cross16

You can still build an arena/stadium without the fieldhouse so I don't see the need to have the field house in west village. It was only a ploy by King and Co to put it in there so it looks like the project isn't taking as much tax payer dollars as it is. Continuing talking about the west Village is fine by me but just take the fieldhouse out and put it where it should go.

Great except Sait and MRU don't have the facilities nor the athletes that U of C does. Servicing them is irrelevant.

Are you thinking of Sait? Because the west village is much more than "across the river" from the U of all C. The point of a field house is the development of amateur sport, track and field etc. The vast majroty of those athletes are housed at the u of c and have support facilities at the u of c. So it doesn't make sense to me that you are going to build something that far away from the group you are trying to support.

Why is it in poor taste? The province did not fund Rogers Arena, Edmonton City Council foot the bill on that one. Negotiations were between Katz and the City of Edmonton, province as not involved. The wait is more likely because they bought the Stamps and went back to the drawing board, but again Edm had a concept for a new area I think within a year of Katz buying the Oilers. Should not have taken King and co over 3/4 years to introduce a concept, and what was happening in Edm should have had no baring on what they were doing. YOu can't predict the highs and the lows but you can predict that Alberta is a boom bust economy and that commodities run in cycles. There was no way OIl was staying at over $100/barrell. I talked to multiple people in o/G that new eventually the price would correct, that's just the nature of a commodity. when you are asking for public funds its much better to build when they actually have them. Governements get the most stressed in a downturn so while yes you can save some, but not alot, of money building in a downturn, the likelihood you will get public funds decreases. That was key to this project, not saving money on the construction of it. It is prime land once the contaminated land is cleaned up, which the Flames are not paying for by the way and yes Council has said they will be cleaning the land up irregardless of Calgary Next. 200million is less than 20% of the cost of this project so sorry i'm not giving the Flames credit for offering $200 million and it would not go very far at all in cleaning up the land. The purpose of a field house is the further training and developing of amateur athletes. That training is currently done at the U of C and the support facilities for that are at the U of C so a proper field house needs to be at U of C as well. A downtown location makes very little sense for a fieldhouse Sure and it is fine that they only went public with their preferred proposal but to have no ideas or plan B is a pretty big fail in my books when it comes to planning. And properly executed business plan should have a backup.

Took King over 5 years, since he first started discussing an arena project, to come up with something he could take to public. Was "really close" 3 years ago and then waits another 3 and sees Alberta dip into recession and then decides to unvail the proposal. (Don't try and argue with me that no one could predict the recession. It's Alberta it was going to happen). Why does it take over 5 years? picks the contamantied land and didn't not even know how much it would cost to clean it up. Asked for what is looking to be over 800 million of public funds and asking the city to give up prime real estate thst they would make significantly more on if they just sold it on their own and it wouldn't cost them 800 million either. Then proposes to build a field house in a horrible location and ignored the previous recommendations by the city and othere who were consulted on the building of a field house in Calgary in an effort to gain more public funds. Not to mention they still don't even have the proposal of what the arena would look like, they only have the concept and they had no plan b. After 5 years all you can put forward is a concept that is asking for over 800 million in public funds, didn't know all the details when you announce it AND you had no plan B I consider thst pretty poor. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of how Nenshi is handling this, but I'm much more upset with King.

I'm not voting for him again, but I think its as much time for a new President as it is a new Mayor. Disappointing there wasn't more discussion about the West village, but it was a pretty poor proposal put forward anyway, and with no plan B not sure how you can't categorize this as anything but an epic fail on the part of King.

I think Bartowski is fine as a bottom pairing dman, especially at the price tag they are paying him. He is an upgrade to Jokipakka who I don't think has good enough hockey sense to be an NHL dman. Jokipakka just doesn't not read the play well enough to play in the NHL for any length of time imo.

I'm happy he is coming here too and hopefully this is a precursor to him signing. Big, physical stay at home dman but with a decent first pass as well and someone who I think could transition quickly to the NA game. Mobility needs some work but it looked to be improving over the years. He adds a element the flames need in Stockton.

Ken king said the renderings they put out there were very rough and the end product was to be different so I wouldn't read into they much. I didn't love the translucent roof no, but they were designing A multi use facility not just an arena so I'm not sure what the benefits would have been.

I think he gets he fair share of blame for the players who don't work out. He gets his fair share of the blame in general imo but no GM is perfect. I think overall the body of work is more positive than negative and he has the club going in the right direction.

Calgary Next is dead yes, the flames have been told to look at plan B and they currently are drawing up plans and talking to the city about what that would look like. Plan B is building on the grounds where the saddle dome currently is but that's about the only option the flames have unless they wanted to build it well outside the downtown core, which is a horrible idea. And Calgary next was a good 2-3 years away from being shovel ready so it wasn't going to boost the economy anytime soon. Calgary Next is dead because ken king completely mismanaged the project. If you want to blame anyone, blame him. Edit: it's also been suggested that the reason it's moved behind closed doors is the Olympic bid. A successful Olympic bid may allow for the money from various levels of government to build it so they want to hold off on that process until they know the outcome of that. A bit far fetched imo but I have heard that

Mike Vernon. 11 games in a row.

Don't think they will wait that long. The West Village proposal is dead but they are actively working on Plan B and the city is engaged in that process.

