cross16
-
Posts
30,202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
517
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by cross16
-
Get your disappointment and while I don't love this trade, your first point is not accurate. Bryzgalov played behind a very different team. The Coyotoes were a good club until the 11-12 season and then they've been stripping it down every since. In the 4 years he was there Brzy faced on avg around 29 shots/game. Since then the Coyotes avg giving up 32 and in the last 3 years they have been a bottom 5 teams just about every year in shots against, scoring chances against and high danger scoring chances against. While I don't have firm numbers (Natural Stat Trick only goes back 3 years) I think it's fair to assume that with giving up more shots overall means the overall quality of shots overall is going to go up as well. The Coyotes are quite frankly the worst defensive team in the league, but they were one of the better ones with Bryz was there. After the 11-12 season the Coyotes starting to strip their team away and their roster ever since has been filled with either crappy veterans or youth and you simply won't be able to play good defense with that mix. I'm not suggesting Smith will be great there and in fact I think his numbers will be pretty similar to what he's put up in Pheonix but he doesn't compare well to Bryz. Smith has been putting up decent numbers behind a below avg defensive team.
-
In 3 years now the Flames have spent 2 2nd round picks in the draft on goalies. 2 2nd round picks on guys supposed to be their starter plus 1 good prospect and it's a good idea to spend another high end asset? I don't care that it is a "weak" draft the Flames organization is nowhere near the point where they can be throwing away this many picks. If you can't find a goalie using those asset (and i'm even ignoring the 3rd rounder they used to get Gilles) then multiple people deserve to be fired. That is horrible incompetence. I get the point about doubling down but there is no way i will ever agree it's a good idea to spend that much capital on 1 position, especially with so many needs elsewhere and an organization that is not exactly swimming in depth.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Giving up the 16th pick for Raanta or Grubauer would be horrific asset management on the Flames part.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
With MAF all but guaranteed to Vegas I wonder if Holland is taking a calculated risk that McPhee won't want to pay over 10 million in net and that trade interest in Mrzaek was so soft that he won't get much for him so he just avoids him altogether. Afterall you are basically rolling the dice on mrzaek for 1 year at 4 million. If he doesn't bounce back you wouldn't qualify him and then you risk losing him as a UFA so I don't think teams were prepared to pay anything close to what Detroit wanted.
-
I don't think it makes sense for the Flames to deal assets to get a backup. Plenty of UFA options and they've spent a bunch of assets already on goaltending it doesn't make sense to spend more. They've got future assets to develop and they've got a starter, no sense in getting more. They are not an asset rich enough organization to deal away so much future. Mrzaek is a bit of a a head scratcher but I agree it makes you wonder. I still like Mrazek but I wasnt prepared to pay a bunch for him as it's hard to ignore how bad he was last year. I wonder if it's just a case of the league not sure of what they have.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
If this was the target then I agree Mason would have been better. Sign him and don't give up any assets and then you have the same level goaltending as smith will give you imo. That's the route I wanted them to go. If they were going to go the trade route go bigger than Smith
-
Well considering I never said it was a guarantee, no im not suggesting that. You make it seem like Talbot was a massive gamble ala Scrivens of Fasth. I'm saying it was a much more calculated gamble than that. The expectation of Talbot was he was going to be a starter who cokld carry the load. That was not then expectation of trades like Scrivens and Fasth. I would argue giving up a pretty comparable package for a 35 year old smith is a bigger gamble than what the Oilers did with Talbot. I guess if you think 1 blogger speaks for all the oilers ok. But anyway you look at it Talbot was pretty good his first year.
-
Cam Talbot was very good two seasons ago. In fact he improved only marginally this season but the team improved significantly so more attention was paid. Underlying stats were similar. I think you are crazy if anyone think that giving the same deal someone would take Smith over Talbot. Talbot was not near the gamble people make him out to be. Talbot was the prize goalie acquisition that offseason because many teams were convinced he was ready to be a starter and he sure looked like one when lunqvost went down. Scrivens and Fasth were depth picks and brought on as backups and 1B guys not as starters so to compare them with Talbot isn't accurate. Yes the idea of acquiring a backup and assuming he will be a starter is risky but to what degree depends on the individual. I think it's also misguided to suggest Talbot was this massive gamble but acquiring a 35 year old goalie, when's numbers show you are in decline by now, doesn't come with equal amount of risk. There is a huge possibility this is Jonus Hiller all over again.
-
The one positive I will say about smith I'm really intrigued by is his puck handing. He's like another dman back there and for a team that wants to play fast in transition the flames struggled to get the puck up the ice last year. I am very intrigued to see if smith can make a difference in that area and even allow the flames to bring the stretch pass back a little.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Not in my books. Here is more perspective, it cost the Oilers a 2nd, a 3rd and a late rounder for talbot. Flames just spent more on Smith and Elliott. I actually think smith will be good here I do. But is he good enough to get them out of the 2nd round? Not imo, not unless he really surprises. You could have gotten another goalie of that ilk and spent less. That's why I don't like the deal.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
The only caveat I will add is if Hickey told the Flames he wasn't going to sign, then I would be ok with this. I have no reason to believe thst is the case, but if it is I would not feel as negatively about this as I do.
