cross16
-
Posts
29,840 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
491
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by cross16
-
-
The "the Flames like to go off the board" narrative is one of the many really dumb ones that consistently float around here. Jankowski was the outlier and not the trend and even then that one gets pretty misconstrued around here.
I can very much understand they don't always pick who someone wants but if you go back and look at the first round I think your going to be hard pressed to show the Flames making mistakes. 2nd rounder hasn't been their friend but in the first round they've done well.
I think the imbedded criticism in that is more that people wanted them to have more picks and for the picks to be lower in the first round, which is a more reasonable argument/expectation then looking at the draft record IMO. I think the Flames are one of the better drafting teams in the NHL.
-
On 4/20/2024 at 3:48 PM, phoenix66 said:
Except you forget Yegor plays all 3 forward positions including center ... Power play, and kills penalties .. does he need more experience at all 3, sure , but in the end he's not "just a winger"
But .. what is gonna happen , will happen..
I was highly relieved when Connie outlined just what the plan and blueprint is.. it is 100% NOT bottoming out .. it's getting better every year ..kids what played this year need to take a step next year ..
He named Dallas as the model..
Veteran core at all 5 positions ..so don't expect him to be shopping Markstrom.. if NJ wants to blow us away , maybe he listens ..but if that happens expect a vet quality starter to come back thru the door ( Talbot?) I don't rule it out cuz when asked about Markstrom he did say " we'll see"
Trades will be for ages 18-23
Free agency ..expect some reinforcements from there .. likely nothing long term or high ticket but significant adds
From there..need to hit on draft picks on all rounds .. expect him to be more frugal with trading any picks than his predecessors. Quantity gives you a higher chance of hitting quality
Again.. we can hope..we can wish all we want , but that is the blueprint in action straight from the source
I would disagree with this. IMO Markstorm is not a Flame next year. I think that relationship has come to an end.
Just a question of seeing if Conroy overplayed his hand or not but I don't think we are in the "you need to blow me away" to trade him part of this anymore.
-
2 hours ago, pcs said:
Didn’t Connie say in one of his recent pressers that he doesn’t think long contracts are the way to go right now? I got the impression he’s not looking at anyone with a mind to signing any more than 4-5 years at a time. And if he’s saying that to the press the players must be aware of the messaging (unless of course he’s saying one thing publicly and other things to players/agents). I’d be surprised if he buckles to any demands for massive term at this point.
Believe that was in reference to UFAs.
The Flames had long term deal offers on the table for both Hanifin and Lindholm.
-
8 minutes ago, robrob74 said:
is Utah changing their staff?Not initially at least. entire franchise (players, personnel, reserve list and hockey ops staff) are transferring to Salt Lake.
-
I think Yegor's camp will start with the Hagel contract. Lightning gave him 8 X6.5 coming off a 30 goals and 64 point season and a 25 and 44 point season before that. Pretty similar, although I do think Hagel is the better player the comp is pretty spot on. They were only 1 year apart in age too.
I'd be surprised if the Flames can get him for 5 or less. Jason Dickinson just got paid 4.25 with a career high 14 goals in a season (finished at 22 this year), Bertuzzi got the 5.5 from the Leafs for career highs similar to Yegor (and in a flat cap environment). Zucker 5.2, Killhorn over 6. Even Mang at 5.8 is a pretty good comp for Yegor.
Unless he's willing to only do a 4/5 year deal I'm not in a rush to be getting that deal done, especially if he is asking for a Hagel style deal. I'd let him go into the season if that is the case and see what type of player you get.
-
22 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
Agreed .. I don't put a whole lot of stock on those statements unless they're definitive . I do like Kadri shutting it down for example ..he likes it here ..wants to be here ..period
I would argue however that yegor should be a key piece. Yes it was a career year ..but that was due to where he played in the lineup. This wasn't truly a breakout becaue in NJ when he was given the opportunity to play up the lineup, he produced at the same rate he produced here .he just got buried down the lineup due to the Hughes ' and Hischers ahead of him. He got I think it was 22 in NJ his rookie year cuz he was played higher .. I think you can safely consider him a 25-30 goal scorer . Giving him the contract you tried giving Lindholm would make sense to me
that would be the exact type of mistake I’d recommend avoiding. 8 x 8? No thank you, that’s a brutal contract.i think the fact that he got moved down the lineup as Jersey got better needs to be taken into account. Sure he was great here and yes he is a good player but as the flames get better he’s going to move down the lineup too, or should. That needs to be considered in the negotiation.