Well they have 1 layer of luxury boxers and a 2nd row of boxes with 4 stuck in the corners. They can only charge luxury prices for the lower boxes and they don't even fully wrap around the whole arena. They are short a good 4-5 boxes they could add in a new arena, which is a lot of revenue as those boxes are pricey. either way its not my reasoning its the Flames. Whenever they speak of a new arena they always mention that they are behind the newer arenas in their ability to charge more premium prices because of the smaller lower bowl and being short on luxury boxes. They made it better than they use to be, but they are still behind what new arenas are building.

In comparison to new arenas and from a revenue perspective, the Saddledome lags behind in their premium seats, luxury boxes and the amenities. Dome has a smaller lower bowl than most and fewer luxury boxes which obviously come at a more premium price. That and newer="better" and therefore they can charge more. Not to mention it also would likely increase the franchise value which is very important to the NHL. that also ignoring the revenue aspect of concerts etc that are currently being missed but i'm not so sure how much of that the Flames would actually see because it would be a City owned building.

Bettman's job is to maximize revenues for the NHL. A new building in Calgary, which is definitely needed IMO and does not meet standards, means move money for the NHL. Bettman is doing his job.

Nit picking, but to clarify he actually signed an ATO with Adirondack. He'll play at the ECHL level not the AHL right now which makes sense to me. he may not be worth an AHL deal at this point. Some good attributes but he really hasn't taken steps forward offensively you would want to see. Give him a chance to maybe earn an AHL deal next year

Irregardless of my views of the talent level of RW, I think the cap prevents them from doing anything unless something falls in their lap. Need to address G and D first and once you do there will be limited resources available to bring in a "first line" RW. A foundational player likely isn't coming unless the steal one in the draft so for now I think you are best to save the money and try and match skill sets. Ferland doesn't have to be a true top like forward but if he helps that line maximize their potential, he fits just fine.

Nice to see a bounce back after a horrific stretch. 5-2 in their last 7 and all of their wins have been by 2 goals or more.

When it's comes to drafting there seems to be a lot of criticism around the 2014 draft for the Flames and specifically the 2nd round. While it is warranted I wonder how much of that you want to put in Treliving. He had been the GM for about 2 months before that draft so outside of Sam Bennett I question how much influence he really could have had. I also think you've seen a substantial change from thst 2014 draft to the next two in 15/16 drafts in terms of who they target and what type of players they are looking for which furthers my question of how much Treliving had to do with the 14 draft. For me when hen it comes to his drafting I like where it is going and focus less on the 14 draft. I think he has made the proper changes.

Not unless he wants to take a below market deal or didn't want to play as much. His options are limited, especially if he wants another shot at starting or being the guy. Only so many of those jobs.

I woudln't agree there. The goalie market is flooded this offesason and with Elliott basically confirming this season he isn't a number 1 I can't see a team opening up the wallet for him. Here is a list of available or potentially available goalies this offseason: Ryan Miller Ben Bishop Steve Mason MAF Saros Korpisollo Phillip Grubauer Howard/Mzarek/Coreau - one of them likely to get moved Varlamov/PIckard Halak Scott Darling MIke Condon (althought apparantly Sens want to extend) that's a long list. Teams that would be looking for a number 1: Dallas ( would need to clear one of their goalies out which is tough) Flames Jets Vegas Teams that would look for a number 2 or a B type goalie situation: Hurricanes (but they are already paying 6 million for 2 guys that likely arn't moveable) Philly would want a backup/B type Canucks -more of a B type as Markstrom still under contract Lightning - I could see them wanting Johnson/Elliot as a backup but can they afford to pay him? Vasilevsky makes 3.5 and they have cap issues I think the Flames are in the driver seat when it comes to Elliott.

Also worth pointing out, that under Treliving the Flames were a runner up for Panarin's services. He passed and picked Chicago but they were very close. Hard to compete when you can offer a spot in the lineup with the likes of Toews, Kane, Hossa etc.

Actually they won the cup 2 years into the deal. Bickell's contract was signed in 2013, Hawks won 2015 cup. Leddy was a solid top 4 dman, borderline top 3, that got dealt for picks/prospects. He got cap space back, which is what he really needed, so it's not like an colossal error but it wasn't a great trade either. Also you criticzie Treliving's draft record but have you looked at Bowman's? Lots of misses. I also don't understand the logic of taking a GM's best period of time and then saying this is the benchmark that Treliving needs to be held too. Rutherford almost ran the Penguins into the ground and if it weren't for Mike Sullivan he likely is already out the door. I don't understand how you ignore a a terrible record 1 year but a great the next and only use that as the benchmark. I think you are also conveniently leaving out Rutherford's record for the last several years he spent running the Hurricanes. I get its a different team but that is part of my point. You have talent the likes of what Rutherford/Bowman have its MUCH easier to GM and much easier to avoid mistakes. My point is that even the best GMs in the league lose trades and make errors. To be the best GM IMO you 1- don't repeat errors and 2- win more than you lose consistently. Treliving is well on his way. If you expect more I would argue your standards are unrealistic.

What GM has the perfect record you speak of? Remember Rutherford hiring a coach out of Junior and have to fire him less than 2 year later? Remember him giving up a 1st round pick for David Perron only to have to move him less than a full season in? Remember him letting 2 of his top 4 d go with no replacements and almost causing his team to miss the playoffs the following season? Stan Bowman signed Bryan Bickell to a contract. Traded NIck leddy for what turned out to be very poor return. When you are a GM and you have the likes of Crosby, Toews, Kane, Malkin, Keith, Letang etc you can get away with alot of mistakes and still look like a genius (and key point is that neither GM drafted any of those players). A mistake for Treliving right now gets magnified because the talent is quite there to mask it so I think you are holding him to an unrealistic standard.