cross16

Good luck to Stockton. By all reports they've played some solid hockey lately so hopefully they can get hot again and get on a little run.

Very possible. I just feel Hawks are really high on Crawford and for all he has done there I think they would be hard pressed to let him go. Could always change though but I get where you are coming from. Not sure if you are suggesting this or not but I wouldn't aggressively pursue Crawford if i'm Calgary. I'm most definitely not advocating that Darling should get 4-5 million, but if there is a team out there that sees him as a starter and gets desperate that is where it could get to. There are teams out there desperate enough for goaltending, see Dallas, Calgary, WPG, probably Philly.

I like Darling as well. The common criticism on him will be that he plays behind the Hawks, but I don't think people realize that the Hawks are not one of the better defensive teams in the league and are only about middle of the pack. Flames were actually a better defensive unit than the Hawks in almost all measures. They really rely on good goaltending and Darling doesn't drop off from Crawford at all. I was really impressed with him in the playoff a few years ago when he came in and really saved the series for the Hawks. Only downside to him is that being a UFA and so many Talbot comparison does the bidding get out of control? He could easily wind up as the best goalie out of this UFA crop but are we willing to throw 5 million or more at him? If you can get a 3 year deal around 4 million or less I would bring him in over Elliott personally.

On paper. But I don't trust he would make it without KK and owners input. If they want him gone he would be gone. Its not burkes call that he isnt signed yet.

It has less to do with how I feel about BT and more how I would feel about ownership/Ken King. Not extending Trelivings contract to me would signal that his ownership group is either not committed to winning or just has no idea how to win

I really think he'll be back, but boy oh boy am I going to lose it if they don't bring him back.....

I'm not happy with Elliott either but at this point I think there is zero doubt who gives you the best chance to come back in this series and that is Elliott, no question. The only reason you start Johnson is to hope he catches what he did in November. I like the odds of Elliott having a bounce back game more than I like the odds of Johnson going on a tear.

It wouldn't change the fact that Elliot was not very good in Games 2 and 3. He was good in Game 1 but I thought the first 2 in Game 2 were soft/weak and the first two last night were as well. You can give him the benefit of the doubt in certain cases but I think at a minimum he's let in 3 weak goals in the last 2 games. You are not going to win many playoff series with your goalie doing that. Lots has gone wrong for the Flames in this series no question, but unfortunately Elliott is on that list too. Not giving you the goaltending you want. Flames are 2nd last in 5 on 5 Save %, but yet are bottom 5 in shots against, scoring chances against and high danger scoring chances against. They are dead last in Save % in the playoffs. Going to be very difficult to argue that Elliott has given the Flames good enough goal tending in this series.

True, although he even admitted he thought he was going to be a Flame last summer. So even if they were on there it sounds like he was ready to come here and wasn't going to block it.

I would add Winnipeg to that list too. Sounds like people are getting antsy/frustrated with constantly being held back by goaltending. Depends on how the trade markets shakes out I guess but with at least 4 obvious suitors (Calgary, Dallas, Philly, WPG) plus maybe more I think it will be tough to get him for less than 4 and I really don't want to sign any goalie for 4 years.

Pending cost and term I have to agree that Bishop would be the preferred option. However, cost and term will be important. Like to see someone for 3 years or less to give young guys a realistic time frame. Think Bishop winds up getting more term than that.

I have to agree on Elliott. Sure he can be great when he is on but he is off too much for a guy you want to be your number 1. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he was starting to play well in big games but I didn't love his play down the stretch and i really have not liked him in the playoffs, outside Game 1. Not the worst option a 1 or 2 year deal under 4 million but not the best either. Flames will need to work their options I think.

Was probably 50/50 at best at the end of the year that Elliott would be back. Now I don't think it's very likely he will be back.

Ok, but they didn't cost that so again your are ignoring the facts. You keep quoting the total costs of the entire project and assuming Calgary would face the same costs. both of the actual areas are costing around 500 million. The extra 100-200 million are in additional costs. Rogers Arena, including parking, cost just under 500 million as did the new Detroit. In Detroit 200 mill of the 733milion is included in retail and office space. Why is that guaranteed to be part of a new arena that isn't part of Calgary Next? There is 1 indoor stadium now in the CFL that is it, 2 if you include that when Montreal hosts the Grey Cup they move inside to Olympic Stadium (for now). so 7 or the 9 teams in the CFL are outdoor stadiums. Having an indoor Football stadium is not going to impact their abilty to host Grey Cups. Not to mention there is no evidence that would suggest more people would go to Stamps game in an indoor stadium. If that were true then why isn't the Stamps attendance significantly higher in the summer than the fall? I don't have an agenda at all, other than what is best for Calgary. I think the difference here is you are thinking short term and i'm thinking long term. I agree, and have said elsewhere, that I understand it may be somewhat "cheaper" in the short term to build CalgaryNext, probably to the tune of around 150Million. King said by putting all the structures in 1 footing that is what they would save and I don't buy the CalgaryNext estimate of 300 million in savings. Even if you did. I think the City of Calgary would make more than 300 million in revenue if the develop WV on their own and still put money for the separate projects, plus I think the locations make sense separately versus CalgaryNext. So no agenda at all. I just thing long term an arena in Victoria Park, a renovated McMahon, a field house at the U of C, and the City developing WV on their own is a much better plan for Calgary. If it "costs" the city an extra 200 mill or so in the short term that's fine by me for the increased benefits in the long term. They'll make it back, I don't think they will with CalgaryNext.

