ABC923

Bennett is actually a decent playmaker when he wants to be. I think the problem is (especially lately) he just wants to score so badly that he tries too hard. He’s too focused on ending his scoring drought and lets other aspects slide by the wayside.

Just something to note, Brodie was adamant that he preferred the right side of the ice. Now, it shouldn't matter, but there's no question he's been less effective since making the switch. Maybe it's all in his head, but if you move him back to the right side, maybe he bounces back.

Certainly not his best, but it is debatable if it is his worst. Last year was truly awful for him; while he put up more points, he was a -21 over just 49 games, and was caved in from a possession stand point. This year is a near carbon copy of his 2015-2016 season, with fewer points and hits. You have to go back to 2014-2015 to find a truly great season, where he was +15 with 33 points and over 200 hits. What happened to his physicality by the way? Only 79 hits this season, the fewest in his career outside of lockout and injury shortened seasons. Edit: That's only 7 more hits than Hamilton, btw.

I was skeptical when we picked him up. Nothing I had seen or read suggested he was that great a player, but people were adamant he was great. People on this board were willing to trade Hamilton for him straight up. Well, he's a pretty average 4/5 defender. The right shot is nice, and he's better than Stone, but that's not saying much. Two seconds was the right price, as that might be what he's worth today. He's fine. It isn't his fault, and he is what he is. But this trade should be what gets BT fired imo. Straw that breaks the camel's back,as it were. BT has made one really good trade: Hamilton. He's been solid at negotiating great deals with our RFAs (and our UFAs for that matter, but not others). But otherwise what has he done? Traded for Smith. That's okay I guess, but what does a non-playoff team need with an aging netminder with injury problems. He signed Versteeg this year, who was awful before he got hurt. Brought in Glass for...reasons... not to mention that plug on defense last year who made Engelland look like McDavid before being cut (I forget his name and can't be bothered to look it up). Overpaid Brouwer, another move that predictably bombed. Brought in Stone at an inflated contract. Brought in Stewart, who wasn't good enough to be Minny's 13th forward. Overpaid for Lazar. Has so far failed to bring in any RW help of note. And now we are about to lose out on Dahlin (I know the odds are low, but the Flames have cronic bad luck so I expect them to 'win' the draft lottery). And lets not forget our illustrious coaching staff. We're getting career years from Mony, Gaudreau, Tkachuk (so far), and Ferland, plus decent years out of Hamilton, Gio, Backlund, Janko, and Stajan (for what it's worth), and we're going to miss the playoffs. What a waste.

Definitely possible. I won't lie, I am disappointed the nhl isn't going, but I do get it from their perspective. The IOC is one of the worst groups in the world, and have just about ruined the olympics for me. I'm not sure I will even watch this year.

So the IOC was in town recently, gave the rubber stamp to the saddledome for olympic hockey and figure skating. Does this play in at all to the arena debate, or is it just more hot air? Same thing with Bettman v. Maclean over the weekend.

We have a better possession game now, top 10 in the league I believe. We have solid goaltending as well. For all the talk about how bad our defense are, our Goals against/Game is right smack in the middle of the league. The biggest issue is goals. We rank 23rd in the nhl for goals/game. So what gives? Isn't a possession game supposed to correlate to more goals/wins? It depends on how you measure possession. The typical measurement is corsi, which compares shot attempts (including misses and blocks) between teams. Calgary takes more shots than most, and is actually pretty decent at preventing shots as well. The problem is that corsi (and other possession metrics) don't really take into account scoring chance quality. This was highlighted for me in our last game against the ducks. The flames were highly outplayed (according to anyone who watched that I know anyway), and were outshot 41-23. But when you factor in blocked shots, we were only outshot 48-44. Corsi would only give a slight edge to the ducks in that case. So are the ducks just super good at blocking shots, or are the flames taking low probability shots from bad angles or the points because they have been coached to shoot from anywhere, because that's what drives possession stats? In short, be careful what you wish for. We wanted a possession game, well technically we got it.

Lots of holes in this analysis, not least of which is that it assumes anyone with 650 million can just walk in and buy an expansion team. Sometimes expansion just isn't in the cards for the league. It is right now, as we need one more western team to balance the conferences, but after that? So to suggest that the flames are now suddenly worth 650 million is ridiculous. They are worth what someone will pay for them and what the ownership is willing to accept. The article more or less reads like it was written by Burke/Bettman/Murray. Has a certain 'you should be grateful to give us hundreds of millions of dollars to fund our business' feel to it.

Assuming Seattle gets an expansion, I would say the threat of moving the flames has diminished a lot in the near term. Quebec is not a great option for a western conference team, so I wouldn't worry much about them from a flames perspective. Houston maybe, but I'm not sure what their current arena situation is like.

