cross16

I also don't think it's fair to say Sutter hates young players. Sutter likes winning games, chasing division titles and winning cups. To win he believes you need to play top end defense and top end defense means limiting mistakes, and unfortunately young players tend to make more mistakes than veterans. So while some coaches would play a longer game with young players, Sutter doesn't because he feels like it isn't in the best interest of winning games right now. So if he has the option he'll go with the veteran player but that doesn't mean he hates young players, it's just he feels it's the best way for him to win. If young players can play the type of game he wants, he'll let them play it or if he has to play them he will but it really comes down to how does that player execute the game. I don't like or agree with it but with Sutter, and quite frankly most coaches, you have to accept trade offs. That's one of the biggest ones when you employ him IMO.

That's an encouraging update

Wow. Columbus should be pissed. That’s a horrible non call. not surprising. That was one of the worst officiated games I’ve seen in years.

Games really about the first period. To come out of that period only up 1-0 really set the stage for the rest. same script. Can’t get a timely goal and can’t get a timely save. Script continues

Not sure why. It didn't go through because it wasn't a strong enough offer. Believe it was reported the Avs never even gave it much thought and said no immediately, which was the correct call. He also was rumored to have offered Gaudreau and the 6OA for Tyler Seguin, and came close to loving the 6 OA for Ryan O'Reilly. For pretty much every good Feaster story you can find 2-3 bad ones so not sure the opinion on him would ever, or will ever, change.

I get that Sutter uses the media as a tool and just in general doesn't like the media and agree he was trying to be funny but I didn't like it. I think it was in poor taste, showed a lot of arrogance and quite frankly was an embarrassing clip for the franchise. To me it reeked of arrogance that no media person or fan is going to tell me how to view a player and him feeing like he needs to keep us in check, which is absolute not his job as the coach of the team. I also think it robs fans the chance of a quality hockey answer, that once in a while Sutter will give. I just thought it was a really bad look for him and for the organization. There is a lot of space to operate in between the "Pelletier is the greatest prospect ever who had a great first game" and "don't talk to me about the kid he has a long way to go" paths. Not worth ripping him over and I don't think it means anything in terms of the relationship Sutter has with the franchise, I just think it was a poor look. Edit: To add to this I would say generally this strategy is a poor look and IMO Sutter needs to tone it down with the media. I'm not suggesting he has to like them or do what they say but I also don't think he needs to go out of his way to talk down to them either. I wish he would fine that line because I think he has a few moments this year where it's just not necessary and honesty it takes away from some of his very good answers. So this isn't just contained to the one clip for me.

Doesn't have to be a liar in this situation. They key phrase here is what does "remotely close" mean? Remotely close to the 10.5 they offered him last summer, well what do you think the reaction would be if the Flames had signed Gaudreau to a 10.5 AAV coming off 70 pts in 126 games and yet another fizzle job in the playoffs? Remotely close to what he signed for in Columbus? Same logic holds. Takes two sides to make a deal and perhaps both got their valuation wrong but I think it's important to point out that negotiations in 2021 would look a fair bit different than negotiations in 2022.

I personally would love to move Markstrom. not that I don't like him, I've just never considered him a top end goalie (he's more in the 10-15 range than the top 10) and I think you can get that level of play from Wolf/Vladar. Not to mention wouldn't exactly be a bad idea to get out from that deal while you can. I actually think it's pretty likely Markstrom starts playing better, or bounces back next year, I just think the Flames can get good goaltending without him. But I also don't see it happening. NMC a huge factor, I don't see Sutter being ok rolling the dice in net, and I don't see big interest around the league. I think there would be teams interested in Markstorm, teams are ALWAYS looking for goaltending, but I don't see a lot of good situations out there where it could tempt to him to waive his NMC. I don't think the Flames would have to add a sweetener but I do think they'd likely have to take a contract back. Just doesn't feel like a likely scenario IMO.