I don't see how you think it will take 700-800 million to build a new arena. Edmonton was 600 million and that included land cost, LRT extension, development around it and an additional area. The actual arena cost was under 500 million (including parking). Why is it going to be 200-300 mill to build one here? A new Stadium in Regina did cost that much. however, there was a report also done that said McMahon can be renovated for around 200 Million. Not sure to what degree however and I'd want to see it for sure as McMahon is in bad shape. That being Its not for sure that a new stadium is needed. Not to mention Hamilton built theirs for under $200 million and Winnipeg was estimated at under $250 million. Few years apart, so not automatic that a new stadium costs the same as it did in Regina. A roof is not necessary for McMahon either so i'm not sure why we need to factor that into the cost. The City of Calgary has plans for a fieldhouse that would have a roof http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Pages/Research-and-development/Redevelopment-of-Foothills-Athletic-Park.aspx. This is included in the 200 million they've allocated. A report pegged the contamination cleanup of West Village between 85-140 million, so not sure where 200 Million comes from. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgarynext-city-report-torpedoes-project-1.3545509 I also don't see how you figure it's going to take another 10,20, or 30 years more to do it separately. i would actually argue the opposite consider the estimates on the land cleanup in West village will be a MINIMUM of 6 years before land is ready. Rogers Arena was up faster than that and because the City already owns the land in Victoria Park you could literally have a new building for the Flames before the West Village is even ready to be developed. I also don't agree with the logic of "saving" tax payers 300 million with a combine project. You ignore that the fact that if Plan B goes ahead the City can then develop West Village on their own and make more revenue off of the land than building CalgaryNext on it. So I don't agree that the costs are going to be higher with separate projects and in fact I think the net benefit to Calgary is great with building an Arena in Victoria Park, Renovations to McMahon, their own fieldhouse at the U of C and then developing the WV on their own.

I'm going to assume you work for CalgaryNext? Considering most of what you are saying is not accurate or grossly inflates the project estimates and cost But to each his own. Think we can agree for sure that Calgary needs new facilities. Hopefully soon the debate can open up and we can see all the options we have.

Maybe, but key word though is "in their mind". I already don't think CalgaryNext is a viable project and it sure sounds like council is leaning that way too. Just to much debate in the last few weeks that they may have to put the Green LIne on holding due to cost and the Green LIne is one that almost all of council thinks is a huge priority for Calgary. Just not a good sign if they don't have the money for that they will be willing to shell out hundreds of millions for CalgaryNext. also would be equally as presumptuous to learn the "facts" based on CalgaryNext's website. Some are fine, but its obviously very slanted to what CalgaryNext wants you to know and is not a very objective view of the debate. Think people should read all evidence before deciding whether or not they want to support a project. Also just because I, or anyone else, doesn't support CalgaryNext doesn't mean you don't support a new arena for the Flames. Hopefully when we start debating this again, City and Flames I mean, the debate can just be around an arena for the Flames and what is best and not just CalgaryNext or no CalgaryNext. Debate seems to have moved that direction, mostly Nenshi's fault IMO, and that's too bad.

All badly needed but IMO a major blow to CalgaryNext. Cit of Calgary right now just has too many ambitious plans they aren't sure how they will pay for but will value over CalgaryNext. Between things like this expansion, SW Ring Road, Green Line, Airport LRT etc etc I don't think CalgaryNext is ever going to be a viable option in their mind. Sounds like King is already here anyway, but sounds like Plan B will become Plan A pretty soon and CalgaryNext will die.

They are officially in. Stockton clinched a playoff spot last night.

Stockton needs 1 point in its last 2 games to clinch a playoff spot. Havn't lost in regulation in 9 straight and 6 wins in their last 9 games.

There is for sure talent there (also why I advocate keeping the pick) its' just not as good as previous years that's all. I think there are probably around 20 players or maybe less than I've seen so far that I would give a first round grade to. so in the back half of the first round I think you'll be picking players that would normally go in the 2nd round in a typical draft. I think its going to resemble 1999. Few good players at the top, some steals later that you didn't see coming, surprises all over the place, but a good chance a good chunk of the first round never sees the NHL.

I think they will keep the pick. I dont' think the value of what you are going to get in trade for your first rounder is going to be very good because this is such a softer draft. Plus I also don't see Treliving wanting to be without any picks in the first 3 rounds. cliche, but they'll target the best player on their board. With how wide open the draft is looking like that could be anyone. It's really hard to pinpoint becuaes I think the first round is going to be all over the place. I think there are going to be many surprises both in terms of players who "slip" and who go much higher because teams are going to be so over the map with how they rate prospects this year. Huge lack of consensus.

Sorry conundrumed i'm not following what you are saying. What would the area, once cleaned up, not generate attractive from developers? I am not suggesting that the land be sold off to the developers as is, the City would still have to re mediate and clean it up. I'm suggesting do that and then sell. I think if that land was fit for use it would be very popular with developers because it's a fantastic location in terms of proximity to downtown, right by the water, not in a flood plain, close to transit etc etc. So yes I do think it would be better use of the land, in terms of revenue for the City, to pay to fix the land and then develop it their own way then by building an arena/stadium complex.

The public stance the Flames are putting out there is that it's now their policy to not extend management contracts until they expire. Burke made it pretty clear however that they are very happy with Treliving and don't expect him to go anywhere.

Bingo. This is what ive have been trying to say for a while now. To me the key debate is not whether or not calgarynext is a good or bad idea. The key debate is the city better off with calgarynext or better off cleaning up the land and then selling it for developlement with future property taxes? I vote the latter and I honestly don't think it would be close.