cross16

I will be surprised if Treliving loses his job this year. With one year left on his deal and Sutter's I think they see this thing through so even if the Flames miss the playoffs this year I'll be surprised if he was let go. The cavate to that is perhaps someone like Conroy is really well liked by the owners and they make a move like that, but to let him go and go external would surprise me. I'm still of the opinion that Treliving is a good GM, has done an ok to good job, and most of the what has transpired here is you can't directly put on him. The drafting and developing under him has been fantastic, yes Bennett is a big black mark but outside of that's it's been VERY good, and I think the organization is actually as strong as it's been in a long time. I think the biggest reason why the Flames didn't ascend up to a higher status is Treliving bet on Monahan and Gaudrea being that high end duo. he was right on one of them, wrong on the other and then combine that with Bennett the Flames just don't have the center to be competitive with cup contending teams. I personally have a hard time blaming Treliving for that because at the time it sure looked like the right move to me, it just didn't work out. For me he made 2 glaring errors that hurt the team and that was the Hamonic trade and the Brouwer contract. He shouldn't have given Neal the contract he did, especially the term, but I also see why he did it so I have a had time putting that in the horrible category. The result was horrible but I don't think the process of that decision was. As I've said before perhaps you can blame him more for the lack of patience in a rebuild but I'm just not sure you can. I just don't think that's the way this club operates so while I would have prefered more patience in his early years, and a decision to rebuild last year, I'm just not convinced he is in control of those decisions. I am fine discussing the merits of moving on from Treliving but for me there are 2 main questions that you need to answer: 1) Who are you bringing in? 2) What is he going to do differently? Personally i'm not of the opinion that just simply swapping out the GM is going to fix this, nor am I a believer of the "well he had his turn so let's try someone else now" idea. This organization has done that and let's call a spade a space they are not good at hiring GMs. Treliving is probably the 2nd best GM this organization has ever hired so count me skeptical that it's going to be easy to "upgrade" over him. If you want to move on, then the organization has to be prepared to do things differently and if you are not, then I don't see this getting better with a new GM.

The COVID thing is what i'm wondering about. speaking from personal experience I am still experience odd things when i'm working out/playing sports and it's been over a year since I had it. It can be rough on the lungs (in particular your lung capacity) so I'm just wondering if any of that is at play. Sutter seemed to allude to it last night in his comments around Lindholm. I get some of the comments and themes but i'm not personally seeing it. From my perspective this is not the team that came out of that COVID stuff that went into it. The drop off has been drastic for me.

It would be highly unlikely for an arbitrator to enforce that an employment contract needs to be upheld and return him to the Sharks. That's a very, very large precedent to set. This is going to come down to money IMO.

I notice the same. I deferred my tickets this year in large part due to the fact it's been very challenging to offload games I can't go to. This is just in my circle but the feedback I get is it's not the arena it's a combination of apathy towards the team, apathy towards sports consumption, and the cost. It's easy to say now but the people I talk to, a new arena would not change how they interact with the Flames they want the team to be better and better operated. That's just my observation. to be clear I would be very upset if the Flames left so I'm not advocating that or suggesting that should happen. I just see this is a tremendous market for the NHL that's all.

This is my understanding of what happened. While "solar panels" were not specifically in the agreement prior to the development permit throughout the whole process it was agreed upon that the building was going to meet certain environmental standards and that they were going to be high. All the development permit did was outline exactly how they were going to achieve that so while the cost was new the concept was not. That's not outrageous of a development IMO. I get people want an arena but I'm not so sure I see what is so wrong about this dealing being dead. I don't think this was honestly a great deal for either side, the City probably didn't like CLMC being removed and the Flames certainly probably regretted agreeing to cover cost overruns, so I still see this as both sides just walking away rather than this need to be framed as a fight. I see a ton of logic of putting this on pause for a couple of years, let the COVID situation provide more clarity around costs, revenues etc and get back at it when the picture is clearer. If the Flames were so pissed about the deal falling apart why did they not come forward a month earlier when the development permit was issued? Why not pursue legal options if in fact the goal posts moved? The fact that they waited until very late in the process tells me I don't think they were that upset about the solar panels and just got uncomfortable with the deal altogether. Unless Murray Edwards is interesting in selling the team I don't think the Flames are going anywhere and would actually argue they need Calgary more than Calgary needs them. I don't think there is a better market out there for them and they know it.

