I don't disagree with you.

I think he's the most traceable since
- he's a 1st 2nd line LW potential. We have enough of those.
- He has value, he's not a bust

We could get a RH shot RW, or a D with him and fill a prospect hole.

So hes traded not because he's bad, but because he's good, but in an area that we have others with potential.
- numbear

That word potential reLly needs to be used with caution. To date, of all our LW, Baertschi is the only one that has shown an ability to play at the NHL level. Despite all the excitement over Gaudreau, he has played 1 game. Can he last over 82? If we move a Baertschi, it better be for a comparable prospect in terms of ability and readiness in an area we need.

How soon before Giordano gets traded for futures? He's a great player , he could bring in quite a haul. Next season maybe?
- Jeropotato

no we're not the oilers we value our vets

K so, Fan 960 is really getting getting into this Johansson thing. Asking if its a good idea to offer sheet him and give up our 1st, 2nd and 3rd. I say no f'n way. But i would offer up a trade of a 2016 1st and 2015 2nd and 3rd. He is a C, which we are over loaded with already, but he is a right shot. Question would be, can he be effective as a RW? He's got the size but doesn't really use it. Also, he wants a lot for 1 good year and a couple of crap years. Giving him what he wants would set a precedent salary wise for Mony, Backs etc.

What would you offer?

K so, Fan 960 is really getting getting into this Johansson thing. Asking if its a good idea to offer sheet him and give up our 1st, 2nd and 3rd. I say no f'n way. But i would offer up a trade of a 2016 1st and 2015 2nd and 3rd. He is a C, which we are over loaded with already, but he is a right shot. Question would be, can he be effective as a RW? He's got the size but doesn't really use it. Also, he wants a lot for 1 good year and a couple of crap years. Giving him what he wants would set a precedent salary wise for Mony, Backs etc.

What would you offer?
- TandA4Flames

not a chance in hell i'm giving up a shot at mcdavid or eichel but a 2016 1st and 2015 2nd im totally fine with, i'm fine with overpaying for him cap isn't a problem and hiller engallend are short term deals so that will clear cap for the future

That word potential reLly needs to be used with caution. To date, of all our LW, Baertschi is the only one that has shown an ability to play at the NHL level. Despite all the excitement over Gaudreau, he has played 1 game. Can he last over 82? If we move a Baertschi, it better be for a comparable prospect in terms of ability and readiness in an area we need.
- TandA4Flames

I agree, IMO both have unknown potential. But 3 years from know I don't see both on the team.

In a best case scenario both are franking superstars and one gets traded to fill a organizational hole……maybe on the back end, I mean defence.

In a realistic scenario one excels and one busts.

In a worst case scenario they both will be in competition for the scoring lead of the KHL.

K so, Fan 960 is really getting getting into this Johansson thing. Asking if its a good idea to offer sheet him and give up our 1st, 2nd and 3rd. I say no f'n way. But i would offer up a trade of a 2016 1st and 2015 2nd and 3rd. He is a C, which we are over loaded with already, but he is a right shot. Question would be, can he be effective as a RW? He's got the size but doesn't really use it. Also, he wants a lot for 1 good year and a couple of crap years. Giving him what he wants would set a precedent salary wise for Mony, Backs etc.

What would you offer?
- TandA4Flames

Would Backlund and Russell and a lesser prospect/pick do it? Not sure what their organizational needs are. Loosing Backlund would suck, but we would have Moni and Stajan. We have Diaz who could potentially replace Russell.

Not sure if this is an underpayment/overpayment.

I just don't think we are have enough depth in our prospects to start handing picks out like candy.

Would Backlund and Russell and a lesser prospect/pick do it? Not sure what their organizational needs are. Loosing Backlund would suck, but we would have Moni and Stajan. We have Diaz who could potentially replace Russell.

Not sure if this is an underpayment/overpayment.

