robrob1974
-
Posts
3,151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by robrob1974
-
-
All Treliving needs to do is qualify them and continue negotiations. I am more concwrned about the coaching vacancy than the contracts for Gaudreau and Monahan.
-
That seems to be where some mock drafts put him. Toronto needs less draft picks and more NHL players unless they want to follow the Oilers or BJ's method of competing in the NHL.
I dunno, Florida did it with a lot of draft picks and some shrewd drafting and turned it around fast with Dave Tallon.
-
The guy gets lucky and you say he is looking smart? Just because there might be a expansion draft coming does not mean BT had the foresight to see that this might happen. He still has to find us a #1 goaltender anyway.
He tried and failed to get rid of Hiller and he tried and failed to pick up a goaltender last season. That is not smart you can't spin it that way.
But you can spin it that he didn't want to pay the prices for a goalie and stuck to his guns on the deal. It's not something we'd know for sure, but my guess is he wasn't willing to pay above a certain price and didn't. So that could be construed as smart.
-
Did anyone know Montreal was that bad without Price?
-
We lacked a goalie to make the saves we needed when we needed them. With just average goaltending in 2014/15, we made the playoffs. Do you want a goalie that exposes every thing wrong with your team, or do you want one that can help you win when you experience some problems?
We have a good offensive team. We had some hiccups on defense, but have a good base there. Secondary scoring dried up a lot, but that is fixable.
It's not like the Kipper years where we knew we lacked much of a team. Monahan is the best center we had since the Iggy trade.
Our biggest problems are goaltending and special teams. The first one helps improve the PK. Better special team coaching will improve the PP and PK.
I understand we made the playoffs, but we did in a year where both LA and San Jose missed. It was as much us as it was them playing themselves out. When did the Kings win their last cup? Then they missed the playoffs the year after. San Jose had problems transitioning their leadership which came from coaching and management, and now the true San Jose team is in the conference finals.
I get it, we made the playoffs, but we also did it on timely comebacks and if I remember correctly, 13 of them. That's not how to play, not how I want the team to play. I see it as a good thing that they made it, but I also think that year was an anomoly and don't heed too much into it as much as I believe it was a bonus in a rebuild and a fluke.
I felt their play was painful to watch and sure, the goalies helped a bit, but at the same time, we still played from behind more than we were ahead. Goaltending and poor play also got us behind that year, making us have to have a near unprecedented amount of comebacks. I can't accept that year as an argument for goaltending or a playoff because of the amount of luck that went into it as well.
Awesome, we never said die. This year, teams were ready and look where it got us... When we were right out of it, they didn't play as hard against us allowing us to get within 10 points, making it look like we were five wins out.
MAF isn't going to help, he has too many holes, once his confidence dries up, he's going to be bad news. He's easily broken. I pass.
-
I haven't been a fan of Fleury either. He had a bounce back year, but how many years has he fudged up in the playoffs. Someone said that Pitsburgh didn't necessarily have a good D all those years, but right now, at the end of the season, we were last in D. I think we have good offensive D, but until I see team defense, I am not sold on getting a guy like Fleury who's excuse to some on here is that he didn't have a strong defensive team.
Plus, I don't want a goalie to hide flaws like Kipper hid them when he played. Or how Price hides them in Montreal. Sure you can win a round in the playoffs, maybe even two, with a goalie who hides weaknesses, but I think we should get a decent stop gap until that really good goalie comes along and we become contenders.
-
nevermissashift likes this
Who wants to stay status quo?
I like what you say except for this status quo definition. The phrase sounds like it means 'stagnant quo' to me here. A team needs to keep a forward flow.
I see what you mean, but I meant keeping the status quo in the rebuild, which I actually mean is, continuing with the plan that they've set forth. If we start trading off a bunch of the prospects, and it only helps minimally, and the prospects turn out longer term, then we've done injustice to our rebuild. I think we can trade of a Wotherspoon and Kulak, but I wouldn't touch Hickey, Kylington and Andersson.
I think we have an access of forward prospects that aren't higher end, but might make the NHL.
-
I think our excess prospect pool is 2nd or 3rd line LWers and perhaps some combination of pick(s) and prospect(s) could land us the goalies BT wants here.
Definitely the forward prospects. But the three D I don't want to trade just yet, not until we know what we have. The forward guys, I am okay with.
