FN Mailbag – February 1, 2016


There’s about a month left to the trade deadline. That means the Flames have a month, or 13 games, to do one of two things: put themselves firmly back into the playoff race or drum up as much interest as possible in their key UFA assets. 

The former goal is a long shot. Unless Calgary becomes the hottest team in the league over the next dozen or so matches, their dreams of repeating last year’s unlikely playoff berth are done.

The second objective will depend on how a handful of players perform – in particular Jiri Hudler, who has the next 30 days to make himself into a hot rental commodity and potentially revive his value as an unrestricted free agent to boot. 

The deadline and the draft dominate this week’s edition of the mailbag. We’ll talk about the draft lottery, potential trade partners and the potential for moving some of the Flames’ less notable trade pieces.

I mentioned some other options in this recent article, including Joe Colborne, Josh Jooris and Derek Grant. Of course, teams may also come calling for some of the Flames more noteworthy prospects, like Rasmus Andersson, Oliver Kylington, Mark Jankowski and Andrew Mangiapane, but I don’t see the Flames parting with any of those guys absent some major deal (ex: in a package to get Jonathan Drouin).

The Flames may look to try to dump some bad deals as well by retaining salary. Which brings us to…

We saw the Kings and Flyers hook up in one of these deals this year which saw Vinny Lecavalier and Luke Schenn (two awful contracts) get moved, so it’s possible. Obviously it depends on what other teams will be looking for around the deadline and just how much the Flames are willing to retain to get rid of one of these contracts. For now we can only speculate.

The likeliest target for this kind of move is Dennis Wideman, despite his rather abysmal performance this year. He’s just one year removed from a 50+ point season and can still shoot the puck, so one of the contenders might be tempted to take his deal if the Flames cut his $5.25M salary in half ($2.625M). Wideman as a third pairing, PP specialist at over $5M is grossly overpaid, but a relative bargain at less than $3M. The question then becomes, is it worth it to the Flames to pay Wideman $2.625M not to play with the team next year?

I’d be favour of taking Auston Matthews, but I’m not sure that necessitates the trading of Monahan. Matthews will be relatively cheap for his first three seasons, so his addition won’t really force a move from a budget perspective.

The only change a Matthews addition might have is shunting Sam Bennett to the wing permanently. The new depth chart would look something like this:

Gaudreau – Matthews – Frolik 

Bennett – Monahan – Ferland 

Bouma – Backlund – Jooris

I’m not sure the team who ends up in that position would make the offer, which isn’t a knock on Monahan. The issue is, the Flames centre is about to become rather expensive, while the team choosing second overall gets a shot at a player who is likely to be as good or better than Monahan down the road. The new kid will also be cost controlled for the his first three pro seasons. 

I imagine they have started already to some degree, though my guess is they get going in earnest around March or April. Treliving will need to have things in order by July 1 so he know what the org’s cap budget looks likes heading into free agency.

That’s the thing – we really don’t know the Flames’ flexibility until the trade deadline is over and the Monahan and Gaudreau contracts are signed. Things change drastically if Treliving retains some of the club’s UFA’s,  dumps a bad contract or two, or gets a bridge rather than a long-term deal for either of the wunderkids.

As I noted here, I’d be very interested in Andersen if I was Treliving. The 26-year-old net minder is huge (6’4″) and has put up sterling results at every level, including above average numbers in the NHL so far. He also won’t cost and arm and a leg to re-sign. 

Andersen isn’t a slam dunk to come in and solve the Flames’ long-term netminding question marks, but he’s a decent bet to at least be a capable starter.

  • KiLLKiND

    Not sure why people are talking about trading monohan already, i’m confident he’ll be able to achieve his numbers from last year again. I think his defensive play needs work obviously, but I’m not sure if Hartley is the guy to do it.

    • Avalain

      People are talking about trading Monahan if we end up getting Matthews. The reasoning for this is simple – Matthews and Bennett are both likely to be better than Monahan and Monahan is better than a 3rd line center. This means that he can be used to hopefully get us a 1st line RW in some sort of lateral trade, which is a position that we are really weak on right now.

      Everyone talks about choosing the best pick available at the draft instead of picking based on positional need. I agree with this, but the only way to fill the positional needs is through UFA signings and trades. 1st line RW’s don’t come up as UFA’s very often, and no one trades a top line player without getting something substantial back in return.