I just don't think we are have enough depth in our prospects to start handing picks out like candy.
- Mr.Pink

Yea, I would be almost certain they would want a good young C in return. Backlund may not yet have shown that he can post the offensive #'s yet but we know he is a solid 2way guy that can handle the tough minutes. Down the road, that opens up softer minutes for the real offensive guys like Monahan and Bennett. Johansen to me is still a question mark. Is he the 30 goal guy from last year or the 10 -15 goal guy from the previous 2-3 years prior combined? I'm not sure I would want to add Backs into that deal. I do believe he will be the go to vet in 2-3 years. But if the Flames brass feel Johansen can be a solid RW, I would have to consider a move.

Yea, I would be almost certain they would want a good young C in return. Backlund may not yet have shown that he can post the offensive #'s yet but we know he is a solid 2way guy that can handle the tough minutes. Down the road, that opens up softer minutes for the real offensive guys like Monahan and Bennett. Johansen to me is still a question mark. Is he the 30 goal guy from last year or the 10 -15 goal guy from the previous 2-3 years prior combined? I'm not sure I would want to add Backs into that deal. I do believe he will be the go to vet in 2-3 years. But if the Flames brass feel Johansen can be a solid RW, I would have to consider a move.
- TandA4Flames

I personally think that johansan is a better player and will be better than monohan. I don't see him letting him go for anything less than mono or bennet.

If it was Gio and one of the vets (glenx, hudler, stajan) I could see them moving.

Yea, I would be almost certain they would want a good young C in return. Backlund may not yet have shown that he can post the offensive #'s yet but we know he is a solid 2way guy that can handle the tough minutes. Down the road, that opens up softer minutes for the real offensive guys like Monahan and Bennett. Johansen to me is still a question mark. Is he the 30 goal guy from last year or the 10 -15 goal guy from the previous 2-3 years prior combined? I'm not sure I would want to add Backs into that deal. I do believe he will be the go to vet in 2-3 years. But if the Flames brass feel Johansen can be a solid RW, I would have to consider a move.
- TandA4Flames

I agree, not sure I would want to give up Backs, he was one of the high spots of last season for me. But unless we start dealing firsts we have to give something decent.

Johansen has a decent sized frame, does he play physical?

That word potential reLly needs to be used with caution. To date, of all our LW, Baertschi is the only one that has shown an ability to play at the NHL level. Despite all the excitement over Gaudreau, he has played 1 game. Can he last over 82? If we move a Baertschi, it better be for a comparable prospect in terms of ability and readiness in an area we need.
- TandA4Flames

when I say potential with a prospect, i just mean if they hit their upside. no point speculating a players low side, just might as well not talk about prospects if we have to consider the chance of them not making it.

but your point also is why I think baert can be moved before any of the other players. He's played a few more games and spent time in the Abb.

We have a lot of LHS as well, so players that can shift more easily to LW. Granlund has shown as much potential as Beart if we consider games played and what he did in the ABB.

We're still stocked of LW prospects, so I higher chance of one of them having potential. At RW we have a weaker pool, so moving a LW to get a RW and increase the chance of a potential prospect in that position is worth it.

Its just spreading the odds between positions. Rather then having all our eggs in the LW basket

What makes me so ignorant? I'm simply asking if SB is in the plans?
- Jeropotato

FFS, you know as well as I do that SB is going back to Junior this year just like Drouin did. Flames really don't need to rush the kid. He is huge in the Flames plans, not just this coming year.

Yea, I would be almost certain they would want a good young C in return. Backlund may not yet have shown that he can post the offensive #'s yet but we know he is a solid 2way guy that can handle the tough minutes. Down the road, that opens up softer minutes for the real offensive guys like Monahan and Bennett. Johansen to me is still a question mark. Is he the 30 goal guy from last year or the 10 -15 goal guy from the previous 2-3 years prior combined? I'm not sure I would want to add Backs into that deal. I do believe he will be the go to vet in 2-3 years. But if the Flames brass feel Johansen can be a solid RW, I would have to consider a move.
- TandA4Flames

(frank)ing right I would give Bennett & see if Hudler to sweeten the pot with our 2015 2nd could get this kid. He would instantly slot as our #1 centre to build around. No brainer. Not proven you say, well a lot more proven than Bennett.

when I say potential with a prospect, i just mean if they hit their upside. no point speculating a players low side, just might as well not talk about prospects if we have to consider the chance of them not making it.

but your point also is why I think baert can be moved before any of the other players. He's played a few more games and spent time in the Abb.

