cross16

This is dumb IMO. Wolf should be starting tomorrow and then adjust for the back to back next week.

Not this season. Has 76 more games to go on his exemption.

I fully agree with this. I was happy to see him start last night. Couldn't stand the media who was suggesting they should go back to Vladar because he has a good first period and deserved a bounce back. No offence to him but as you say we know what Vladar is and we know it's not good enough to be a starter. Why not roll with a guy you think might be able to start. Perfectly logically to me and it's why I'm not worried about Markstrom's injury. It's a great chance to see what Wolf can do.

Huska doesn't sound as concerned as the report

Injuries are a common way to find out what you have. I personally would be fine if this leads to Wolf getting a run of games. Markstrom has been good, but not that good this season.

Backs is a notorious slow starter. Every year we have the same conversations in November and then we get to Dec/January and everyone is thankful we have him. Looking for "proof" outside of that is silly. I personally think he's done an excellent job as captain. Team looks like it's having fun this year and that's not easy given what happened last year and what happened to start the year. I agree the Backlund extension was a big win for Conroy because he avoided a long term deal but still landed himself a good player and a good captain.

Be curious to see if anyone else feels this way but I feel like screening the goalie is overrated in today's game. Or at the very least I don't like the idea of someone just standing there as their sole job. I think modern PPs need to rest on puck movement due to the increased size of the O zone. Stick a guy in 1 spot would seem to limit my options as a PP. Same rationale of why I don't love the 1-3-1 unless you are going to let that bumper move around (or have someone who can do it)

It hasn't worked yet but I do like Savard willing to go to the 3-2 PP with 2 dmen at times. I'm not sure i'd advocate for 3 dman, but I do like the idea of them adopting a more 3-2 umbrella set up, as opposed to the 1-3-1 that's been a staple here the last few years. Flames just don't seem to have an effective bumper player that can make the 1-3-1 run consistently.

I have my qualms with Edwards and the owners but I think this is categorically false. I think the Flames owners are very committed to winning here and do value winning more than money. They just have a different opinion on how to build a win than you, and others, but that doesn't' mean they are all about the money. They could play things very differently if they were (like not having a 4 mill coach sit at home)

This is a very important piece to this to and I share much of what you said here. Another key variable is I'm not sure Lindholm/Hanifin want to be here. Combine that with the recency bias of Gaudreau, I think you have an organization that for sure wants to make the playoffs but isn't willing to do so at the cost of watching those guys leave for nothing. Bigger things at play here.

Agreed, don't see the need to rush to speculation. As I said I had heard Kylington stayed in Calgary this time so this move isn't completely unexpected and I agree Conroy would have known this was coming. I think this is just merely a coincidence personally as I think even if, and we should stress that word, Kylington plays it likely wont' be for a while. Confirms what was already known thought, the Flames were smart not to retain salary in the Z trade.

This isn't based on insider knowledge, but all the buzz is that he will. While I do think the playoff mandate is still in place the team also understands that this year is different. They have assets that can generate a return and are not in a position to hand out so many retirement style contracts. This is a different season and TDL that the Flames have not been through really in the more modern NHL era. Much different variable in play.

This was absolutely an issue under Sutter but IMO it left when he did. Starting with Feaster I think the Flames have been very good at giving young players a shot. Hasn't always been perfect. Feaster was probably too quick to give chances (see Baertschi) and sure there was some PTOs that the Flames would probably want back (see Grossman) but I do think the Flames have done a good job for a while of dangling the carrot and specifically they've shown they'll clear space for kids that earn it. This is iMO the piece that many miss when Sutter comes up. I believe the primary driver behind his firing was not the results or play on the ice, it was the organization saw the potential damage his philosophy was having across the org. From players/org members being unhappy, to young players feeling they weren't going to get a shot or wanting out. They pulled the trigger because they saw those risks were not worth it not because they thought they were going to win more games without him this year. I think a good culture has been built here in terms of how you make a team and how you help the team win, he was unravelling that.

I had heard he had stayed in Calgary this time so not totally shocked to see this. I had written him off at the start of the year but the word he was still in Calgary was nice to hear. I just hope he gets himself back on track. Really happy to have Solo up though. That guy deserves a run of games and I think he could make us forget Z pretty quick. He won't have the big hits but he can play a sound D game.

I don’t get the Chariott comparison either. He was a top 4 guy and was billed as someone who could matchup up against top players. Wasn’t accurate but it was the reason he got so much. Z needs to be sheltered to be good so he was never going to approach Chariott level returns. I understand the desire to build some space but I just would have preferred they waited to get a 2nd and a pick that isn’t a few years away. Nothing to get upset about it’s just a soft return. what might me the most excited about this deal is if they call up Solvoyov to play full time now.

I agree. It was smart not to retain here. Better to hold that card for the other assets that can garner more of a turn. I don’t love the deal because I think they should have waited and I think they get more closer to the deadline or get picks not so get down the road. So I don’t like the deal from that perspective. Feels rushed.

He's practicing. I would suspect Osterle is being brought up as a precaution though. Wranglers are about to head out on a road trip for the weekend.

This is not one of them. NHL clubs have no grounds to terminate a contract based on performance. The only way for this to be an option is the Hawks have to feel that he violated his contract terms is some way shape or form. rumors' pretty silly and i'm sure people are having their fun but I think it's stupid personally. Now Bedard is going to have to address this for likely many weeks/months and why should he? Social media totally sucks.

Short term, maybe but think i'd rather keep Duehr around given he's under contract next year too. They have time to make that decision though because I think Pelletier is probably a month or more away and that's getting closer to the TDL there too. If they feel they can waive him and he'd clear then NP. I'm not sure he would though.

I certainly didn't expect the type of production you saw last year from Duehr but I at least thought they have found some energy, speed and fore checking for their bottom 6. Been really surprised to see him go away from that, but he's got to get back to it if he wants to stay. Not sure they'd waive him at this point though.

Flames are currently using LTIR and once you are using LTIR you no longer accrue cap space. Sending down DeSimone doesn't change their need for LTIR.

And I would not disagree. Could have gone in many other threads and been presented much better, which was the point of my post. Creating a new thread to dump on a player that could have been just been added elsewhere isn't worth it IMO. Almost half of the players on your list are not worth what they are being paid.

Absolutely hilarious to me that you highlight a player below someone who is currently not playing the game and then title the thread "which player does not belong" Pretty hard to take anything seriously when that is the case.

Depends. In the NFL it's booth review so there are no needs for the Refs to do anything. Goal goes in, team reviews immediately so good chance that while the whole celebration goes on they can get an answer. Probably need to expand the war room though. It all depends on what the standard is. Personally if a play is offside and doesn't' relate in an immediate goal I don't think that should be overturned. For me the point of replay is to remove the egregious situations that led to goals. Someone being offside and a goal being scored 30 seconds to a min later to me is not egregious, it's just a missed call. Forsberg throwing the puck to the front of the net is an egregious situation that should be caught. So change the standard, not to reviewing the letter of law (ie offside) to if a goal is scored was the goal scored legally. Remove the rest.

I don't disagree. Why i think replay has turned into actually more of a problem then a benefit. Have to keep creating stupid rules. I'm just saying under the rules, it was a bad challenge. But I agree it was dumb that you have to challenge for a specific reason. When it comes to a goal all that should be necessary is was this goal scored legally. That's why I don't actually like replay. It's not about getting the calls/game right anymore, it's about following the letter of law, and because it keeps exposing little flaws in the law/rules they keep creating more to try and fix replay. Dumb situation IMO. NHL should just adopt the NFL standard and review all goals and then get rid of the coaches challenge.