Monahan - Should he Stay or Should he Go?

Steve Macfarlane
October 18 2013 08:54AM

 

 

Only one thing is certain as debate continues over whether Sean Monahan stays with the Flames past his ninth game or heads back to junior to resume his role as captain of the Ottawa 67s - whatever the Calgary Flames braintrust decides, it will be based on Monahan’s development as a hockey player, and not the team’s financial bottom line. It will have nothing to do with a contract that is at least three years away from being negotiated.

All this talk about sending him back to junior just to avoid burning the first year of his entry-level deal is utter nonsense.

The Flames ownership group is willing to spend to the salary cap ceiling every season. They have only two contracts costing more than $5 million at the moment, and one of those comes off the books this summer.

There’s no reason to look at Monahan as anything but a future cornerstone for the franchise. If the team keeps him and has to shell out big money three years from now instead of four, five, or six, they’ll do it happily — the same way they’ll gladly pay top dollar for T.J. Brodie’s services in two years after inking him to a more affordable bridge deal this offseason.

Money is not an issue. A member of the organization confirmed as much to me this week.

Monahan becoming a money player is the only concern. Hockey is the sole factor in the club’s consideration of what to do with their impressive asset. They will do whatever they believe to be in the best interests of Monahan’s continued development as a key piece of the franchise's future.

That doesn’t mean he’s guaranteed to stick around this year, though. If general manager Jay Feaster and president of hockey operations Brian Burke — in consultation with their coaching staff — decide that another year dominating at the junior level is better for Monahan in the long run, they won’t hesitate to ship him back to the nation’s capital despite his early success on the scoresheet in the NHL so far.

Early Season Returns

There’s no doubt the sixth-overall draft pick is a long-term keeper. He already looks the part of a professional.

Earning points in the first five games and netting goals in his last four prior to both of those streaks coming to an end in Anaheim Wednesday night, Monahan’s hot start to the season seems to indicate that he can contribute.

Advanced stats don’t necessarily support sustainability right away, but history dictates the kid is pretty clutch when needed most. However, some doubts may finally be creeping in.

The thrill of making the roster out of training camp is wearing off, the travel is getting tougher, and so are the opponents — which means Monahan’s production is bound to level off.

He played a little more than 15 minutes against the Ducks and didn’t take a single faceoff in the dying minutes of the third period with his team trailing by a goal. It was clear head coach Bob Hartley decided to shelter his prospect. That’s all normal for a teenager trying to jump to the NHL from the junior ranks.

These are valuable teaching opportunities at the game’s highest level. There will be plenty more to come this week as we approach the nine-game threshold.

The Ingredients for Success as a Young Player

Strength, intelligence, maturity, skill, mental toughness. physical endurance. Each of these assets contributes to the evaluation of whether or not a young player can hack it in the NHL early on.

At 6-foot-2, 185 lb., Monahan has the physical attributes to withstand a yearlong beating with the big boys. His skill and on-ice intelligence are obvious, as is the maturity he displays in front of and away from the media. He is a young leader in the making.

If he sticks, there will be some serious ups and downs in both his play and the team’s performance. The organization has to decide quickly whether or not he has the mental toughness to withstand the highs and lows of a full season on a potentially struggling squad, without having his confidence and development affected.

There’s also the Sven Baertschi Syndrome to consider. His early success in a brief appearance two seasons ago led to a sense of entitlement for the young Swiss playmaker, and he didn’t work hard enough to duplicate the results last year. He’s come around a little more recently, in part because of his pairing with Monahan. If you chalk up Baertschi’s struggles to mild immaturity, you probably don’t believe that will be an issue with Monahan.

The Decision Within the Decision

If the Flames do keep Monahan for the duration of the season, it doesn’t mean he won’t have a chance to wear the Maple Leaf across his chest at the world junior tournament come Christmas.

Tampa Bay Lightning prospect Brett Connolly, and the Ducks’ Devante Smith-Pelly are a couple of the most recent players to be loaned toe the world junior cause by their NHL clubs.

Lightning GM Steve Yzerman didn’t see it as a step back for Connolly.

"It's important for these young guys to play in these big events in pressure games. They make you better,” Yzerman told the St. Petersburg Times at the time. “We still want him here, but what's best for Brett Connolly in the long run is best for us all. I'm confident this is the right thing for him."

The Flames will do the same thing for Monahan’s development, regardless of how it affects the business side of things.

Around the Nation

3d3f7758adff5b9b9ead81bf00567345
Covered the Flames on the newspaper beat from lockout to lockout and continue to do it on my own terms. Follow me on Twitter at @MacfarlaneHKY
Avatar
#1 Kent Wilson
October 18 2013, 09:08AM
Trash it!
24
trashes
Props
21
props

Money is not an issue. A member of the organization confirmed as much to me this week.

Here's the thing - it's not about money, it's about efficiency of spending. The NHL is an efficiency contest under a salary cap - the better value you get out of your players, the better your roster, the more chance you have of winning.