We have a lot of LHS as well, so players that can shift more easily to LW. Granlund has shown as much potential as Beart if we consider games played and what he did in the ABB.

We're still stocked of LW prospects, so I higher chance of one of them having potential. At RW we have a weaker pool, so moving a LW to get a RW and increase the chance of a potential prospect in that position is worth it.

Its just spreading the odds between positions. Rather then having all our eggs in the LW basket
- numbear

I don't disagree with this. You're right that because of his time played in the NHL he's the most valuable. Thats also true to our organization. I also agree that the likelihood of a couple of our LW prospects turning into stars is pretty good considering the skill we have coming up in that position.
Where I get annoyed is when everyone wants to move Baertschi when he's the closest to making it. I have to believe that other teams have seen enough of guys like Granlund as well to think he would be a great pick up. Either way, it would take multiple pieces, likely, to acquire a guy like Johansen. Where's the tipping point for balance in value. Baertschi is likely looked at as having a higher ceiling and has the pedigree of being a top 15 pick. So what, is Granlund our 2nd and something like GlenX good, or do you have to swap Baertschi for Granlund?

The trades pieces are all hypothetical by the way. It's not necessarily what I would offer for him......maybe though.

(frank)ing right I would give Bennett & see if Hudler to sweeten the pot with our 2015 2nd could get this kid. He would instantly slot as our #1 centre to build around. No brainer. Not proven you say, well a lot more proven than Bennett.
- Kevin R

Wow, Bennett?! And Hudler?! All for a guy that scored more than 10 goals once in his (albeit short) career? Bennett straight up should be enough because he has loads of potential and upside as a top 4 pick that was rated #1 by a top scouting service. Adding Hudler would have to bring back something else.

I guess looking forward, if we suck enough this year we could get another solid C prospect to replace Bennett, but if Johansen replicates even close to last years production, we certainly fall from the McEichel sweeps. A good problem I guess.

Wow, Bennett?! And Hudler?! All for a guy that scored more than 10 goals once in his (albeit short) career? Bennett straight up should be enough because he has loads of potential and upside as a top 4 pick that was rated #1 by a top scouting service. Adding Hudler would have to bring back something else.

I guess looking forward, if we suck enough this year we could get another solid C prospect to replace Bennett, but if Johansen replicates even close to last years production, we certainly fall from the McEichel sweeps. A good problem I guess.
- TandA4Flames

Everything you said about Bennett applies to Johansen (aside from being rated #1)

He still has potential, he could be an 80 point guy next yeAr instead of assuming he's going to regress backwards.

He has size which Bennett doesn't and he has shown effectiveness at the nhl level which Bennett hasn't yet. It might not be worth the gamble to flames fans but It would be Bennett + for sure IMO.

Don't take that as me bashing Bennett because I'm definitely not

Everything you said about Bennett applies to Johansen (aside from being rated #1)

He still has potential, he could be an 80 point guy next yeAr instead of assuming he's going to regress backwards.

He has size which Bennett doesn't and he has shown effectiveness at the nhl level which Bennett hasn't yet. It might not be worth the gamble to flames fans but It would be Bennett + for sure IMO.

Don't take that as me bashing Bennett because I'm definitely not
- ystoil

Call me old fashioned, but since when did a 6'1 180 pound 18 year old kid start being considered small? By the time he's NHL ReadY Bennett could easily be in the 190-200 range which is a brick poop house in my books.

