jjgallow

Hey Cross.... I'll admit, there is the potential for Maybe waiting on our 2016 pick to become a top 2-4 D. But it comes with Very High risk. An unacceptable level of risk, imho. Also...we Just traded Hudler...Wideman gone....and trade deadline still approaching. Adjustments may be in order. We may very well get one of those top 3 spots. And if we do, we Have to go BPA...imho, to realize maximum value. If a D is not BPA, a trade is probably the better option. And much lower risk. None of it will really matter until we know where we're picking and we know who won the lottery. But I think a trade should be a serious consideration.

If the Flames want to win a cup, the organization will need to start thinking about what that cup winning team will look like. Instead of current needs. The classic illustration of the failure to do this, was drafting Jankowski to get a center for Iggy. Gio won't be in that top four picture when we win the cup. He may very well be our captain. But he won't be logging the minutes he does now. Just look at the top 4 D on Stanley Cup winning teams. It's pretty clear and consistent.

I was wondering who your top 3 was! OK...so Brodie is borderlined to be called part of the youth movement now, but I"ll take it. Giordano, flat out no. Gio is Not going to win a cup in Calgary as a top 4 D-man. The difference is that you're looking at the day-to-day lineup, I'm looking at our Stanley cup winning lineup. We have 2. Hamiltion, Brodie (sort of). Both Kylington and Andersson are YEARS away from being top 4 on a cup winning team. I'm patient. I'm really patient. I'm not that patient. They're also both struggling this year. They really are. I'm not saying they won't turn out. But I don't think we can hope for more than one of them to. Maybe. Many years from now.

The Flames gave up a 1st rounder (15th), 45, and 52 overall. In return, they receive an NHL impact-ready 9th overall pick who his lived up to or exceeded expectations, having passed the most risk-averse stages of their development. At 22 years old. We can assume that None of the picks the Flames gave up, will have an impact at 22 years of age. fair assumption? We can assume that out of the three picks, probably none are going to be as good as Hamilton. fair assumption? With some risk, of course. We can assume that out of the three picks, probably One of them will see the NHL. right? Chances are, we traded Hamilton for One guy who will eventually make the NHL, and won't be as good, who will not give Boston any more playing time in their career than Hamilton gives the Flames. There is Nothing unsustainable about that. I'm not saying we can pull off another trade like it, but if we can, we should imho. p.s.......If we trade a 6-10 range pick, we're not going to have to offer up 2nd round picks. Unless we get a player even better than Hamiltion (which I would be Totally ok with). Keep in mind that by the time any 2016 draft pick hits their stride, the Flames will not be a young team anymore.

Monahan and Bennet were Undoubtedly BPA. I don't think that defines our drafting history, though. In fact, those were basically no-brainers. http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/topic/21967-calgary-flames-drafting-and-development-your-analysis/#entry694162 In years that were strong in defencemen (2012), we traded down to get centers. One of the best goaltenders we drafted, we traded away because we somehow thought we had all that figured out with Ramo and Hiller (Brossoit). We also passed on BPA goalie moves like Zach Fucale, others: http://www2.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=86218 While I'm Always a supporter of BPA, I don't think our current situation can be blamed on following it. Because outside those two players mentioned, we generally didn't follow it. 2010, we forfeited most of our picks 2011, - No complaints. BPA. 2012. Bypassed top goalies and defencemen who were BPA, in order to get centers, etc. Weird. Drafted lots of low-skill, low-ceiling, low risk defencemen, who we are talking about now. They were Definitely not BPA. They were Lowest Risk Available. All of them appear to have an NHL shot, and ALL of them appear to be interchangeable parts. Had we drafted BPA, maybe only One would turn out, but with Top-2, or Top-4 projections. 2013. Obviously no issues with Monahan. Again, bypassed top goalies and defencemen who were BPA. Again, drafted Low risk, low reward defencemen ahead of BPA. The classic arguement was Kan't zig, but many others. 2014.. More of the same. 2015.. I would describe this as a BPA year for the Flames, but way to late in the game. They made the right move by trading their first round pick for a top young defenceman. The only reason we are even having an arguement as to whether out defence is okay, is because we made the Right and Necessary move of acquiring Hamilton. IMHO, we need to do that, One More Time. Possibly with our 2016 draft pick. We don't have time to wait for that draft class to develop. I believe we need to trade for a 21-23 year old defenceman with Elite upside and NHL experience. In my own assessment, this need comes way before our goaltending needs. Because we at least have 2 goalies who are NEARLY NHL ready, and have Elite upside. Whether we actually develop them, is another question altogether. No idea why were trading away young goalies in a rebuild, but we might want to stop that. Could we use another top young goalie? Maybe. We don't know until we give the existing prospects a fair chance. But most of the suggestions I've seen on that board are goalies in their late 20's and even 30's. Those goalies will never win us a cup. And acquiring them, while it may move us up in the regular season standings, pushes us further away from a cup. Where we Really like any real prospect pipeline, is Elite defencemen. And that, is where I think we need to make an adjustment through a trade. The Hamilton trade was brilliant. One more, please.

Exactly the problem

They do....sometimes....after many years of development. Which is why you build your team up from your goalie, to your defence, to forwards. We're doing it backwards. Will it work? I think it could. But there's issues to address.

