cross16
-
Posts
29,746 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
488
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by cross16
-
-
43 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
I think ANA and CHI are doing it right. Get the Bedards and Carlssons first. Build around them after.
There's a time to go for quality and there's a time to go for quantity. The Flames need those superstar game breakers because we have none at the moment. So go for quality. Once we have the new cores pieces in place, then go for quantity.
Ducks have drafted in the top 10 for the last 5 drafts and twice in the top 3. This isn’t starting with Carlson, nor is it close to being finished.
the next example is using one of the top 5 prospects we’ve ever seen. We’re going to give Chicago credit for that timing? Same team who 2 years earlier gave up a top 10 pick for Seth Jones?
Your timelines and perspectives/examples are all over the place to it’s not an argument worth continuing. End of the day 10 picks in the first round is not worth the assets to me unless it’s an Unusually strong draft and this year isn’t that. Top 10 pick then I'm listening. -
3 hours ago, The_People1 said:
I don't quite agree here. Don't you agree the higher you draft, the higher chance to get an impact player?
Quality is the first step in a rebuild. Get the new core first.
After that, get quantity and hope quantities turn into some young Mangiapane and Pospisil types. Chances that quantity turns into another Gaudreau is lightning striking twice for us. Not a sound plan.
I think only if you can get into the top 8 and then it still varies greatly by draft. Yes the odds get better but not by enough to warrant giving up 3-4 assets to do it.
if your target i ls quality in a rebuild then fine but then be prepared to it to take 5 plus years. Your likely gonna miss on someone and even if you don’t the depth won’t be there
in a rebuild I want to accumulate assets because the strong rebuilds are the ones that become asset rich.
-
3
-
-
52 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
The philosophy of acquiring quantity over quality is sound in a lot of cases so there's no debate there.
It's just, the Flames are at a point in their retool where elite talent is missing. Take the chance to draft higher. We need more bullets to land more star players which usually comes in the top 15. Tij looks pretty dynamic and has heart in his game. Worth Andersson+late first. Flames aren't and shouldn't be trying to turn this thing around in one summer anyways. Rebuild it properly over 3/4 years.
I agree but this helps the quantity argument more. Trying to move up and limiting your ammo is a more quick turn around move.-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, sak22 said:
Stronger second half, but went long stretches of not playing early in the year. Hopefully he lands in a good program where he can get over 25 starts next year.
Good news all around. I wondered if they might push him pro but I think another NCAA season is much better.
still an intriguing prospect for me. When he’s good, he can be very good
-
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:
But Shane Wright was also #1 oa that wasn't.
Shane Wright was never billed, at least by anyone credible, as a franchise center though.
Cellebrini is. Those guys almost never slide-
1
-
-
I actually don't think there is a player on the roster for the Flames right now that would net a top 10 pick in trade.
Maybe, maybe Andersson and even then i'm pretty skeptical.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, robrob74 said:
Can teams make trades now? I guess they can make trades during the Playoffs considering they'd not be playing anyway. Technically, the Flames and Devils can make a deal during the playoffs, I think...
a deal now, I assume would shut the players down the rest of the year? Like if Markstrom was traded, if he played he could help the devils into the playoffs, but not play in them, if the deals are allowed post TDL. So I see why he'd not be allowed to play regular season. But technically, can be dealt anytime from now on.
?
Technically yes but they would be ineligible for playoffs. You'd also enter into potential complications with trading players during this current league year as opposed to the next one.
Long story short, technically possible but not logistically possible or likely. Nothing really to gain from either side.
-
18 hours ago, cberg said:
I generally agree, and that is the usual approach. I think Vegas defies your logic, however, but perhaps their example is just a late stage of your vision where they had such a huge pile of great assets they WERE able to get a couple franchise-altering trades, Stone and Eichel...
Well to be clear i'm referring to franchise altering picks. I think the idea being pushed here is the Flames should be acquiring picks and those picks could alter the franchise. That IMO is a mostly unrealistic goal.
I do think Vegas is an outlier, but the possibility does remain to make franchise altering trades which is why an asset accumulation approach is my preferred method. If you have attractive assets to sell you can be part of trades when those players are available, like Vegas did.
-
17 hours ago, jjgallow said:
i think we're saying similar things. really. history says you will disagree, but...i dunno.
If you think you can win a cup just by acquiring top 10 picks, then your plan is flawed.
But, acquiring top 10 picks is very much a part of asset accumulation.
For two reasons. The pick that you get,,,
and the picks that you get...after.
Seen many cup winners do that. Just, there's a lag. The lag is smaller, though, than if they try and right the ship without an initial top pick acquisition.
I agree we are saying similar things.
Think we differ on the ease of acquiring top 10 picks. I think it's unlikely and you seem to believe it's expected. Of course great if you can but I don't see it as a likely option for the Flames, again unless we are talking about future picks but there is a luck element to that too.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, cberg said:
No, but it did for Los Angeles.
right but that didn’t involve a top 10 pick.
point being even if yoj can trade for a top 10 pick it’s almost never been a franchise altering trade.