So, in essence, if the Flames keep Monahan this year, they are trading his cheap 18 year old season for a cheap 21 year old season due to the restrictions of the entry-level deal under this CBA. And 21/22 year old Sean Monahan at $1.77M is almost certainly going to be a much better deal than an 18/19 year old Monahan. There's also a much bigger chance the Flames could be competitive in three years time, at which point extra cap space will be a more pressing concern.

Of course, this one decision in and of itself isn't enough to determine the Flames budgetary position down the road. But it's little issues like this that can build incremental value (or expense).

If the Flames determine that his development would be accelerated to a non-trivial degree by sticking around and he'll be a better player both sooner and long-term by staying with the team, then so be it. But for me it's not about whether the club will be able to afford him in general down the road - it's the efficiency of their spending that is the issue.

Avatar
#2 Subversive
October 18 2013, 04:47PM
Trash it!
20
trashes
Props
3
props

Blah blah blah fluff. Not what I come here for.

Avatar
#3 WestmountWailer
October 18 2013, 10:13AM
Trash it!
9
trashes
Props
3
props

To completely brush off the possible effects of sliding or not sliding a year of the ELC right off the bat is what's "utter nonsense".

The fact you then go on to say that you think management believes this is a short rebuild is actually another point for saving a cheap ELC year.

Money does, in fact, matter... due to the silly little salary cap. Decisions made now will affect what happens years down the road when the team intends to compete. Development of the player IS the most important thing, just as you said, but to ignore the possible cap implications? I'd describe that as the Sutter method and ask how that worked out.

Avatar
#4 calgary candle
October 18 2013, 09:40AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
7
props

I totally agree with the article. The Flames will make a fact-based decision on Monahan. Personally, I hope he stays. He makes Calgary a better team even though he needs to work on faceoffs and defensive zone coverage.

With Wednesday's 3-2 loss to Anaheim a certain segment of posters are again calling/wishing for the Flames to tank to pick in the top two or three in 2014.

Here's why I think it shouldn't and won't happen.

First, at least so far in this young season, Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida, N.J. and Philly seem like they could finish lower than the Flames. That would leave Calgary picking 6th. The Flames could get another very good, but not elite player as this upcoming draft is less stacked than 2013.

Second, the Flames are already stocked with talent. I'm projecting out three years to the 2016-17 season and eliminating virtually everyone from the current team who would be over 30 at the time. At Center they would be loaded: Monahan, Backlund, Knight, Arnold, Jooris, Bouma, Reinhart, Colborne, Granlund. I'm conceding Jankowski as a question mark.

Ditto loaded at Left Wing: Gudreau, Baertschi, Poirier, Agostino, Klimchuk, Ferlund. Goaltending could be Berra with Gillies being almost NHL ready and Brossoit in Abby.. Ramo is a question mark in my mind.

Defence: Brodie, Wotherspoon, Sieloff, Ramage, Cundari and Kanzig as the top 6. Maybe Gio and Wideman are also still around although they will be post-apex at around 34.

Right wing is where they would be thin: I keep Jones who will be about 32, Stempniak (33) and Hanowski. A current center or left wing would have to make the transition to right wing.

The lines would look something like this: Monahan- Gudrea- D.Jones; Baertschi-Backlund- Hanowski; Knight-Arnold-Agostino; Bouma-Galliardi-Klimchuk.

Don't take the order too literally; it's three years away.

Possible trade bait because there is not enough room: Granlund, Reinhart, Jooris. In my mind the jury is out on Colbourne. Ferland will be competing for a very crowded left wing spot.

In other words, stockpiling solid NHL talent is not the Flames main concern any more although additional prospects are always great to have and the Flames will certainly have other draft possibilities in the next three years.

I think there are five locks for 2013 in the west: San Jose, LA, Anaheim, Chicago, St. Louis. Colo is likely as is Van. That leaves Calgary fighting it out for the last playoff spot with Minn, Dallas, Phoenix, Nashville (as I reckon).

The Flames could be buyers not sellers at the deadline. They also have oodles of cap room to make a trade and upgrade the blueline (Butler!!, Smith). Feaster has repeatedly said they want to build a winning culture. Hartley has the team playing the way Feaster said he wants them to--certainly not playing to lose. I don't think Calgary should or will tank this year. They could even be fighting for that last playoff spot. I think Monahan's presence throughout the year will help them do that.

Avatar
#5 Johnny Be Gaudreau
October 18 2013, 10:42AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
2
props

I see this team by 2015/16 having a lot of similarities to Chicago in 2008. If they can get a proper shutdown #1/2 defenseman, a nhl ready 4/5 depth defensman. And replace the 4th line with a more NHL elite 4th line like a 4th line that can skate, play defense kill penalties and play hard minutes. They will give every team in the PAC a run for their money.

