cross16

Governments no longer worry about any future planning. It's all a PR show because they know that the vast majority of people don't care about debt or can see long term. Plus they won't be around long enough to get any flack for it. It's ridiculous at all levels (including CESC) that this was not done 10 years ago when it could have been done at half the cost. Heck I hated CalgaryNext and it's to the point that would have been a better deal for the City than this one. Mind you can't blame ether side for not forseeing a pandemic. Just brutal all around really.

Could be. As I outlind I don't think a 4th line role for Zary is a problem so long as there is a plan. sure if it's just a "play 4th line and we'll see what happens" that isn't good for him but I think you can develop players on the 4th line. I think it's likely the see Schwindt as a safer option. Decent on draws, big body, shouldn't "hurt" you but doesn't offer much, and does provide the safety of Zary in the A playing more. Not egregious I'm just not seeing much in Schwindt (last year or this year) that tells me there is an NHLer there. Waivers being an option for the Flames really hinges on Kylington. If they can LTIR him then I think waivers are a possibility but if they can't then I don't think they have the cap space to claim anyone.

I don't really get Schwindt to be honest. I don't see an NHL player there myself. I like the Solovyov is sticking around. Wish they'd be giving him a better shot than Oesterle (who I haven't liked much)

With the way he has played I don't mind Zary starting the season as the 4th line center. I think the whole "can't play young players on the 4th line" is inaccurate, you just need to have a plan for them. With the way the Flames are constructed they should be able to get their 4th line 6-8 mins a night which is good for Zary to get his feet wet, plus you can mix in some different situations. All the better is you have a player like Coleman you can pair him with too. That's a real option for me.

I personally don't think so. I don't think Ruzicka's attention to detail, particularly in the D zone is good enough to play center. I'm not sure it's good enough to be an NHL regular.

I would agree and think this is a pretty fair way to look at it. Man to zone is a fairly big change in terms of communication and reading the play. Should be an improvement once it's nailed down, but I think it's a harder transition at first because of the importance of communication which is why I expect some growing pains. I thought the Flames should have gone to more zone last year. I get why the desire to play man but I just don't think it worked for this group.

the only thing I'd say about goaltending right now is I think with all of them, yes including Markstrom, the leash should be longer to start the season. Flames have made several systematic changes and have changed from man to zone for their d coverage. From what I say against the Jets they still have a ways to go before they are on the same page with it. They gave up some super easy chances against the Jets and while I haven't watched a ton this pre season I would suspect it's been the same no matter who is in net. I think it's going to take 10-12 games of the regular season before we get a read on anyone which the Flames master the change.

Thanks conundrumed. Just life taking over. work, travel and with such a slow off-season didn't feel like many good discussion moments. Probably be around here more that the season is starting.

Coronato was great. Can’t see how he doesn’t make the team. There is so much more creativity in their game offensively. I really like where they are taking their offensive game. D zone is a work in progress for sure but to be expected after a change. Markstrom wasn’t good but there was a lot of very good quality chances against

Nope not accurate at all actually I simply didn’t have the time. I didn’t find it too negative (was tired of the same discussion again and again though) but life just took over and I didn’t have much to comment on during a very slow off-season.

hey rocketdoctor. Appreciate the note. Yup all is good here. Life just took over and I really haven’t had the time. May be around more with the season starting(as time permits)

I'm not even making an argument here, simply agreeing with conundrumed that I think the concept of rebuild has been overly romanticized. Predominantly because most of the arguments for rebuilds also ignore the impact of luck. For example, Hawks got Kane because they won the lottery. Do you think the Hawks have 3 cups (heck let's just settle with 1) with Sam Gagner, Jakub Vorachek, Zach Hamil or Logan Coture in stead of Kane? Obviously if you have a bad scouting staff rebuilds arn't going to work but they don't work, in terms of the measure of success being winning cups, for good scouting staffs etiher without some luck. I don't have a problem with the Flames rebuilding and have been in favor of one for several years in fact. But I'm preapred to see the team lose for the next 5-7 years and I think it's reasonable that some are not.

