cross16

And you may be right and I won't disagree. All I will say is that this is problematic when you consider the assets the Flames spent in the off season.

I agree, and have for a while, with the general premise that the Flames are not fast enough. I don't quite agree with every player JTech mentions but specifically I do agree with Monahan and Tkachuk and when 2 of your core players are not exactly fleet of foot it is tough. Yes you can argue that Treliving should be complimenting them with more speed but that is not easy, and it's expensive, to do that. So I agree that it's tough to completely lay blame on Treliving because I do believe that the Flames drafted well when they had their lottery picks. What is well discussed is what supplementing of the roster with players that really lack speed when it was already apparent the Flames had an issue. It's the reason why I was so against signing or re signing the likes of Brouwer, Stone, Glass, Stajan even jagr to a certain degree. Flames need to get faster and those moves continued to make them slower. Monahan should pull John Tavares aside in the offseason and train with him. Tavares use to have slower feet and he turned it around and while he isn't fast he's plenty of fast enough.

Absolutely

So you linked something that supported my point?? so thanks I guess? haha. Not sure what we're discussing anymore to be honest...

It was. It's actually the last 12 years I went back. So of the last 12 cup winners 3 had goalies taken in the first round.

Flames system is already pretty clogged up so to me there isn't any upside in clogging it up further. I'd much rather see Gilles/Rittich get a shot than pick up PIckard. Pickard really isn't very good.

In the last 11 years 3 first round goalies have won a cup. 3 others have played in a cup finals and in most cases they weren't with the team that drafted them. For sure teams that win have the goalie position covered thats an obvious argument but drafting them is a crapshoot. Just to be clear I'm not advocating that how the Flames approach their goaltending has been a good strategy.

The ultimate crapshoot. Literally like throwing darts at a dart board. Proof;

flames approach since Kipper has been the "roll the dice" approach to goaltending. When you do that your picking from a lower talent pool so good goalie coach or not when you have that approach to your goaltending you should expect inconsistent result. I don't think a goalie coach has enough of an impact to iron out inconsistencies when you have that type of approach to goaltending.

It did but polling also said Hilary Clinton was going to win and that the Ndp here were going to challenge but would not win. We shall see. I wa certainly surprised by that pool as I have yet to hear a lot of support for smith. Smith winning would be plan A for CESC.

Just further proof the preseason doesn't mean anything. Smith will be fine. From what I see it's small correctable things he'll iron out as he gets sharper.

For a comparison sake, Brian Elliott was excellent in the pre season last year. something to consider.

Yup Bill Smith. Not sure he willing release his donar list, was the only mayor candidate to be at Ken Kings lunch, only candidate King mentioned by name, and he wants to keep CalgaryNext on the table. True or not that is a lot of coincidences.

Whatever their motives were I think CESC has actually increased the chances that Nenshi will win. I think he likely was going to anyway but I think the arena issue has increased his popularity not decreased it. So if that was their goal it's backfiring.

I could be missing something, but in the report I read on CalgaryNext there was no mention of the Crowchild interchange and therefore the costs were not included in the 1.8 billion price tag. The transportation costs they refereed to referenced transit upgrades and improvement to 14th St and access in and out of West Village but not Crowchild. so based on what i've read the 1.8 billion estimated price tag from the city on CalgaryNext does not include any improvements to Crowchild.

I have to agree that i'm not sure why the argument is we are giving up on Gillies just because he won't start the season with the team. Lack will get the first shot but keep in mind the Flames got Caroilna to cover a lot of his salary so if Lack sturggles swapping him and Gillies is a very viable option this season. It wont happen in October but i'm not sure why that is an issue. I think Gillies has been good, but not great, in the preseason and I also agree you are seeing improvement. I hope we continue to see if in the A but for me Gillies is very much still in the mix in terms of the Flames net and short term options.