However, this is of course contingent upon some of our college prospects actualizing the talent they've shown at the NHL level.

Not saying they are exact matches but there's a lot of similarities here.

Monahan - Towes Gaudreau - Kane Arnold - Sharp

All we need now is a Keith and Seabrook on D. Maybe Brodie is our Keith/Seabrook Throw Seiloff, Ramage, Wotherspoon in to the mix I feel that's a pretty decent drafted Dcore if they can add those I previously mentioned.

Avatar
#6 Caleb
October 18 2013, 11:22AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
1
props

Of course money is an issue, but Monahan is going to get paid either way. If he does stay up, then the team will budget around his increase a year earlier. And with the cap always going up, it shouldn't matter too much.

development is most important to the team. Where can Monahan grow the most. He has shown he can play in the NHL, but it is also early. His minutes are increasing since game 1, but also there has been injuries. How much ice time will he get when Stajan comes back, as well as Cammy and D.Jones.

What is better, 10-15 sheltered minutes in the NHL, or top line minutes in the OHL where he can be put in situations to succeed.

With pretty much a trade in place, Monahan will likely be on a team that will compete for the memorial cup. That experience along with the world juniors is something that shouldn't be overlooked. Playing at a high level on a big stage is something Monahan won't get with the Flames this year.

Sent him back!

Avatar
#7 Parallex
October 18 2013, 11:27AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
3
props

@SmellOfVictory

If the Hawks didn't have Toews/Kane on entry level deals at the time they likely don't end up getting Hossa in Free Agency and if the Hawks don't have Hossa I believe they don't win the Cup in 2010.

I'd rather the Flames have the option of having the space to do something like that if need be then not have the option at all.

Frankly, I don't think there is any harm returning him to junior. He needs to improve parts of his game and he'll be able to work on those just as well in junior as he can in the NHL. He'll also have the experience of playing for the WJC and then a long playoff run after he is inevitably traded to Barrie or London. Those will be good experiences for him that doesn't cost the Flames anything.

Avatar
#8 BitGeek
October 18 2013, 11:51AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
4
props

When the time comes for the Flames to add some quality pieces to the team, they'll need cap space to work with. If they chew up cap space needlessly at this point in the rebuild, it will only handcuff the team later on when they'll need more of it.

If the Flames are stupid enough to spend to the cap every year throughout the rebuild, then that's another thing altogether.

So far they've shown fiscal restraint and haven't needlessly spent to the cap this year. This tells me they do care about money and only adding value when necessary.

If you think the owners could care less how their money is spent, then give your head a shake. They might say they are a "spend to the cap space" team, but they only mean it if it makes them money somehow. They want the most money they can make from this team and if that means more fans in the seats now, then they'll probably keep Monahan up.

It's likely they don't want to waste a year of Monahan's ELC if they don't think it will make a difference to their bottom line now.

Monahan's development is only important to the point that it makes the Calgary Flames product more sellable to the fan base. Winning games and having something to cheer for are what the fans want and that's why they buy tickets. End of story.

If the Flames aren't going to win a ton more games with Monahan in the lineup or if he is no longer exciting to watch, then the ownership won't be too pleased about burning a year of his ELC early.

Avatar
#9 MichaelD
October 18 2013, 09:04PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
5
props

I haven't read every single comment here, but judging on the 23 trashes on the Kent's first comment (second of the thread) as well as a few of the last articles regarding Monahan. I think I can confidently say this, plus I just wannna say my piece.

It's pretty funny how the general perspective has changed around here on Monahan. A few months ago it was Kent who wrote an article explaining the ELC deal and how it would be more financially efficient to send him down no matter what, and everyone bought in. Everyone who opposed this was ripped apart and people cited every possible worst case scenario (Gagner). A few games in Monahan has a few points, and now someone who says he should still get sent down gets trashed and ripped apart. These people are disregarding the statistics, that not too long ago based their argument on.

So can we throw away the small sample sizes stuff, advanced statistics stuff, and the people saying stupid hockey knowledge stuff (I know must of us have played hockey and know the dynamic of a dressing room) away, and all agree that we wanna see Monahan play on Calgary for the season because it gives some excitement and its fun too watch.

By the way I don't mind the advanced statistics stuff I don't mind reading about it in articles on here, It just bugs me when someone quotes that stuff too prove something like maturity.

Avatar
#10 Parallex
October 19 2013, 09:43AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
4
props

@Burnward

Just saying what? Nobody is saying that the Flames won't be able to pay him whenever he starts getting paid the big bucks. Eventually the Flames will be a cap team again and it's better for the team to have as many options as possible and they'll have less options sooner if Monahan doesn't go down.

Seriously, he's not Crosby... there is nothing bad about sending him back to junior for his age 19 year.

Avatar
#11 Willi P
October 18 2013, 09:04AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
11
props

Don't think he can develop the things he needs to work in Junior. He would simply dominate against kids. In this case I think it may hurt his development going back to junior.

