I have to agree with Yeah...Baby, I think Bennett hasnt even come close to living up to the "potential" that everyone seems to love to talk about. He's had few flashes of stardom, but it's terribly inconsistent. How long do you give a guy a chance to produce? Potential doesnt put points on the board. Everyone seems to think hes going to be a top line center for us, but the way he's going right now its looking grim. Guys of his age should be progressing and getting better, not being a healthy scratch because of terrible stats. Get somebody good while hes worth something.
- C_of_Zed

C_of_Zed for Flames GM!!! Huzzah!!!

He's fcking 20!!!! Give it a fcking rest!!!

Remember the bust Martin St. Louis became after Calgary traded him...
- Clyde334

Flames waived him (no takers)
Put him through and expansion draft with 2 teams (no takers)
and then let him walk...Tampa gave him a AHL contract

Flames are certainly kicking themselves over it but 28 other NHL teams can say the same thing since they could have had him for free

your point remains though...and Sam is showing more signs than St. Louis did at this point

I get that a top 4 defenseman is a need for this team, but with the expansion draft looming do not trade for one now that they will have to protect.

If they are going to trade a guy like Bennett (and I in no way think that they should) then it isn't going to be for a guy that they could lose right away. So that means it will be for one that must be protected.

This translated to effectively trading 2 of the team's higher end forwards for this defenseman. It would mean trading Bennett (for the sake of example) and also losing one of Brouwer or Frolik in the expansion draft. I'm assuming that Monahan, Gaudreau, and Backlund would be protected. So that leaves only 1 spot left if they have to protect 4 defensemen. And even if Brouwer is having a bad year I in no way want to let him walk for nothing. So unless it is a hell of a trade, it is not worth doing this year at the deadline.

I would much rather see them call up and give a chance to Kylington or Andersson. Even give Wotherspoon or Kulak an extended dedicated try out as Brodie's partner.

Address the defense needs in the offseason, after the expansion draft. Take a real run at signing Karl Alzner. Perhaps consider a Michael Stone or Brenden Smith.

But making that move before the expansion draft means giving up on 2 players. And this team isn't in a position to do that.

I get that a top 4 defenseman is a need for this team, but with the expansion draft looming do not trade for one now that they will have to protect.

If they are going to trade a guy like Bennett (and I in no way think that they should) then it isn't going to be for a guy that they could lose right away. So that means it will be for one that must be protected.

This translated to effectively trading 2 of the team's higher end forwards for this defenseman. It would mean trading Bennett (for the sake of example) and also losing one of Brouwer or Frolik in the expansion draft. I'm assuming that Monahan, Gaudreau, and Backlund would be protected. So that leaves only 1 spot left if they have to protect 4 defensemen. And even if Brouwer is having a bad year I in no way want to let him walk for nothing. So unless it is a hell of a trade, it is not worth doing this year at the deadline.

I would much rather see them call up and give a chance to Kylington or Andersson. Even give Wotherspoon or Kulak an extended dedicated try out as Brodie's partner.

Address the defense needs in the offseason, after the expansion draft. Take a real run at signing Karl Alzner. Perhaps consider a Michael Stone or Brenden Smith.

But making that move before the expansion draft means giving up on 2 players. And this team isn't in a position to do that.
- dal_johnson

Ok so player X for top 4 defender who is a in the first 2 years of playing in the NHL.

Problem solved no need to protect him right?

Now becomes the challenge of finding that player.

Ok so player X for top 4 defender who is a in the first 2 years of playing in the NHL.

Problem solved no need to protect him right?

Now becomes the challenge of finding that player.
- Yeah...Baby

That would be the only way. And remember paying a year in the AHL may count (depending on if their contract slid of not).

But I'm pretty sure that there isn't a player out there like that, that is available. If they are only in their first 2 years and they are a legitimate, consistant, without a doubt top 4 defender, then no team will be trading them away. Especially with it allows them to not have to protect them in the expansion draft themselves.

