AlbertaBoy12

wait what? what part of goalies taken in the first round didnt make sense?

It wasent really an AHL team outside of the sedins missing most of the guys out there played NHL hockey last year. On paper we had the better team last night, but I dont think by any stretch the canucks dominated, but the flames didnt really show up either so take that as you will.

This sums up the arguement.

Why is it every year we have these silly discussions on goaltending with you? Honestly I would rate parsons higher then gillies in terms of prospects but at the same time gillies has pro experience. I would expect gillies to spend another full year in the AHL unless the wheels completely fall off the bus.

I think so. Honestly I dont care what the deal is, I just want it to get done. Obviously I want the best deal to be had, but my wanting it to get done has nothing to do with my being a flames fan. I think an arena is a big boost to a city, and this whole thing is just a sideshow to what matters. Id be intertested to see where all the money is going to come from in this latest idea but I think it needs to get done sooner then later. On top of that no matter where your taxes go, its very likely that it will be something you have no interest in, which seems to be a common argument among non hockey fans. Ive heard loads of them say I dont watch hockey or like hockey why should my taxes pay for this the NHL makes enough money as it is.

True its not a proposal in the correct sense of the word, but it is the framework for something more. I think there is obviously alot of parts that need to be fleshed out before anyone can make an informed decision, but the numbers look ok to me.

heres a link from flames nation https://nhl.bamcontent.com/images/assets/binary/291222978/binary-file/file.pdf and then their take on it https://flamesnation.ca/2017/09/21/flames-release-their-arena-funding-proposal/

Im curious what everyone thinks of the new proposal released this morning at 5 am. Im not a huge fan of ken kings comments, but as with Edmonton it doesn't seem like these arena negotiations can be a pleasant process.

You are right the undesirables are still around, but it does have to start somewhere and revitalizing an area can be very helpful with that. I dont think there is a perfect situation but you are probably right about very few people offering the money to fixx that area in west village.

I get that taxpayers that dont enjoy sports dont want to spend a ton of money on a hockey arena or football stadium, what ever the case may be. But at the same time I think you and dirtydeeds have made some very good arguments about why the city should be spending the money. I think a city benefits a ton from having a new hockey arena, especially the surrounding area. Ive lived in edmonton for the past few years, and seeing the change to the downtown by building a new arena is just insane. The area around the arena used to be filled with drunk natives(This isent a poke at natives, I hope I dont offend anyone) and drugs more or less, now the construction projects seem to be helping. It has revitalized a downtown area that was sorely struggling and changed a ton in downtown edmonton. Money is always going to be a hurdle, but this whole idea that the billionaires should fit the bill doesnt make sense to me. Im not saying they dont have money, but generally in business you go where the cost is less, that really doesnt work with sports franchises. I dont want to say they shouldnt fit some of the bill, because they will get the profit, but a hockey arena does a ton for the city as well.

It honestly seems like neither side is willing to budge in the least on the issues, and at the same time both sides trying to portray themselves as the good guy.

I see what youre saying JJ, but mike smith also had a very good high danger save percentage last season, that just doesnt happen if you arent a good goaltender. I see what youre saying, but I guess it depends if you think he just got better with age, and has been very good on a poor arizona team the whole time or not. In regards to lack, he went from a just over league average goalie in vancouver playing a decent amount of games, to the gutter when he went to carolina, so did he suddenly forget how to play goalie? Its a real question if the rumors are true that the hurricanes asked him to change his style, combined with the way the hurricanes play hockey lead to worse numbers for him. I didnt watch the hurricanes at all last year so I have no idea, but if we get the lack from vancouver hopefully he should be consistent and thats good enough for a back up.

It wasent a small window though it was from november onwards about the time that johnny got injured as far as I remember, and that includes a really rough stretch in january. I agree completely we cant project that calgary will be a top 5 because of this, I dont think its fair to say things are going to go poorly next year because we got lucky last season. He didnt play too much on the pp when he was here for those 19 games, in fact he had no PP points. Obviously it would be very difficult for him to get 20 at even strength, but I dont think anyone gives him enough credit. I think it looks to be one of the best on paper, and unless something goes horribly wrong it should perform that way.