Avatar
#13 Parallex
October 18 2013, 01:32PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
1
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

They had third liners (Versteeg) on 3.5 million dollar contracts, a 7+ million dollar defenceman (Campbell), etc. For every good value contract, they seemed to have a poor value one as well. I also don't think you can structure your salary with the premise that your team is going to land big name free agents - especially not now that cap circumvention has been reduced.

It's better to have and not need then need and not have.

In my mind now that cap circumvention has been reduced it makes managing the cap even more important and they way to go about efficiently managing you cap is not to accelerate the timeline upon which your cost controlled guys get paid.

A cheap 18/19 Year old Sean Monahan is almost certainly not going to make a significantly positive difference to the fortunes of the 2013/2014 Calgary Flames but a cheap 21/22 year old Sean Monahan might make a difference to the 2016/2017 Calgary Flames.

Avatar
#14 calgary candle
October 18 2013, 04:13PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props
Greg wrote:

I agree the future looks much brighter than in years past, but I think we have to assume a non-trivial number of our current prospects won't pan out. Excluding the blue-chip guys (Brodie, Monahan, Baertschi), I would be surprised if we got more than 2 quality NHLers at each position out of the guys you listed.

Here's who I think have shown through prospect camp, or college play or major junior performance that they can play in the NHL:

Wotherspoon, Sieloff, Ramage, Knight, Arnold, Hanowski, Agostino, Klimchuk, Berra, Gillies. There are also several maybes: Jooris, Colborne, Ferlund.

If you read this posting I'm curious which ones you disagree with? I have 12 rather than six.

That seems like the basis of an extremely strong core which you add in the three blue chips you listed.

Avatar
#15 loudogYYC
October 18 2013, 11:39PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
4
props

90% of the season has yet to be played, Monahan was drafted just 4 months ago and we're in year 1 of a rebuild.

If the Flames can't be patient now, it doesn't bode well for the future when Monahan, Beartschi and all other prospects become established pros with above average NHL salaries. He would probably do ok if he stayed up, but there's no sense in putting 1 players interest ahead of the teams. They already did that with Iginla and it didn't work as wanted. I say send him down after 9.

Avatar
#16 Burnward
October 19 2013, 03:34AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
4
props

Flames committed salary for 2016-2017: 5.25 million.

Just saying.

Avatar
#17 chillout
October 19 2013, 08:31AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
6
props

seriously people stop worrying about his stupid contract. He should play where he should play and that's that.

ohhhh but he's playing sheltered minutes here....

ummm no kidding people he's a rookie, pretty damn rare for a rookie not to be. If his development is better served being here then he should stay.

also it's not the same thing for his development going down to jr. playing against kids is great and all but playing against a higher level often brings athletes to a level they didn't know they had (been there done that).

if he's got the smarts and the ability and maturity he should stay crying about contracts is stupid, it's not mismanagement to play someone who deserves it. It's mismanagement to pay someone for future production like our friends to the north. that's just stupid and feaster has already shown he won't do that. Brodie would be making 4.5 mill a year at least right now if he played for the oilers.

Avatar
#18 loudogYYC
October 19 2013, 04:51PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@Jeff In Lethbridge

I talked about being patient, that's basically my argument. So far he has shown promise, not dominance. Actually he's never shown dominance at any level yet, so why are we in a rush to keep him in the NHL when he has a chance of becoming dominant in the OHL/WJC/Memorial Cup.

ELC management is important, as we can't predict who will earn what in the future, but by now it's pretty clear that cap flexibility is as important as having the money to spend in the first place. Have a look at Philadelphia, Toronto and shortly Edmonton. They have the cash to spend, but not the permission per se, they shot themselves in the foot by not being patient and it reeks of poor management.

Make more sense?

Avatar
#19 Gange
October 18 2013, 09:08AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
7
props

The burning question really is:

What will keep Monahan's development on the upward trend? Does sending him to Ottawa do that? I'm not sure. There's a great deal we don't know about the kid so "we" can't make that determination.

It seems like he can handle the sheltered minutes at the pro level, but is that best for him?

Ultimately "we" need to learn to expect less than we've seen so far. His results currently, are not sustainable.

It's GREAT to see though.

Avatar
#20 NHL93
October 18 2013, 09:34AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props

I'm in the camp of sending him back however, Hartley is not an idiot. Keeping him up probably won't hurt his development in the long run as I doubt the coach is going to ruin this kid.

Avatar
#21 hamburgler
October 18 2013, 09:50AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props

To me, it's about opportunity for Monahan. If he continues to play 15 minutes a night, then great. But, I feel that is starting to be outplayed by the other Centres on the team. Once Stajan is back, then Stajan, Backlund, debatably (i dont know if that's a word) Colborne, with Street better filling the 4th line role. I say send him back to Jr so he can dominate down there, get bigger and faster and come back next year and win the calder.

