cross16
-
Posts
30,205 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
517
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by cross16
-
I have a hard time with arguing Rask would be available. Obviously any player is for the right price but I think that price would be very high and when you factor in acquisition cost and salary I dont' think he is a realistic option for the Flames. I dont' think you go out and Sign Backes to the deal he did if you don't plan on keeping Rask around long term but there is no one behind him. Malcolm Subban sure isn't lightning the world on fire. I'm also not keen on picking him up at 7mill per. Too much cap space tied up in someone I don't even consider elite anymore. Very good yes, but not elite.
-
It's the Iginla argument. Your team is not moving int he right direction and won't for several years so do you hang on to your aging star or do you move him for some assets that can help you be that much better in 2-3 years when maybe you can contend? Devils roster is very talent deficient so trading Schendier could get them some assets to help in their rebuild and I think its fair to question how much value there is in holding on to a 31 year goalie while going through a 2-3 year rebuild. Not to mention, does Schendier want to be part of that? They also have Scott Wedgewood and Mackenzie Blackwood in the pipeline that they could turn it over to in a couple of years and both were goalie for Team Canada at the WJ so there is some potential there. It was a more valid argument before the got the number 1 pick though and I do think its odds have gone down since they got that pick as that was a major shot in the arm but its still a roster that will take a few years. But like I said to me its as plausible an argument as there is for trading Murray/Lehner.
-
I am going to get roasted for this but IMO Steve Mason is an upgrade to Elliott as well. Keep in mind i'm not a huge Elliott fan so that's why I think Mason is an upgrade. I agree that Howard is an upgrade as well as Mike Smith. If you are going to put Murray and Lehner on your list than Cory Schneider should be on there too. Non Zero chance the Devils move him, although I think its less likely than it was before they got the number 1 pick.
-
I think there is a zero percent chance. The possibility lies in me being wrong
-
Possible, but in all of those cases the teams passed over young guys who hadn't proven anything. Bit different when you are passing over a 22 year goalie who has already won you a cup and shown to be one of the better goalies in the league. I still contend there is zero percent chance Murray is not a Penguin next year.
-
The way Treliving operates. Never heard anything about Flames - Hamilton until the trade was made. Spent over a month debating coaches before Gulutzan's name was even mentioned. Talks between Johnny/Mony were shockingly quiet. Nothing about Flames - Elliott until the trade was announced etc etc etc. Treliving is the type that goes after what he wants, even if it isn't available, and works the phones he won't just let the market come to him. MInd you, it's quiet everywhere right now and until the season ends it will likely remain that way. NHL likes the focus to be on the playoffs.
-
Agreed. My bad for taking us a little off topic but at the end of the day i'm not that beat up about losing Bishop. Good talent, but on a 6 year deal he scared me and I think that's a deal you regret in 3 season, 4 if your lucky. The goalie search is reminding me of the coaching search. Everyone will exhaust the key names and we'll debate them back and forth and then Treliving will acquire someone we didn't discuss and we will be surprised. Get the sense they are after someone we don't even know is available, that's Treliving's MO.
-
In short, the Jay Feaster Era Calgary Flames.
-
Not normally when he reports things that have already happened. He speculates alot and puts things out there for discussion, but when it comes to reporting something that went down I find almost always he's right mostly becuase he won't report something unless he gets good confirmation. Also, John Shannon and Chris Johnstone have backed up Friedman on this one. Not that I want to argue tooth and nail here, but I will point out that the Seguin trade was reportedly an agreed upon trade. The difference with Mackinnon was that was an offer made to :Colorado and the Avs said No. Boston - Flames had a deal, again according to reports. I actually the think the opposite on the bolded. I've been hearing a lot that the reason ownership is getting move invovled, and the reason they didn't want to negotiate mid season with Treliving, is that they are tired of "wasting" money. I actually can't say I blame them but you factor in that for about 3 years in a row this club was paying 2 head coaches at a time, paid Hartley apparently around 2 mill last year not to coach, buried Hagman at 3 mill, bought out Raymond etc etc etc. Some of that is going to happen in this business but some of it is avoidable as well. It's not surprising that Ownership would have to ok an extension as they were rumored to be giving Bishop, that isn't a shock and from what I understand its the norm. You are spending their money, so i see nothing wrong with giving the ownership group a heads up that you are about to guarantee a player 40 million dollars. Whether or not they should stop a deal that is open to debate but at the end of the day as the owners of the team its well within their right to do so I would just prefer that they stay out of it because why is King/Edwards more qualified to make hockey decision than Treliving/Burke? It's a discussion point so i've continued it but I will say i'm not trying to rip the Flames here or suggest they are incompetent. My dislike for King is well known on this forums so naturally anything that I hear about that he is involved in from a hockey ops perspective isn't going to make me very happy so that is certainly blurring my perspectives on this. However, I agree with what Peeps said in that usually the more people involved in a decision the high the chance some is going to go wrong. I'd prefer that King stay out of hockey ops and there are rumors out there to suggest he has to now.