Craig Button. Feaster had very little to do with decisions made at the draft. Basically told button it's your show. To give Feaster some credit he did take away a lot of the shackles that Sutter had put in place and let him draft whomever he and the team thought were the best players but when it came to selections it was up to Button, the staff and the list. Kucherov was simply a calculated risk that the Flames got wrong. He was under contract to CSKA Moscow and at the time it was not well known if he planned to play in the NHL or stay in Russia. Flames put he and Gaudreau on a wild card list because they weren't sure where to rank them due to the risks involve (size for Gaudreau, contract status for Kucherov). They thought they could get them much later once their actual list was done but Lightning beat them, and everyone else, to it.

Tricky with Wolf in the A because they are leaning on him heaviliy too (which I don't have a problem with) but i'd really like to see them mix in some games for Chechelev in the A. Not like Dansk has been any good.

Ruzicka didn't earn it they just didn't want to lose him on waivers., they sat him to start the season, then preceded to watch many veterans struggle and still sat him. Didn't play him until players got banged up. Same with Gilbert, Desimone and Mackey they only got played due to injury and they barely got played at that. He also proceeded to rip almost all of them in the media. That isn't exactly opportunity. But I should re frame this because I'm not trying to suggesting Sutter hates young players or wont play them. My problem with the quote is it's very conservative and speaks to playing scared. We aren't comfortably in a playoff spot so I can't risk putting a young player in a key spot in my lineup, even though those spots in my lineups are underwhelming. I can't play a small player on my 4th line because that's not how a 4th line should work. it's his old school guidelines that are frustrating, not that he hates youth. Sutter's forgotten more about hockey then i'll ever know, but I've never been a fan of his development philosophy. it hurt the Flames before and it's hurting them again now IMO. The Flames need more skill in their lineup.

No one is asking for the entire team to be sat and kids called up. I don't understand why this always needs to be an either or scenario. You can fight for the playoffs and still play young players both can and should be true. Colorado's 3rd line center last year was a 21 years old with less than 10 NHL games under his belt. Lightning had no problem relying on the likes of Cereli, Sergachev, Mathieu Joseph or Erik Cernak who were all less than 22. Rangers went to ECF last year playing a 20 year old dman and a 22 year old dman with less than 1 season under his belt. This concept that you either need to be out of it or way ahead of it to play kids is ridiculous in today's game and is not the way successful clubs work in the NHL today. Now the suggestions should be play kids for the sake of kids but when you are seeing a lineup that is inconsistent, lacks energy/good starts and see players that could help there seems to be a middle ground there. And no offence when Sutter ran the Flames they had the worst development program in the entire league so I think it's more than fair to question him on this.

That's a pretty frustrating quote.

So lazy that they didn't give up a shot on goal in the first 7-8 mins of the period? Flames didn't even have that great a game offensively against the Stars when you look at chances. Wedgewood was just that bad.

The points are there and their game is mostly solid to pretty good but i'm left with the same feeling. The lineup, outside of the Backland line, is leaving a lot to be desired for me. Part of that is players, Huberdeau was NOT good last night (and he is really, really frustrated right now), but I still don't think this lineup is maximizing the individual talent they have. I liked their 3rd, didn't like their transition game and of course it's really challenging to not play well for 40 mins and come away with a win. Don't think the execution level was high in this one but thanks to Markstrom and some timely D they almost got a point/win our of a game that they really didn't deserve. I'd be more tolerant of an effort like this but they started the road trip with an off game, then followed up game 2 with a slow start.

injuries are very random so drawing a conclusion there is going to be near impossible. If organizations were good or bad with injury management you’d see consistency but you don’t.

pretty much all of pro sports has this mindset. This isn’t a flames thing. Not sayings it’s right or wrong (it’s mostly wrong IMO) but it’s just so far removed from being a Flames culture.

Can’t blame Markstrom. It’s a bad bounce and then awful d play in front of him

I think we get way too caught up in LW -RW. In today's game it's more about timing/situations then it is sticking to certain sides. I don't think there is much motivation beyond that to be honest. I thikn the motivation to play Lucic in that spot has to do with a big body, net presence, and someone who will be in the right spot and free up Huberdeau/Kadri to do their thing.

