AlbertaBoy12
-
Posts
3,402 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by AlbertaBoy12
-
-
12 hours ago, tmac70 said:
Glad our starting roster cant beat an AHL team, no worries it just preseason don't be concerned. Our starting goalie can't stop a a beach ball, we can't score have zero intensity zero effort and zero cohesion from a club that played a full season last year.
I think they are playing possum really their not this bad...we are going to bury Edm opening day, cause its preseason nothing to see here.
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.
-
2 hours ago, kehatch said:
You would have a lot more support if Gilles was killing it in the preseason or coming off of a great AHL season. Preferably both. He isn't. End of debate.
This sums up the arguement.
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
Well, if a football player from Al Jazeera says so, who are we to question?
Gillies aside, "Lack is a Lock" has to be some of the poorest assessment of the Flames we've ever had, and goes against the vast majority of media pundits, fans, and likely Flames brass. Even from a football player, it's bad. Referring to Gillies, one of our top prospects, as an "insurance piece" is a close second. The old scraggly mediocre veterans we've brought in are clearly the insurance pieces while we wait for the likes of Gillie and Parsons.
Gillies already has the edge, and even if he does go down to the AHL, the term would be "stint".
The old arguement of "premature" when a new player breaks into the league always makes sense until they step onto the ice in an NHL arena and then it doesn't.
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.
-
28 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
So from a distance, it seems one huge obstacle is the Flames want some kind of Community Revitalization Levy to pay for the new arena. The city wants some kind of ticket tax to pay for the new arena.
Sounds like there is little to no CRL to be had in that geographical area. Flames prefer to use the ticket tax to fund their own share of the payments.
And, the Flames appear interested to pay more up front to be alleviated of property tax and rent throughout their stay.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, cross16 said:
ICESC didn't really put out a proposal they put out a PR campaign press release. It's difficult to form an opinion using it because it really doesn't give us any information. They say they are going to contribution $275 million but don't clarify how, is it cash up front or is it a pre payment of rent like the Oilers deal (which they hint at). If it's not cash up front and the city has to front it then their numbers won't add up. Also they keep coming in 50million under the city, which the city says is becasue they are not factoring in utilities to the building like the should, so that's unaccounted for as well.
Would also love to know this study they did that showed a $400 million impact to the city as i suspect those numbers are completely fudged but they don't provide a link to access the report to see who actually did it (at least I can't find it). Either way what CESC put out today really doesn't provide much.
-
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.
-
Just now, cccsberg said:
Missed it, where was it released?
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/
-
1
-
-
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.
-
21 minutes ago, CheersMan said:
Has Edm done anything to help reduce or eliminate the “undesirables” as you describe? Or did they just drop a huge building in the middle of their loitering play-ground to displace them? Sounds like the undesirables are still there, they just moved location.
Our “undesirable” is contaminated waste land on the west side of DT adjacent to a river bank that waters (or poisons) millions of people down stream. Flames offered $200M to the City to clean it up, kick starting a state of the art multi-facility that meets the requirements to improve every major sporting and entertainment event moving forward.
Nobody will ever offer money to clean up that land again, the waste land will continue to be passed from generation to generation. Given the lack of a deal so far, the Flames proposal in West Village is far superior to what the city wants to do with a stand-alone arena on the east side imo.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
Zirak is right the fund for the firehouse is unfunded. They have the plans and have set aside the budget for it but they have not made a determination about how to fund it which is frustrating because its been almost 3 years since they decided to build one and they already have the location/plans for it.
But I agree with your premise that under the last 2 mayors this city has really not made sports a high priority and that disappointing because there is already so much here to work with. U of C has a great sports medicine and Kinesiology department, athletes from all over the world already come here and we've got 4 "professional" sports teams already here. Would be nice to see the City divert more attention to sport. Doing a bit better with 4 rec centers coming online in the next 2-3 years which is great for Youth but then you run into the problem that is so common in Canada that we can get youth involved but we fail in the transition from youth to high performance.
Instead of the arts and culture district Nenshi wants to create i'd much rather see an arena and field house built with upgrades to McMahon. There is an opportunity to really make Calgary into a high performance athletics destination which probably has as many positive benefits to the city as an art and cultural district does but that's clearly not what Nenshi will focus on.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, JTech780 said:
I could only listen to that for so long. Everytime King talks about the arena deal all I hear is "Whah whah the city won't give my billionaire owners as much free money as they want, Whah whah". There is almost no monetary benefit for the city to pay for a building. In fact most publicly funded arenas lose money. If a new arena was going to make lots of money the billionaire sport franchise owners would just build it themselves. But the new thing in sports is for the owners to blackmail the city into paying for half an arena and flush money down the toilet, or they might move the team to a city that will pay for the arena.
