cross16

And not that I want to defend Chiarelli but Draisatl was excellent in the playoffs and did so mostly centering his own line. That with being drafted as, and playing at times, a center means less compatables and a likely salary bump. All things Tkachuk doesn't have going for him.

My bad I thought Draistil was 7.5 mill for some reason, thanks. Doesn't change my opinion though. Even with a strong year I don't think Tkachuk is getting anywhere close to that number

While possible, Draisatl had 51 points, 77 points and then was a PPG over 13 playoff games in order to get that money. Even scoring 40 i'm not sure Tkachuk gets to that number. But even if he does if Flames are willing to talk 6.75 million AAV, which is where I think it needs to get to, your talking 750K less than Draistil. I think it's a discussion you need to have as a group to say do we risk the 750K, turn down 50 million and hope I don't get injured? Especially considering that if his career goes as plans this won't be his only big contract. I don't pretend to know what Tkachuk and his camp are thinking I just don't think it's as easy to turn down such a large contract like that in the hopes you get a little more the following season, I think the decision is more complex than that. However, again this all rests on the idea that the Flames are willing to pay him a little more than his market value right now but IMO they should be.

Depends on what number the Flames offer I think. If they try and low ball, absolutely but if they are willing to be fair and talk numbers in and around 6-6.5mill I wouldn't be so sure. Tough to turn down 50 mill guaranteed and then shred you knee, damage your back etc and see your market value drop. Not always the best decision for the player to wait and get a few million more (again provided the Flames offer fair money) and put that much guaranteed at risk.

That's tough logic to follow. If you think he is going to be that good why would you let him get more expensive? I can understand if people have the "i'd rather see a player pay their dues" philosophy. I don't agree with it but I get it, but if you are sold on what and who Tkachuk is you absolutely without question should lock him up as soon as you possibly can and for as long as you can. He'll only get more affordable not less.

Holtby, Osgood, Cam Ward, and Anti NIemi. Just to name a few cup winners.

There were 16 goalie in the league last year that played 55 games or more. Of that 9 of them, including Smith, had a save % of over .915 and 6 of them had a save % over .920. Now yes Fleury and Price were hurt/struggled but doesn't mean they auto jump into that category, nor does someone else fall out. Of those 6 5 of them were playing for the team that originally drafted them with Bobrovsky being the only exception. Finding a goalie you are comfortable with for 100ish game is not easy. What is a more reasonable ask is getting a goalie who can get hot at the right time.

At the same time, worth pointing out that correlation does not equal causation. Crosby/Ovechkin are generational talents and Kane is not that far behind and that type of talent doesn't show up in every draft let alone 3 in 4 years. Be interesting to see if the trend continues but IMO it's just that a trend. Does not mean we have the ability to predict the future.

I'm meh on Ekblad. He had a monster rookie year but he's been pretty average since and honestly I think Hamilton is the better player. If Hamilton didn't swing the pendulum I dont' think Ekblad would either. Totally agree on the generational talent. no question are conversations are different today if the Flames have McDavid/Matthews. However, that goes back to my previous point that it would require luck to get either of those 2 with no guarantees it was even possible.

Well but like Peeps said though if we lose a few more games in 2013 we could take Lindholm instead of Monahan so then we do have them both. This is all sarcasm. The only reason I point that out is to show that there is no guarantee that if you go back and use hindsight to say the Flames should have lost more, that the result today is any different. The fact that in 2015 they could have wound up drafting a player they already have supports that IMO, but i'm making a joke.

Well could be their definition of success. I know for you cup=success for some they want a consistent contender and that equals success.

It's also possible we'd have... Noah Hanifin

While I would agree that you don't make this point, I'm not sure all that argued for tanking did the same. At the end of the day my point is that had the Flames don't things differently between 2013-now there is not much to suggest, at least IMO, that we would be in a much better position today unless luck was on their side and it's impossible to use hindsight to predict luck.

Pens gave up MAF for nothing because of the expansion draft and i've read multiple sources that pegged the MAF cost at the Takchuk pick and that Backlund was involved when the Flames were talking about Bishop from the Lightning. Might not be facts, but it's also not a fact that he wasn't involved because as you said we don't know either way. However, given cost of similar goalies acquired those rumors seem to make sense to me, but everyone is free to believe what they want. Actually no i'm not saying it is a matter of priorities I think it's a matter of cost vs opportunity. I think goaltending by nature is a very temperamental position and really outside of maybe 8-9 guys that are legit sure fire number ones, you have a really mixed bag at the position. Did Ben Bishop really fix the Dallas problem last year when they missed the playoffs? Are they happy with the contract they gave him? As mentioned, Talbot was a huge reason the Oilers struggled last year so is that position fixed for them? I'm not in favor of overpaying, ie the cost, just to make it appear like the position is fixed. Cost and opportunity have to meet and so far IMO it hasn't. i think we are both saying the same thing, that we'd like to see goaltneding improved, but all i'm saying is I think the criticism Treliving is taking is unfair. He's tried and it's a really difficult position to fix unless you overpay or get the opportunity to land a top guy. IMO to get Fleury/Bishp he would have overpaid (not a fan) and he missed on the opportunities with Jones/Andersson but those appears to be out of his control (according to Conroy).

