cross16

Tend to be but not required to be by rule. Player becomes an undrafted free agent when he is no longer eligible for the draft, which happens once he is over the age of 20 by the end of the calendar year the draft is held. At that point he can sign, but issue is he has to go pro. If a team doesn't think he is worth drafted then he likely isn't ready for pro hockey. Teams want college to handle the development and use a contract when they feel he is more pro ready. Also lots of kids become undrsdted free agents after their their year of college but turn down offers to turn pro to finish their degree, play another year or maybe up their stock. So not required that they be in their final year, but your right tends to happen that way. Correct on all counts here. Outside of the "Justin Schultz" loophole a drafted player needs to play all 4 years and then wait till August.

What is more likely, Elliot get it together and plays well down the stretch of Neuvirth does? I would bet on Elliott over most of the "reclamation" options that are out there. Elliott has played at a higher level than almost all the available goalies.

Technically you are right, he could have signed with anyone. He did get a few camp invites, but the tricky thing with signing is as soon as he does he loses his NCAA eligibility. So from the NHL perspective they need to be comfortable with him in the AHL and from the player perspective he has to be comfortable giving up his education and some of them don't want to. I may be wrong on this but I thought I remember reading that Dan Dekeyser had offers to go pro earlier than he did but he wanted to get his education so he stayed. Lots of valid reasons why players in College became UDFA. That being said, I do agree with the theme that the process is overrated. The VAST majority of College Free agents flop and just are not NHL caliber prospects. Obviously you have to scout it and take a shot when you believe in a guy, but it's not a good source to gain prospects.

I'm not the biggest Elliot fan and really don't like how he has played but i'm not so sure I would be dealing him at this point. I'd consider it if it brought back a better goalie, but not a chance of scenery option like Neuvirth. Last year, Elliott was pretty sup par the first half of the year and then caught fire in the 2nd half. I think the best value he can give the Flames is hold on to him and hope he can do the same thing.

Just take a look at the trend we are seeing with scoring and I think you'll see why the NHL was so desperate to get this done.

As hard as i've been on the goalies, you can't blame one person or the other during this slump. Everyone is playing poorly right now so everyone needs to be better. That's what I took from Johnson's scrum, let's ALL be better and let's not point fingers one way or the other.

His save % is exactly .900 outside of St Louis. I"m not sure if you've watched St Louis much this year but ehy are a mess. That isn't the same team they've been the last few years. Something telling for me too is if you look over Elliott's tenure with the Blues, they used alot of goalies, not just Elliott. Every year the goalie next to Elliot performed at basicaly the same level and the Blues also went out and paid a bunch for Ryan Miller even though Elliott was an All star that year (IIRC) to me, Elliott looks like he is playing with no confidence. When I see a goalie letting in soft goals, missing things with his blocker, that is a guy who is just not as mentally sharp as they need to be. Something Elliott Friedman said stuck with me. He said he had heard that Elliott is at his best when he is being challenged and isn't THEE guy. What got him going in St Louis was he had to prove himself and fight for the net year after year. Johnson was here to be the backup, but sounds to me like Elliott may not have the mental makeup to be the number one, which is fine lots of goalies don't. And.. Johnson isn't a number one. I would start Elliott more for sure, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why Johnson is in the net. That was also before Elliott got the Toronto game where I thought he was terrible, so makes me understand why he isn't getting more opportunities. That being said, coming out of the break I wouldn't mind seeing Elliott get 3-4 games in a row no questions asked. Tough thing to do.

For sure, but then Elliott was equally as bad in Toronto. My point is that neither guy is really earning the job at this point. So If i'm a coach i'm going to go with who i feel is safer. I don't think there is any debating that Johnson has been the safer bet all year so I'm not going to criticize a coaching or a coaching staff (whose jobs depends on the decision) with going who they feel is the safer option.

Sure but once again consider the choices. Elliott was not very good to start the season and Johnson was much better. Elliot has only been slightly better as of late but really both haven't been very good. Your are trying to pick the lesser of two evils right now. That isn't easy. I would have played Elliott more but i understand what they are doing. Easier for us to say, but when your job is on the line you are going to go with the safer bet and that's been Johnson, no question.