      • piscera.infada

        People are talking about trading Monahan if we end up getting Matthews. The reasoning for this is simple…

        The reasoning for this is mind-blowing. If they draft Matthews. If anyone on this blog is seriously getting their hopes up for drafting Matthews, stop now. If the Flames end up with the first overall pick, you’ll be much better off seeing it for what it is: luck, as opposed to anything else. It is without a doubt, the least likely sequence of events. I would go to Vegas and put money on the Flames making the playoffs and winning a round, before I put money on them drafting first overall.

        And even if that does happen, as Kent states (and this is the salient point), you’re getting ahead of yourself if you’re already trading Monahan. His value is not likely to decline drastically. If Bennett doesn’t end up being the centre you’re assuming he will be in your post (which people assumed Monahan would be even a year ago), then, what have you done to your centre “depth”? It’s capricious. Players can always be switched to the wing, players can always be traded when the situation dictates. You don’t have to run good, young, players out of town just because you’ve “got a better one” (to say nothing of them actually proving they’re better at the NHL level).

        • piscera.infada

          Even if the Flames “won” the 1st overall pick, how do you trade away you best center before Matthews even has one NHL season under his belt. Wouldn’t Monahan have even more value as a 22 or 23 year old center, if you decide to go that route?

        • piscera.infada

          Nobody is getting their hopes up for drafting Matthews? We are just talking about a completely hypothetical situation… Jesus. Is that not allowed anymore or what?

          IF the Flames win the draft lottery, and Matthews is the BPA, then you draft him. The question then becomes, what do you do with three young, talented top end centers? There are basically three options:

          1) Play them as your 1C, 2C and 3C and trade Backlund. In my opinion, this option makes little to no sense as you would be wasting one of these talents on the third line and Backlund would not likely fetch you a top 6 winger.

          2) Shift one of them to the wing. This option is viable. I believe that Matthews has played a bit on the wing in the past, but if I am not mistaken Monahan has never. That being said, you have to consider the cap implications of having to pay Monahan and Gaudreau this offseason, Bennett next offseason, and Matthews after that. Can we afford to keep all of them? Whats our salary structure going to look like 2, 3, 4 years down the line? These are all questions that must be considered.

          3) Trade from a position of organizational strength (C) to fill a position of organizational weakness (RW or LW or G). You have to believe that this is something that Treliving would at least HAVE to look at. Monahan could net us a fantastic return. If Tampa Bay offers Drouin and Bishop, do you not at least look at that? Pairing Gaudreau and Drouin with Bennett and Matthews would look pretty appetizing in my opinion. Pretty tantalizing blend of speed and skill. Not to mention that this would remedy our goaltending situation, allowing Gillies to marinate and develop in the minors, and bringing Ortio or Poulin up as Bishops understudy.

          In summary, don’t get your panties in a bunch. Noone is saying TRADE MONAHAN. All people are saying is HYPOTHETICALLY, if the Flames win the lottery and draft Matthews, what should they do with Monahan? I am of the opinion that they should at least explore the trade route, and if someone blows you away (which they likely would when you dangle a 21 year old 30 goal scorer) then you have to at least consider it.

          • piscera.infada

            Okay then. If the Flames trade Matt Stajan for Connor McDavid, do they trade Monahan? I mean, we’re dealing in hypotheticals, right?

            If you could comprehend my argument through to completion, you’d realize I acknowledge that the “Matthews argument” is purely hypothetical. My point goes further. If you do draft Matthews (or trade for McDavid), what is the rush to trade Monahan (or even start the conversation)? It’s putting the cart before the horse. A better use of assets and roster spots, is to utilize Monahan in the correct way until such time as a decision needs to be made. Then you have the option to trade Monahan, Bennett, or Matthews (or McDavid)–not only for who makes the least sense in your lineup, but also for who garners the biggest return while making a comparatively smaller negative impact. That’s the point. It’s illogical, at this point, to assume drafting Matthews makes Monahan expendable, because we don’t know that.

            And you’re right, “if someone blows you away”. But, if someone “blows me away” for Gaudreau, Bennett, or Brodie, I’m obviously “at least going to consider it”. I don’t understand how Monahan went from hero to zero in the span of a few months, under the guise of “he’s not as good as I expected him to be at 21”. As I said, capricious.

            Also, thanks for the panties comment. I’ve never heard that before.

          • piscera.infada

            Well now your just being completely ridiculous. The Flames winning the draft lottery is something that could potentially happen, especially considering the fact that the Flames are only 2 points out of 30th in the league with over half the season gone. Trading Stajan for Mcdavid is not a hypothetical situation – there is literally 0% chance of that ever happening, so its pretty idiotic to even try and compare the two scenarios.

