cross16
-
Posts
29,746 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
488
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by cross16
-
-
If someone wanted to advocate for more player safety in the NHL then they would not be bumping a Treliving thread to bash him while at the same time bumping a Sutter thread to praise him.
If someone wanted to advocate for more player safety then they woudln't be taking the time to rage at people over 1 GM when the problem is significantly larger. Waste of time to point at 1 GM when all other do it too.
It's not hard to see what the true angle is here.
-
Well isn't this interesting...
and not good news because i'm not sure you can do much worse than Ken Holland
-
32 minutes ago, cberg said:
My impressions from reading and comments is both Robertson and Liljegren are so-so, Marner is an expensive(and entitled) Gaudreau 2.0 so what is Fraser Minten? Might be just what Toronto needs but isn’t really what the Flames need?
I mean it just makes no sense from either side.
None of the deals he presented make any sense to the parties involved. it was a pure entertainment piece IMO that lacked any realism IMO.
-
4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/four-mitch-marner-trades-the-maple-leafs-could-consider/
Calgary Flames get: RW Mitch Marner, C Fraser Minten, LW Nick Robertson, D Timothy Liljegren
Toronto Maple Leafs get: G Jacob Markstrom*, D Rasmus Andersson
*Flames retain 25 per cent of Markstrom’s remaining salary
Well that article was some high quality entertainment
-
16 minutes ago, sak22 said:
I don't know if I'd even go with #9 for Wright, Vancouver's sure but each time I see him I become less and less impressed. Good skill set, but if I'm not actively looking for him most games I didn't notice him, and I did see CV 4 times this year.
I'm the same. Saw him twice and if someone didn't remind me he was playing I would not have known.
That being said I really liked him pre draft and he didn't have that bad a season. There is a bit too much peaks and valleys to his game but he is progressing. I wouldn't be giving up 9 for him but I'd move the Van pick but I don't think Seattle moves him for that yet.
Think the price would still be high on Wright and while I like him I don't think he is a center you build around. More of a complimentary piece
-
17 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
I was asking. I didn't see them in the playoffs.
Are you referring to playoff action? I don't think you can compare regular season to playoffs apples to apples, especially in junior.
My initial thoughts to what you wrote though isn't that Catton is excused if Tij can't score against the top team either. Rather, it calls them both a little bit into question.
Sample size bias would be the more accurate takeaway I think. They both had a similar performance against PG so not really fair to suggest Tij is better/safer because he raised his game more in the playoffs.
And just pointing out that I think Brewcrew had a good point about quality of competition.
-
1
-
-
On 5/13/2024 at 5:18 PM, jjgallow said:
I guess. Separated by 5 points in standings from Tij's team is not a terribly compelling difference, although I realize the opposition may have been quite different.
He looks good man. But I do worry when these guys don't have an extra playoff gear. Tij wnt the other way and just massively increased his production when he felt it mattered.
Thanks though. Without a doubt they were up against a wall.
You mean the zero points he had in 4 games against the Cougers? 3 points in 5 games overall.
Catton with 4 against the same Cougers. Double standard there.
-
Official release from CESC
QuoteCalgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation today announced changes to their senior executive leadership with the naming of Robert Hayes as CSEC’s new President and CEO and Lorenzo DeCicco as CSEC’s new Chief Operating Officer.
Hayes, originally from Halifax, NS, enjoyed a 35+ year career in banking, working throughout Canada and the US, the past 21 years in Calgary. He joins CSEC from his most recent position as Managing Director, Enterprise Strategic Client Group, Royal Bank of Canada. Very active with community involvement, he is past Vice Chair and current Audit Committee Chair, Calgary Economic Development as well as sitting on boards for the Calgary Film Centre, Calgary Prostate Cancer Centre, and Wood’s Homes Society.
DeCicco was a Founding Member and former President of Cavalry FC before assuming his current role as Chief Commercial Officer with MET Brand Agency and METROPOLITAN Fine Printers, in Vancouver, BC. During his time in Calgary, he was a Board Member with the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, Calgary Foothills Soccer Club, and the TELUS Community Board. While with TELUS, DeCicco also held the title of Senior Executive Vice President.