Call me old fashioned, but since when did a 6'1 180 pound 18 year old kid start being considered small? By the time he's NHL ReadY Bennett could easily be in the 190-200 range which is a brick poop house in my books.
- Saskabush

I worded that wrong, my bad. Meant he doesn't have the size Johansen has.

In other news, I'd like to thank the Edmonton Oilers for their recent coaching hire. I loom forward to the inevitable GIFs and photoshops to come

I worded that wrong, my bad. Meant he doesn't have the size Johansen has.
- ystoil

Ya I wasn't trying to put you down or anything, this is just something that I hear in every day conversations, and it's just starting to piss me off

For example it seems that 6'3 is the magic height. If a players 6'3 184 he's a big (frank)er 6'1 184= small. Nobody seems to care how the player plays anymore colbornes as big as they come, but I've seen Byron throw bigger hits more frequently.

wow that was actually a legitimate, insightful post

I agree with this...my optimistic side looks at all these promising prospects. The reality is that many won't pan out to their projected potential. I see a line-up of all these young players that look to be so good, but who knows if they can ever even be NHL players let alone high-end NHL players. Knight, Ferland, Granlund, Klimchuk...maybe none of these guys establish themselves outside of being AHL regulars. That's the worst case scenario...and if we move them all up to the NHL at once, it could mean total collapse. Would love to see these youngsters given a chance, but it could end up being a disaster...
Fingers crossed that we find a few diamonds in the roughs and one of the ends up being the next lowly drafted Datsyuk
- cpltanto

no we're not the oilers we value our vets
- Bigern4MVP

Sure. He's a great player. Will he be in 5 years when the team is ready to contend? There's value in keeping him until he's past his prime for sure, but an argument can be made that he can bring in quite a haul.

Also, how the (frank) do you know either what the long term plan are?

Lastly...who are these great veterans we traded away?

Ya I wasn't trying to put you down or anything, this is just something that I hear in every day conversations, and it's just starting to piss me off

For example it seems that 6'3 is the magic height. If a players 6'3 184 he's a big (frank)er 6'1 184= small. Nobody seems to care how the player plays anymore colbornes as big as they come, but I've seen Byron throw bigger hits more frequently.
- Saskabush

What about 6'1 195lbs? Is that small?

I don't disagree with this. You're right that because of his time played in the NHL he's the most valuable. Thats also true to our organization. I also agree that the likelihood of a couple of our LW prospects turning into stars is pretty good considering the skill we have coming up in that position.
Where I get annoyed is when everyone wants to move Baertschi when he's the closest to making it. I have to believe that other teams have seen enough of guys like Granlund as well to think he would be a great pick up. Either way, it would take multiple pieces, likely, to acquire a guy like Johansen. Where's the tipping point for balance in value. Baertschi is likely looked at as having a higher ceiling and has the pedigree of being a top 15 pick. So what, is Granlund our 2nd and something like GlenX good, or do you have to swap Baertschi for Granlund?

The trades pieces are all hypothetical by the way. It's not necessarily what I would offer for him......maybe though.
- TandA4Flames

next year JG could be just as valuable as an asset as Baert (again I say this since we are left side strong).

I think granlund can be GlenX good. less chippy, which I think will play out better. safe bet is he'll be at least mason raymond like in terms of production.

Johanson I think will cost too much. With backland as a solid 2C, monahan or bennet could (I said could) be a 1C. I think losing the assets to pull in Johanson can be spent on our bigger holes (RW and a Offensive D).

Id Krug worth going for? Or would he be to small in the west. Or is Ellis a good target?

What about 6'1 195lbs? Is that small?
- Jeropotato

no just the style of play that the player you are eluding to is

no just the style of play that the player you are eluding to is
- numbear

I have a feeling this could lead to Nuge=virgin and Hall=(frank)in douchebag talk again


My point is that once Bennett fills out he will be a pretty fearsome player, you don't need to be 6'4 to throw a hot or work along the boards. At 6'1 190 pound Bennett would be a speedy wrecking ball that would make even some of the NHLs biggest look twice when he's on the ice.