            Did I say that there was a rush to trade Monahan? No. I didn’t. I said that if we win the lottery, then it is something that Treliving needs to consider, especially considering the fact that Monahan is up for a new contract at seasons end. That money could be saved and spent elsewhere, like on a #1 goaltender (such as Bishop).

            It’s pretty simple. The Flames would be dealing from a position of strength. If they get a fantastic offer that improves the team and shores up a position (or positions) of weakness, you take it or at least strongly consider it. If no offers come up that are appetizing, then you hold on to Monahan and go into next season with him, Bennett, Gaudreau and Matthews in your top 6. Nobody is saying you HAVE to trade him, but why not float his name out there and see if you cant improve your team? Especially when their are potential trade partners that could fit with us (like I stated before, a Monahan for Drouin/Bishop type deal could work imo).

          • piscera.infada

            My question is, why is it always Monahan? Why not float Bennett’s name? He hasn’t scored at the rate Monahan has. I understand it’s hypothetical, and I understand the point your driving at. I also understand that if you win the draft lottery, you have options–options that are definitively not trading Monahan. That’s why it’s ludicrous to speculate. What if you get a ridiculously amazing offer for Matthews that directly fits the need on the wing, the need for a number 1 goalie, plus?

            I’m also not sold on a Monahan for Drouin and Bishop deal. Firstly because it doesn’t really work for Tampa going forward knowing they’d have to re-up Monahan, and secondly because I don’t buy Drouin. I’ll agree he’d be a nice piece to acquire, but I’m not giving up a ton for him, because even though I’ve defended him on this board numerous times, he hasn’t done a great deal to fill me with the type of confidence I would need to trade Monahan for him.

            Again, I’ve never said “don’t entertain offers”. That would be a dumb comment. As I’ve outlined, you need to be wiling to “listen” to all offers, on all players (that includes “untouchables”–which I maintain is a ridiculous concept to begin with). I’m simply stating the reasoning is flawed that either it has to be Monahan, or that it would need to happen post-haste if the Flames won the draft lottery.

          • Tomas Oppolzer

            Bennett isn’t being thrown like Monny because:

            1) He’s younger now than Monahan was in his rookie year and is on pace for about 15 more points.

            2) he was drafted higher

            3) he was ranked much higher (1st in CSS rankings) compared to Monahan (7th)

            4)He produced much better than Monahan did in junior.

            5) He is cost controlled for one more season, meaning he won’t need a new deal until CGY has a lot of anchors off the books.

          • cberg

            Hypothetically lots of things are possible. How about this? We don’t make the playoffs. We trade Hudler for a 2016 1st but their goalie gets injured and they don’t make the play-offs. We trade Russell and switch our 2017 1st for their 2016 1st, they miss the playoffs. We get #1(Flames’ pick), #2 and #3 in the 2016 lottery.

            Question: Do we draft Matthews, Puljujarvi AND THEN Laine, or draft Chychryn the D at #3?

            Try not to get too far ahead of yourself. First some games. Second see where we are, then decide whether serious sellers or not. Third, TDL…. and so on.

  • MattyFranchise

    It is totally worth it to pay Wideman to play somewhere else. It’s not so much about the money, the Flames need that roster spot.

    Playoff hopes are pretty much dashed, we need spots to call up some guys from the farm. Hopefully his suspension doesn’t last forever.

    • Parallex

      Leaving aside the developmental aspects of it the calculation on whether it’s worth it is fairly simply.

      If the amount you pay him to play for someone else + the amount that you pay his replacement is less than or equal to the amount you would pay Wideman to play for us and his replacement is a better performer then it’s worth it.

      … personally I think we need to get a cost controlled player up in the big league to get some NHL reps.

      • MattyFranchise

        Agreed. With all of the guys (Nakladal, Kulak, Wotherspoon, etc) in the system that could potentially replace or improve upon Wideman’s minutes while individually making less than 1 million this season, retaining salary on any potential deal is a no brainer.

    • BlueMoonNigel

      Any time a team trades a guy and pays half his ticket is terrible asset management. Treliving hasn’t built a track record yet where he can do that sort of thing with impunity.

      Moreover, that Wideman punched well above his weight last season and wasn’t moved when his value was through the roof, would only make giving cash back to take him in a trade even worse.