Avatar
#22 Johnny Be Gaudreau
October 18 2013, 10:26AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
18
props

One aspect of Monahan's staying or going that no one has really brought up or discussed is how he effects those around him.

I will label this The Monahan or Monyhands effect.

What I am referring to here is how his emergence with the team has made his team mates around him better. Stempniak was already pretty good last year but playing on a line with Monahan and Baertschi it seems almost rejuvinated him. He has been flying the first 6 games and finding ice that he hasn't seen in the past. Monahan's ability to read the situation and make the right pass has allowed Stempniak and Baertschi to play more to a style that suits them in the offensive zone. The responsibility Hudler has had living with Monahan has made Hudler more of a leader on the team and he has looked like a man on an offensive mission lately.

Next the effect all the Monahan talk has had on Baertschi has been very noticeable. Monahan has instantly become a role model for Sven. Ever since Monahan started making head waves and Burke called him out while praising Monahan. Sven has gone out of his way to use his body more in the offensive zone on the forecheck, to get his arse back on the back check. In just the last 3 games I've seen a side of Sven we've never seen. If Sven plays like that all year and realizes that this is how he needs to play he is going to become a very good all around NHL player. It took Backlund 3 seasons to figure out what Sven seems to have figured out in 1 season. And I realize it might be a little bit premature and it also may be speculative but I attribute that success to him playing with and competing for coaches attention with Monahan. Healthy competition within in the young core is a huge motivator.

If Monahan's development isn't hindered playing with the Flames this year. I don't think there's even a question of whether he should stay or go. If he's not a liability the mere thought that he makes his teammates better is reason enough for me why he should stay on the team ELC be damned.

Avatar
#23 SmellOfVictory
October 18 2013, 10:26AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
6
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Money is not an issue. A member of the organization confirmed as much to me this week.

Here's the thing - it's not about money, it's about efficiency of spending. The NHL is an efficiency contest under a salary cap - the better value you get out of your players, the better your roster, the more chance you have of winning.

So, in essence, if the Flames keep Monahan this year, they are trading his cheap 18 year old season for a cheap 21 year old season due to the restrictions of the entry-level deal under this CBA. And 21/22 year old Sean Monahan at $1.77M is almost certainly going to be a much better deal than an 18/19 year old Monahan. There's also a much bigger chance the Flames could be competitive in three years time, at which point extra cap space will be a more pressing concern.

Of course, this one decision in and of itself isn't enough to determine the Flames budgetary position down the road. But it's little issues like this that can build incremental value (or expense).

If the Flames determine that his development would be accelerated to a non-trivial degree by sticking around and he'll be a better player both sooner and long-term by staying with the team, then so be it. But for me it's not about whether the club will be able to afford him in general down the road - it's the efficiency of their spending that is the issue.

Efficiency in spending is not that straightforward, though. High performers on ELCs are important to teams that already have an established core of players on their 2nd/3rd/etc contracts; that's not the case with a team whose core is still being developed, none of whom are making more than 2.5 million/season (unless we consider Gio/Wideman to be core, although they're old enough that they'll be waning by the time the true core hits peak).

By the time Monahan's ELC is up, regardless of how many years they manage to get it to slide, the team will likely just be entering its competitive stage, and still well below cap. There's no real efficiency, at any point in the evolution of this Flames team, to be gained by throwing Monahan down into the minors.

Avatar
#24 SmellOfVictory
October 18 2013, 12:02PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props
Parallex wrote:

If the Hawks didn't have Toews/Kane on entry level deals at the time they likely don't end up getting Hossa in Free Agency and if the Hawks don't have Hossa I believe they don't win the Cup in 2010.

I'd rather the Flames have the option of having the space to do something like that if need be then not have the option at all.

Frankly, I don't think there is any harm returning him to junior. He needs to improve parts of his game and he'll be able to work on those just as well in junior as he can in the NHL. He'll also have the experience of playing for the WJC and then a long playoff run after he is inevitably traded to Barrie or London. Those will be good experiences for him that doesn't cost the Flames anything.

They had third liners (Versteeg) on 3.5 million dollar contracts, a 7+ million dollar defenceman (Campbell), etc. For every good value contract, they seemed to have a poor value one as well. I also don't think you can structure your salary with the premise that your team is going to land big name free agents - especially not now that cap circumvention has been reduced.

Avatar
#25 Greg
October 18 2013, 12:17PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

One other thought: the 9 game decision isn't the only point you have to make the call of what's best for his development. If they go past 9 games and burn an ELC year, there's nothing stopping them from sending him back to junior should the next ~10 games go horribly wrong. You just have to think through what that says to the player and how it impacts his development (although I suspect they'd react to that better than just getting held back by a 9 game rule).

I'd read somewhere there's another "40 game" clause where the season then counts as an "accrued year" towards FA eligibility? So maybe you burn a cheap ELC year, but you still retain his rights longer? Can anyone comment on that?

