cross16

April 18

Still think the idea that teams "tank" is flawed. Can ask any pro athlete and the idea that any of them would go out and lose on purpose is just flat out silly and wrong. This concept is for fans only and really isn't situated in fact. Do some teams ship everyone out, sure they do but that doesn't come without risk. All you have to do is look at the Oilers, Sabres and Islanders as team that got rid of basically everyone and then realized that the build up is pretty difficult. Could be Detroit in this bucket now too, Leafs even.

Go look at the NFL. There isn't even a lottery there and tanking doesn't come up for them.

Honestly not sure why this comes up as often as it does but it's a lot of discussion around a made up problem IMO.

April 15

14 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Which player do you mean? Honzek?

Cayden Lindstrom

April 15

59 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

How does everyone feel about Cayden Lindstrom as far as the back issues go? Do you consider them chronic?

Between Beck, Honzek, Poirier (freak thing, I know), Pelletier and Kerins I am so done with prospects missing extremely important development months.

The setbacks have added up to the point where I hope to avoid Lindstrom. Maybe even Kiviharju and Jiricek also.

Am I wrong due to the frustration? We can't afford unyielding development setbacks.

Only slightly. My bigger concern would be why are we targeting someone in a elite draft area who has not had elite production really at any level.

Not saying he is not a good prospect, he is but I think his size has inflated his draft stock.

April 15

It has to be a 1 year deal as per the CBA. Any European player who is signing their first NHL contract between the age of 24-28 has to sign a 1 year deal.

I don't know much about him, just his numbers certainly don't give you much hope, but either way depth was needed. With the plan to get Wolf NHL games next year the Flames don't actually have an NHL goalie under contract next year for the AHL as Dansk is a UFA. With Seergev staying in NCAA there also isn't a reserve list goalie who was heading to the AHL next year either.

Does look like good depth for the AHL though

April 15

16 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I think Kadri is a Flame for the rest of his career.

He is having a great year. His second best in terms of production. Two years ago he had very few suitors in UFA. Two years older, I think you could trade him, but you’re talking about retaining for five years and I doubt you’re getting a haul. Maybe something like Karlsson to PIT. 1st and two cap dumps.

Maybe he wants out and things become untenable. Unless that happens, the Flames are probably better off keeping him.

This is the only caveat worth discussion IMO and I do think it's unlikely. All reports I've heard is Kadri is really happy here and likes the direction of the team. Like Weegar he is happy to be part of the re tool.

I think the other thing I would add is I actually think he had more suitors but I think the problem was he was very picky about where he wanted to go. I've heard he had a very small list of teams he would even engage with, so while there were some teams interested they go a "no" before they could even pitch. With a full NMC for the next 2 years I don't think that list is going to get larger.

Highly unlikely Kadri goes anywhere anytime soon IMO.

April 15

19 hours ago, robrob74 said:

So in reality, should we be questioning the equipment and not the goaltending? Has goaltending in the nhl gone downhill because of the rule changes in equipment, or have they already started to prior to.

There was a time almost no one was scoring goals, exaggeration, but I think what I am trying to say is, the fact there are only a small handful of goalies in higher status towards elite, has the rule changes exposed the goalies that would otherwise have advantage due to large goalie equipment?

in turn, numbers might have favoured goalies in the past and in reality maybe they were only as good as average goalies today? I wouldn't know which ones would fall in the category...

imagine, in the 80's there were Allen Besters, or Darren Pangs?

i guess what I'm saying is, maybe average goaltending was always a thing that could win chips? Elite does help a lot. Although, even Roy had horrible years in Montreal and could have looked average when he let in like 9 goals? Not that they were his fault... but just saying on bad teams even good goalies don't have good numbers...

Personally I don't think equipment can make you elite. avg to good, probably. Not to so good to average yup, but elite you have to have the skills to get there and equipment isn't going to do that. I can buy that equipment has led to a lowering of goalie performance/stats argument but I also think there are more important factors.