      Treliving can take a mulligan for not moving Hudler at the end of last year, but to have to pay some other team to take Wideman, is the kind of stink Treliving doesn’t want or need on his record.

        • BlueMoonNigel

          Anytime you have to pay off another team to cover your mistakes is bad business. As I noted, BT didn’t sign Wideman, but he has to deal with him. Why he didn’t work tirelessly last summer to shift the high-flying Wideman is any one’s guess, but that he failed to sell high may well come back to bite him.

          In addition, don’t take Wideman in isolation. If all or most of the fantasy moves noted on this forum were made, the Flames would be paying off other teams to take the likes of Wideman, Raymond, Englland, Smid, Stajan, etc. The Flames would be paying more money for these players to play for other clubs than it would cost to have a $6M superstar play for the Flames for a year.

          As generous as the Flames’ owners are, they don’t want to have to pay the salaries of players who play for other clubs. Eventually, that pinch will be felt on the Flames, so when it is time to reup Brodie, the owners will stick hard and fast and might not ante up that extra few million that the Rangers are willing to pay him.

          Finally, Treliving still has a short track record as a GM, so he really doesn’t want to stain it with huge subsidies to other clubs to take away his garbage. I imagine Treliving would like to get another job as a GM in the NHL when this gig in Calgary ends. To do so, he can’t be giving away free money all the time. He ain’t Bob Barker.

  • BlueMoonNigel

    This “trade mony” stuff is wearing thin. He’s 21 years old and a 31 goal scorer at the NHL level. That’s not to mention everything else he brings in terms of a calm, humble, hardworking presence in the room.

    People have way too short of attention spans here, no one said trade Mony in December. What a difference a month makes. What happens when Mathews comes gets 31 goals and then is only on pace for 25?

    I agree Mony needs a wake up call and probably some time away from Gaudreau, but ya don’t trade 21 year old number one centers in this league unless you have a damn good reason. 15 game slump is not a damn good reason.

  • FlamesFan1489

    You don’t trade Monahan if somehow Calgary gets the first pick. You draft Matthews, you develop your 3 top centers and see where they slot in the lineup. Monahan is only 21, I’d give him a few more years to see where he lands. If he’s a consistent 25 goal/60 point center, then he slots in as an excellent 2nd line forward. If you find that Bennett becomes the better center, then what’s wrong with letting Monahan play wing? He’s shown he’s more of a shooter than playmaker anyways, and it would help hide his defensive inefficiencies anyways. If Bennett proves to be a better winger, than you have him play wing. Who would not want a top 4 of Matthews/Gaudreau/Bennett/Monahan?

    If the Flames get a top 4 pick, then you have Mony/Gaudreau and Bennett/Pul, Laine or Tkachuk. That’s a pretty solid top 4 going forward as well.

    • MattyFranchise

      He’s on pace for 24 goals and 50 points this season. I mean, a kid jumps straight from junior the NHL and he starts his career with three consecutive seasons over 20 goals and he’s already trade bait?

      I have no idea why people want to run him out of town already.

  • Kevin R

    Sounds like a lot of chasing white rabbits on this thread. If we were to win the lottery, what a great problem to have. Here’s to hoping.

    Wideman at 1/2 price is not only worth it but should also increase his return significantly. But until we find out what this goofy suspension is going to be, hopefully no more than 10 games :-} he may be even more valuable because he’ll be rested. I honestly see the Red Wings being interested in a 1/2 price offensive Dman & you can bet Wideman would approve that trade in a New York minute. In fact, speaking New York, I could see the Rangers trading Hayes for a 1/2 price Wideman as well.

    I expect flames to probably win/get points in 7-8 of the 13 games leading up to the TDL. Not enough, I think Management already know we are sellers. Expect a lot of talk of different rumours from the various hockey panels rumour sites starting in the next 7-10 days. My favourite time of year.

  • BurningSensation

    There is a good chance Calgary misses the playoffs, and therefore a non-trivial chance Calgary wins the subsequent lottery. Certainly not out of bounds to speculate on what drafting 1st overall would mean for the franchise – thats what fans of non-playoff teams do (see: every Oilers fan board for the last decade).

    Put me in the category of ‘Draft Mathews, trade Monahan+ for Puljujarvi’.

    Rebuild over.

    • piscera.infada

      Put me in the category of ‘Draft Mathews, trade Monahan+ for Puljujarvi’.

      Rebuild over.

      What about trade Bennett+ for Puljujarvi? (Edit: I’m not suggesting this.)

