FueltheFlames1075

To me there is no way that you trade Andersson over Hanifin. I think they’re close in skill and what they bring to the team, so you have to factor in other things. From what I can piece together, Hanifin was/is close with Tkachuk. Andersson fits in with our Swedish contingent. So why trade a guy way more likely to stay, after we’ve watched two American leave this summer? Why chance it?

Time to put to bed the notion that Calgary was the issue with Tkachuk, Gaudreau and Fox. I never want to hear that garbage again, personally. Sure we may have to pay more due to taxes and climate, but I don’t think it had this huge effect.

My question would be, how do you know it’s a 10% chance? This isn’t to be rude, but do you have a personal connection to these players? If not, you are stating something like it’s fact, even though it’s not. if you’re going to point to Gaudreau, Tkachuk and Fox, you have to recognize the fact that they’re all American. They all went back “home” in a variety of ways. Why is it impossible to believe that Canadian players would want to do the same? And I don’t buy into this idea that the Flames are as far off of being a contender as you think. That’s just my optimistic opinion though.

You should probably check your facts before you start stating your opinion, as if it is fact. NJ reportedly offered him more than Columbus, and he still chose Columbus.

And Gaudreau is from New Jersey, yet he chose Columbus over NJ.🤔

A small point here, and it only makes a bit of difference. But Huberdeau does not turn 30 this year. He just turned 29 on June 4th.

That’s my bad. I was actually asking this from a truly open minded standpoint. I thought I read the laws a while back, and read them as I had posted them. I was wondering from a genuinely concerned standpoint. Good to know, and it helps shed light on the situation for me personally.

I understand that that’s not the issue that’s being talked about, but you missed my point entirely. This is a perfect example of what may be disturbing about this whole mess. Because of the world we live in today, and the double standard, are we so focused on the wrong doing of Mailloux that we are missing the possible fact that an 18 year old woman had sex with an underage 17 year old guy? It doesn’t matter if it was consensual or that it’s only a 1 year age gap. It’s considered sex with an underage minor, which I believe is rape under the laws in Canada at least. Someone correct me if I’m wrong on anything. I am not arguing with if the kid should be punished. He absolutely should, and I am in the boat that he should not have been drafted this year. It was a bad move by Montreal. If we’re punishing one crime though (the photos), which we should, then we need to punish the other crime too. Edit: And I disagree with the fact that this is a “boys will be boys issue”. I have seen multiple situations where women share intimate photos with their friends, without the guys consent. It happens all of the time, both ways. It’s unfortunate, but true.

I completely agree with this post. Of course what the kid did was a terrible thing, and he should be punished for it. The rest of this post holds true as well though. For me though there is a far more disturbing, while fascinating, issue at play here. I don’t know the laws in Sweden, so this may be moot. At the time of the consensual sex in question, it is my understanding that this woman was 18 and Mailloux was 17. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, in Canada that’s considered sex with an underage minor, and a criminal act regardless if the sex is consensual. If this is true, it shows a complete double standard that is very very troubling.

I’ll be very interested to see if any of the Oilers players or ex-players who decided to spout off about the code, and what is “right” after the Tkachuk hits/non fight, will take the time to condemn this incident like they were so happy to do in the media before. If they do not, then it sure paints them as giant hypocrites. Guys like Kevin Bieksa, Ryan Kessler and others, who had no issues with throwing their two cents out there, better be at the forefront once again.

This logic doesn’t make sense. I think we all can agree that Neal wasn’t going to play top 6 this year, in Calgary. He didn’t fit in the bottom 6 with his style, so we had no where to play him. So instead of paying Neal $5.75M to play in a bottom 6 role that he wouldn’t fit in, we pay Lucic $5.25M to play a bottom 6 role that he will fit in to. I agree it’s too much money to pay a bottom 6 guy, but we were going to be doing it either way. At least we have a better fit this way, and for $500,000 cheaper.

Or maybe the blame lays with him for not pushing to make them give him games.

So who makes out better here? Calgary or Edmonton?

I have heard that Mike Smith is headed to the Oilers.

Wow, this is truly a shock. I am not one of the huge posters here, however I am always on and reading others opinions. FF52 was definitely a great poster and you could tell that he was a great person as well. Rest in peace Larry, and hopefully we all can carry on his legacy on here, in some way.

This article is flawed in a couple of ways, with one more directly connected and the other indirectly connected. The direct connection is that it ignores any and all variables. It ignores the fact that Elliott and Raanta both played on far superior teams to Smith over the last several seasons. Judging based on the teams they played for, it would seem that more often than not Smith was the reason that his team won, where the same cannot be said as often for Elliott or Raanta. The fact is that any of these three, or other goalies, could be products of their environments or maybe it's the other way around. The only way to know with certainty is to see them on either a weaker team or a better team in the case of Smith. I understand the angst that comes with Smith's age as well, but each player is different and we won't know if he is in decline until we see how he does behind what should be a better team in Calgary. Is he better than Elliott or not, which is a question that the numbers on the surface would suggest not. Again this may or may not be related to the teams each player played for. Let's wait and see. It's no bigger risk in my opinion than taking a gamble on whether Raanta or Grubauer's numbers were because of them or because of their team. Indirectly this is ironic because this same writer did an article a week ago, questioning whether the Flames were giving their own homegrown prospects a chance to play. They then make a move that signals that they are putting faith in their own prospect goalies, and it's called a half measure. Does that not seem just a little hypocritical to everyone? Is it an expensive price to pay for Smith. That also depends on some variables that we won't know for awhile, or may never know. Would Hickey have signed here? What will that 2nd/3rd have been drafted as or traded for? What would the 3rd round pick that we theoretically could have gotten for Hickey, have turned out to be? Again these are things that can change the look of this trade. What we do know is that the cost of Raanta or Grubauer would have more than likely been higher, due to age, and those trades could have easily crashed and burned.

https://twitter.com/Fan960Steinberg/status/876168621604478976 Here is an interesting tweet from Steinberg.

Despite my hypothetical, I would agree that Talbot was solid in his first season with the Oilers. My main point is you don't know how a trade will pan out until you know. It could go either way with Smith, the same way it could with Raanta or Grubauer. I am not overly happy with the price, but what's done is done. BT will have to own up to the results of this trade if it goes bad. Let's hope that this does not happen and Smith provides us with great goaltending. Either way, it was a gamble.

This is just an interesting thought that I had. I know that a lot of our members on this board wanted us to go out and get a Raanta or Grubauer (sp?), which would have been a "gamble" on an unproven backup. This is obviously what the Oilers did, and it worked out for them. There are cases where this type of gamble has worked out (ie. the Oilers), and cases where it hasn't. My hypothetical is let's put the Oilers in the same spot as us, with the opportunity to trade for Talbot or Smith. Let's just say that that choice was in front of them in this offseason, instead of a couple of seasons ago, and after they made a playoff appearance. Does everyone think that they still would have traded for Talbot, or do you think that they would trade for the more proven commodity, to try and capitalize on the good team that they have? Now I realize that there are a few different moving parts. Let's just base it on the teams being in similar spots and as a hypothetical. Thoughts?

The question I have is, is Gillies going to be exempt from the draft or not? On General Fanager they show him as eligible and needing to be protected. If this is the case, do we really want MAF who will keep his NMC (can someone clarify if he keeps the NMC after waiving it for a trade?) and then have to be protected by us, thus exposing Gillies?