I do think goalie development and the talent pipeline is down and in particular it's down in Canada. Who was the last goalie at the WJC you watched for Canada and went wow? Not that the tournament should be considered the be all end all but you look at the 90s, early 2000s and there's some pretty special names. Since 2008 Canada has only twice had the best goalie at the World Juniors and that was Joel Hofer and Devon Levi, neither of which I would say put out a standout performance. So the pipeline for Canada had dried up quite a bit and given where it use to be I think that's a large impact to the overall quality of goaltending we are seeing.

Mostly though I think it's a tactical thing. I think the quality of shots goalies are facing are much harder. Analytics have shown the value of different shot locations, puck movement, change generation and the game has started to innovate more. Games a lot harder on goalies then it use to be IMO.

That's my explanation anyway. I agree for sure that in today's game an elite goalie is not required to win a cup and would actually argue that in a cap system an elite goalie can actually hurt your chances at a cup once they get paid.

April 15

On 4/12/2024 at 2:32 PM, cberg said:

Wow, unless I’m reading that wrong the defensive game is significantly better?

As a team it's marginal, Wolf's number look different and all of this at is 5 on 5.

There are some small changes in the Flames number pre and post TDL but it's marginal if at all. Basically post TDL the games Markstorm have played have been very low event hockey. Yes it leads to a positive change in the defensive numbers, but the offensive numbers are down too.

April 12

2 hours ago, MP5029 said:

Is it just me? Since TDL Markstrom’s play has been subpar to put it in a nice way.

is he doing this on purpose to avoid being a tradable asset? Currently his play I can’t see a team moving on him he’s not much of an upgrade for teams like LAK, NJD etc…

or is he going into his down cycle again?

I find it odd that he was Ves. level play before the TDL and after he got upset with the trade rumours he’s been playing at maybe a backup level goalie…

either way, he’s not looking like a goalie a team Would seek

Pre TDL (all rates/60 mins)

28.57 Shots Against

26.23 Saves

.918 Save %

0.29 GSSAA

2.71 expected goals against

8.18 HD shots against.

7.15 HD saves and a .875 HDSV

0.3 HDGSAA

2.4 Rush attempts against and 5.64 rebound attempts against

Post TDL

25.48 Shots Against

23.05 Saves

.905 Save %

0.24 GSSAA

2.46 expected goals against

6.76 HD shots against.

5.55 HD saves and a .821 HDSV

-0.12 HDGSAA

1.04 Rush attempts against and 3.99 rebound attempts against

For the most part you are not really seeing a big difference statistically, especially when you consider sample size. Certainly not playing at a "backup level".

April 12

29 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

What's your rankings right now?

Personally, I want the Flames to draft a D regardless if Catton or Lindstrom is there at 8. We will see. 8 is too early to draft Tij but I also want the Flames to draft Tij.

I don't really rank anymore. Just don't have the capacity to view and analyze.

From what I have looked at, I agree that D is the better value in this draft but someone is always going to reach for a center or 2 which is why I think 8 is a good ledge to be on.

Assuming Dickinson isn't available Zeev Buium is my favorite Dman.

April 12

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Great post. Kerins is freshly 21, Stromgren will be in a couple of months.

Both are still solid prospects. The Ronni thing reeaally sucked.

I think most picks are considered 3-5 yrs out, so good to see progress.

Zary's a good example. Can call it 3 years, but drafted as an overager if you Satoshi Nakamoto on the NHL eligibility rule, as I do. So I'd count it into his 4th yr of when he should have been eligible.

I'm all for pushing it back a year for ALL 2005's this year and onwards. Next year is 2006's. My opinion, but it's pretty Blockchaining low to exclude kids from their age group. Only in the NHL. "All about inclusion". lol Yeah, you missed one...ageism...

Oh, the ironing.

I still think we are working through the COVID impacts on these kids and forget that they missed basically an entire year of development. Patience is always required but I think even more is required given the circumstances all these kids went through. Can't apply normal development rules to an abnormal environment/experience IMO.

I only got to the 1 Wrangler game but I walked away happy with Kerins. He is such a well rounded center who takes care of the details, works hard all over the ice, and finds a way to make an impact. I think the Flames need to be a bit more intentional around building out his offensive game, but I woudln't be surprised if he pops next year because the foundation to his game is there.