Outgoing CSEC President and CEO John Bean decided to step down after 14 ½ years with the organization. Bean made CSEC Ownership aware of his decision last year and has worked through a process to fill the roles of President and CEO along with the new Chief Operating Officer position.
Both Hayes and DeCicco will begin their new roles with CSEC on June 3, 2024.
As part of the transition, John Bean will stay on in a senior advisory role with respect to the design and construction of the new Event Centre.
-
36 minutes ago, sak22 said:
I think the majority of small market teams don't make decisions for the deep sustained rebuilds you like. you look at a team like Carolina and think it was all a strategy, but I don't think it was Peter Karmano's plan to lose money for over a decade only to have the team turn the ship when he sells the majority stake. I think you'll be looking for a long time to find someone willing to own (or run) a team in this market and say they are fine with not being competitive for an extended period, Calgary is a different ballpark from Carolina for sure, but they are closer to a Carolina than the Leafs or Rangers. There was no strategy in Edmonton or Vancouver to be bad, just awful management who foiled in their attempts to be good.
No strategy to enter it I agree but once the bottom fell out there was an intentional plan to be bad for a period of time of get high pick "Oil change" as we remember it. Not that it counters your point though because had the Oilers not won the Lottery for McDavid their future is quite different.
I agree with what you are saying though. I don't think it's a coincidence that the teams that have done the type of rebuild being proposed by some here are the ones in the largest hockey markets (New York, Toronto, Chicago) who all have substantially more revenue then the Flames. I agree that an autonomous CEO is now what is going to change the mind of the owners because while I agree they should change some things, this is not exactly a prime market for a scored earth rebuild.
-
Not upset by this at all. Behind the scene I think Bean did a lot of good work but in the role he was put in I think he was awful. Trying not to speculate but this doesn't' feel like a "stepping down" situation, he just looked miscast from day 1 which is unfair to put on him.
Not sure about the decision to pull a guy from banking to run a sport franchise. Obviously I don't know Robert Hayes but that's a big background leap.
DiCicco played a big part of getting the Calvary FC to come to Calgary so that part is interesting.
-
1
-
-
Dreiger is an NHL goalie IMO. Some bad injury and timing luck have prevented that but he should be in the NHL. He was excellent in the series.
I thought Wolf was solid but just that, solid. Would have liked to have him steal a game but he was far from the reason they lost too and in his defense he stole them the first series. This is what makes the AHL hard. CV is lead by veterans, guys 25 years or older, who are really consistent. Wranglers are lead mostly by guys under 25 and then supplemented with veterans. In the games I saw, Cull was riding the line of Pelletier-Schwindt - Coronato, CV counters with Kole Lind and McCormick. Just a different philosophy and I'll take the Wranglers philosophy all day but it makes winning in the playoffs in the AHL challenging.
the only thing I was disappointed with is Cull's decision to go with the roster that got him there. Gruschniokov didn't play, Honzek didn't play, Kerins didn't play. I would have taken those guys over the likes of Damiani, Oesterle, Bishop, Pysyk. The prioritized the development of guys that were there but I think they could have gone further because more of their more "veteran" players were not very good. I mean Brett Sutter had 0 points and was a minus 3 in the playoffs.
-
11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
"Small hill"
We don't know the final order but it seems the same 8 appear before pick #9.
I think it's more open than that personally. Your going to have a tough time convincing me there is even a small hill between Binum and Parekh.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
Yes but it also feels like the cliff is at 8.
Catton
Eiserman
Helenius
Parekh
Yakemchuk
Jiricek
Etc
Who to take?
Catton has #1 Center potential but he's also too small/weak. Also LHS C/LW... Flames will have another chance at that the next 2 drafts.
Eiserman LHS LW. One dimensional sniper. Please no. Not an organizational need when there are bigger problems on D and C.
Helenius I would be happy with. RHS C... Feels like a younger Lindholm. #1 C potential. We need RHS C.
Parekh... High risk high reward... I think worth a gamble.