-
I think adding two teams at the same time would increase the cap by too much. Also, if you add two, one is going to be from the East and one from the West, so you are unbalanced anyway. If Quebec City is announced, you are going to have to move a team back to the Western Conference.
Last week on the radio, It sounded like only one team for now. Quebec doesn't have to support it expected due to the dollar being lower. Seattle doesn't have a stadium, and Vegas is ready. It has to be one team right now. I think Quebec will be a year or two away, once they get their finances in order and hopefully a dollar value rise.
Seattle would've been good, but the city just voted against the building recently. It had something to do with zoning and the swing vote was expected to vote yes, voted no to it. It's the fact the NBA hasn't given a guarantee that they'd relocate a team to Seattle, and a team would have to wait for an arena built. Chicken or the egg, anyone?
Zoning, the land use and giving it up for an arena is a big deal... The NHL is a no go until there is an NBA team in Seattle.
-
In the case of Hickey, he's not really a tangible asset at this point. The Flames own his rights, but he's not under contract. I believe he has two (maybe one) years remaining in college and then he could re-enter the draft if he was so inclined.
I think he can become a free agent and doesn't have to go draft again.
-
So if we aren't ready to part with anyone that has potential, we should be ready to stay status quo.
Being in the middle of a rebuild, status quo is the way to go. Even though we have a good core started, if we trade away good prospects now, we could regret it in the future.
Could Vasilevsky be worth two 2nds this draft, instead of just one? If he is that good, is he worth a next year's 1st? I would feel somewhat safe to trade next year's 1st especially since we'd think there's going to be improvement, and would he improve the goaltending enough to stabilize and allow our guys to do their thing in front of him.
-
1
-
-
Hickey feels like a Brodie type guy in the sense that it took him a few years in pro and NHL to realize his potential. Hickey has the tools, but he hasn't realized or utilized all of them yet.
I think all three are intriguing. I am afraid to trade any of them off until we figure out their full value, and, eventually all three D prospects could be our best prospects and could be already.
I think they're in hand you need to sit on and see through to reap the rewards. Keep them or trade them at the height of their value, and that's not known yet.
-
2
-
-
That is a good point. Ramo was cheating quite a bit at the beginning of the season, which took him off his post. When he got back he didn't cheat as often.
-
Cross,
I don't get why Ramo was waived over Hiller. That would be Treliving's way of fixing the situation. But I wonder who it was who saw Hiller as the one to keep up?
-
A Lehtonen buyout is possible, which would get him for us cheap. We're still buying time to "fix" the position.
Guys still sign for close to what they're worth. Look at Lecavallier, Richards, etc. What would Lehtonen be worth open market?
-
I think he can offload Wideman and Stajan as they're both serviceable. Stajan was never given good mates but played well in the playoffs last year. He had moments with Ferland in that first series.
With a skilled linemate I am sure he can put up a few more points.
-
I see Colborne pricing himself out of Calgary so they're forced to trade his rights. They'll offer the RFA price but he may need arbitration. If he's awarded too much they trade him. I am still not sold on Colborne, but I am not as sold on Ferland anymore either.
Although, both players were moved around so much it is hard to get a read on them.
I keep Hathaway. I like his 4th line presence. Who knows if he can become a PK guy? I like how he causes penalties. If we can fix our PP, he's probably going to draw a penalty or two per game, if he's consistent, or in games he is effective.
I am not sold on Colborne being a C either.
I see them keep Hathaway and Shore and Grant are out. Grant may get another look, or get signed as a depth guy to play in the AHL.
-
So the way I see it is, we are about 1-2 bottom six players and 1-2 top six players away from playing the way management want to play.
Gaudreau, Monahan, XXX
Ferland, Bennett, XXX
XXX, Backlund, Frolik
Bouma, XXX, Hathaway
XXX, Jooris
If you want an offensive 4th line threat, maybe you throw Ferland on that line with a biggish 2-way C. Has Arnold progressed enough?
Bouma can try rekindle his chemistry with Backlund. Then that leaves a spot you have to fill for Bennett.
We aren't close enough, but a couple more adds this off season with get us close to a playoff birth. It depends on how fast we can move into the new system with the new coach.
I think it is highly unlikely we make the playoffs again next year.
-
That is all accurate. But coaching does have a huge impact on the play of a young player. Baertschi doesn't look like a superstar but he does look like an NHL player in Vancouver.
I really do wonder what Baertschi might look like if there was another coach in Calgary.
