What We Learned: Calgary Flames face unexpected path in 'retool'
With the season closing in on the 50-game mark, I'm not sure there's a bigger surprise in the NHL's standings than the Calgary Flames.
As everyone knows, there are a lot of surprisingly competitive teams in the Eastern Conference but the fact that they're all right there kind of flattens the achievement; if everyone in the Wild Card race is definitionally pretty good but certainly not great, what does being pretty good even mean? But the Flames are in the top half of the league as far as points percentage goes, despite some important injuries, despite clearly entering what the franchise's general manager referred to as a "retool" last spring. They seem poised to obliterate the 70-80 point predictions most had them putting up this season, which is great for the team if not necessarily the long-term quality of the roster.
Put another way, there were a lot of quotes from the Flames' players at the beginning of the season about the confidence they had in their ability to make the playoffs, which isn't the loftiest goal. But it's fair to say the people running the team didn't share their optimism, and you can tell because they have the second-lowest cap commitment in the league right now.
Now, though, that cap situation comes into serious focus. GM Craig Conroy is facing a situation in which he has a handful of pending unrestricted free agents on the roster, and almost as many restricted free agents. Re-signing any or all of them wouldn't be a problem because they will have potentially $40 million or so in cap space. But the question is how they view the season they've had to date internally. They have four first-round picks in the next two drafts, and they have begun to lean more on their younger players, like Connor Zary, Matt Coronato, and of course Dustin Wolf. Zayne Parekh, Hunter Brzustewicz, maybe Matvei Gridin are on the way.
So, what do they do with their unexpected success? Obviously, they should not get into the business of trading away futures to bolster the roster this year because it’s not hard to see the bottom dropping out on them. Their underlying numbers aren’t that good, though they’re better than many might have expected going into the year, and overall, they have a negative goal difference—fueled mostly by a few blowout losses before the new year, while they have few blowout wins to speak of. Between that and the expectations everyone placed on them at the beginning of the season, circumstances don’t augur well for a strong second half, and the Canucks, a team that is much better on paper, don’t seem to be going away.
GMs rightly like to “reward” teams that overperform by bringing in players to buttress or enhance their results going forward, but I don’t know what that looks like if you’re the Flames. Unless you’re dealing middling picks that you don’t particularly care about, there’s not a lot to trade here that’s of significant value but also wouldn’t subtract from the NHL roster—unless it’s a classic hockey trade where you’re dealing from a position of strength to bolster a roster weakness. However, I don’t see a ton of strength for the Flames that they can afford to play around with.
That even applies to the bold new strategy we’re seeing more often in the NHL—one the Flames are reportedly interested in—of trading for a young player who’s signed long term in exchange for a veteran who might not have much tread left on the tires.
The question, then, is whether the team is going to use the old "the answer is in the room" for the current roster without giving up too many future assets. What, for example, does it cost to acquire someone who fits the "Elias Pettersson" profile of a guy with multiple strong NHL seasons in his recent past, who's signed for several years to come, isn't particularly old, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg? Even a guy like Dylan Cozens, who's been a big name in the "reclamation project" trade talks this season, doesn't really check all those boxes.
They got this far by themselves, so the fact that you gotta give to get in almost any trade is a problem management might not be willing to square for the players.
But the Friday night trade that sent Taylor Hall and a ton of retained salary to Carolina in exchange for nothing but their own third-round pick and a prospect even prospect sickos don't have much of an opinion on? That got me thinking. There have to be salary dumps out there, guys who have something to contribute but are probably overpaid, that would cost the Flames little to nothing. Obviously you wouldn't want to bring on too many, if any, bad-money deals that extend beyond this season, if only because that might block some roster spots that younger players will need as the "retool" continues. The cap commitment itself truly does not matter. There are plenty of players who make $1-2 million dollars too much but who can contribute at the NHL level. Even if the Flames are retaining salary as a pass-through to Weaponize Their Cap Space, they can use that to get picks and/or NHL players other sellers don't want, or that buyers need to move to make money work as part of a bigger deal.
The Four Nations tournament that begins in a few weeks offers an interesting break period in the season. Lots of GMs are said to be trying to square trades away before that week-and-a-half stretch begins, and it's understandable why. But there's nothing that precludes making trades during the tournament, either, and the Flames only have one player participating in it (Rasmus Andersson) so Conroy can take most of the seven games on the schedule between now and then to really assess what he wants to do.