Avatar
#26 SoCalFlamesFan
October 18 2013, 12:30PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm not sure if i have read this anywhere: If he were kept up from the OHL could he be sent to the AHL now he's 19?

Avatar
#27 Johnny Be Gaudreau
October 18 2013, 12:33PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props
SoCalFlamesFan wrote:

I'm not sure if i have read this anywhere: If he were kept up from the OHL could he be sent to the AHL now he's 19?

No. the agreement with the CHL is that because he was drafted into the OHL he has to go back to his junior team I believe. The reason being that the CHL doesn't want the NHL poaching their talent and progressively weakening their league and thus the development of the junior aged players.

Whereas in Pat Sieloff's case. He was not drafted by Windsor, instead he played USHL hockey prior to going there. So the Flames could put him right into the AHL.

Avatar
#28 Parallex
October 18 2013, 01:01PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@Greg

But that's the thing... we're not a long way from having to worry about that, we're just three games away from having to make a choice that may affect it.

Avatar
#29 Bigfatflamesfan
October 18 2013, 01:22PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
4
props

This decision cant be made on saving a year of his contract. Not for this team. If he is playing well enough to stay, then they should make the room for him to stay.

The biggest issue I see with him is his face-offs. And that isn't going to get fixed playing in the OHL.

So far, keep him up. He deserves it.

Avatar
#30 Purple Hazze
October 18 2013, 01:24PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props
Parallex wrote:

If the Hawks didn't have Toews/Kane on entry level deals at the time they likely don't end up getting Hossa in Free Agency and if the Hawks don't have Hossa I believe they don't win the Cup in 2010.

I'd rather the Flames have the option of having the space to do something like that if need be then not have the option at all.

Frankly, I don't think there is any harm returning him to junior. He needs to improve parts of his game and he'll be able to work on those just as well in junior as he can in the NHL. He'll also have the experience of playing for the WJC and then a long playoff run after he is inevitably traded to Barrie or London. Those will be good experiences for him that doesn't cost the Flames anything.

Actually if the Hawks didn't have Brian Campbell signed to that horrible contract it wouldn't have mattered if Kane/Towes were on ELC's or not.

Brian Campbell's contract is the reason the Hawks had to dismantle their 2010 cup team. If the Flames can avoid those types of contracts once they start to become competitive it won't matter what year Monahan's ELC expires.

Avatar
#31 @TACOcurt
October 18 2013, 03:18PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

I have flip flopped a few times on which direction Monahan should go. I am now back to sending him down. sure he won't be playing against nhl caliber competition but we kind of have an idea at what we have. A-the benefit is he will (should) be bigger and stronger as a starter next year. B-he will get to be on gold medal junior team and maybe build some chemistry with poirer.C- it will save his elc (frankly I don't care when we pay him) D- most importantly we are not making the playoffs with or without Monahan so with him out of the line up this gives the organization to let colburne play better minutes, bring up some of the kids fromm abby and actually see what knight or horack or Reinhardt actually have and what they can contribute to the team.

Avatar
#32 coachedpotatoe
October 18 2013, 04:15PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

What's best for his development? Playing in the OHL where he will likely dominate and have stats that are out of this world or playing and practicing everyday against men; for my money the later. Also the Flames could and should release him for the WJC's so they can compare him.

Avatar
#33 negrilcowboy
October 18 2013, 04:43PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props
Johnny Be Gaudreau wrote:

I stand corrected. Thanks!

How is it that Sieloff is able to go to the AHL this season and Monahan is not then? I thought it was something to do with how CHL players are drafted or not drafted.

Are you sure about Sault Greyhounds? According to HockeyDB he played for the USHL dev team? It doesnt' say anything about him being drafted by Sault. And if that is the case say he was drafted never reported and instead played USHL hockey for 2 years. He still goes down as being a Free agent, no?

This sport is so CONFUSING!! :)

seiloff refused to report and was committed to playing ncaa hockey, toiled in the ushl until the windsor spitfires pulled off a mega deal. he suddenly wanted to develop in the windsor system under bobby boughner. it is amazing how 3 franchises in the o, winsor,london and kitchener seem to skirt the chl rules every year. the exception being the spits were caught after back to back mem cup appearances. seiloff was 6th round, 171 th overall to sault ste marie.

Avatar
#34 coachedpotatoe
October 18 2013, 06:31PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
4
props

Johny G has at least two points tonight. Heat down 1-0.

Avatar
#35 Parallex
October 18 2013, 08:11PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props
Brad wrote:

The Chicago comparisons about having low salary stars in order to win seem to be leaving out that the Hawks also won the cup last year with a normal salary cap. Kind of diminishes the argument about the contract being the most important consideration.

Good players make good teams more than good accounting. It isn't like paying Monahan at 22 or 23 will be the difference between a good and bad team.

But it might be the difference between a good team and a championship team.