Yakemchuk... Also high risk high reward. RHS RD. I would go Yakemchuk before Parekh.
Jiricek RHS RD... Wouldn't be opposed but he seems to lack offense. Also coming off injury.
Cliff? That feels hard.
I think all those players you listed are not a cliff away from the top 8. Pretty open draft outside the top 2-3 IMO.
-
1 hour ago, sak22 said:
Proves my point, a deeper team can run a 2nd unit and not play 1 lines for the 3 minutes a goalie is pulled, 2nd unit even scored the first PP the and the reward is to never see the ice in the 3rd on the 2 PP's. Even Colorado who was chasing all game and probably overplayed their stars still kept Rantanen to barely over 25 and Mackinnon to 23. Just don't think its good strategy at this time of year.
Not suggesting it is just pointing out the PPs. With the talent the Oilers have on the PP I would agree with running the 1 unit. I think 2nd units are over rated at this time of the year.
but 5 on 5 Knoblauch has not done a good job of balancing things out I would agree, althought having Henrique at not 100% is hurting them. Gotta love the GM who gives up a 1st round pick for a 35 year old TDL acquisition.
-
20 minutes ago, sak22 said:
The Oilers are a deeper team now they said, McDavid - 29:42, Draisaitl - 29:04, Hyman - 26:12.
Some fairness, 3 PP vs no Pks in the 3rd is going to flip that because the oilers basically only run the 1 PP unit.
Skinner is the main reason the Oilers are down in the series IMO. I think generally the Oilers are carrying the play but they are just getting no clutch saves at all. For sure some D and turnover issues are leading to chances but you still gotta make some saves and he isn't and Silovs is playing much better than I thought he would. Been impressive.
-
Boston didn't look good against Toronto either. I'm not surprised that series was a gut punch to the Leafs because they really should have won it.
I think that current group in Boston is just on fumes. It's been a long run for a lot of those guys, tons of hockey and I think there just not getting that game breaking ability out of them you need in the playoffs. Be interesting to see if they can add some youth and speed to their line up in the offseason as they are not really sitting on a top prospect or anything, as you'd expect given their trajectory.
Rangers-Florida could be quite a series if it happens.
-
31 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
You read "don't need to convince Conroy, because he knows". And think he did what Button told him to do.
I read it differently. Dude was impressed in the only playoff game Honzek peformed well in, talked about it in interviews, picked him. It's not speculation, it's interpretation.
And I also think he won't do it twice. We'll see soon. If he does, then, I won't be defending him anymore. lol
What's the difference?
yes I do read it differently and perhaps you should reference the full quote or you know the actual one. The crux of that article is that Conroy, who lead the amateur group as the AGM, was part of the draft process since day 1. So when he became the GM they weren't starting from scratch in terms of getting their analysis and list together. I don't think he did what Button told him to but I do think for sure they worked together.
Your speculating on everything else.
Quote“That will help us because you don’t have to convince him. It’s not, ‘Well, we didn’t have him that high,’ or ‘Did you have these concerns about him?’ or ‘Our background says this.’ That information that we all have, Conny shares, so it’s not going to be any different.”
-
3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:
I see your points, and if they targeted him as a guy they really wanted but knew he'd not make the second round or later rounds, they weighed the pros and cons of how much they like him...give him the time to develop and grow into his body. Hope he pans out. Would love for him to develop top6. It takes deep teams to win cups, not 1.5 lines the way the Flames have operated. It's a good route to playoff economics, but not a perennial contender...
we had really good years and some really bad years.
I hope the picks pan out and they get a good mix to build a solid foundation.
Correct. that is the type of debate that would go into making your lists.
-
5 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
https://calgarysun.com/sports/flames-snapshots-conroy-has-extensively-scouted-2023-nhl-draft-class
there's one.
there's also another interview where he talks at length about one game he saw Honzek in. A playoff loss where he had 3 assists. and how impressive he was in that game. That was days/weeks before the draft.
unfortunately if he'd been in any of the other playoff games, he'd have seen Honzek get zero assists.