      I’m interested why or how people squirm out of that, or if they even would. Would you do that, or is it “too much”? That’s what I’m trying to ascertain through all these posts.

      Is it simply people have grown tired of Monahan? Is it that we’re constantly looking for the “latest” big thing?

      • BurningSensation

        I like Bennett more than Monahan for several reasons;

        – Bennett is a much superior skater

        – Bennett has a better pre-draft pedigree (and arguably could have gone 1st overall)

        – Monahan hasn’t developed much (at all?) defensively, or as a playmaker, over three seasons.

        – The strong suspicion that Monahan’s #s are being floated by playing with Johnny G.

        – The lack of any improvement in Monahan’s possession stats.

        So while his 30 goal season is fresh in other GMs minds, I’d like to ‘sell high’

        • piscera.infada

          Alright. I’ll agree with the skating and draft pedigree (for whatever that’s worth) arguments. I’ll also state this rather bluntly–one final time–I am not advocating trading Sam Bennett. None of this is a knock on Bennett, either. It’s simply a question of practicality.

          Is there no chance that in the next 156 games (the amount of additional games Monahan has played), Bennett could similarly stagnate (if you’re saying Monahan has, in fact, stagnated–which I don’t agree with, but whatever)? Let me make myself clear, I don’t believe he will. That said, it’s somewhat irresponsible to dismiss the possibility. What then?

          While the early returns have been positive, we’ve seen Bennett at centre for, what, 5 games (which I have argued is a failure by Hartley)? Is that really enough of a sample size to say he’s better at centre than Monahan? Is it not entirely possible that he struggles defensively in the same sort of way Monahan has as a full time centre?

          Again, I firmly believe that Bennett will turn into a better centre than Monahan. I just caution against the assumption. We don’t know that to be true. It’s kind of imperative to know one way, or another, before you start jettisoning your centre “depth”, no?

  • piscera.infada

    Few thoughts:

    1 If we win the draft lottery I’d like to explore trading back a spot or two and taking one of the Finnish wingers. Could be lucrative.

    2) Call me crazy but I think Engelland could garner a little trade interest come deadline day. If we retained some salary I could see a contender wanting to add his playoff experience and dare I say it, GRIT.

    3) Wondering if BT will try to load up on extra picks again and this time use them to target a goaltender like Bishop or Andersen at the draft.

    • piscera.infada

      1 If we win the draft lottery I’d like to explore trading back a spot or two and taking one of the Finnish wingers. Could be lucrative.

      That was my initial thought if they won the draft lottery. If you could slide back one spot, draft Puljajarvi, and maybe even pick up a first in the next year (from a rebuilding team–that has the possibility to be high again).

    • BlueMoonNigel

      Treliving has to pay a team to take Wideman off his hands and ditto for Engelland, And then there is speedy Mason Raymond. If the Flames are willing to eat a third to a half of his contract, the Canadiens will take his for a 5th rounder. Oh, and let’s not forget Smid. Retaining 50% of his contract will get you the 3rd line grinder from Syracuse.

      I’d hate to be Treliving having to explain to the owners why they have to pay so much money to get rid of guys. Granted Treliving didn’t sign all these bad contracts, but they are happening on his watch.

  • Derzie

    Trade Monahan? Really? Our first high draft pick who is as good or better than most everyone in his draft class. How much rope has draft pick Backlund been given again? Silly talk.

  • mattyc

    Everyone should be (are?) available for the right price. No reason to trade Monahan away for spare parts (or because there’s other good players on the team), but if you can use an area of strength of improve another area (maybe a good RWer) you have to at least consider it — especially when there’s evidence to suggest Monahan may be over-valued.

  • T&A4Flames

    What the hell is going on here today? We need to add to our top 6 talent, not run in place or fall back. We should be so lucky to add a top 3 pick to Mony, Gaudreau and Bennett. You don’t trade any of those guys!

    I suspect people are looking at the ptential big payday for Mony and apparent lack of progress this year and are worried that he will become an anchor. Jesus people, pull your heads out of you’re asses, seriously. Mony is on a very short list of players below the age of 21 that has scored 30 goals, and a list of players to score 50 + points. He’s done the latter 2x. HE’S FRICKIN’ 21 YEARS OLD!!! If you’re concerned about the $ that he will soon be drawing, just remember that at some point, any high draft pick will earn a high salary (most likely- if not you have bigger issues). Move out the wated $ currently being spent and we’ll be just fine.