I would never advocate for a team in Calgary's position trading futures, and the players and fans probably wouldn't tolerate selling unless the bottom really drops out between now and Feb. 8. As long as Wolf keeps it up, it feels like they're gonna at least be competitive. But Conroy has to determine how much of that is Wolf simply playing above his head (and the answer honestly might be "none," given Wolf's sterling pre-NHL track record) and how much of it is the team actually being playoff-quality.
There's help out there, but a GM's job is determining how much that help is actually worth pursuing.
What We Learned
Anaheim Ducks: Hope it's not long-term.
Boston Bruins: Don't look now but the Bruins are 5-1-1 in the last seven. What do you mean "they got outshot by 84 in those seven games?"
Buffalo Sabres: You think it's a surprise the Sabres would want to trade for a youngish center who's signed for a long time to come? I do not think that.
Calgary Flames: They really do seem to all be pulling in the right direction these days.
Carolina Hurricanes: Love that they're already talking about how much cap space they have for next season. It's a pointed question all of a sudden.
Chicago:
Colorado Avalanche: Ah, to be damned with faint praise.
Columbus Blue Jackets: When I saw this news on Saturday night, I went, "Aghhh," out loud. Awful.
Dallas Stars: When I saw No. 1 on this list I did an honest-to-god spit take. I think they should do it.
Detroit Red Wings: They're 10-4-1 under Todd McLellan. That got them up to .500 and six points out of a playoff spot. It's just a big hill to climb with this roster. I dunno. But it's better than the alternative.
Edmonton Oilers: Spiking the football in late January. Okay.
Florida Panthers: I don't know why this is in Us Weekly, but that's fine I guess.
Los Angeles Kings: Sometimes you lose the games you deserve to win. But at least the NHL gives you a standings point for some of them anyway.
Minnesota Wild: Really need these guys to start playing good hockey again.
Montreal Canadiens: You know who makes too many costly mental errors is rosters that aren't really good enough.
Nashville Predators: Gotta be honest: I didn't foresee this guy's save percentage starting with ".8" this late in the season.
New Jersey Devils: Brutal news.
New York Islanders: "Welcome back to the NHL," and "We need you to play 25 minutes tonight," are two sentences I did not expect anyone to say to Tony DeAngelo this season, but life's funny.
New York Rangers: Apparently you're not allowed to say this contract is insane but I straight up do not get it.
Ottawa Senators: At this point it's mostly about winning 3 out of every 5 games or so. They needed that one.
Philadelphia Flyers: Hey, I was just talking about this.
Pittsburgh Penguins: The news in this headline gets worse as it goes. No idea what they do.
San Jose Sharks: Yeah that's one way to put it.
Seattle Kraken: Joey Daccord getting to 100 career games, given his path to the NHL, is awesome. He's probably Seattle's best pick in the expansion draft, right?
St. Louis Blues: Not sure there really is one, is the thing.
Tampa Bay Lightning: Oh you thought there was only one blockbuster trade this weekend, huh?
Toronto Maple Leafs: Yeah I think that's right.
Utah [fill in the blank later]: This stuff needs to be seen as absolutely humiliating for the league.
Vancouver Canucks: At this rate, if Quinn Hughes isn't a top-three MVP guy they gotta change how they do the awards voting.
Vegas Golden Knights: Historically speaking, this isn't something they seem to have much of a problem with.
Washington Capitals: I hope every goal the rest of the way is an empty-netter. What do I care?
Winnipeg Jets: Hey, yeah, um, why?
Gold Star Award
First career hat trick for Cole Perfetti on Friday night, and in just 15:17 of ice time. Very nice. I like that.
Minus of the Weekend
Still not sure what was up with Chicago jumping in on that big trade on Friday. Hopefully all secrets will be revealed soon.
Perfect HFBoards Trade Proposal of the Week
User "Cheddarcheese" is zagging when you expect a zig:
with rumors of Demko wanting out thought this would be a nice trade
Thatcher Demko ( 5m ) For Cole Sillinger ( 2.25m) Elvis Merzlikins ( 5.4m ) Jordan Dumais ( Grade b prosect ) 2nd round pick
Markstorm and Ullmark didn't really get much of a haul so i figured this could work ?