Stromgren was a work in progress when they picked him and while there is still a lot to want more of there, there's a lot of skills. I think until he maxes out his frame and his strength you won't know what you have.

April 12

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Wish ARZ, OTT, and MTL still had 5-games to go. But we running out of runway to rise in draft order. We still have 2 easy wins coming against SJS and ANA.

Flames would likely have to go at least 3-1 to move behind Seattle. I don't see that happening.

Like wise, Ottawa probably needs to win all 3 and they play NY and Boston.

Guess we'll see but 8th is looking pretty likely to me which I'm fine with. Obviously higher is better but 8th was a big of a ledge for me in this draft. Not to much in terms of talent but I feel like 8 is the best spot to react in this draft. I think 5-8 could see a surprise or too, likely a Berky Cotton or Lindstrom and 8 put you in the best position to have someone slide. I think once you get to 9 and outside that's less likely.

April 11

I'm very happy the Flames are not locked into that deal with Hanifin.

not a terrible deal just not one I would want to sign him to.

April 11

30 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Okay, I was unaware of those.

It's a market issue, Quebec presents nothing it was the 2nd smallest North American pro market when they left and hasn't done much since besides build a new arena. I don't even think SLC would be a top destination over Houston, Atlanta, or even Kansas City, they just have a prospective owner with a building that at the moment serves better than the Mullet and plans to build a new arena, and has been playing the game more to the NHL's liking, much like the Atlanta-Winnipeg situation it moved quick because True North worked along with the league and the timing of how the Thrashers needed to be sold they were the easiest option, but I'm sure they would've rather had a Houston or KC option then and Winnipeg's attendance drops don't help the case for QC IMO.

While all pro sports do to a certain extent, I think the NHL has had the most checkered past when it comes to perspective owners and ownership in general. If a motivated billionaire with experience running a pro sports team and what looks to be a very clean past comes calling, the NHL (and really any league) isn't going to say no. sometimes the market comes second to the quality of the owner.

Bettman's job is to grow the business and teams in 2 of the biggest markets in the US grows the game more than in Quebec City. I get why he doesn't want a team there.

April 11

I like Salt Lake as a market for the NHL. Be interesting to see how it goes in Utah with some of their rules/religious beliefs but it's a beautiful place and in a pretty central location. Utah Jazz have had a pretty great following for many years and are a well run club so having that owner is a good thing for the NHL.

I can also understand why the NHL doesn't want to leave Phoenix. It's a great market for the NHL to be in and I think the struggles there relate more to ownership/land then they do the market. But also count me in the camp that is not for expansion. 1 more team, ok.. 2 or more than that's going to go poorly I think.

What could make this work is if the NHL can re engage with the KHL, or just expand overall internationally. I think there are still quite a few players that play outside the NHL that could still play here so if the plan is to expand I think the NHL needs to reach out to the international community to try and entice more players to come to the NHL earlier.

April 9

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Okay fair enough. I think we've got "good enough" mentors. Unless, you want to go sign a 35+ Cup winner on the cheap. That wouldn't hurt.

That is the idea. I don't think the necessarily have to have won a cup but just rather have been around the league for a while. It's to bring in someone on an affordable short term deal whose been around and can help and can help play some top 4 mins so your not forcing a young player into that spot.

Not interested in anyone who is going to take more than a 2 year deal to sign.

April 9

Think it depends on how you define franchise changer. I personally reserve that for a more elite category that I don't think Celebrini is in. That's like your Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, McDavid, Bedard, Hedman category.

I think Cellebrini is more like Jack Hughes, Brayden Point type. Extremely talented player, can do a bit of everything, and if developed properly will settle in as a number one center. I have him a level below someone like Eichel, at least for me.

April 9

20 hours ago, The_People1 said:

And you are in favour of trading Andersson this summer?

Like, what are we talking about here? We want to give rookie D a path to the NHL and pair them with a mentor to give them a fighting chance. We pair one with Weegar and the other with Miromanov (or Hanley and Pachal since they are signed for next season).