I think we are sort of the right page. I guess my only clarification is that are we not treating the transportation/infrastructure costs the same or are they just much higher with Calgarynext than they are with Victoria Park option? Based on everything i've read the transportation, infrastructure needs, and clean up would add alot of costs to the CalgaryNext project that just are not needed with the Victoria Park option so the total cost really gets up there in a hurry and IMO I think it's necessary to consider the total costs of the project as opposed to jsut compare the cost to build the buildings. What it comes down to for me, and where I think most agree, is that the City needs a new fieldhouse, new arena, new stadium and a revitalized West Village but where I disagree is I don't think CalgaryNext was the best avenue to accomplish that. Would it be cheaper, maybe slightly and for sure it woudl be "easier" but I think long term the vision i think is best is separate facilities and a revitalized West Village the City can use as it sees fit. That is the more efficient and proper use of taxpayer funds IMO.

Well said and I fully agree.

That's fair. I guess to make my point more clear is I don't think the Flames have the capability of being a top 10 revenue team unless the dollar is artificially high like it was when it was 90 cents or higher. With a normal dollar I think the Flames would hover just outside the top 10 even with a new building and obviously lower if the dollar was lower.

They are very much a small market as they are one of the smallest markets in the NHL. so in King's defence he does have a point I just think he was pointing in the wrong direction but this is very much a small market from an NHL perspective but that doesn't make it a bad market either.

I think King was laying this on pretty thick and his point was generally very misleading. All of these numbers are from sites not supported by the Flames so they may dispute them but the NHL will never open their books so we can't confirm this but here is how I see it. Flames were 8th in the league last year for avg ticket prices. http://blog.tiqiq.com/2016/10/2013-14-nhl-average-ticket-prices-team/ They are 16th in Team valuation according to Forbes They were 18th in terms of revenue (this is why they would receive a revenue cheque as typically all teams outside the top 15 get some form of revenue sharing) They were 10 in operating income. (all data from Forbes and is from 2016 https://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome_sortreverse:true) They are one of the smaller markets in the NHL. While I do agree an new arena would add revenue, I can't get behind King playing the "woe is us" card when it comes to their ability to make money in this market. What is far more likely the reason they've gone from top 10 to 18th is the Canadian dollar and a new arena will not solve or alleviate the strain of dealing with that. Flames still do very well when you consider the market they are in. I don't think a new arena is suddenly going to vault the Flames back into the top 10 unless the dollar rises too. Just to be clear this is not a "we don't need a new arena" post or an "anti Ken King" post either. I am only intending to express that i don't buy the argument that taxpayers should fork over hundreds of millions because the Flames are "struggling". As i've stated all along I think Calgary needs a new arena but the price has to be right.

No, the point is those 2 costs include different things. My point is if you are trying to argue total cost and saying its 890 million vs 555 mill and decide which is better that isn't accurate. I think you need to take a more holistic view because costs are not the same for every project.

In the study the city did yes but I never saw that in the Flames proposal that indicated a cost of 890 million. The Flames proposal, again correct me if i'm wrong, only indicated it would cost 890 million to actually build the facilities.

Depends on your philosophy. General consensus is that a top pairing dman would trump a skilled forward so IMO no they should have stuck with Valamaki. I also think people overrate how "deep" the Flames are on the blueline. Guys like Andersson and Kylington are still very much questions marks, especially Kylington, and Fox is a ways away. Picking a high end Dman makes a ton of sense given their current blue line is older than their forward crop. Having said that the player I think they may regret passing on is Eeli Tolvanen. IMO he is the only forward I would have had on the same level as Valamaki and he's already tearing up the KHL as well. Nashville got a tremendous steal here.

I agree Lack will get the backup job. They didn't acquire him to give him a few games in the preseason and then send him down to the minors they want him to be the backup at least to start and I also think they want to see Gilles get some games in the A as well and play. That being said at this rate I won't be surprised at all if we see a fair bit of Gilles this season. Personally I think Gilles has had the better preseason (even if stats don't back it up) and right now I feel like we are seeing more of the Carolina Lack than the Vancouver one. Won't surprise me at all if Gilles winds up as the backup at some point this season but it won't be at the start of the season.