At this point they would be much better to address the top 6 RW. There is at least a protection spot available there and it will not effectively cost them 2 players because of the expansion draft.

So what exactly do some of you expect it off Bennett at this point? Think about it for a second. It's only his second full year. He's now playing for a new coach, whio everyone has struggled under so far. He's playing the most difficult fwd position, and he's been stuck playing with garbage wingers most of the year. These are bottom 6 guys on the Flames. Most of which should be eating popcorn on a regular basis, or in the AHL if there was any real depth. Give the kid some time. He'll be fine.

So what exactly do some of you expect it off Bennett at this point? Think about it for a second. It's only his second full year. He's now playing for a new coach, whio everyone has struggled under so far. He's playing the most difficult fwd position, and he's been stuck playing with garbage wingers most of the year. These are bottom 6 guys on the Flames. Most of which should be eating popcorn on a regular basis, or in the AHL if there was any real depth. Give the kid some time. He'll be fine.
- dr_soiledpants

Many expect him to be a Canadian version of Draisaitl. Its unfair but that's how peoples minds work.

So what exactly do some of you expect it off Bennett at this point? Think about it for a second. It's only his second full year. He's now playing for a new coach, whio everyone has struggled under so far. He's playing the most difficult fwd position, and he's been stuck playing with garbage wingers most of the year. These are bottom 6 guys on the Flames. Most of which should be eating popcorn on a regular basis, or in the AHL if there was any real depth. Give the kid some time. He'll be fine.
- dr_soiledpants

The point wasn't to put Bennett on the chopping block it was to make sense of Friedman's comments this morning. To get a top 4 d-man you have to pay. That's where Bennett's name came up.

Chris Nichols on Twitter: "Friedman on #Flames: "I think they're trying to add a defenseman to play w/ Brodie. I don't think there's any question about that." 960"" via http://TeamStre.am by Bleacher Report

https://twitter.com/Nicho...status/827535917392896000

Personally my expectations would have been 3/4 of what Money had accomplished by that point. Not a little better than half. Also lets not forget Money was sheltered his first as well.

I strongly believe this team should take a real run at trying to sign free agent Justin Bieber, he looked pretty good at the ASG.

So what exactly do some of you expect it off Bennett at this point? Think about it for a second. It's only his second full year. He's now playing for a new coach, whio everyone has struggled under so far. He's playing the most difficult fwd position, and he's been stuck playing with garbage wingers most of the year. These are bottom 6 guys on the Flames. Most of which should be eating popcorn on a regular basis, or in the AHL if there was any real depth. Give the kid some time. He'll be fine.
- dr_soiledpants

I completely agree. They need to get him somebody to play with.

Early on it appeared that he, Brouwer, and Tkachuk were going to click. But at that time Tkachuk was being given rookie minutes and protection. In the early games, but the last half of the game he got shifted to the 4th line. So not sure how any chemistry was going to be developed there. Then Tkachuk just meshed perfectly with Backlund and Frolik. So they have to stick with what works there. And then Brouwer got hurt. Before his injury he was producing some (he has really fallen off since). But in the end Bennett hasn't had much to work with. It's not excusing his struggles, but it hasn't helped.

Remember it wasn't until Frolik arrived and matched up so well with Backlund that people weren't always calling him out for underperforming. It was the same idea. He never got anything to work with so it effected his play. Now that Backlund has high end wingers fans are all yelling to re-sign him now before he becomes too expensive.

I honestly think they should just put Bennett to the wing and let him run with Gaudreau and Monahan. Try it and see what happens. But give it more than a game to develop.

Next season I think that they will have some real questions at centre, especially if Jankowski pushes for a roster spot. Why not convert Bennett to a winger and pair him up with Jankowski. That could solve all. Let's Bennett play his game without the extra responsibilities that the center position required. And Jankowski's size and 2 way play has him better suited there anyways.