-
I think the practice of sticking a mic into a players face the day after their season ends and expecting an insightful answer has to be the dumbest practice out there. I feel for the players who probably haven't even come to terms of what they need to do but yet we hang on every single word they said, not to mention you still have many reporters in Calgary still trying to work this angle of players maybe not wanting to be here.
I'll preface this by saying that I really like Yegor but the Flames have to be VERY careful with that extension. Yes I understand opportunity and all that, but this is a soon to be 26 year old player coming off a career year. Prioritizing that and giving them what they want falls flat far more often than it succeeds. Now i'm not saying that that they shouldn't sign him or that he isn't worth it but they should not be treating him like he is a core piece and just giving him whatever he wants to keep him here. It has to make sense because in the grand scheme of things Yegor is not the type of piece you should really be building around, he should be a great secondary piece. Flames need to keep that in mind.
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
Because one player can't turn a whole franchise around in the NFL. Best QBs are usually found in later rounds.
NBA is arguably the most affected by 1 star player. They have a tanking problem too.
You'd want to do more research on that one.
I think we've already seen it in hockey where 1 player cannot turn around a franchise.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
The draft is luck based right now though. There is a lottery system.
For me, whether it makes sense or not is a matter of cultural acceptance over time. Restoring integrity to the fanbase cheering for losses and GMs from trying to lose up the draft ranks are more important.
Minimal luck yes but your proposing to turn it over entirely to luck. Doesn't make sense to me.
I don't buy the integrity argument. Why isn't that a thing in football where they have no lottery at all? I don't see an integrity issue here at all which is why i've always aid your trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist
to each their own though.
-
I was really hoping Vegas would play the Oilers so they could hopefully both knock them out and get the Flames an upgraded pick.
Not optimistic either of the Flames picks are gonna get upgraded.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, cberg said:
I think it’s a matter of semantics, and timing. So let me ask, when our GM traded Tanev for an AHLer and picks, was he expecting the Flames to win more games the rest of the season or lose more? Same question with Lindholm? Same question with Hanifin?
Acquiring future assets and tanking are not the same thing to me. Of course he knew he wasn't going to win as much but it doesn't make sense to me that you would frame it that way.
Don't think your factoring in the idea that potential has value in a trade. Ok he could have traded those players for players to help him now but is that more valuable than what he got in return? No chance IMO.
-
51 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
I'm glad you said this because an unweighted draft lottery is really a reset of what it means to go through a "life cycle". Teams don't have to intentionally tear it down as deep and lose on purpose as much.
I'm not in favor of any system that based solely on luck. Team will still go through life cycles and if they don't get the right luck they could stay in that downward cycle for longer.
That type of system makes no sense to me.
-
17 minutes ago, robrob74 said:
So, they're moving to Utah and then expanding back into Arizona or Phoenix?
why not move the team back? I guess they need to settle the players in. Not fair to them.
I find it weird the Winnipeg team is called the Jets when we all know they're the Arizona team.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, cberg said:
Players tanking and GMs tanking are two different things. Shedding assets and rebuilding is GM tanking.
As i said above I don't agree with this.
-
Florida in 7
Bos in 6
Rangers in 5
Car in 4
-
Dallas in 6
Avs in 7
Nash in 7
Edm in 5
-
10 hours ago, The_People1 said:
You said throw the Oilers, Sabres, Islanders, and maybe Red Wings and Leafs into a bucket of teams that tried to "tank" and failed to turn it around successfully. So you are saying it exists but it isn't always successful.
We clearly have a different definition of tanking. Tanking to me is losing on purpose making intentional and deliberate steps to make sure your team is as bad as they can be. I don't think that happens anymore with the lottery rules. I would have a problem with this if teams were doing it but as I said I don't think this is occurring.
I do think teams shed assets and rebuild which to me is not tanking, it's just a life cycle or a pro sports franchise. That process comes with risk which is part of the reason why i don't think teams intentionally lose on purpose because often the risk in doing so outweighs the player your going to get.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, The_People1 said:
You are trying to say "tanking doesn't work so it's not a problem"
I'm saying tanking itself is a problem.
We are not the same.
we are not because what you describe as tanking I don’t think exists, therefore it’s not a problem. -
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.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, robrob74 said:
Which player do you mean? Honzek?
Cayden Lindstrom
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
23/24 Calgary Wranglers Season Discussion
in Calgary Wranglers and Flames Prospects
Posted
The AHL sure is a quirky league when it comes to their playoffs.
I get it, but it's weird. Would be nice to see some Wrangler playoff games.