Yes. I'm not going to defend Sigalet but yes its very possible, and IMO its exactly what has happended, is that this has far more to do with the goalies he's working with and not anything Sigalet is doing. I think the onus is more on management because for the most part they really are not bringing in very good goalies and certainly not proven goalies. Even Elliott was not proven, he was looking like a career backup until he played behind a stellar defensive unit and only then did he look good. Pretty sure outside of St Louis, Elliott's save percentage is below 90%. I'm not sure what we really expect when twice the Flames opted for the "best goalie not in the NHL" and then have been signing and trading for backups. I actually don't mind Johnson's season he's been solid but he shouldn't be playing the games he is.

JTech is right. They signed Tom McColum and he fits the expansion draft requirements so they are good.

It is just pants. They are holding off on everything else.

Brouwer was a bad signing. Said it right when they did it and continue to believe it. I thought he was the wrong direction for where this team should be going. It's probably Treliving's biggest mistake imo. Having said that, if that is your biggest mistake you are still doing ok. I'm not quite to your level JTech because I think this team is faster than you think and certainly wouldn't put them in the bottom of the NHL. They need to be faster I don't disagree but I also think we need to remember Treliving hasn't completed his 3rd year as a GM and he really wasn't handed a very good team at all. I don't think it's reasonable that after 3 years we can expect a GM would have his stamp on his team yet, especially when contracts like Smid, Stajan and Wideman really weight down his cap situation.

I don't agree with that. Brodie and Hamilton IMO are both well above average in their own zone. I know you won't agree but Brodie has been great the last 2 months and once he settled in with Gio, Hamilton has been great too. I don't disagree with the need for a more shutdown d type but I don't think that is the critical problem with the flames d. The Problem the Flames have is a lack of depth. They have 3 very good NHL dmean, 1 decent but not great bottom pairing dman (Engelland), and then 3 other guys that really shouldn't be playing full time in the NHL (Wideman, Jokipakka and whoever). Nowadays when pretty much ever team has 3 good lines you'll get exposed that way so quick, and the Flames have. that's why I think is so critical about what Edmonton did last year. Sure you can argue they are more "defensive" guys, but last year over half their D was not NHL calibre and now they can roll 3 NHL calibre pairings which is huge. Flames can't say they can do that.

there are also rumors floating that Burke may be a candidate to run USA Hockey as they are looking for a new leader. Not sure if that is credible but that is being floated out there. Perhaps could be related. I'll say this, if the Flames don't bring back Treliving i think we are in for a very, very dark period for the Calgary Flames. Not that Treliving is special, but if you can't give a GM more than 3 years to do a job and fire him because you want to be in the playoffs that will tell me 2 things. 1 (as has been feared for a while) Flames ownership is too involved and 2- they will never be committed to winning a cup because they lack the patience it takes to get one. to even consider having 3 GMs in the span of less than 8 years should be completely unacceptable for a franchise. You will never win doing that.

I was a little surprised too although personally I think the media overrates the whole "lame duck" think. I really don't think it matters to the degree they make you seem like it does. I don't think Treliving would do more or less knowing he wasn't under contract the following season. I think he's done a very good job,. Not great sure but definetly good enough that It would make me very fearful of firing him to try and get someone else. The only negative I have on Treliving is his July 1 signings. I never understood the Raymond or Brouwer deals and iMO both were poor deals that are going to impact (and already are) his cap management. That being said I think he did well on Engelland and Chad Johnson is proving to be a steal so far (rare for July 1 deals), so at worst he is still batting around .500. Problem though is batting .500 on July 1 can compound really quick if you get into cap problems. i'd like to see him less active on July 1 but part of that is a depth issue of the club he inherited. I also have a hard time completely blaming Raymond on him. He had been the Gm for what 2 months when that deal was signed? Raymond was very likely already on their radar at that point. I can't see Burke firing him at this point there is just too many things he's done well and he operates like I think Burke envisioned he would so it would be a huge surprise to me to see him let go. I don't see Burke being the type of guy who would only give a GM 3 years and then tie his job security to the playoffs in year 3. Yes I know he isn't "patient" but he also isn't irrational and generally if he has guys he likes, he is very loyal to them. Wouldn't surprise me if there already is a deal done and the Flames just havn't announced it. They will keep their business on that side quiet if they can.

And what if you don't get Nolan Patrick? Statistically speaking you are more likely to not get him then you will so what's the plan B? continue to suck until the next big center prospect comes along? Center is never a short term need it is always a long term need because you always need good centers and you need to keep a pipeline of good centers around because the cap will prevent you from hoarding center talent. They just simply are starting to get paid way too much. The Flames drafting centers was never about a short term need it was a long term need.