For the right return, which would be players and not just picks, yes.

I think we clearly disagree on the value of mentors and/or the definition. I want a path for rookies and have said as much but I also want and see the value in making them earn it and having a good support system once they are here. IMO, that support system in place right now is not sufficient so I think outside help is needed.

April 8

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Well, it looks like Huska really wants Kylington - Andersson to become a thing. Assuming Kylington is coming back, then we've got:

Weegar to partner with a rookie to mentor him in second pairing minutes.

Miromanov, will be 27 soon and although has played less than 50-games, can likely mentor a 3rd pair guy.

I don't think we need to go out and sign anyone. Weegar can play both sides so depending on who is ready, then they pair with Weegar... our new Tanev.

So assuming Kylington is back, we playing him and Anderson 25-30 a night? Don't think your mins add up very well here.

If your comfortable with those 2 being mentors sure but i wouldn't be. Both play a pretty high risk game. Agree to disagree but I think the Flames are setting themselves up for failure, both in terms of their team, goalies and players, to run back this same d core. I'm all for a high pick but I don't think this is a wise path to get there.

April 8

I've said it before but I think if you want to trade Andersson it should be done this summer. Between his age, contract, RS, I think he is someone a wide range of teams (both teams already contending and planning to do so) would be interested in. I think the potential for an increased supply of trade partners is better than the off chance you get someone to panic at the TDL (which I think is becoming less and less of a thing now anyway). He has a 6 team no move starting next year, so you run the risk of shrinking your suitors at the trade deadline.

I'd be shopping him but I don't think the Flames will. I think they'll start having some discussion on a contract next year to see what his appetite is to stay and if there isn't interest than perhaps he's moved next summer but I doubt he is before that.

April 8

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I see. Makes more sense. I don't see an issue playing two rookie D next season though. Weegar seems like a captain/mentor type veteran.

Ideally, we ease in the rookies on third pair. Maybe take turns pairing with Miromanov. Moreover, I don't think Poirier is ready yet since he lost one year of development. The LD coming up are Solovyov and Kuznetsov. Good to start then as 3rd pair LD. The one who shows more promise will move up to play with Andersson on the second pair.

For sure off the ice and I think Rasmus would be too. I'm not concerned with off ice mentorship but on ice. Have someone playing with these guys that can help. Hard for guys like Weegar to play their own game and then watch a 3rd pairing guy too.

I'm not concerned playing 2 rookies, if it comes to that, i just want the spots to be earned and having someone there to guide them a bit. I wouldn't be signing 2 UFAs, just the one and ideally someone that is capable of playing 18-20 mins a night. Someone who can force them to earn their way up. You mention Kunznetsov and IMO that is someone who really has to earn their way. I would not be penciling him into the lineup next year.

April 8

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

In some cases, losing together is what's best for young players. They have to look around that room and help each other become the solution.

I don't view this as a win/loss discussion though because there isn't a dman out there, that I think would realistically sign with the flames, who is going to alter their path. It's all depth guys and the idea is to give them a veteran whose been there done that, can help with some of he highs/lows, give them tips/advice, and also shelter them a little from the mistake prone players young players tend to be. For me there is a lot of value in that. I think the Flames are going to lose a lot next season but that doesn't mean it makes sense to not support your young players.

I don't really but the blocking argument either. There should be no rush to get Gurshnikov into the lineup nor Porier, let them earn it. Not to mention the Flames only have 5 NHL dmen under contract next year 2 of which are top 3 and then Hanley (age 32) Pachal (waiver claim bottom paring dman) and Miromanov (looking to be bottom pair at best). There are 2 top 4 spots available and you could argue the entire bottom pairing is open to. I don't think the flames would bat an eye at losing Hanley or Pachal given they got them both for free anyway and honestly if the Flames feel more comfortable with Hanley or Pachal playing right now over someone like a Kuznetsov that says something.

April 8

26 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Even if Kylington is back, that doesn't give us the stability we need next season, unless you are looking to finish bottom 10. Kylington is best paired with a Tanev like defensive D. Pachal is okay, but has a lot of growing to do to get there. He has less games than Kylington.

