cross16
-
Posts
30,202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
517
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by cross16
-
His is legit. I've followed him for a while and I find his stuff to be quite good. Calgary should have interest in Marleau yes. At least preliminary interest.
-
He wouldn't. He'll get more and a chance to play. Jets, Canucks among teams apparently interested.
-
Another option down and boy that is a big AAV. That makes me very doubtful the Flames are going to get a backup for around a mill. Probably need to be 1.5 -2 now.
-
Not a shock. More opportunity there for sure. Flames could do a "swap" for Anders NIlsson.
-
As MAC said i've hatted this deal since day 1 because based on his career norms, style of play and age it was a bad deal. IMO a bounce back for Brouwer is 20 ish goals and 35ish points and IMO that is still not good enough for 4.5 million for 3 more years. I also think people really overrate his physical play because they see his size and assume he is a bruiser. I've always found him under whelming from a physical standpoint so I don't expect he will bounce back there. Unfortunately I think Treliving and co got caught up in recency bias and saw his performance in the playoffs and ignored the rest of the evidence that showed you Brouwer just wasn't that great a hockey player.
-
Brouwer could bounce back and I still think he will be a top 5 worst FA signing of last offseason. That deal was just bad the second it was signed. The positive is Treliving thus far how shown he is willing to, and does, learn from his mistakes.
-
Calgary Flames Drafting and Development: Your Analysis
cross16 replied to rickross's topic in Flames Talk
Foo was a year older though in each season which imo makes a difference. They didn't start attending college at the same age. Foo started later. -
Calgary Flames Drafting and Development: Your Analysis
cross16 replied to rickross's topic in Flames Talk
Maybe but I don't see it. Hayes has the size, had progression and excelled a year younger than Foo did. -
Calgary Flames Drafting and Development: Your Analysis
cross16 replied to rickross's topic in Flames Talk
I would equate Foo's value to a late 2nd rounder. Could maybe argue 3rd but reality is there is very little difference between a late 2nd and a 3rd. So probably fair to say they have hopefully re couped 1 of the 2nd rounders they dealt. -
With some salary retained (essentially the same salary you want to pay him) Stone was worth a 3rd and a 5th 3 months ago. Why is he going to be worth more a year later when he will play on the bottom pairing here in Calgary? If you want to have the additional depth then fine I get the argument, but the idea the Flames should sign Stone because he will net them draft picks at the deadline doesn't make any sense. Personally I see no reason to have a 3 mill defender on the 3rd pairing and continue to find it funny that for year's everyone rode Engelland for what he made but now we want to go back and pay another 5/6 defender 3 million....
-
Its does yes. I could be wrong, but the sense i've always gotten from Treliving is that he is not a big fan of Rittich or gilles as the backup. He specifically mentioned both in a session I went to the he feels the AHL would be best for both as they want to see Rittich do it again and want to see Gillies grow. I'll be very surprised if a veteran backup is not brought in. Doesn't mean it will for sure be Johnson, probably won't be to be honest, but I think it will be someone.
-
he can, but it sounds like the Flames want to turn him pro.
-
for the most part, I thought pretty good. I know you don't like Johnson and that's fine but just like you think people overrate him based on November I think you underrate him based on a similarly small sample size. Fact is he was very good in November, and good for most of the year so you can't ignore November.
-
I like Johnson as the backup too but my only worry is he willing to do another 1 year deal? I suspect not and i'm not sure I love the idea of giving him 2 years at over 1 million and not having an opportunity to work Gillies/Rittich in next year if they have another successful year.
-
If it's a 1 year deal for a veteran guy to play bottom pairing I can live with it. It's giving someone multiple year's I won't be happy with
-
I'm as comfortable putting guys like Andersson in a top 4 role as I am stone. Unless you want to pay upwards of 3 mill plus it's not easy to find guys that will play bottom pairing and step into top 4 roles. Look at Engelland, he was exactly thst and most people here ripped him for being overpaid. If people are fine continuing to spend thst on the bottom pairing that's ok, but imo this teams needs another scorer and cap space is starting to run out.
-
Being prepared means drafting and accumulating assets, which the Flames have already done. I'm just saying use what you already have. The trade deadline would just be a way to add additional depth if you want more, which pretty much everyone does irregardless of what they have.
-
Reason I disagree is I think the A has depth. Between Kylington, Wotherspoon, if he's back, Morrison, a depth signing, and there is Bartowski. most teams that are good at development trust kids to play in the case of injuries once they've had a few years. I don't understand why the flames can't be the same. If it doesn't work, pick up some vets at the trade deadline. I really don't like the idea of having to give term to someone to play bottom pair again
-
Personally I like the idea of a Kulak-Andersson pairing. I get they are both young but imo smart and your only asking for 15 mins a night. Start playing these young dman and giving them a shot, I don't like the idea of brining stone back. Worst case you can always pick up veteran dman during the season if they struggle.
-
Agreed, its very overrated. Other than Engelland fighting 2 Canucks at once (and don't try to tell me that won the Flames the series because its complete BS) How many occasions can people tell me about when Engelland stood up for a teammate and it meant something in a game? If you can get to 5 i'm impressed. Sure they will want a bit of grit on the back end but that isn't difficult to find and you should value their ability to skate, defend and move the puck way more than their ability to "protect" people.
-
Wow love the Hamilton love. That's awesome. This has to be the last year Roman Jodi remains so underrated. 11th? Come on....
-
I don't follow how that is a valid comparison at all considering Feaster, and any GM, has full control over saying Yes or No to a deal. You can tell a player whatever you want but it's up to them to perform on the ice. Anyway everyone will have their opinion and that's completely fine. I'm not saying Sigalet is great but I think in general people very much overrate the impact of a coach that's all. He's been handed some pretty poor talent levels to work so with poor talent should come poor results.
-
Thumbs up. Not to mention an over page long discussion trying to evaluate a coach that really no one is qualified to evaluate. Unless anyone here has seen Sigalet work with the players or heard directly from the players he's coached trying to evaluate his performance is impossible. There are so many variables that go into performance and very few of them are in a coach's control.
-
What I found most interesting about that is that they are not recommending McMahon as one of the facilities. They are suggesting that the Stampede Grandstands host the opening/closing ceremonies as well as medal ceremonies. So that has me thinking would the Flames ever consider negotiations with the Stampede to turn the Grandstand into a dual football/rodeo facility and just leave McMahon with the university. Probably not looking at much more money to do it versus what it would cost to renovate McMahon and the location is far superior. Could this be another infrastructure project they would do that ties in with the games?
-
Good read on why Petr Mrzaek was left exposed with a mention that Calgary checked it but sounds like interest wasn't all that high. https://theathletic.com/68819/2017/06/20/why-petr-mrazek-was-exposed-to-the-expansion-draft-and-what-happens-next/