Avatar
#36 Greg
October 18 2013, 10:07PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props
calgary candle wrote:

Here's who I think have shown through prospect camp, or college play or major junior performance that they can play in the NHL:

Wotherspoon, Sieloff, Ramage, Knight, Arnold, Hanowski, Agostino, Klimchuk, Berra, Gillies. There are also several maybes: Jooris, Colborne, Ferlund.

If you read this posting I'm curious which ones you disagree with? I have 12 rather than six.

That seems like the basis of an extremely strong core which you add in the three blue chips you listed.

Think of guys like Pavel Brendle and Angelo Espisito. A prospect can look like a sure thing and still never make it. As good as the guys you listed have looked at times, it's a safe bet several will never clear the bar, but it's too early to identify which ones that'll be.

Avatar
#37 Prairie Chicken by-the-Sea
October 18 2013, 11:57PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props
loudogYYC wrote:

90% of the season has yet to be played, Monahan was drafted just 4 months ago and we're in year 1 of a rebuild.

If the Flames can't be patient now, it doesn't bode well for the future when Monahan, Beartschi and all other prospects become established pros with above average NHL salaries. He would probably do ok if he stayed up, but there's no sense in putting 1 players interest ahead of the teams. They already did that with Iginla and it didn't work as wanted. I say send him down after 9.

Agree. We have very small sample size, high shooting pctg, low Corsi and sheltered minutes. I love what I see and am excited for the future but really think he needs one more year in junior.

Avatar
#38 Jeff In Lethbridge
October 19 2013, 04:30PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props
loudogYYC wrote:

90% of the season has yet to be played, Monahan was drafted just 4 months ago and we're in year 1 of a rebuild.

If the Flames can't be patient now, it doesn't bode well for the future when Monahan, Beartschi and all other prospects become established pros with above average NHL salaries. He would probably do ok if he stayed up, but there's no sense in putting 1 players interest ahead of the teams. They already did that with Iginla and it didn't work as wanted. I say send him down after 9.

why send him down? not surei understand you on the why part. is it because of ELC management? or you think it will delay or hurt his development? or he will develop better over the next year in the CHL?? he brings no value in the nhl this year? I am just trying to wrap my head around the send him back idea... seems the two main arguments to send him back are 1 - ELC wizzardry 2 - his development suffers in the NHL

please help me better grasp this send him back ideas...

thanks

Avatar
#39 piscera.infada
October 18 2013, 09:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
6
props

@Willi P

Agreed. If what he needed to work on was "offensive confidence" (the one thing people were saying since we drafted him) then sending him down would be far more palatable, from my perspective. I just feel that he needs to work on aspects of his game that would likely better better worked on at his endpoint (the NHL), as opposed to against weaker competition - those things being: speed, strength, defensive zone coverage, and faceoffs.

That said, I agree with the premise in this article that if there's any indication his mental make-up wont allow him to deal with the lows this season is bound to give the team, then he must be sent down. Everything I've heard seems to indicate that wont be an issue, but if it is, you're better seeing what you have in other young guys.

I also agree that it is a no-brainer that if he is still on the big club come boxing day, the organization should - and will - let him go to the WJHC. That is invaluable experience, and not letting him go is the only decision that could really hurt his development.

Avatar
#40 seve927
October 18 2013, 09:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
6
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Money is not an issue. A member of the organization confirmed as much to me this week.

Here's the thing - it's not about money, it's about efficiency of spending. The NHL is an efficiency contest under a salary cap - the better value you get out of your players, the better your roster, the more chance you have of winning.

So, in essence, if the Flames keep Monahan this year, they are trading his cheap 18 year old season for a cheap 21 year old season due to the restrictions of the entry-level deal under this CBA. And 21/22 year old Sean Monahan at $1.77M is almost certainly going to be a much better deal than an 18/19 year old Monahan. There's also a much bigger chance the Flames could be competitive in three years time, at which point extra cap space will be a more pressing concern.

Of course, this one decision in and of itself isn't enough to determine the Flames budgetary position down the road. But it's little issues like this that can build incremental value (or expense).

If the Flames determine that his development would be accelerated to a non-trivial degree by sticking around and he'll be a better player both sooner and long-term by staying with the team, then so be it. But for me it's not about whether the club will be able to afford him in general down the road - it's the efficiency of their spending that is the issue.

I think you've got to be able to fill in a roster efficiently, but your core guys, you can expect to pay. Next year's first rounder could be the guy we're looking to have on a bargain for a few years, and maybe this years first, but right now you're still trying to put together a core. The only way Monahan's contract becomes an issue is if we start acquiring 'post-apex' players over the next couple of years.

I've been for sending him back, but I'm starting to wonder. I can't really see another year of junior doing him any good. If he goes down this year, and the Flames truly do completely tank next year, I think you'd want him to spend the year in the A next year as well, because he'd still need the development he would have gotten this year.

Avatar
#42 T&A4Flames
October 18 2013, 10:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

@calgary candle

In your draft scenarik we'd be picking 5th as NJ has tk forfeit their 1st rnd due to the Kovalchuk contract.