One thing I'll just through out there, is it possible our D are actually quite good but lack sufficient support from the forward group? Team defense is more than just the guys on the back-end after all, and if centers aren't helping out properly or wingers aren't covering their points or struggle to get the puck out when it comes to them, it can make a solid d-core look worse.

Perhaps I should take what I've read with a grain of salt. As you guys say, not many in the main stream have said much about this aside from that small piece on the Fan the other day, which was reporting on John Shannon's piece I think. As far as Bettman disliking the flames, perhaps that isn't quite true. I don't see him going out of his way to keep the team in Calgary the way he has Phoenix however. Nhl franchises are building new arenas all the time though, and so far no team has moved because their building was too old. Despite that, it's a very common threat. So here we are, the first city to really try the patience of their team, somewhat appearing to call their bluff. Why wouldn't Bettman want to see us move? Sure, a new expansion team injects 500 million into the league, but that's less than what a new arena costs. If the nhl has a team looking for a new building every 2 years or so (maybe less), a new arena paid for by taxpayers has a larger impact on owners bottom lines than a new expansion team. So by making an example of us, the league sets a precedent for further extortion in their remaining markets. Plus, give a flames free calgary a decade or so and we'll have a new arena waiting for our own new expansion team.

I find it frustrating that there is so much noise about the team moving, but it seems more and more likely to happen. Seattle has just announce a $600 million renovation of their current arena, so they will be a viable location soon enough. The most frustrating aspect to me is the league almost seems keen to move the flames, a profitable franchise, rather than move a money losing venture like Pheonix, Carolina, etc. There are at least a half dozen teams from a purely economic standpoint that make more sense to move than the Flames, maybe more, but it's us that seems to be on the chopping block. Again, the flames are profitable - the only reason for a new arena is to make them more profitable and to generate spin off benefits for the owners (flames owners are rumoured to have wanted to get into development of condos etc. around the new building). From my perspective, there are a couple reasons for this. #1, I know it's conspiratorial, but I don't think Bettman cares much for Canada as a whole. I think he carries a grudge against Nenshi, and is petty enough to push to harm him regardless of what's best for the league. #2, and this is more likely. I think the nhl is keen to make an example of us. Extortion only works if people believe your threats. We at least appear to be calling their bluff at this point, so what better opportunity to show the other 30 cities with nhl franchises that they better cough up the dough for new buildings when asked or else.

The weird thing is, we had a pretty solid backup last year in Johnson. He saved the season for us, but when his play slipped later in the season we decided not to bring him back. He's not a starter, but that's how we played him and he burned out. Why BT thought Lack was an upgrade over Johnson i'll never understand.

Bart suffers from the same problems as Russel did when it comes to defense. Sure he can block shots and tie guys up, and that's great, but the puck hardly leaves our zone when he's on the ice. And that's the problem. And not being able to make a good first pass is a huge deal; he winds up icing it or giving it away too often, which prevents him from changing and gives the opposition more time in the offensive zone. At least Russel could contribute on the offensive side of the ice from time to time.

I still think what will happen is Calgary will bid for the olympics, and a new arena will be built because of that.

Man, that infographic on the main page today is pretty Mickey Mouse. I could have probably produced something more convincing. On one page they have a comparison of the cities plan Xed out with 'flames pay 120%', with almost no explanation to back that up besides 'we say so'. They count the ticket tax as their revenue, but as mentioned earlier they actually suggested such a tax for the West Village proposal. In fact, on the very same page they then show user fees as being part of how Edmonton is recouping it's cost, but for some reason that isn't 'Oiler's Money', but it would be 'Flames Money'. What a joke!

Don't let Ken King twist the facts here. The Flames are not paying '120%' of the cost as he suggests. The deal offered by the city was the Flames pay 1/3 of the cost upfront with the city putting the other 2/3. The city then wants to recoup 1/3 of the total cost through a ticket surcharge, something that even Edmonton is doing and is completely normal. But the Flames see that ticket surcharge as their money, rather than the customer's money. The only way that makes sense is if they were planning on charging so much for tickets in the new building that the surcharge would prevent people from coming to the games and other events. The city then wants to recoup the rest of the costs by collecting property taxes over 30 years or so. Again, not an unreasonable request. Even the oilers are paying rent. Overall the deal works out to the city offering 2/3 of the money as an interest free loan to be paid back over 30 years. Considering it is the team and not the city demanding a new facility, this seems like a reasonable starting point for a deal. The flames on the other hand seem to want the city to contribute 1/2 the money, while forgoing any method to recoup the investment. No rent, no property tax, and no ticket surcharge. This is nothing more than asking for free money to increase the profitability of their business, and does not seem like a reasonable starting point for a deal. I'm not saying the city's offer is perfect. It could easily be shifted somewhat toward the team's perspective. But of the two proposals (as best we know to this point), it is the city's proposal that seems grounded in a fair compromise position, not the Flames. Perhaps it's just King's ineptitude in delivering his message, but this is the distinct impression I have of the situation so far.