-
I'd love to believe this but given King's history, my lack of trust for him, and the fact that several reputable hockey insiders have reported it I just cannot dismiss it. It be different if it was just some blogger, but I've just heard from too many sources to dismiss that it didn't happen. Sorry but I 100% believe Friedman when he said that ownership nixed it. Not saying it was the right or wrong call and I can't unless I know what the return was supposed to be in the deal. perhaps the ownership did the Flames a favor. They did nix a deal that was going to send Gaudreau and the pick used for Monahan to Boston for Segin and I'm glad they nixed that one.
-
I don't believe it either. for me, I think its much more plausible that ownership nixed the deal last summer and when Treliving called to inquire around the TDL was told no by Bishop. based on how the summer went down.
-
Pretty common that at the TDL that you won't get to talk to the agent/player.
-
Well to be fair, Bishop was moved 3 days before the TDL so it wasn't a matter of the Lightning needing an answer in a time sensitive manor or they were up against the deadline. What would be more plausible is LA and CGY had similar offers for Bishop but Flames needed approval and LA didn't. Yzerman has already been down the road of getting an agreement with the Flames only to have ownership nix it so this go around he said "thanks but not thanks" and moved Bishop to LA rather than wait and maybe have LA pull their offer and be left with no one especially when it sounds like there was very little activity on Bishop at the deadline. Also could have been a scenario where they went back to Bishop with it and he said No, not wanting to go down the whole "ownership approval" thing again. Speculation of course. I personally have a hard time seeing a deal falling apart because King wasn't available but plausible a deal fell apart because of the Flames organizational structure.
-
Yup and added to the fact that apparently they've nixed trades in the past and Feaster at one of the Season Ticket holder meetings I went to even said publicly that anytime he wants to do something he got put through his paces and had to explain and justify every move he wanted to make. Just too much smoke to not believe there is some meddling going on. I really hope the rumors of the clause that Treliving got in his new deal are true.
-
should talk all rumors with a grain of salt and i'm certainly not advocating this story is fact just passing off info. However, as much as King can say this his history conflicts with it. King has always been overly involved in Hockey ops before and after Burke despite the fact he consistently tries to tell people he doesn't "meddle" you hear way too many stories that conflict with it to completely dismiss it. At least for me.
-
Some have speculated the deal was Backs and 2 2nds and some have said it involved the 6th overall pick but nothing really concrete either way. Extension was 6 years at about a million more/season than he just signed with Dallas. Burke wouldn't have shot it down that would have been a King/Edwards call. I won't speculate on the return etc all I will say that it wouldn't shock me at all if Flames ownership did nix it. Based on things i've heard they are overly involved in hockey ops and have nixed deals in the past. Just too much smoke around their involvement in hockey ops for me not to believe there is at least some truth there. Edit: Just to make something clear though its actually pretty standard that if a team is going to make a commitment to a player, and a 6 year almost 40 million dollar commitment is a big commitment, it is common that ownership be looped into that conversation. Them saying no is not as common, but I just don't want to make it sound like the Flames are completely dysfunctional here because they are not. Perfectly reasonable that ownership be informed of the Bishop deal prior to it being made.