I think that is highly debatable. I get it's your opinion, which is fine, but because I don't consider it a failure every season the Flames don't win a cup i'm ok with mediocrity? Big leap there.

Hhaha.. this is so rich coming from you all I can do is laugh.

So this begs the question what is your preference. Have this dealt with and live with lesser returns? Play it forward to shoot for what is a fair return? Not sure you can have it both ways right now.

Must be nice to cheer for Florida, Islanders, Leafs, Oilers, Detroit, Montreal, Columbus. You know all those clubs that apparently don't celebrate mediocrity and are doing so much better than the Flames. it's fine to like rebuilds but we have to stop acting like rebuilds are a guaranteed path to success and an easy ticket to a cup. Think it's unfair to suggest that because someone doesn't want to see a team live in the basement that it means they are ok with mediocrity. The chances of a rebuild leading to more mediocrity are stronger than them leading to a cup (especially based on your barometer for success)

I don't believe this to be the case. As I understand it the Flames have had the chance to extend Backlund if they wish but are choosing not to. Same with Toffoli.

Sounds great in theory but not practical in reality IMO. Isn't enough contract room nor enough true legit NHL prospects to fill NHL roster and a reserve list.

Well what is unique about SJ is they doubled, maybe even tripled, down. They had aging players, locked them up and then went out to the market to get even more (Evander Kane and Erik Karlsson) and then signed those players to long term deals. They also gave up high draft picks to get those players. So now you left with a mess of a roster, brutal long term cap implications and no prospects because they dealt picks. If they don't make the Karlsson trade they'd have Tim Stutzle and I think this conversation is different. That's what's unique about SJ, they should have some top end prospects to work in around Couture but they don't. They should have more volume of prospects but they signed multiple bad deasl (Martin Jones, Vlasic, Burns, Karlsson) that they have so much dead cap space or untradable deals. Some similarities to the Flames but not as extreme and Flames seem more intentional about not going down this path (ie trading Toffoli, not extending Backlund etc)

Well yes if it was a blue chip prospect that would change the approach. Good luck getting that in a trade like this though.

I heard it too. From what it sounds like is SJ pitched it to Calgary and Conroy quickly declined and talks went no where. Which is the right call because Couture just really is not worth it at this point in time. I quite like Eklund and think he is a top end prospect but having Couture has 4 more years on his deal at 8 mill per and it takes him to 38. That's a massive anchor against the cap. And not to mention I don't like the all your egss in one basket approach. Lindholm should be worth a minimum of 2-3 good assets. So you take that down to 1 and take on big cap risk to get 1 prospect. Anything happens to Eklund you've minimized your asset. Right call to say no, if it's true.

Yes. Sounds like in Vancouver he would defer to playing AHL veterans over the prospects in key moments. Very possible that was an organizational call though. I think that's where the Flames have had success in their AHL program, development over winning. Winning is important for sure and you want coaches/players who want to win but if there is a key face/key PP whatever, put your kids in the situation so they learn. I'm hoping the Flames continue that mentality and hopefully if that is their philosophy Cull is on board with that. He got some good review for his work in the Tampa system and it sounds like he is a positive person.

I have the same thoughts, I just don't think he and the Flames are on the same page with an extension. Flames are willing to do what it takes for LIndholm but I think for the players already north of 30 they are reluctant to be doing multi year deals and are pushing for 1-2 year deals. Don't blame Backlund for wanting more than that. Keep him until the TDL. Perhaps if the team does better than he thinks he changes his stance and if not then you deal him when he is likely at his most valuable. Don't see this as a bad situation.

Flames announced last week. In addition to his hire a confirmation that the entire staff is returning. Brad Pascall has done great work so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but this is a pretty underwhelming hire based on record and what I've read about his reputation. https://theahl.com/cull-named-new-head-coach-of-wranglers#:~:text=The Calgary Flames have named,the Washington Capitals last month.

Because Sutter refused to match lines until the last 2 games. McDavid in the first 3 games: 2 Goals 9 points 13 shots Last 2 once Backlund line played against him almost exclusively: 1 Goals and 3 points. 1 of the assists was in an empty net. I don't have the analytics handy by there was a shift in McDavid's game once Backlund matched up against him.