This is an example of why I generally don't support public money for arenas and stadiums. If a proper revenue sharing agreement could be made that would be great, but it rarely works out that way. Just look at how the arena deal in Edmonton shook out. Katz put up about $20 million in cash, and the oilers will then lease the building for 35 years from the city for a total cost of about 3.22 million per year. The city owns the building outright, but Katz and the Oilers collect all revenue generated from events held at Rogers Center including games, concerts, and other events, and even naming rights. So let's look at how this shakes down. Total Arena Cost: $483.5 Million City Expenses: ~463.5 Million, much of it borrowed, to be paid by ticket levees, revitalization levees, and oilers rent money City Benefits: Revitalization, a little over 3 million in annual revenue from the team, a "promise" not to move the team for 35 years. Oilers Expenses: $20 million in cash upfront, 3.22 million annually for 35 years Oilers Benefits: All revenue (parking, ticket sales, concessions, advertising, concerts, etc.) So legally the city owns the building, and paid for the lion's share of the cost. The oilers pitched in about 5% of the cash upfront and will pay most of their contribution in the form of rent. In return, the oilers receive all of the profits directly associated with the building. Seems like Katz basically got a brand new arena for $20 million plus another 112 million spread out over 35 years. The city will never see a direct profit from this building, and will eat a pretty significant loss. I hope for Edmonton's sake that the spin off revenue sources surrounding the arena pan out, but as other posters have mentioned it's the province and the feds who will reap most of the tax benefits. And how likely is it that Roger's Stadium is still functioning in 35 years anyway? The Saddledome is considered a dump by the Flames and Bettman, and is only about 30 years old.

The issue is that the creosote leakage is relatively low right now. As soon as you disturb the ground to build something, the clean-up must be done. So long as nothing is being built, the city can justify not spending the money and kick the ball down the road.

Janko potted another pair, including one heck of a wrister. He now leads the AHL in rookie scoring. Rittich moved into second place in the AHL with his fifth shutout of the year as well. http://stocktonheat.com/news/highlights-stockton-4-vs-bakersfield-0/

Well, the heat have really been on a slide lately. Lost something like their last 6 or 7 games. Perhaps most remarkably their offense has vanished. They are only potting 1-2 per game right now, sometimes being shutout. The only bright spots at the moment: Gilles has played alright, generally faces over 30 shots and gives up ~3 goals. Not fantastic, but some nights he's the only guy who shows up. Jankowski is another bright point, his performance has not sagged while everyone else slumps, so that's a plus. Finally, Klimchuk is still potting the odd goal here and there. He and Janks keep swapping the team lead in goals.

Elliott only has 2 seasons (outside this season) where he is below .900 Sv%. You have to go back to when he was 25 and still developing to find a season comparable to this. Was he better in St. Louis? Sure, but he was there for five seasons. Has the defense always been stellar? And if so, why is St. Louis getting such poor goaltending this year in front of virtually the same defense as last season? The only fair criticism of Elliott going into this season is he has never had to be the true number one. Could he carry the load? Legitimate concern for sure. But he hasn't been played like a number 1 this year either. He's on track to start pretty close to the same number of games this year as last. So I would say that Elliott had been proven a capable 1B coming into the season, but is failing to live up to being an average backup, so what gives?

I agree, Hamilton should be getting somewhere around 20-21 minutes per game, which is generally what he's been getting lately. His strong points are his offense and the fact that he controls the play better than any other defender on the Flames (leads in possession, not even that close). His weakness as you say is giving up too many high danger chances. He's just below Wideman in team Sv% when on the ice, and only Brodie has been worse.

Just wondering if Rittich is surpassing Gilles on our depth chart at this point. He's only played 7 games so far and has a 4-3 record, but leads the league in shutouts (3), GAA (1.43) and Sv% (0.949). His play has been much stronger than I anticipated. Gilles has been respectable, but is not ranked in the top 20 in the AHL right now.

Huge game last night, as Stockton takes hold of first place in the Pacific. After cooling down for a few games Morgan Klimchuk was back in top form potting two goals including a shorthanded play where he stripped the puck and sprung himself on a breakaway. Rittich continues his stellar play, making all 37 saves for his fourth win and 3rd shutout of the year. He has been lights out, even in losses, and holds a league leading 1.43 GAA and 0.949 save percentage.