-
6 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
I agree with you that the best way to acquire top 10 picks is trading for 2+ years in future. It's a time premium discount. willing to wait = better trades. But, my conclusion there is more like 'let's get started with that'.
I also agree that it's risky to expect to just build a team off of that. You need those later round wins. You really do. or off-seasons signings, or great development, etc etc.
But I don't agree that it's an either-or thing. I think you need it all. High picks, low picks. scouting, development. "prefer lots of low picks to high picks" doesn't get you anywhere, statistically that strategy is doomed.
"we only want high picks" --- also very likely doomed unless you go into a deep, deep, deep fail like Edmonton (and then you can still get it wrong, as they've shown.).
you look at the cup winners....they had it all. High pick successes. Low pick successes. All of it.
we can't do either, or. We have to get lots of low picks, we have to get those high picks, we need to use them all well. So instead of deciding between the two, maybe.... we consider that we are sellers at the next Few trade deadlines. and maybe we sign some players this offseason only to have them for sale at trade deadline.
Maybe we make some smart trades.
Because yeah, we need those high picks, and we will need to spend low picks to get some of them.
So.. have Lots of low picks. do the things you need to do to have that flexibility.I'm not suggesting an either or approach, i'm suggesting an asset accumulation approach. I think a successful rebuild/retool re defines your core but also builds you up to be an asset rich franchise. Really that should be the end goal.
Could be scenarios where a 1 to 1 trade works, could be scenarios where a many to 1 approach works but the name of the game for me is asset accumulation. So when it comes to Andersson specifically someone who can probably land you multiple good assets, I'd questions the logic of putting it all in 1 basket unless the asset is truly worth it.
End of the day if you want franchise altering picks you are going to have to be bad enough to get them, or get lucky. I think if your plan is to trade for them, your plan is flawed to begin with.
-
2 hours ago, The_People1 said:
That's a very pessimistic hypothetical. Of course putting all eggs in one basket is a high risk/reward thing. The Flames don't have those high end players without tanking hardcore mofo so the alternative is to take risks like this. Strategically speaking, I think we gotta do it.
Because what if it works? It would be a franchise altering trade, potentially.
Not really. It's just assessing a full risk spectrum rather than just only focusing on the positives.
I don't think you get franchise altering player late in the top 10 so again your only throwing out this scenario as "what if the best case scenario" happens. Did Trading Jeff Carter for Jacob Voraceck alter the Flyers history?
-
The ease of which people think you can acquire top 10 picks is pretty misguided IMO. The most common way that happens is to get future 1st round picks and hope things go in your favor. Boston trading Phil Kessel, Matt Duschence, Erik Karlson etc etc. Once teams know their in the top 10 then maybe in some softer draft years, team will deal a known pick but I think for the same reasons everyone here wants the Flames to acquire more top 10 picks is exactly why teams don't trade them. They fall in love with the potential and as much as some try and argue "well those teams don't want to wait" that's not what history has shown us.
From a Flames angle I also question the thought process of the all the eggs in the basket approach. A player like Andersson should net you multiple pieces, or potential 1 more known piece, so I don't think the smart approach is to limit yourself to 1 piece. If you try and trade him for a top 10 pick I don't think your getting anything else in return so what if that player doesn't work out? You've just dealt one of your best trade pieces for nothing.
Not a smart team building approach IMO. I think if your retooling, or even rebuilding, you need to build up an asset base. Acquiring future first if you want to try and get in the top 10 but don't put all your eggs in 1 basket I don't see that as smart.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
I feel Yakemchuk has the most rounded game out of Buium and Parekh. He defends first. He also has a good frame to grow into and should translate that grit to the NHL level well. He's not fast but I think it's adequate... Like Tanev for example. The type of game Tanev plays, he just needs to skate well enough.
I don't get Levshunov. Highlights don't show much aside from the same repeat few goals. He seems vanilla outside of those highlight reel plays. Who is a comparable at the NHL level?
Silayev has the size but is he the next Zadorov? Owen Power? Feels like the classic trap. Draft a 6'-7" D but doesn't have a complete game.
for a big guy though, Tanev has great agility and awesome edge work. He can mirror guys in the d zone with his edges and agility.
from what I’ve seen this is where Yakemchuk struggles. no problem with his speed and how he joins the rush I just don’t think his feet are fast enough to be able to defend at a high level in the NHL.think he can be a good pro just think that will limit him to 2nd pair or lower
small possibility he can work it out. I mean he’s a big guy for 18 so could make the case that will get better I just don’t think it tends to
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
Buium looks like an elite playmaking D. High IQ and top end vision. But a bit on the smaller side and he's LHS LD. But he's the new age D and will excel in the transition game.
I wouldn't be mad if we took him over Parekh and Yakemchuk but I would prefer Yakemchuk.
Parekh highlight packages look underwhelming. There's not much "hockey" to his game. Nonstop "he shoots he scores"... An unreal wrist shot. Quick, accurate, deadly, etc... but where's the rest of his game? Can't defend. Doesn't hit. Gets caught standing and watching the play a lot. When Parekh is not scoring he's not doing anything.
