuit of a offensive winger was to give Bennett a linemate that could keep up.

After his tier of player, there's a huge drop-off for his line mates. I know this board has a love/hate with Jankowski; people who peg him as sure fire top 6''er, others who think he's AHL fodder... The guy's an average bottom 6'er at this point in his career. In a perfect world he'd be our 4th line centre and we'd have a guy like Brassard who'd fill that 3C slot.

My fear is without Ferland, and Bennett playing on the top line; that our bottom 6 will suck the soul out of this team with their play.

Agreed. Not a knock on Janko because he is what he is, a developing bottom 6 C that could become a top 6er. But right now, if we want to make the playoffs and actually compete, we need someone already put together like Brassard.
 

The Gnome

Registered User
May 17, 2010
4,678
740
Calgary
I think BT knows Smith is hooped at this point. So he stood pat with our group...rightfully so. I sound like a broken record, but we won't be making the post season without Smith IMO. Hopefully I'm proven wrong. Not trying to be negative, I just think that's the realistic outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Hoxville

DFF

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
22,275
6,525
I think BT knows Smith is hooped at this point. So he stood pat with our group...rightfully so. I sound like a broken record, but we won't be making the post season without Smith IMO. Hopefully I'm proven wrong. Not trying to be negative, I just think that's the realistic outcome.

I doubt that is the case. He already gambled away with the potential lottery pick. He'd do whatever it takes to make the playoff.
He would have traded for another goalie...there are a few of them and they wouldnt cost much.

It would be moronic for him to stand pat without a pick
 

Calculon

unholy acting talent
Jan 20, 2006
16,578
4,035
Error 503
Sunk cost is a sunk cost. What would be much dumber is doubling down and giving up prime futures to lessen the first mistake. Only bad, antiquated GM's still think like that.

Friedman's touched upon the Smith injury, basically saying no one, including Smith is certain on the timeline.
 

crackdown44

Cold milk cools down hot food
Dec 1, 2017
4,493
5,517
I've been saying it for a while.
Calgary's pursuit of a offensive winger was to give Bennett a linemate that could keep up.

After his tier of player, there's a huge drop-off for his line mates. I know this board has a love/hate with Jankowski; people who peg him as sure fire top 6''er, others who think he's AHL fodder... The guy's an average bottom 6'er at this point in his career. In a perfect world he'd be our 4th line centre and we'd have a guy like Brassard who'd fill that 3C slot.

My fear is without Ferland, and Bennett playing on the top line; that our bottom 6 will suck the soul out of this team with their play.

I’m not sure about the Brassard comment. The list of teams Brassard would be a 3C on is very short. He’s a solid 2C on 90% of the teams in the league
 

The Gnome

Registered User
May 17, 2010
4,678
740
Calgary
I doubt that is the case. He already gambled away with the potential lottery pick. He'd do whatever it takes to make the playoff.
He would have traded for another goalie...there are a few of them and they wouldnt cost much.

It would be moronic for him to stand pat without a pick

What? Ok, so he sent our our first this year, that is a whole separate argument. In short, Hamonic has been our 2nd best shutdown defender and I love having him on this team, though he wasn't worth our 1st imo. But that's over and done with now. So BT at the deadline with no high picks and a slew of very promising defensive prospects stands pat.

1) it was rumored he was looking at a goalie, but didn't like the cost.
2) he clearly looked at an offensive upgrade, but again didn't like the cost.

That tells me he values our best prospects more than other organizations did, which I'm fine with, because there are some gems in there and they are going to be worth a whole lot more then a 1st round pick in short order (imo). This is a bubble playoff team with a young developing core (outside of Gio), who may have lost their MVP in Smith for who knows how long. Guys like Andersson, Valimaki, and Fox are not worth shipping out for a rental or something that is not an ideal fit (guys like Hoffman and Kane). Those prospects are likely going to be worth more in time and we will be in a better position to upgrade this team next year.

So yeah, BT went all in in the summer, it didn't work (I'd argue coaching is our biggest problem), but there is no sense in trying to cover up one mistake with another. This team is what it is and we are not winning a cup this year, might as well exercise some patience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyrano

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
I doubt that is the case. He already gambled away with the potential lottery pick. He'd do whatever it takes to make the playoff.
He would have traded for another goalie...there are a few of them and they wouldnt cost much.

It would be moronic for him to stand pat without a pick

This is so far from actual logic. He traded this year's first for Hamonic, who is under control for three years, as are all of our top 5 defencemen and our core forwards, pretty much. How does this equal needing to do whatever it takes to make the playoffs this one season? Not having a first round pick doesn't mean you're automatically in an all-in situation. It means that you have no incentive to lose, sure, but it doesn't add incentive to win. The Flames get nothing more or less out of that deal if we finish dead last vs. first. The Islanders are the ones who should care, but for the Flames, at this point, it makes no difference whatsoever.