-
Not the first I have heard of this, nor the first it's been reported but Bishop again today confirms he thought he was going to Calgary. Friedman, and others, recently have come forward to say they believe it was Flames ownership that nixed the trade. also sounds like the Flames circled back on Bishop recently at both the trade deadline and a few weeks ago but given how things went down last summer Bishop said no and did not want to entertain offers from the Flames. https://www.fanragsports.com/news/bishop-thought-deal-done-flames-last-year/
-
Sure, to win a round, maybe 2 but that shouldn't be the end goal.I don't see the value is trying to patch work your goaltending in order to win a round in the playoffs. That's what I mean when I say you have bigger problems. It might happen for the Flames as/if options dwindle but doesn't mean you are "fixing" the issue. The goal needs to be to try and find the right guy at number 1, not pick up a better backup plan in case the number 1 falters. If your number 1 falters in the playoffs i'd say with 90% certainty you are done as a club anyway. Rare cases where someone can take the ball and run with it. Cam Ward, Matt Murray being the obvious exceptions.
-
I thought that was just Brouwer but could be wrong. If you need a fall back plan for your goalies after game 2 of the playoffs you are in bigger trouble than just having a better backup. There is a reason backups don't tend to win you cups.
-
If that is what it takes then the Flames shouldn't want Elliott back at any price. You will go nowhere as a team if your best goalie has that attitude.
-
I'm not too upset if it's not personally. Elliott is the type of goalie that can get on a hot streak and when he does you ride him because he's great but you do it knowing full well he is eventually going to implode, that's happened basically all throughout his career. While guys like Steven Mason (Free agent), Mike smith ( probably cheap in trade) and Ryan Miller (Free agent) maybe don't have the same upside as Elliott when he is on, I think over the course of a season you are getting pretty similar goaltending. There are plenty of backup options too if CJ didn't want to come back so that part i'm not concerned about at all. MIke Condon would lead my list of backup options, in terms of Free agents.
-
That is right and it wasn't the best choice of words on my part. Obviously yes he "agreed' to go to certain teams but what I meant was he lkikely has a ranking of certain teams he would prefer to go to. This comes down to "What does Fleury want" and because we can't answer that this discussion can't be solved, but alot of what i've read said that he wants to play and he wants to be the guy, not a backup or a tandem. My point was that the Penguins could move him to a less than ideal situation based on the fact they have 18 teams they could move him too without him giving the final ok. Only point being that both sides can get a bit nasty if they want and for the reason I fully expect everyone to "play nice" for lack of a better term. I'm honestly not sure that either Elliott or CJ will be or want to be back. Elliott looked really beat down after the playoffs and while he put on a brave face you could tell he was pissed at the quick hook. He came here to be a starter and I could easily see how he would feel that maybe he wasn't support in the way that he thought (I would disagree with him but I could see how he would feel that way) and he was publicly questioned multiple times this year. If they money/opportunity is the same elsewhere I could see Elliott's preference to be moving on. I think Elliott will be high on the list of teams that have some young goalies but want that veteran presence in a tandem. He'd be a great fit in Vancouver, Philly and WPG so I expect he will have suitors. I think CJ will come down to what the Flames do as their number 1. If they acquire someone like a Mrzaek or MAF I think he'd say Peace Out. I think he wants to be in a situation where he can do what he did last year and steal the net for periods of a time and the Flames may not be able to offer him that next year. he was also pretty candid that while he is interested in coming back, there are challenges that go with playing in your home town.
-
Correct. For that scenarios to take play it would have to be a station where Fleury wants to leave and start elsewhere but not play for. Vegas.
-
Correct. They don't want to lose someone else via expansion. Is gaining a first worth losing someone like Doumalin or Hornqvist? I would say no if I was the Pens but that's part of the decision they need to make. And maybe that's the way it plays out. I don't believe it will but that is another potential scenario that could play out. The counter point to that that is the Pen could then trade him to a place he doesn't not want to go to as he only has a limited no trade. They'd have to acquire an exposable goalie but that likely isn't tough. So I think it's the best interest if all parties to just work together but maybe I'm misguided on that being possible. But again lots of scenarios. Will be interesting.
-
there would be no trade in place for Vegas to trade for Fleury outside the expansion draft. Any deal involved with Fleury would be a deal for his selection in the expansion draft. even if Fleury doesn't want to play for Vegas here is another scenario. Pittsburgh sends Vegas a 3rd rounder to ensure they select Fleury. Vegas selects Fleury and then turns around and trades him to the Flames for a first rounder. Everyone gets what they want and vegas gets 2 assets plus can still claim various other goalies some that would fit better long term. Values could be off but this is for scenario purposes only. There are so many different ways that things can go down and multiple scenarios in play.