The point wasn't to put Bennett on the chopping block it was to make sense of Friedman's comments this morning. To get a top 4 d-man you have to pay. That's where Bennett's name came up.

Chris Nichols on Twitter: "Friedman on #Flames: "I think they're trying to add a defenseman to play w/ Brodie. I don't think there's any question about that." 960"" via http://TeamStre.am by Bleacher Report

https://twitter.com/Nicho...status/827535917392896000

Personally my expectations would have been 3/4 of what Money had accomplished by that point. Not a little better than half. Also lets not forget Money was sheltered his first as well.
- Yeah...Baby

Monahan was sheltered his first season. And then in is second season he got wingers like Gaudreau and Hudler. Who has Bennett has as wingers that are even in the same conversation as those two.

I know that there is an argument about wanting a player to make those around them better. But it works both ways.

The point wasn't to put Bennett on the chopping block it was to make sense of Friedman's comments this morning. To get a top 4 d-man you have to pay. That's where Bennett's name came up.

Chris Nichols on Twitter: "Friedman on #Flames: "I think they're trying to add a defenseman to play w/ Brodie. I don't think there's any question about that." 960"" via http://TeamStre.am by Bleacher Report

https://twitter.com/Nicho...status/827535917392896000

Personally my expectations would have been 3/4 of what Money had accomplished by that point. Not a little better than half. Also lets not forget Money was sheltered his first as well.
- Yeah...Baby

Ya, i also heard the Interview this morning. All that means it's that they are looking for someone to replace wideman. Doesn't necessarily mean a legit top 4 guy, just someone responsible who can eat up 18 minutes a night when needed.

Not sure how you came up with 3/4 of where mony was. Every player developes at different rates. Took backs 8-9 years. Obviously different expectations, but still a first round pick.

Ya, i also heard the Interview this morning. All that means it's that they are looking for someone to replace wideman. Doesn't necessarily mean a legit top 4 guy, just someone responsible who can eat up 18 minutes a night when needed.

Not sure how you came up with 3/4 of where mony was. Every player developes at different rates. Took backs 8-9 years. Obviously different expectations, but still a first round pick.
- dr_soiledpants

Just point totals Money had after 2 seasons 96 points and Bennett after 2 seasons has 56. Regardless it's just my opinion and the conversation peace was never supposed to be about Bennett it was who we might be targeting for a d-man.

Example is apparently we had scouts at the Montreal flyers game. So everyone's worried about protecting 4 d-men maybe player X for Ivan Provorov.

Is he available highly unlikely how much would it take not worried about it. Just wondering who we would target.

I think it makes less sense to give up picks or anyone if he's not staying on our team next year. We are not in win now mode.

I would honestly have preferred Friedman say we are going after Bishop, but he didn't.

The point wasn't to put Bennett on the chopping block it was to make sense of Friedman's comments this morning. To get a top 4 d-man you have to pay. That's where Bennett's name came up.

Chris Nichols on Twitter: "Friedman on #Flames: "I think they're trying to add a defenseman to play w/ Brodie. I don't think there's any question about that." 960"" via http://TeamStre.am by Bleacher Report

https://twitter.com/Nicho...status/827535917392896000

Personally my expectations would have been 3/4 of what Money had accomplished by that point. Not a little better than half. Also lets not forget Money was sheltered his first as well.
- Yeah...Baby

Definitely some posturing for a trade at the draft. Protecting only four forwards is pretty sketchy. Frolik might be the odd man out in that scenario.

Another 1st and two 2nds for an up and coming top 4 guy?

If we are shopping for a top 4 Dman with a right shot:

Trouba
Vatanen
Hamonic

Would be first three targets.

I wouldn't try to acquire any of these guys in season, I would do it either at the entry draft where you might convince Vegas by trade not to pick a Frolik/Brouwer type, or just before free agency (unless you could secure this deal with Vegas now)

If I could flip a 1st+ at the draft for one of those three, I would do it in a second. There doesn't appear to be a generational talent in this draft, the Flames are likely not picking at the top of the draft anyhow, and we need to make sure that we are backstopping our top 4 with someone not in their rookie season next year.