As I was saying, it's baseless speculation on your part. No where in that aritlce does it hint that Conroy made this pick on his own that's you making a substantial leap.
-
21 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
i just listened to a direct interview with Conroy on why they picked Honzek man, and that's pretty much what he said. Just like this year, he's being pretty clear about a list.
Anyway, I think we all have some level of understanding on Honzek, which we are expressing differently.
I personally empathise with the "off the board" phrase, but, I understand why others don't....it's definitely not meant to offend people, especially on something that I don't think anyone is that far off on.cool, you should post it then. Because it runs counter to everything they said post draft and runs counter to how this organization has operated for some time.
-
38 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
You know how much I support Conroy, I would love to say back off, give Conroy a chance.
But facts are, there is a list, there are lists, and there isn't a single known list with professional scouts that would have picked Honzek next. Not Pronman, not Mckenzie, not Button, not eliteprospects, not any combination of any of them.
Conroy said himself that there is a list, and their priority is going by that list in 2024.
But in last year's draft, he didn't. He went with the guy he personally saw and scouted. And I think he regrets that, which is why he has been adamant about a "list" this year. He's boosted up scouting a ton. I think/hope he's learned.
But....like Bertuzzi would say, it is what it is. It was off every single board. And at least 10 spots off of popular opinion when looking at the guys available (Pellika, Barlow) and where they were rated.
Conroy's strength lies in his ability to surround himself with the right people, imho. In this case, it was his weakness, because he knew Honzek. But since then he has surrounded himself with scouting staff that he trusts, and I think we will see good results from that this year.
Yes there is a list and 1 list that matters and it's the team's, which clearly had Honzek at the top of it when it was their turn to pick. As I said it's fair to debate that and why but to compare it to a non existent consensus list is pretty pointless IMO.
Conroy did increase pro scouting but amateur scouting is mostly unchanged in terms of quantity but they did replace some outgoing scouts with new ones. The rest of this is pretty baseless speculation on your part.
-
1
-
-
Can we please stop with this off the board nonsense?
I completely understand if you didn't like the Honzek pick, really do. It was an underwhelming pick for me too and it's fair to want other players. Scouting is based on subjective opinions after all.
But to complain that the Flames went off the board is just such a wrong and tired debate. For reference, Mckenzie had him 19, Corey Pronman had him 12th, Elite prospects 15th. Yes some had him in the 20s too but that's scouting and the draft for you there is no such thing as consensus scouting and ranking. I don't find it valuable at all to try and put down draft picks by comparing them to a non existent board, it's not fair IMO.
I think it's far more productive to question whether or not the Flames have the right scouting criteria or values when it comes to the draft, instead of suggesting they should stick to some non existent board.
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, sak22 said:
The Sullivan situation in Pittsburgh just seems weird, I don't think a coach can win 2 power struggles in a row. Just a tough situation all around, would Sid leave if Sullivan was gone but would he also leave if the team misses the playoffs again.
I think that's what makes it interesting. Players don't want Sullivan to go but Dubas does and I don't think the Pens owners want to see Crosby leave, nor do they want to see a rebuild right now. And if your Sullivan do you want to leave?
Your right a coach almost never wins this once, let alone twice. Sullivan is a really good coach though, at least IMO.
-
5 minutes ago, sak22 said:
1 thing with the format with the Hurricanes they would be playing the Panthers with the Panthers having home ice advantage. To say poor them for having the Rangers in round 2, in the old system they would've had Tampa round 1 instead of the Islanders. I get the complaints towards the old system, but this round the disparity between Carolina and Florida is 1 point, and Carolina and Boston is 2. Not a huge difference, so for me its no excuse, you may have needed to go through the Rangers and Panthers to make the finals anyway so why does it matter what order, the Panthers weren't going to be easy pickings for them either.
Personally I just prefer the old format. I think it set up for better matches later and you got more upsets.
I wouldn't point at the format as a reason the Canes haven't gotten further.
-
1
-
Western Conference Playoffs
in Flames Talk
Posted
Vancouvers got to find a way to get more quality chances. Owned that period and only get 1 goal. So tough to win that way in the playoffs.