The Problem, in terms of guys in their early 20's, is it basically looks like this: Hamilton Brodie (we'll pretend he's in his early 20s) .. ... .. .. .. .. Everyone we're currently talking about.

That's twice as many games as it took the Flames to banish him last year, after 5 straight wins. The point is, some people on here seem to be more concerned with the distinct possibility that they were wrong about him, than being happy that he had two great games. A whole let of energy is being used up defending positions on him, rather than saying "hey, kid had a great game". Maybe they all see something I don't. It couldn't possibly be ego-related.

MADE my whole day

Why Trade for maybes? I got worked up last night! Haven't done that on here in a Long time. Haven't quite settled down enough to offer out apologies. In hindsight, what's frustrating, is some of the attitudes. We just watched Ortio play two great games. I'm sorry, but when you're 30 seconds away from a shutout in a game like that, you've played great. Not ok. Not just ok. Not so-so. Great Difficult to see that level for two straight games, and on the cusp of a near-shutout, people are saying "he's deteriorating", he was "just ok" but gonna get worse.... "sure he nearly got a shutout, but look at those rebounds"... Look...Every goaltender has weaknesses. Even elite vets. For Years, I could barely stand to watch Kipper stick handle. He gradually...VERY gradually...got better. It's a bit sad. How much tolerance we have for Extremely poor veteran goaltending, and how Little fan support we give GREAT rookie goaltending. To watch a rookie come in, play above .940 for TWO straight games, and have to read a bunch of post-game nonsense about "clearly, our biggest problem is in net". Come On.

No idea at all how you had vezina and $2 million in the same sentence, or how his play was "only ok", because he didn't actually get a shutout. But...this one sentence...we agree on. I've marked it down.

For me, the discrepancy may be partly the definition, but also a question of when. You are correct, nobody is saying "don't get a #1". Some here see it as an obvious hole on our team that needs to be filled. I see it as an obvious hole on our team that is Already been filled by our pipeline, which will need to be replenished. A BIG Part of that has to do with time. Most want a solution "now". And it bothers me that even some of the most knowledgeable fans out there, can't resist this even tough they Know it's not the way to a Stanley cup. Part of it is Definition. Intertwined with Time. Can Ortio and/or Gillies be that #1? We don't know. I want to wait and see. Others want someone who's more established now, even though the best years of their development curve has passed them, and their ceiling is lower. Personally, if their ceiling is below Stanley cup level, I fail to see the point of bringing them in. That goes for Ortio too. But we need to give him enough games to clarify that. Others...just want that bonafide #1 right now. Which would kill our cap, rob us of draft picks, and leave us with a very weak team that spent the best years of this rebuild fighting to make a playoff spot. My mantra...be patient. Build your youth. We have Other holes to fill, there is no rush. If a franchise goaltender could win us the cup next year, it would be different. But they can't. Timing is everything.

Who would those top 3 D be?

By what measurement? I'm assuming, not this one? http://www.statista.com/statistics/196794/revenue-of-the-calgary-flames-since-2006/ According to that measurement, management was doing...exactly what they were supposed to. The only drop in revenue the Flames ever had, was when Kipper dropped off, and retired. Which was followed by the only actual meaningful changes to the organization. Find another Kipper, return to mediocre performance (which pays Very well in a hockey town)....do we think the incentive will be somehow different for the owners next time?

I'll answer that with a question, for a change, rather than a statement. Why were we unable to do this with Kipper?

Our defence is average, or offence is average, Yes...our goaltending has been below average. Bringing in a franchise goaltender won't make the rest of the team a contender team. We'll still struggle to make the playoffs, fight to stay above average. A franchise goaltender would just mask the areas where imrprovements are needed the most. Our goaltending will get better. But other things need to get better with it.

Ummm...I'm the only one on here not trying to overhaul a working system. Not my fault Hartley didn't try it all year.

We've talked a lot on here today. Ortio's play was the only talk that mattered, though

I'll stop jawing. Said my piece and it's going circular. what's inferred above though, by using those examples, is that if we get a true #1 goaltender, or mentor, we're going to be a contender. Unlikely. Goaltending isn't even our biggest issue. the fact that it looks like it is...tells you where our biggest problems lie. Patience....will be needed.

....yes...I saw that....and yes, I have a list.

You know a lot more about contract issue than me. But, I also know, that you are being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Nobody said they had to be over 20. We have more than one farm team. You can loan goalies out to other AHL team s as well. You're entering an area you have a lot of knowledge in at the expense of avoiding the topic at hand.

If it were easy, every team would win the cup. It's never easy. But it's Not impossible. There are solutions out there and there is precedence.

I didn't miss it, but I just don't see the point in acquiring more prospects if we're going to clog our system up with more Ramos and Hillers. As well, drafts should be BPA. Especially when it comes to goalie decisions. When there's an opportunity to draft the best player available and it's a goalie, you draft them. when there's not, you don't. Statistically speaking, that should work out to 10% of your draft picks in the long run. Or 2 goalies every 3 years. Don't have enough goalie prospects? Acquire them. Have too many? Trade them. Afraid to play your prospects? Play them. Or lose them.

Teams that invested in their goalie pipeline during that period, for the most part, have a good goalie situation now. Teams that looked for stop-gap measures, aging veterans, or "best players not in the NHL", generally have a goalie problem right about now.