Whether Bennett is a part of a trade or not seems somewhat irrelevant (not from a talent perspective), as in any scenario where we are acquiring a 4th dman to protect, we risk losing either he, Frolik or Backlund during the expansion draft as a result (unless we pulled a deal with Vegas to not select one of them).

This is a painful (frank)ing thread.

Yes Calgary is looking for someone to play with Brodie. But probably not for this season.

This is a painful (frank)ing thread.

Yes Calgary is looking for someone to play with Brodie. But probably not for this season.
- DuranDuran

It just makes no sense this season ...next year we should have a couple forwards from Stockton who could be ready ...and there's always free agency ...so trading a player for a D man become much more tangible then

I'll bring up an option that might not be mentioned though ...what about bringing in a potential ufa d man who you give a trial run too and tell them if things work out that you would re-sign them after the expansion draft

This is a painful (frank)ing thread.

Yes Calgary is looking for someone to play with Brodie. But probably not for this season.
- DuranDuran

No game day blog!!! WTF!!!

Jersey got one...

Definitely some posturing for a trade at the draft. Protecting only four forwards is pretty sketchy. Frolik might be the odd man out in that scenario.

Another 1st and two 2nds for an up and coming top 4 guy?
- fry

At this point I'd rather leave Brower exposed. I wasn't a fan of the deal when it was signed, and i like it less now. If we see playoffs this year, and he's clutch, i might change my mind. I think it was you that said it could make the Flames look bad to future ufa's, which I don't fully disagree with. At the same time, I think it shows that BT is willing to swallow his pride, and do what's best for the team when he (frank)s up.

No game day blog!!! WTF!!!

Jersey got one...
- Clyde334

Todd's loyalties are finally laid bare.

Todd's loyalties are finally laid bare.
- Wildschwein

At this point I'd rather leave Brower exposed. I wasn't a fan of the deal when it was signed, and i like it less now. If we see playoffs this year, and he's clutch, i might change my mind. I think it was you that said it could make the Flames look bad to future ufa's, which I don't fully disagree with. At the same time, I think it shows that BT is willing to swallow his pride, and do what's best for the team when he (frank)s up.
- dr_soiledpants

7 forwards and 3 defenseman or 8 players. Brouwer, Frolik, Ferland are all exposed if we take 8.

But yeah, if we take option one.. I would protect Brouwer. Just my opinion. He's had a weird year, but he's finally putting on some distance from major hand surgery. I bet he goes a long way in the upcoming stretch drive.

St. Louis and LA are the two teams we need to steal a wildcard spot from.

7 forwards and 3 defenseman or 8 players. Brouwer, Frolik, Ferland are all exposed if we take 8.

But yeah, if we take option one.. I would protect Brouwer. Just my opinion. He's had a weird year, but he's finally putting on some distance from major hand surgery. I bet he goes a long way in the upcoming stretch drive.

St. Louis and LA are the two teams we need to steal a wildcard spot from.
- fry

To clarify, I'm talking about the bizarro land scenario in which Bennett is traded for a dman. So protecting 8 skaters, I'd go with frolik before Brower. The most likely to happen is protecting 7+3. In that case I would agree with protecting him.

This is a painful (frank)ing thread.

Yes Calgary is looking for someone to play with Brodie. But probably not for this season.
- DuranDuran

Not sure it is any more painful than seeing Wideman give up three or four scoring chances a game.

Looking at the line ups it is pretty obvious that they are not going to try anything different. If there was a move like trading Bennett in the works then we should have seen a Brodie Kulak pairing before the allstar break. Unfortunately what we will see for the rest of the season is Brodie Wideman and if the game gets tight in the third Brodie Engelland with Wideman rifding the pine like Wednesday night.