When I look at who we have signed or likely to extend, I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling:

Andersson

Weegar

Miromanov

Pachal (signed - waivers)

Hanley (signed - waivers)

Okhotiuk (RFA - waivers)

Kylington (UFA)

That's too many 4-7 guys. I would be reluctant to put Pachal on waivers. Okhotiuk has about the same number of games as Pachal and also requires waivers. I can't really come up with pairings that leave me confident, seing as we have seen Ras paired with most of the top 4-ish guys we have. Bringing in a top 2 LD might help, but I think that only solves one issue.

Which I think the Flames are and should be. "looking for" can be debated and is everywhere so rather than go down that path I think the reality is there is little the Flames can do this off season to get out of the bottom 10. They are not a good team and I don't see much that can happen between now and next fall that's going to change their fortunes. There are some solid UFA dman available but now one that IMO anyway, is going to take this D core from bottom of the league to even average.

My focus is on what's best for the young players.

April 8

On 4/4/2024 at 9:04 PM, Thebrewcrew said:

I think the Flames have to sign two defenders in UFA.

I don't care whether or not they're rebuilding, they've got 2.5 NHL D. Kylington is the .5, he's still not 100% back IMO and may not reach the level he was at in 21/22, without a suitable partner.

I look at through the lens of "how do they develop Wolf". He needs some help from the blueline. They'll ruin Wolf if they put him in a spot where they're giving up 4 goals and 35-40 shots a night.

Doesn't have to be sexy, Demelo/Edmundson/Scandella/Roy/Carrier. There's actually a decent list of defenceman available in UFA. I think you can get some of those guys on a short term deal. Can always deal them at a TDL as well. Carrier in particular, probably a longer term commitment.

I would expect a fierce battle for the 5/6/7 roles. Hanley/Okhotiuk/Pachal/Miromanov/Kuznetsov/Solovyov/Poirier/Grushnikov. All of a sudden you have a very unproven logjam. Eight guys for three spots. With the exception of Poirier, I'd likely look to include one of those guys in a Mangiapane trade. They just have too many bodies.

Biggest point I'm trying to make is, they can be bad, without being a defensive trainwreck in front of their young goalie.

I agree and would just add while Wolf is a big factor I also don't think you set up young players well for success by just tossing them into the deep end without help. Really none of the young dmen we have really profile as top 4 options, maybe have a 4/5 in there, so asking at least 1 of them to play 2nd pair is asking too much and IMO is not a good development model either.

Need a stabilizing presence back there to help both Wolf and the young d they want to see develop.

It's not even a given Kylington will be back.

April 3

29 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

I didn't mean the Ducks are starting with Carlsson. I mean they are doing it right by drafting in the top 10 for the last 5 drafts. And yes CHI is doing it right timing or no timing. They are bottoming out hard for the next core.

Point was, don't build depth until you've got your new core drafted.

And yes, it takes years. You know that. I know that. Again, there's a time to go after quantity. Right now, the Flames need quality.

im not sure why you are framing this as one vs the other because you need both. Trying to prioritize one over the other makes no sense to me and is just foolish. No team has nor will they, build a team like that

All I have said and all I will contend is giving up 2-3 assets to move up 10ish spots in the draft, and not into a range where you are likely to draft an elite player, is not smart and I wouldn’t do it. I’d use that asset to address other needs because I think the odds are just as good and maybe better if adding to the core.

I don’t have an issue with the idea of scorched earth or a rebuild but it sure be nice if it was based on more realism than what’s argued here. If you want the ducks model fine but just acknowledge it’s been 6 years. Are they close? Not imo. Same thing for Detroit are they close? Does Detroit look like a team on the verge of being special?
Despite what some want to believe there is no blueprint on how to do this because too many variables are outside of your control

April 3

obviously a really poorly played game by pretty much everyone. Sure the Kadri line had some points but they weren’t good defensively nor in transition.

this is a team that is just playing out the season. I didn’t think they could get to the Top 8 but that’s looking very possible now.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Videos

Events

Gallery

Posts posted by cross16