Also, Poirier is listed as a RW although he is a left hand shot.

This draft my hopes are for a big #1D mand-Ekblad. If not I would be very excited for a top 6 potential RW- Virtanen.

Avatar
#43 Kevin R
October 18 2013, 10:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
11
props

Well I guess if we are going to beat this horses head one more swing cant hurt. In my view, this is a no brainer, it's a matter of circumstance. OHL & having Monahan dominate using half the effort is pointless & will not enhance his development. In fact, that is something we don't want the kid to learn, achieving success with 1/2 the effort. If he were eligible for Abby, then I am all for it. It worked wonders for Brodie & I see it as being the perfect scenario for Monahan. But we don't have that option, so get over it. Having the kid here playing his butt off under the scrutiny of Flames coaches is the best case here. If worst case he really starts to struggle by the end of November, then lend him to the WJC team. Right now, he is learning to play the big game & he's learning to play it with our other big blue chip in Sven. Well you really can smell what the "Rock" is cooking with these two players & it smells good.

Avatar
#45 piscera.infada
October 18 2013, 11:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
7
props

@Johnny Be Gaudreau

I partially agree. I think we can see the start of a very nice core (sans elite prospects? maybe? yes? I don't care too much), but as fans, we need to stop comparing this team to anything and everything. This core isn't the 'Hawks, Pens, Oil, or Panthers - we should really stop looking for similarities.

The biggest thing that will hold any rebuild back is getting complacent that we've drafted 'x' amount of 'y' type players, and now just need to find 'z' type player(s) (which is easy... or hard... or whatever). The goal is to always be improving, always be developing our prospects, always draft well, and always be developing our own identity.

Avatar
#46 Parallex
October 18 2013, 11:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Money is not an issue. A member of the organization confirmed as much to me this week.

Here's the thing - it's not about money, it's about efficiency of spending. The NHL is an efficiency contest under a salary cap - the better value you get out of your players, the better your roster, the more chance you have of winning.

So, in essence, if the Flames keep Monahan this year, they are trading his cheap 18 year old season for a cheap 21 year old season due to the restrictions of the entry-level deal under this CBA. And 21/22 year old Sean Monahan at $1.77M is almost certainly going to be a much better deal than an 18/19 year old Monahan. There's also a much bigger chance the Flames could be competitive in three years time, at which point extra cap space will be a more pressing concern.

Of course, this one decision in and of itself isn't enough to determine the Flames budgetary position down the road. But it's little issues like this that can build incremental value (or expense).

If the Flames determine that his development would be accelerated to a non-trivial degree by sticking around and he'll be a better player both sooner and long-term by staying with the team, then so be it. But for me it's not about whether the club will be able to afford him in general down the road - it's the efficiency of their spending that is the issue.

Echo the above.

I was going to write something but as usual Kent beat me to it... using better grammer and punctuation.

Avatar
#47 Johnny Be Gaudreau
October 18 2013, 11:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@piscera.infada

For sure, mate. I completely agree. I am not saying we should clone ourselves after the hawks. Just making the observation that we have sort of similar type players coming through our system. Mainly in the forward Ranks.

I don't necessarily mean we need to go out and buy a Keith clone player or a Seabrook clone type player per se. What I mean is that if we do our trading/drafting/buying right we will see similarities there. Why, because a good team has certain elements that are needed to win a cup.

Does that mean we're going to be Blackhawks 2.0. No of course not. But there's nothing wrong with having prospects that compare to that Blackhawks team. They're about as well rounded a team as you can have in the new NHL. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

ED *I guess I should have been a bit clearer in my original post* Instead of saying needing a x or y (Chicago player's name) we need a shutdown defenseman who is capable of playing against other teams elite talent without getting trunced offensively.

Avatar
#48 Greg
October 18 2013, 11:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

@calgary candle

I agree the future looks much brighter than in years past, but I think we have to assume a non-trivial number of our current prospects won't pan out. Excluding the blue-chip guys (Brodie, Monahan, Baertschi), I would be surprised if we got more than 2 quality NHLers at each position out of the guys you listed.

Avatar
#49 Greg
October 18 2013, 12:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
7
props

@Steve Macfarlane

Personally I'm very glad to hear that's what the org is basing the decision on: what's best for his development. You do gotta keep an eye on future cap implications, but we're a long ways off from needing to worry about that. I'd say the greater concern at this point should be how to avoid the "perpetual rebuild trap" and that starts with putting development first.

You can worry about how to fit his $6M contract into your cap structure after you've figured out how to develop him into a $6M player! :)

I also think if an org puts a players best interest first, he'll tend to treat them in kind when it's time to talk home town discounts. If you jerk your players around solely for your own interests, they won't have any reason to want to stay here vs play elsewhere, and it's true for your ability to attract other players as well.

Comments are closed for this article.