One has also worked to improve his d zone coverage, consistency and his physicality. One is still trying to find all of that.

it’s not a perfect metric I agree and really no goalie stats are. I didn’t post it intended for it to be taken all at face value there should always be some skepticism. And to be fair to Vladar if you change it to 5on 5 he looks better, and Markstrom worse. the only point I am making is I think the Vladar love is getting a bit carried away. Been ok, but certainly not great and really the flames don’t have a number 1 right now so I can understand why Sutter still views Markstrom that way.

For all the flak he’s getting this year I think we’re being over critical of how Sutter has handled goaltending. I support giving Vladar move starts but they guy isn’t exactly seizing the net either. he was not good yesterday.it’s a small sample size so bad games swing things more for him than Markstrom. This isn’t meant to criticize Vladar he is doing his job as the backup but at the same time I don’t think he’s making you re-think who the starter should be.

Not really. This year: the top 10 team's are averaging 3.5 and the top 15 teams 3.41 Last year: Top 10 teams averaged 3.48 and the top 15 3.35. Very small difference. League scoring is up but it's mostly due to the fact that you have more teams at the bottom so doesn't really describe the Flames. The PP would be your biggest culprit there.

Probably the biggest takeaway I agree. Vladar made the big saves that have been lacking from Markstrom this year. Does help that after a rough start the Flames really settled in. In the last 40 or so minutes it was probably their best game in a long while of defending the d zone. Great job of getting sticks/bodies and position around their net area and the blues really had nothing in the way of high quality chances. The literally scored on the only quality chance I think they got. Hopefully Flames can continue to build off of that last 40, and work on the first 20 but no question I think Vladar has earned a run of games here.

I could be wrong but I actually don't' think Sutter wants to be the GM. He's said multiple times since he left that role he didn't really enjoy it. Obviously it would be one of the worst hires I've ever seen but i'm personally not that worried about it. I'm not trying to criticize Sutter, i'm just pointing out that I think he's made some minor tweaks to how this team plays and they don't really fall in line with how the GM has built the team. In particular his line combos and how they defend the blueline. The debate here is we ok with just ok? Has Lucic been ok in that role, sure. has that line been ok as a whole, sure but is ok good enough? Are you maximizing the talent level of this team right now by playing a guy who should be no where near your top 6 in the the top 6 full time? IMO that is a clear no. Was Brett Ritchie helping this team? Was Zohorna? This isn't just about Lucic. I don't buy the you can't play players like Phillips/Pelletier in a 4th line role argument. The only time in the last probably 10 years that the Flames have actually had a good 4th line is when they had Hathaway and Mang (young players) on their 4th line. I disagree that Phillips was not noticeable in the role they put him in. I agree Duher has been good and good to see them use him but I thought Phillips flashed too and gave them some jump/chances out of a depth role. This did not happen. I can tell you for a fact that the Flames original offer, that came right after the season, was higher than what he ended up signing for in Columbus. Flames and Tkachuk never talked money. And on Valimaki I actually think is one of Sutter' biggest flaws, he gets too focused on the now. Did Valimaki play in that moment deserve it, maybe not, but if you let young players work through their issues what is the pay off? He is not willing to let young players work through and in the cap era that is how you build a contender, you get guys who can outperform their cap hits but he isn't patient enough to let it happen. It was a flaw as a GM and I think it's a flaw as a coach too. I thikn he'd be wise to take some feedback from his GM here too, just like he can give feedback to Treliving too. At the end of the day I don't want to come across like i'm stirring the pot here. I just think you can see discrepancies between the philosophies of Treliving and Sutter and I've always been of the opinion that it was the owners who picked Sutter and not Treliving. That piece I obviously cannot confirm, nor am I suggesting it was the wrong hire, but it's always felt that. When you consider that idea, consider the fact it's been long rumored (and I believe this to be true) that Treliving has had to fight for autonomy in previous contracts, and that his stock has never been hire as a GM, it just won't shock me if he puts that all together and goes somewhere else. This doesn't need to be framed as Sutter vs Treliving and I'm not sure that's what it would come down to. It would be more is there a better situation out there for him. Might not be, I don't know, but I don't doubt his phone would ring like crazy if he were to decide to leave.