Not a great analogy, considering catching fish is an individual skill and does not require another part unless we want to give the fish credit for their negotiation skills. Trades takes 2 and are hard to do. If we had MAF today but no Tkachuk are you happy? If we had Bishop today at 7mill AAV but didn't have Backlund are you happy? I guess it comes down to what side you sit on this question. Do you think Treliving views his goaltending as good and therefore comfortable to run with it, or did he look around and find limited options available at a fair price that would make his situation better? I'm in the later camp all the way so thus why I think this debate is getting overblown. I'm much more intersted in the organization find a more homegrown solution than the trade market where finding a goalie is super challenging.

So true, and very true of the whole tanking/slow play way to build your team too. We under estimate how much luck is involved in it. It does not guarantee success as fans of Buffalo, Florida, St Louis, Tampa, Columbus, Islanders, Philly and Edmonton can all attest to.

100% I get people view this as risky and I get people are upset about it. All of it is valid I don't disagree people have a right to be concerned about the goaltending. The part I don't understand is getting so upset and criticizing the GM when this off season offered no such guarantees. It was a bad FA crop and very little in the way of trade possibilities so for me the argument of he should have addressed it because this plan is too risky doesn't fly. Plan was risky either way so better, IMO, to do it with your guys.

Depend on what you choose to believe Treliving did not "abort" trying to acquire Bishop it was a decision made above his head. He also had a deal for Andersson and Jones in place and in the case of Andersson Ducks choose to move him out of the division (i've heard the Flames had the better offer) and Jones fell apart after the Flames thought it was already done. You can potentially criticize him for Talbot but at the same time Talbot sunk the OIlers season last year so I think it's fair to question him as an upgrade or an answer. Guess we'll see it. Treliving has been in on pretty much all the big goalie movement since he's been a GM and for mostly reasons outside his control it hasn't worked out. To hang that all on him is unfair IMO.

IMO Valamaki will be an All-Star. He also had Tampa as 30th or 31st I believe, which is really interested because Tampa has a lot of depth in their prospect pool. It's fine, scouting ranks always should be different and I appreciate the different perspective I just don't believe it's fair to penalize a franchise because they have some depth but not high end prospects. You typically only get high end prospects by drafting high. So Pronman's rankings are always going to favor the rebuilding teams.

And a big reason they are so low is Pronman, who does those rankings, is lower on Valamaki than most. he values the flashy, more dynamic prospect approach so he has Valamaki graded a fair bit lower than most. Case in point in his view Kylington is the Flames number 1 prospect where most have Valamaki as one of the top prospect in the entire league so I take his rankings with a grain of salt as you should any rankings to be honest. That being said Flames have a very young top 6 and have not drafted in the first round twice in the last 4 drafts so this ranking is not a total shock but I also think is a little hard. I would say the Flames should be closer to the 20 ranking.

I'm curious what gives you this conclusion? Is it simply that he did not fire GG soon enough? Because I would argue the exactly opposite. He's taking a lot of heat for trading Hamilton but the player didn't go as planned and now he's gone. Bouma/Browuer were bought out, Hartley fired 1 year after an extension, no extension for Elliott despite the draft pick played,etc etc I find one of Treliving's strengths is that he is willing to accept, address and learn from previous mistakes.

Would have required the green light from ownership however. The debate tends to focus on the moral argument around tanking but we don't often ask the question is the GM allowed to do so? My belief is no.

While I agree on the net piece (but worth pointing out that he had deals for Bishop, Anderson and Jones that fell through for mostly reasons outside his control) I don't agree with your first line. He's down his 2nd this year at that it and i think Dube and Mangiapane deserve a bit more credit personally but outside of that the Flames also have one of the youngest top 6 forward cores in the NHL. It's extremely difficult to be stacked at all positions. Feels like a bit reach to knock Treliving for that.

I think you know as much as any, but let's remember the state of the Flames when Treliving got here. They were terrible in basically all areas, G, D, F, depth, farm team, prospects etc. Expecting Treliving, and quite frankly any GM, to build a power at all positions in less than 4 years is quite frankly unrealistic. He prioritized other positions first but you can't do everything at once, unless you start giving up more picks/prospects something you say in the same post you are not a fan of. Look at Steve Yzerman, who I would say is arguably one of the best GMs in the game. He inherited 2 top 2 overall picks and he still missed the playoffs 2 of his first 3 seasons and it took 5 seasons before the Lightning where a contender. Start to finish I don't think you can argue that this organization is in significantly better shape than it was when Treliving got here and the depth at all levels is pretty impressive. The job takes time to do right.

Well D'Angelo carried pretty little trade value at the time given that was already his 2nd team who was willing to "give up" on him. Has done very little for the Rangers too. Part of this was likely that the Rangers wanted to move Stepans contract so that adjust he price. Either way, hard deal for the Flames to match and certainly would have cost them Hamonic