-
Nailed it. Flames have spent now 2 2nds, we hope, and a good young prospect to get Elliot for a year and smith for two. Irregardless of how you view smith this was exactly the type of behavior the flames needed to start avoiding and it appears Treliving won't. That's quite dissapointing.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
I thin for sure you rule out anyone like a Raanta or Grubaeur coming here. No way flames spend that on Smith AND giving up quality assets for those two. Plus it sounds like the price on raanta is very high anyway. This is is a sign to me the Flames fully expect Gilles or parsons to be in the mix in 2 years so there isn't a younger guy on his way other than those.
-
This is a very poor trade. I do think Smith is an upgrade but at 35 years old and you gave up a very good D prospect and potentially a 2nd rounder only if they make the playoffs? you just gambled a ton in trade and salary on an aging goalie. Not good.... hope I'm wrong but this really looks like the flames panicked.
-
More and more it looks like MAF won't be an option for the Flames. So baring a name being out there we are not hearing about I think the Flames are left with a group of goalies that basically are all very similar. Sure you can argue Mason over Elliott, or Grubauer's age over Mason/Elliott, or Howard etc but it's all an argument. There really is no clear cut favorite or number 1 option out there, IMO at least. I think Flames would be wise to just pick the ones that comes with the lowest acquisition cost. I know people will hate that statement but with the options out there I'm not seeing the value in giving up top 60 picks, Gilles or prospects for the likes of Grubauer/Raanta etc. Get Mason if you can (Free) or look at spending the 3rd rounder and keeping Elliott, unless Treliving has an ace up his sleeve I'm preparing to not be wow'd by who is in net come October.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
The buildings yes, but a report done pegged the total cost at 1.8 billion when they factored in land, utilities, remediation, interest/financing etc. http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/flames-calgarynext-proposal-could-cost-1-8-billion-double-original-estimate-says-city-report
-
Because with MAF waiving they likely won't get a shot at Doumalin. Pens likely go the 8-1 route and protect Crosby, Malkin, Kessell, Rust, Letange, Matta, Schultz and Doumalin. Means they lose someone like Hagelin, Cole or maybe Poliout if Vegas wants to take someone with a future but at the end of he day that's not really a big deal for the Pens. Easy loss to swallow. Technically speaking, what Fleury has is a limited NMC. All the full futures of the NMC except the modified condition that instead of the NMC covering all trades he needs to submit a list of 12 teams he Oks a move too. I know Capfriendly breaks it down differently but that's just to try and make it easier for people to understand.
-
Not necessarily a bad thing. Read more than a few people who think Vegas wants Fleury to stay, not as trade bait. Vegas could be looking at a tandem of Fleury and Grubaeur for example. Veteran starters who gives them a chance to win every night plus a young guy in behind they can start giving starts too. Not to mention still take someone like Raanta for trade bait.
-
won't disagree with reason but to be fair CalgaryNext is basically dead and even King has said as much. The new project they are working on will not cost anywhere near 1.8 Billion as CalgaryNext would have. Not that i'm trying to change your mind just changing the scale of the debate . Should find out shortly how much the Flames are planning to spend/ask from the city in the new proposal.
-
-
Sure, but is missing out on a few millions dollars every year worth the 400-500 million investment in an area? Let alone does that revenue every year even cover that debt servicing cost? Is there even a positive benefit when you look at the big picture, again economically? For me the arena debate is more of a morale one than an economic one. I think the numbers never add up economically in terms of it being a net positive benefit but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit to the city. I think arenas, concerts, pro sports teams etc improve the quality of life in a city and then its up to each individual to put a value on that, but for me economically its a very weak argument to argue there is a positive economic benefit when you consider how much capital and future capital is required. Ken King confirmed yestreday that as of now McMahon is on hold. They know they need to fix it and they will but right now the focus is on an arena. They tried to put together a proposal that had both in Victoria Park but it couldn't fit.
-
I'm also a little tired of the Garth Brooks example coming up so much as a means to justify a large city investment. Even if you assume the 40 million number is correct, likely it is not, you are holding up a very extreme example. Does anyone really think one of the world's biggest superstars is going to come to a new arena and play 4 or more shows here every year in order to generate that 20 million for the economy? (half of what Edmonton received) When you consider the interest cost on the financing alone for what CalgaryNext, or any new building, is going to be it's likely the City would net out very little money on that, so using an extreme example is just that extreme. Even if Calgary had been able to host the Garth Brooks concerts, were are not talking about a city changing event here. to be clear though I'm actually for an new arena and i'm for the city, via my tax dollars as I am aware, paying for a portion of that. I just don't think the City should write a blank cheque, needs to be fair
-
I've seen no suggestions, evidence or credible source that says you cannot protect a UFA. so IMO the Flames will protect one of Elliott or Johnson and be fine. It's not an issue for me
-
FWIW, Treliving at the lunch yesterday did not seem very optimistic about the prospect of having a goalie in place before Friday. Trying, but not optimistic it will happen.
-
FWIW. Appears as of now Fleury was only willing to waive for Vegas. Could still be moved once Vegas selects him but in terms of the Flames the general consensus seems to be the Flames are likely on his No Trade list.