Probably the worst game i've watched them play under Sutter. mental mistakes all over the place, bad turnovers, can't get the puck out of the zone, and no transition. They looked like they did under Ward. Not sure if this is just a lull/slump or some of them are still feeling effects of COVID. I would be surprised if they weren't.

I doubt it. It would be highly, highly unlikely that it would get this far into the process if the Sharks didn't feel they had reasonable grounds to terminate nor do I think there is precedent for an arbitrator to uphold an employment contract like that. The PAs grievance will likely not be to uphold the deal and keep him with the Sharks but rather to try and extract a fair settlement out of the team so they don't get out from paying him everything. Same process as Mike Richards.

Arena is still a topic of conversation for council and was discussed last night. Pike has a good thread on it here but quick highlights: - Council agrees with the need and wants to keep pursuing - Will set up a new committee and will engage a 3rd party. This includes discussion with the Flames but also any other 3rd party/investors that are interested. - View it as a key part of the Rivers District Master Plan - Will update in March.

My guess is they have just not publicly and that is why today you are hearing that now the NHL is investigating. I will be shocked if the Sharks get to walk away from this but I also have never seen an NHL contract so i'm not sure what type of language is in there about breach. With Richards it was about 3 months before they reached a settlement after the PA filled a grievance over the termination, which I believe they ether have or plan to do with Kane.

Interesting.. not sure why anyone would give him that but I guess we'll see. Be more interested to see how the PA treats this. Kane had over 15 mill left on his contract and I can't imagine he's every going to get anywhere close to that ever again. How can the PA and Kane's reps be ok that the Sharks just get to walk away from all of that? I imagine the NHL is more ok with it, but it also sets a big of a dangers precedent they will want to make sure they have some control over. Hard to see this being simple. Edit: Looks like it won't be. NHL now investigating Kane

Ya total scapegoating IMO. here are Hextal's first round picks. Other than Rubstov (who was a bit controversial at the time sure) it looks pretty good. The Flyers have extended, since Hextall left, almost all of these players so if they were so bad why are they keeping them around? So 1 is pretty much a write off i'd say, Rubstov, and the other is Jay O'Brien who looks pretty good in the NCAA right now. Frost is an NHLer he just can't stay healthy so not sure how that is Hextalls' fault.

Sounds like when Kane signs it's going to be for something small, like 1 million. No one seems to be suggesting he's going to get anything more than that. Oilers have sufficient LTIR space to sign that type of deal as it does not sound like Klefbom will play at all this year.

I take all of that with a big grain of salt but nonetheless pretty crazy to see an NHL executive make comments like that. League has notoriously been pretty hush/hush and "protect their own" mindset so was interesting to see Clarke be so brash like that. And I feel compelled to point our the irony of Bobby Clarke blaming someone else for the Flyers struggles. The guy who didn't exactly light the world on fire as a GM himself.

Well if he isn't willing to use good assets in trade (said today he isn't dealing their first rounder or top prospects) he's pretty limited in trying to win in this window they are in. Brining in someone like Kane is kind of all he can do. What a mess.

I really think we need to either reframe or just drop the "who wins a trade" argument. For me, no matter what happens the Flames did well in the Bennett deal. They had a player who wanted out, a player that they almost certainly were going to lose for nothing in the offseason (or then you lose a player like Dube), and wound up getting a return that exceeded almost everyone's expectations. They failed in the development of Bennett but not in the dealing of him IMO.

They do. I would assume the deal he signed in Sweden has an NHL out clause but it would also be a bit strange to see him sign an extension over there and then sign his ELC and come over less than a year after. Seems like he plans to do his developing in the SEL which I also don't really see as an issue or problem.