Totally fair. I have a bias towards to the transition dmen and the more "modern" ones.
It's not that I dislike Yakemchuk I just don't see him having a high ceiling in the pro game. I don't think his skating is good enough.
-
Haven't really like Hanley so I agree with giving the guy you gave up a 5th round pick for more leeway.
-
8 minutes ago, conundrumed said:
The latest consolidation situation. Helenius works for me!
https://thewincolumn.ca/2024/03/26/consolidated-2024-nhl-draft-rankings/
I might cry a little if Buium goes 1 pick before them..... Although Parekh is not exactly a consolation prize.
Think my preference is Flames go D in this draft. I think your getting better value there. Not that the forwards are better, I just think the ceilings are higher with the D in this range.
-
1
-
-
Dustin Wolf since the Flames have actually made it a point to play him
.966 Save %
.947 Save %
.875 Save % (WSH, where team ws awful and he still gave them a chance to stay in it)
.926 Save %
He just looks so much better in the net. I was really happy with his game on Sunday. Tracked pucks well, more controlled in his movement and not flailing as much as he was earlier in the year. He always seems to take a game or two to get comfortable and I think he's there now. sure he'd want the Krebs goal back but that happens.
Said it before and say it again there is no reason Markstrom should be a Flame next season. Not suggesting give him the net, but the Flames need to give him more than 20-30 games.
-
22 hours ago, MP5029 said:
Ok so, question…
if everyone was in agreement players and teams, would you do a straight up trade:
Gaudrau to Cgy for Hubie to CBJ?
no retention just player for player, provided everyone was in agreement.
thoughts?
my thought is meh..
on one had Cgy saves 1-2 mil per season and I think Gaudreau is younger…
on the other hand Hubie is Canadian, and he’s a bigger body forward…
change of scenery for each player may get them going again.
No thanks for me.
Turn the page. Gaudreau left, left for his own reasons and I see no value in going down that path again. Has nothing to do with Huberdeau, which for sure I can see the logic in getting out from under the deal, it's the idea that I see no value in revisiting Gaudreau here again.
-
7 hours ago, The_People1 said:
I get it but at the same time, he will be tied to Jarome anywhere he goes. Jarome is an NHL legend and so there's no escaping that.
Tkachuk was tied to his dad even though Keith never played in Calgary. There's just no shaking that off. He has to accept it and have fun with it. And if these kids haven't learned to have fun with their last name then they aren't going to make it anyways.
But in the end, what I'm really saying is, if the Flames are picking at 13 and Tij is BPA, then by no means shy away from taking him. He's the best player (even though he's LHS LW). One exception can be made here.
I think there is a large difference between playing in the NHL as the son of a legend and playing in the same market (and a Canadian one to boost) as the son of a legend who also played in that market. For sure Tij is going to have to own the last name, but owning it while playing in Calgary is another beast.
At the end of the day what this boils down to me is does Tij have a burning desire to be here. If he can't look me in the eye and basically beg me to draft him I'd take him off my board.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, The_People1 said:
If the Flames take Tij at 13th overall and Tij is ranked somewhere between 13-19... I mean we took him where he's ranked so I don't see the issue. He is arguably BPA at 13.
The only way to avoid all this is to lose our way up the draft. There's no justification for picking Tij at 8. That's where we get into trouble.
I think this is only looking at it based off of draft expectations. You don't think there are any external pressures coming from the fact this guy is Jarome's son? Best player ever in this franchise's history and there are no pressures that come from following that?
That's the pressure i'm referring to. I don't think he can carve out his own future here, it will always be tied to Jarome. As a dad i woudln't want that for my son.
but I don't know Tij maybe he wants that so I can't say.
-
Just now, The_People1 said:
I mean yes and no.
10-13th overall pick. I would imagine the expectation is 1st line LW. Career 70-points type of player. Doubt the expectation is 100-point Captain leading us to the Cup.
The pressure could be both good and bad depending on the person.
Which I would already argue are too high for the type of prospect Tij is. I think he settles in as more of a top 6 winger than a first line.
-
On 3/23/2024 at 7:03 PM, Thebrewcrew said:
Take this with a grain of salt, but I have a buddy that works for a WHL team.
He's told me that the Flames have watched a lot of the Kelowna Rockets and the Flames haven't yet been told "no" regarding Tij.
I'm by no means saying this will or won't happen, just been told by someone with some insight that it hasn't yet been ruled out. An example would be Ridly Greig. His dad works for Philly and they had an agreement the Flyers wouldn't take his son. That hasn't happened yet.
I'll be curious to see how this plays out. Honestly If I were Jarome I think i'd be asking Conroy to not draft him.
I see Tij being drafted by the Flames as an unwinnable situation. Nothing against Tij as a prospect but I think the mountain of expectations that would follow him would be unwinnable for almost everyone.
-
2
-
-
Pittsburgh and Seattle look awful right now which isn't helping.
I don't think flames will win many games down the stretch but I also don't think those 2 teams will either.
2023/24 Roster/Lines
in Flames Talk
Posted
He hardly played with Barkov