Cubicon

This is the last coach Treliving hires for the Flames. If Sutter doesn't work out, expect some house cleaning.

Certainly, but I'll say all GMs have winners and losers. The mark of a good GM, like a good team, is to win more than you lose. If you follow up Dion Phaneuf as a first round pick with Kris Chucko, Matt Pelech, and Leland Irving, that's bad. And that's not even taking into consideration that the 2003 draft was absolutely stacked. You could've picked players by throwing darts at a board and still come up a winner.

I think he gets this reputation from his GM role with us back in the day. He'd pick guys that were big but didn't have any skill, which killed us. Sutter's no good at building a team, but, as a coach, he does magic with the ingredients he's been given.

Yeah, but that's my point. You can't say that developing your own goaltenders is uncommon when 1/3 of the league is doing it successfully. And of the remaining 2/3 who have been trying to trade for a starting goaltender, how many have even been successful? Here's my quick list of teams that don't have an undisputed starting goaltender: Buffalo Calgary Carolina Edmonton Florida NY Islanders New Jersey Philadelphia So that leaves you with 9 teams that have traded for their starter: Arizona (Darcy Kuemper) Columbus (Sergei Bobrovsky) Colorado (Semyon Varlamov) Dallas (Ben Bishop) Minnesota (Devan Dubnyk) Ottawa (Craig Anderson) San Jose (Martin Jones) Toronto (Frederik Andersen) Vancouver (Jacob Markstrom) And these are just starters on their respective teams. It doesn't mean these are bona fide #1 goalies. All I'm trying to say is that trading for a starting goalie is by no means the usual thing to do. I think the Flames are stuck with a lot of other teams that are trying to get this strategy to work without much success while a third of the league has figured out how to draft and develop goaltenders properly. Yes the Flames need to do this, but it's by no mean revolutionary. (PS: add Corey Crawford to the list of #1's playing with the team that drafted them. It may be a bad year, but he's been a legit #1 for them in years past.)

Current starting goalies that are playing with the team that drafted them: Connor Hellebuyck Braden Holtby Carey Price John Gibson Jimmy Howard Henrik Lundqvist Andrei Vasilevsky Pekka Rinne Matt Murray Jonathan Quick Jake Allen Then add Tukka Rask to the list, whose rights were only held by Toronto for a year and has played his entire career with Boston. I'd say he had "come through one organization." That's over a third of the league with home-grown keepers. I agree that goalies take a while to develop and that predicting their performance from year to year is pure divination, but I wouldn't call developing your own goalies an uncommon thing.

RIP FF52.

And that's quite probably where the difference comes from. The feds haven't yet stated what they'd contribute. If it's not enough to cover the total, then yeah, that could easily balloon it up to 2K+ per person. We still don't have a good idea of how the costs will play out yet. I'm personally in favour of it, but I realize the costs are high. But it won't be decided by those of us who are in this thread (and are relatively well informed). It'll be decided by the thousands of Calgarians that haven't done any research into it. I'm curious how they'll vote, though I suspect they'll vote yes.

Fair enough, but your numbers are still off. According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, all taxes are paid by 67% of the Canadian population. I'd say it's a reasonable assumption to extend that same percentage to Calgary as well as the province. So if you want to calculate it per tax payer, at the latest funding numbers I've seen mentioned out there (accuracy unknown): Calgary: $800M / (1.3M people x 67%) = $918 per taxpayer Alberta: $700M / (4.2M people x 67%) = $243 per taxpayer Canada: $1500M / (36.7M people x 67%) = $61 per taxpayer Grand total: $1222 per Calgarian taxpayer, which is a far cry from $5000. Now of course that's just the stated cost; it's the overruns that could kill us. If the city gets stuck with the bill for any cost overruns, we could be in a world of hurt. If the feds step in and take responsibility for overruns then the impact won't be too bad since our share of the federal pie is much smaller.

The rest is listed as coming from "the IOC, sponsorships, ticketing, and merchandising." (https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/10/15/money-biggest-obstacle-for-calgarys-olympic-bid.html) Also, since the money is coming from all three levels of government, it would be more like $500-$1000 per Calgarian.

So then if you're Pittsburgh, do you sell Fleury now at a discount and put all your eggs in the Murray basket, or do you hold on to Fleury for another year to hedge your bets with Murray but risk losing him for nothing? Or even in that case, risk losing Murray if Fleury decides he's not going to waive his NMC 'cause he doesn't want to play for an expansion team. If I'm Pittsburgh, that option just seems too risky.