If the Flames shove even more assets in to try to make themselves contenders this year, they would only hurt their chances of being competitive in the subsequent seasons (the ones in which hopefully we have a starting goalie). That's okay for a team that is really close and can probably handle a slight dent to the depth because of how good they are, but the Flames are certainly not showing themselves to be that. They are an inconsistent bubble team.

They can still make the playoffs, but they did the right thing at the deadline IMO.
 

SmellOfVictory

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
10,959
653
Not having a first round pick doesn't mean you're automatically in an all-in situation. It means that you have no incentive to lose, sure, but it doesn't add incentive to win. The Flames get nothing more or less out of that deal if we finish dead last vs. first. The Islanders are the ones who should care, but for the Flames, at this point, it makes no difference whatsoever.
It may not automatically mean an all-in situation, but there is a huge difference between losing a pick that ends up in the 20s versus top 5. If you're not going to lottery protect a 1st round pick, you should be pretty damn sure you're going to make the playoffs. That's not "all-in", necessarily, but it's more "in" than "out".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Hoxville

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
It may not automatically mean an all-in situation, but there is a huge difference between losing a pick that ends up in the 20s versus top 5. If you're not going to lottery protect a 1st round pick, you should be pretty damn sure you're going to make the playoffs. That's not "all-in", necessarily, but it's more "in" than "out".

There's a big difference between trading those two picks, but we didn't trade a top 5 pick or a pick in the 20s. We traded a first rounder after being a playoff team on the rise. After making the trade, nothing the Flames do or don't do affects the price they paid at the time, and the position of that pick in the draft doesn't affect the fortune of the Flames in any way.

Whatever the Flames are, it doesn't make any sense to sacrifice future years in order to make a trade look better in hindsight. Of all of the jobs that Treliving is paid to do for the Flames, "making your previous moves look as good as possible" isn't one of them. Winning a Cup eventually is a little bit more important. All you have to look at is moves that Treliving could have made at this deadline, and whether they would have helped or hindered the team accomplishing this goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyrano

SmellOfVictory

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
10,959
653
There's a big difference between trading those two picks, but we didn't trade a top 5 pick or a pick in the 20s. We traded a first rounder after being a playoff team on the rise. After making the trade, nothing the Flames do or don't do affects the price they paid at the time, and the position of that pick in the draft doesn't affect the fortune of the Flames in any way.

Whatever the Flames are, it doesn't make any sense to sacrifice future years in order to make a trade look better in hindsight. Of all of the jobs that Treliving is paid to do for the Flames, "making your previous moves look as good as possible" isn't one of them. Winning a Cup eventually is a little bit more important. All you have to look at is moves that Treliving could have made at this deadline, and whether they would have helped or hindered the team accomplishing this goal.
Until the standings are decided, I don't see it as a fully "previous move", though. The full value of the pick isn't decided until the team's playoff status is decided. The team is obviously trying to be competitive right now, and I understand playing a longer game, but if you're not going to commit to better TDL acquisitions than a hugely flawed waiver wire pickup and a 4th line C, you should probably lottery protect the 1st you're trading away.

Really, although I'm arguing that BT should have bolstered the roster more as insurance that the Flames make the playoffs, my fundamental issue with the whole thing is that he inexplicably traded an unprotected 1st for Travis Hamonic, who has always been a 2nd pairing D at best (albeit a good one), and had been struggling in recent seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Hoxville

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
Until the standings are decided, I don't see it as a fully "previous move", though. The full value of the pick isn't decided until the team's playoff status is decided. The team is obviously trying to be competitive right now, and I understand playing a longer game, but if you're not going to commit to better TDL acquisitions than a hugely flawed waiver wire pickup and a 4th line C, you should probably lottery protect the 1st you're trading away.

Really, although I'm arguing that BT should have bolstered the roster more as insurance that the Flames make the playoffs, my fundamental issue with the whole thing is that he inexplicably traded an unprotected 1st for Travis Hamonic, who has always been a 2nd pairing D at best (albeit a good one), and had been struggling in recent seasons.

That wasn't the discussion, though. You're speaking of whether or not you like the trade. The discussion going on was whether Treliving should have been aggressive at the deadline specifically because he didn't have a first-rounder.
 

Mr Snrub

I like the way Snrub thinks!
Oct 12, 2016
5,713
2,410
There's a big difference between trading those two picks, but we didn't trade a top 5 pick or a pick in the 20s. We traded a first rounder after being a playoff team on the rise. After making the trade, nothing the Flames do or don't do affects the price they paid at the time, and the position of that pick in the draft doesn't affect the fortune of the Flames in any way.

Whatever the Flames are, it doesn't make any sense to sacrifice future years in order to make a trade look better in hindsight. Of all of the jobs that Treliving is paid to do for the Flames, "making your previous moves look as good as possible" isn't one of them. Winning a Cup eventually is a little bit more important. All you have to look at is moves that Treliving could have made at this deadline, and whether they would have helped or hindered the team accomplishing this goal.

If anything, making a previous move look better should constitute recouping assets via other moves - e.g. signing Spencer Foo. Trading even more assets so that a previous move is (debatably) more effective is not smart at all.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->