    Just please stop this ludicrous talk of moving one of Mony or Bennett. It’s just a dumb argument to have at this point.

  • Canrock 78

    Sean M is having his sophomore slump 1 year late. Instead of thinking about trading him, We should be out trying to buy low on every top end rookie +1 or 2 player having a down year. Same as Kevin Hays if the Rangers want to sell low on him I’m all for it. WW is correct on this one.
    You would have to be an idiot to trade any of the young top end guys Even if we do get Mathews. Give them time to gel together. Let’s keep collecting the best assets we can, see who performs best together. Then trade from a position of strength when we are ready to make a serious run.

      • T&A4Flames

        Are you trolling? He’s 21!!! He’s still learning the pro game. He’s coming off a 30G, 30A season as a 20 year old. What’s your suggestion then? Move every top pick that’s showing star like potential because they may suddenly lose all skill and drive and become an anchor to the team? Well, why wait, why not move Bennett as well for a couple of draft picks?

  • KiLLKiND

    1.This is one of the worst string of comments I’ve seen on Flamesnation since Ultrathin. The same arguments are being used by each side it seems without fully reading the comments that are being replied to.

    Any trade talk on here is obviously Hypothetical unless, Tre happens to be posting on here. Nobody should need to comment saying “it’s only hypothetical,” it’s obvious none of us are the GM, we know it’s hypothetical.

    2.Yes of course Treliving should consider the possibility of trading either of Bennett or Monahan if he can get a return = to or greater than what we give up. The GM’s job is to try and build a Stanley Cup winner. If we have to trade away a young superstar along the way then that’s what happens. Nobody is saying it is going to happen just that it is a possibility and it is the GM’s job to consider every possibility even ones revelving around young players. Is it a little early to have this conversation yes, but we can’t exactly talk about playoffs now can we?

    • KiLLKiND

      In hopes of starting a new topic.

      In all likelihood we won’t draft either of the two wingers or Matthews and should be very happy with Tkachuk or Chychrun. Which is who I think we should try to talk about or at least talk about which RW we actually can acquire other than through winning a lottery.
      Would this year’s 1st round pick plus one of (Wideman, Russel, Engelland, or Smid be able to bring in Raantanen from the Ave’s? He was taken 10th overall last year and I would have taken him at 6th. I believe if there is an RW we should really be trying to acquire it is him. He very strong, built like a tank, and is already putting up over a point per game in the AHL this year. In my opinion he will be better than either of Puljarvi or Laine and who knows we might even be able to get rid of a D in the process.

      • piscera.infada

        I do like Raantanen a lot, but if your goal is to acquire a right-shot, right-wing, he’s not going to do.

        I’m not big on Chychrun, I know he possesses the skills and size that scouts salivate over, but I’ve yet to be fully impressed by him in my (albeit limited) viewings. He seems like he really labours around the ice. I don’t know, maybe I’ve caught him on some off nights.

    • cberg

      The point about hypothetical is if something is so far-fetched or far-distant that talking about it is kind of useless. Sure it is possible but wouldn’t it better to focus on things a bit more relevant? It’s kind of like those back-looking draft articles that look what could have been if we only had drafted xyz instead of the duds we took. I mean really, what for?

      As far as trading someone, we should only be looking to improve the team, unless there is some sort of problem so No, just getting somebody=our guy should not be happening. Speculating about trading our best players only serves to rile up folks, especially since doing so only causes other major holes because we don’t have any excess areas to pull from.

      Perhaps in a year or two there will be excess on the D corps, but right now we need to keep building and accumulating. Even if we win the draft lottery it’s not like we can’t use several more top end players….

  • piscera.infada

    The issue I have with the Monahan talk is that a center is more valuable than a winger and you’re moving a proven commodity for an unproven one. Suppose you draft Puljujarvi and he becomes Yakupov? Center depth rules. Edmonton was fortunate to have Nuge and Draisatl when McDavid went down. He comes back, one moves to the wing. Big whoop. It’s a blessing, not a burden.

  • Franko J

    No matter what position this team drafts and who they draft it is all about asset management. Whether it is Matthews, Puljujarvi, Laine, or say Tkachuk, the Flames management will find a way of getting them into the lineup if they are willing to show they belong.

    I just think it would be wise for the Flames to continue building their talent pool.
    Besides I still think of the times this organization has traded away talent before it has blossomed. Hull, Stillman, and Savard are just some examples. In trading Monahan, because he is struggling this season, would be poor asset management.