Interesting considering we only had one line and one D pairing going all season. Ill agree on injuries, but this team should have no problem dealing with injuries. Further hamonic is a much better D man then wideman, and if you dont see how our top 4 is improved, I dont know what to tell you JJ.

I dont see how we were more fortunate being a top 5 team in winning after the dreadful start. We were top 10 or top 15 in a ton of team statistics, I dont think there is anyway this team was fortunate, they made their own luck and did very well if anything. I dont think you can be a top 5 team in terms of winning, and be "fortunate".

Interesting to note stone had 6 points in 19 games with us, I thought he showed some good flashes of his offence when he was here. I would be happy with him to produce 20 points on the season from the back end, would give us a ton for a third pairing guy.

I like your summary. I was confused by Flyerfans comment because larsson has always seemed like the more physical player to me. But its not necessarily a good thing to be more physical, it can lead to bad things. Thanks for the summary conundrumed.

ummm are you saying hamonic is more physical then larsson?

I view hamonic as a similar player to larsson, and he had no problems adjusting to the western conference. I think hamonic is a little less physical then larsson but thats ok he doesnt need to be that presence on the back end. I mean you can temper expectations all you want but the additions of hamonic and stone, plus I would assume on kulak, make this D corp better. I think the problem with the previous D corp was not the players, but they didnt mesh well together, the system was much different under sutter, and our forward group was terrible in terms of centers. Phaneuf and Jbo also has their supposed clashing with reference to both being top D men, it just wasent a good situation. Its totally possible we may see different pairings, ie brodie with hamilton or who knows hammy with hamonic, does hammy squared work for that? Who knows at this point but the sum of the parts is much better the previous group, and the team is much different then before. Its important to have forwards that can help down low, and get the puck out of the zone. I dont think its possible for this D corp to be any worse then very good.

I dont think you call him up if he blows people away or first 10 games in the AHL. One being we already have lack and smith for the season so youre not benching one of them to give gillies a shot after a small sample size as such. Two there is no harm in letting him dominate the AHL for a year if thats the case, and letting him marinate.

I think if the bennett line was producing more consistently last season we arent even having the discussion about our forward group. Im not going to say we need our 3rd line center to produce 60 points, but the 3rd line does need to be a threat. Personally I like our forward group, and I think if ferland finds consistency this season and bennett plays a bit better offensively we will have a very dangerous group up front. Johnny-mony-ferland Frolik-Backlund-Brouwer Tkachuk-Bennett-Versteeg Stajan-Janko-Lazar I dont want to sound like a homer, but with the exception of brouwer up front in the top 9 thats a pretty good looking group. I dont even mind the 4th line in that group, im hoping lazar can show a bit more like he did in the few games he got into last season. But if you ask me the flames forward group should be fine this season, I know everyone thinks ferland is a sink hole, but I think he has the speed and hands to be successful on that line. Ferland doesnt need to put up 60 points to be a successful first line RW, if he put up 35-40 I would be more then happy with him in that spot. Bennett, tkachuk and versteeg should be successful, bennett/versteeg had some success together near the end of the season, adding tkachuk to that mix should be a good step. Brouwer hopefully has a bounce back season with backlund and then I dont think anyone is complaining about our forwards. TLDR- I like the flames top 9 and even the 4th line looks good with janko/lazar there.

Where do you get the idea they have way more prospects?

We dont really know if mason would have signed here, we can argue all day that he would have but who knows.

Seriously eh? rask and price are 49th and 50th on that list do we not want them on our team either? Maybe rask is on the back 9 of his career but still, I think smith will be good here.

True, its totally possible the market changes, I think it will really depend how backlund performs this season. I think we can all agree it would be awesome to keep him around at 4-4.5