I could respond but we are never going to agree on this issue so i'm not sure I see the value in going back and forth and I don't see things near as negatively as you do. Not sure why you continue to see so much negativity in a team you are supposed to be a "fan" of. I would find that exhausting but to each his own. I'll say this. If you look at the last 35 games (reasonable when you consider they have a new coach), the Flames are tied for the 9th most wins in the league. And just in case people think its all due to goaltender, their save % over that time is actually 20th in the league. Not sure why anyone would want to focus on so much negatives when a young core like this has been executing at a top 15 NHL level for most of this season. to each his own i guess. And if Johnson keeps playing like this, yes the Flames will have cup level goaltending. What do the Oilers have, Cam Talbot?

So you guys would prefer to build a team based on hopes, dreams, wishes and lottery odds? Sound about right? Edmonton did that and is anyone actually going to suggest that Edmonton chances at winning a cup in the next 5-7 years are really better than Calgarys? Makes zero sense to me to me why we are complaining about a team that could make the playoffs twice in 4 years during a rebuild and only be in year 4 of that rebuild. Why is it we assuming the Flames aren't going to continue to get better or have maxed out with this current version? I think this team is only going to get better. Also makes no sense why we are writing off Jon Gilles, Mason McDonald and assuming they have nothing in David rittich. Seems to me a lot of people would prefer to make bold predictions and have a team built their own way instead of how teams are realistically built.

Not true anymore. Every member of council, and even the mayor, that I have heard interviewed on it has said since they got the report back that they need to clean that up irregardless of CalgaryNext. In fact, i think the main reason why council is asking the Flames to go to Plan B is becuase they don't want to take prime land like the West Village, pay over 100mill to clean it up and then spend a boat load of money to build a big arena complex and they will net very little money off of. I think they want to remeidate the land and sell it to developers becuase then the city stands to make alot more money in that scenario. The cost savings of 300M is reported by CalgaryNext and Includes "incidentals" related to the construciton of seperate buildings including transit. Plan B does not require any incidentals such as transit as the infastructure is already there so I would suggest they overshot with that number. The 100million, it may have been 150mill, was the number King said they were saving by all 3 buildings being built on the same foundation.

Well to be fair the fieldhouse is a city project that has been planned for years so its not like Flames created that one. also in defence of the city, the West Village is a really bad location for the fieldhouse, needs to be closer to the U of C. It won't be "cheaper" necessairly but King said that building all 3 together saved about 100. Sounds like a lot but in the grand scheme of things it really isn't. That only 10% of the entire project and I would argue the city gives up far more than that in revenue by losing the West Village to the arena rather than cleaning up it and selling it off to developers. From an economic standpoint, Plan B is a substantially better option for the City, but a big downgrade for the Flames.

I get what you are saying JTech and i agree that Brazal and Jost are 2 solid players. Barzal did make the Hamilton trade sting a bit for me too. I had Barzal in my top 5 that year and was a huge fan and thougth the injury should not not have dropped him like he did and was quite shocked it did. I take Hamilton everyday of the week but missing on Barzal is something that may sting, but again using hindsight isn't fair. Treliving made the rigtht call. Hey at least we didn't trade the chance to draft Barzal for Griffen Reinhart

I too and skpetical MLS soccer would succeed here. I will grant that that I think the indoor stadium would have given it a better shot than any other previous attempt at Calgary soccer so I think it was a realistic possiblity but one that I dont' think I would base a project around, if that makes sense. That being said, CalgaryNext seemed to be at least 4-5 years away from actually being completed so i'm not sure if that would have jived with MLS plans for expansion. However, where I will agree is that the real unfortuante part about Plan B is that it makes a replacment for McMahon much more difficult and unlikely. I've said before that IMO McMahon is in far worse shape than the Dome and ignorging the fact that Hockey>football/other sports in this town, it technically should be repalced first. Plan B is a serious blow to the Stampeder side of CSEC.

Bump. I'm sure this article is not a surprise to anyone but its the first "official" update in a while. CalgaryNext on hold and plan B (a new area on the stampede grounds) being fully investigated. http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgarynext-project-on-pause-says-ken-king

Sorry, meant to say Kevin Shattenkirk.