That said, other young guys are flourishing in Calgary and did under Hartley so I am not saying it's all on the coach. But Hartley didn't seem to give Baertschi the same opportunities that he is getting in Vancouver.
Baerstchi is comfortable now too, so he feels safe to play his game.
This is what I think coaches should do, play their players to their strengths.
-
We got pretty amazing goaltending from Ramo and he managed to get us back into a playoff spot for what a day? two?
He got hurt and neither of Hiller and Ortio was able to keep us in the running.
You are not being fair. You have to take baby steps before you can do and olympic 100 yards dash.
Give the Flames avg or better goaltending and they are fighting for a playoff spot this past season.
Which Ramo are you talking about the one who played terrible to start the season or the one who played well enough to get us into playoff contention around christmas? Same question for Ortio.. both were waived for poor play...
We were out of a playoff spot when Ramo went down. Sure he got us back in the mix, back to .500. The team had a miracle stretch of hockey, and if that's what you're counting on to get in then you're not a contender. After that stretch they played under .500 again and that was with Ramo in and some decent performances by Ortio. This team has good parts but isn't close to being a contender yet, especially if management wants them to play a rougher harder brand. We don't have the bodies to play that style. Possession styles, maybe they can with one or two lines.
-
Two different unrelated points. Baer was benched and asked to play a 2 way game. He did not respond and was sent down. He then demanded a trade. He hasn't thrived in another system.
He was actually complimented on his two way game in Vancouver. I thought his two way game was ok. He back checked but he was not intense about and I think it made it look like he wasn't trying. It's probably because it looks more like he is floating, yet he is in position.
I just think coaching/management didn't like him. He came into camp with an attitude and it cost him. Maybe without the attitude that one development camp and he might have been given the same leeway as Monahan got.
We all see it subjectively different and that's how I see that situation. I may not be right to some but to others, they may see it the same way.
I think Baertschi isn't an in your face guy and that's what they want, but that's not him as a player. His 2-way game is fine, it's just not in your face aggressive.
-
Kehatch. The Hudler deal you're talking about is the Russell deal. It was Russell for Jokipakka, Polllock and a 2nd Round Pick.
I give an A for that one.
I would give the Reinhart deal a C+ because he wasn't going anywhere, his value was low and Treliving opened up a roster spot.
I'd give him a higher mark for Baertschi, mostly because he asked for a trade. Perhaps negotiating a deal just prior to RFA is a hard one, although he could've qualified him first and then dealt?
The Hudler deal is another A as they get a 2nd Rounder and a 4th Rounder which we got two picks for a rental. He wasn't getting us a 1st OA.
A lot of his trade deals are better than his signings, but then again, he only signed a few too high, while a few with steals of deals.
-
Conundrum, I agree he made a few premature deals before he assessed the team with his own eyes.
Maybe the Raymond injury derailed him, maybe not, but I've said it before, he was not a player we needed. But I agree, he could've used a look to see what the team was like before making deals.
Some re-signs were nearly minimally overpaid, but not terribly. I wasn't happy about some, but workable.
I just think all is at fault on this season. It was a elbowing show most of the time. It took awhile to get going and it was too late when they did.
-
I think it's both coach and GM on this one.
The one thing Hartley stopped doing was investing in new kids. He invested in the ones he trusted.
I think management failed to ice a team that can compete the way they want to in the Pacific. But that too is part of inheriting a team that was in the start of a rebuild and not able to play that way. It's now a matter of drafting. Has Treliving done a good enough job drafting guys to play to that style?
If he hasn't, we are still years away from playing that style and getting to where we want be.
I think if Hartley had a complete team he would've gotten better results. But there was a storm in the beginning of the year which proved the lack of depth which created a Hartley with his head cut off. Using the chicken analogy. But Hartley began to coach outside of his own head I think, which was why he got away from the "Earned" portion of the team motto. Getting away from that stopped team growth and stagnated us.
All of it got him fired and Treliving didn't place all of the blame on him. Everyone is to blame on this one!
But I think we are still about 3-5 years away from playing the "black and blue" style management is interested in playing. Who do we have that has NHL potential coming through that can play that way?
Hathaway and Ferland...
I am leery on Smith but have hopes he can.
We don't have much of those players unless we acquire through signing or trades, we are years away from it.
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
Kipper had teams that watched the play in the D zone. There were a lot of brain farts happening. Anyway...