Article on Heineman from Wes Gilbertson. Says he looks forward to playing in Calgary but article does note he is under contract with Sweden so may not see him soon. https://calgarysun.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames/high-energy-prospect-emil-heineman-aiming-for-hopefully-a-lot-of-seasons-in-calgary

Food for thought, the culprits are not likely who you think they are either. Might surprise people but over the last 2 games over half the team is still positive in most shot metrics. The ones who are under water: Richardson Ritchie Lucic Hanifin Andersson Monahan Tanev Gaudreau Tkachuk Kylington Dube When your best players are not your best players your not going to beat top teams. Put me in the camp that doesn't think that will continue.

I think defensive details are the first thing to go when a team has a break like the Flames did and it's not always something you find in the first few games. See if it continues but for me it's not that surprising that it's been shaky since coming back.

I'll preface this by saying that I don't think we need to make a bunch of conclusions off these 2 games. Playing 2 of the best teams in the league after an extended break due to COVID doesn't exactly provide the best measuring stick so I'm willing to grant some slack. That being said, as the season goes the Flames are settling into the team I thought they would be. They are good, likely going to make the playoffs and probably be a top half team, but they just don't have either the high end talent or the great depth to go toe to toe with the power of the league. They need to tighten up Defensively, why I point to the break as being a legitimate reason, so they can keep games close and hopefully next time against teams like this you get a break or 2.

Not to mention while he get praise as a good drafter and talent evaluator he really isn't, at least not IMO. Hakan Andersson is the real reason Holland gets the reputation he gets IMO.

A more appropriate analogy would be that in the original agreement both sides agree to certain features of the garage, in particular that it meet certain climate requirements, and pass those asks on to the builder/designer. Also at the same time the tenant agrees to cover all future cost overruns but when builder/designer comes back with the plans the costs is higher than originally anticipated. The owner still agreed to cover a little under half of that $15,000 increase but the tenant doesn't and walks. On top of that, that $15,000 was around $10-12,000 less than a year ago and the revenue you planned to collect using that garage just got cut in half and you don't know for how long. All of this just depends on who you want to believe. If you want to believe CESC then sure the city tried to put costs in at the last minute but personally I think this spin. Those closest to the situation are not suggesting that the City moved anything but rather this is as simple as costs just rose too quickly and outside of CESC's comfort zone (and the cities to a certain extent). And i'm sure below all of this CESC is not a fan of Gondek and certainly wasn't going to cave to a new council. Think there is just a lot of layers to this and blaming the city, or even CESC to a certain extent, is just scapegoating.

Honestly the more I sit on this the less upset I get and the more I don't think this is a situation where blame needs to be found. From the perspective of the Flames they entered into this expecting to shell out around $250 Mill and saw it balloon up to almost 100mill, through no fault of anyone, and were most likely even higher. The goalposts were not moved on anyone in this situation but rather as the project closer and closer to reality the costs simply were getting further and further refined. They just so happened to also be going up and up and I think it's as simple as it got too much for CESC to stomach, especially given the Flames are looking at another big revenue hit this year and uncertainty around when the revenues will stabilize. I wish the Flames didn't just end the deal and I wish the Mayor would have not taken to Twitter and rather engaged council to see if there was anything they could do but at the same time her hands are a bit tied when a private company makes a decision like that. And Kenney weighing in on this is nothing but laughable. Not only does he likely have no idea what he is talking about he is using the same tactic he is blasting the city for with the Green Line.

I agree in principle but then look at this 3rd/4th lines. They are pretty brutal so while I totally agree in principle that you need to roll lines how can you when you don' thave NHL calibre depth? It's just like the Flames under Ward where sure they would try and play those lines but then the lines would get their teeth kicked in. LIke I said he is not without fault and i'm not a huge fan of his but do we really think a new coach is going to fix this? I just see a mess of a roster that no coach is coming in and making better.

Really good test here. It's been almost a month since the Flames played a high end team (Boston) and it's been a month and a half since the Flames beat what I would consider a good team in regulation (November 21st when they beat Boston) Interested to see how this one plays out. Florida is going to stress that Flames D that has looked a bit shaky since the layoff.