[Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation]

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

[Darryl Sutter new head coach]

3 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

Ya his gm track record was not great.. but he did draft Backlund.. Phaneuf (even tho he overlooked the centers he could have had )..but ya too much reliance on whl players 

 

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.

[Darryl Sutter new head coach]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

Aside from I believe Ward got the shaft from the players , I love this. I've firmly believed if Sutter had stayed coach for 1-2 more seasons he'd have had a cup here .

 

Him only knowing crash and bang is a misnomer . The team he had in 2004 was not a very talented team..they played to the best of their ability.. that's what Sutter does.

Every player in this team will be told what they are and what they will do..or else .

 

I don't expect Bennett to suddenly get his wish to be a center .. he will be put where he will do the best..Sutter will decide that . We will never again ask " what is Sam Bennett?" Question is , whether Sam will like the answer 

 

Skill players thrive under him.. I think of Dustin Brown.. his career was essentially over until Sutter showed up. But we will know what D is..and if you are a physical player , you will play physical.

Id argue this is the most talented team he's been given.. now we find out what they can and can't do 

 

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.

[Goaltending]

27 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Nope , Toronto still traded a prospect for a veteran , he's the perfect example ,   but if you take vegas out of the equation for obvious reasons , thats 2/3 that are using a goalie that didn't start with them 

Id have to do further research but id be wiling to bet every team(except Vegas) has given up on a goalie that became an NHL regular somewhere else 

 

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.)

[Goaltending]

4 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

and this isn't just Calgary , its the NHL. Its not very common for starting goaltenders to come through one organization . they really don't historically hit their prime years until 25-26, which is long past what most teams will spend developing them . Look around the league , with few exceptions the #1 did not start with that team or organization 

At the time, Brossoit was buried in Alaska , we got what we needed at the time .

 

I've agreed all along teams need to set up seperate scouting and development paths for goaltenders .. goalie specific scouts , goalie directed development .

Flames were the first NHL team to employ a goalie coach .. id  like to see us be the first to do this as well

 

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.

[Flyerfan52]

RIP FF52.

[The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread]

8 hours ago, cross16 said:

According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation they are estimating it will cost around 2K per Calgarian and that does not include cost overruns or interest payments etc.

 

They didn't break down thie math as well as you Cubicon so i'm not sure exactly how they came up with the number. The CTF tends to be more of a worst case/scare tactic organization as well so I do take what they are saying with a grain of salt. 

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4566104/calgary-2026-winter-olympic-games-cost-taxpayers/

 

30 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Hard for the city to ignore the results now that thd province made their portion contingent on it   City can't afford 800 mill let alone over 1 billion and I doubt the Feds are gonna make up the difference. 

 

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. 

[The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread]

20 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes but not every Calgarian is taxed because they are toddlers or retired elderly.  Some are stay at home parents. . Some work but do not make enough to be taxed.  Families that work may make less than poverty levels and get tax relief.  

 

Really, only 1/3 to 1/4 of Calgarians will be paying the bill.  Now apply the same provincially and federally and each Calgarian tax payer is going to pay about $5000.  That's on top of paying normal taxes already.

 

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 Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread]

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-committing-800m-to-olympics-is-not-a-good-deal-nenshi

 

I don't get why this article says $3-billion public money is needed to host the Games.  Wasn't the estimate $5.3-billion?

 

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.

[Goaltending]

Based on what has been reported Murray will be eligible. His AHL years count towards his professional playing experience and he will have 3 years experience by the time the expansion draft is held. 

 

However, as I mentioned before a possible scenairo that does help them keep both is Penguins could ask Fleury to waive his NMC and expose himself to the draft. Questionable as to whether or not with all the goalies available an expansion team would want to take someone at his age/contract status so they could do that if Fleury agreed to it. Risky, but a possible loop hole for them to maybe keep both while Murray builds his resume as a starter. 

 

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.