I don't even live in Calgary, and it is frustrating to hear Ken King speak. I say if they think they can make more in Seattle let them try, but I doubt they make near as much money there as they do in Calgary.
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.
-
35 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
Maybe for another thread, but I personally believe it is very reasonable to expect worse goaltending this year from Eddie Lack and Mike Smith. Eddie Lack imho is a straight downgrade. Mike Smith showed some attitude issues leaving Arizona, exemplifying the reason the Flames presumably acquired him: His very average Save Percentage there was allegedly a result of the very poor team in front of him. This is what we're all telling each other about this 36 year old.
I have a very different take on that. His Save percentage actually improved when he moved to the Coyotes, even though he was in his prime on a very good Tampa Bay team previously. Which, to be honest, is common. A lot of goalies actually have better save percentages on worst teams just due to the number of shots. Also, because sometimes those teams have under-rated defence due to poor offence and puck possession.
If any of that is the case here, and he goes back to his Tampa Bay performance (or worse, due to his age)....we're completed hooped. And Eddie Lack ain't gonna save us. Maybe Gillies, but that's unlikely and I'm more hopeful on that than anyone.
Smith had ONE really impressive season in 2011-2012. Full stop, impressive.
That was 6 years ago.
I'm not saying I'm right, but without a doubt, there's an arguement there.
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.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:
There is a problem with "taking just a portion of a season" and saying things like we were a top 5 team winning after the bad start. A small window of a season is not the best idea for making projections on their future play.
Every team has ups and downs during a full season. Every team plays through injuries with some seasons being worse than other seasons.
Stats are just for presenting how things went and not for projecting how things will go.
Luck has nothing to do with it. Every team goes through good and bad bounces.
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.
18 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:If Stone can produce 20 points with his 3rd pairing minutes he will be getting, then we will likely have among the best D in the league. I suppose if they give him lots and lots of PP & PK time on top ..maybe.
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.
-
36 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
The Dougie trade was awesome without any doubt. And, I expect him to continue to improve. Just as I expect Gio to continue to decline.
Wideman is simply in decline. Not too long on here, many on here thought very highly of him. Replacing him with Hamonic is necessary maintenance. Hamonic will never be Wideman at his peak. But, of course Hamonic has a more rounded game.
Stone replacing Engelland is perhaps an upgrade, but not a notable one.
At the end of the day, we were very lucky with chemistry and injuries last year imho. So lucky that we take it for granted.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
I don't really expect more points, no. I do think we are a better team this year. I just think a lot of stars aligned last year, more than usual. I believe we were more fortunate than we realize.
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".
-
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:
On the PP, we may see Brodie - Stone. On the PK, we can sit Brodie and Hamilton on the bench. I would run with Hamonic and Stone on the RD on the PK.
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.
-
6 hours ago, conundrumed said:
Similar players. Both play a very simple "get the puck out" game that Oilers fans now love, and we're about to.
Larsson will always go body first into a battle, that's why he's the hit leader. Yet there is never that "devastating" hit like Reggie on Hemsky *ahh, memories*....
Last season was a real misnomer for Hamonic's career. It's easy to reflect on the W. Canada revelation timeline and become suspicious of all that went on afterwards.
He plays a challenge the puck carrier game like Larsson, just more reticent about over-committing and all around a safer game imho.
Where Larsson takes himself out of the play one-on-one against the boards too often, Hamonic doesn't.
He can be just as physical or more than Larsson, he just doesn't constantly play that way like Larsson does.
I like Larsson and always have, but he over commits, all of the time to taking the body. You can throw a decoy at him just to tie him up in the corner to test their forwards on D.
Our past D was brought up earlier. Reggie and Phaneuf and to a lesser degree Sarich....I hated them a lot when they blatantly over-committed to make the big hit.
And it was constant.
Hamonic just plays D, plain and simple. If he HAS to be physical, he will. If he HAS to be calm, he will.
Unlike Larsson also, he doesn't have to come here as a #2 minimum, #4.
Not bad for a guy who has worn a letter on a good team.
We wanted a defencive dman, BT went out and got one of the best.
Good for the Flames.
Burke said off the hop, "if we are paying you, you have obligations to pay back in our communities, that is non-negotiable".
This is a great signing for all involved.
A poster on here spoke of acquiring Larsson before "the trade" and it wasn't well received.
To him, and I won't mention The People by name, err, umm, where was I?
A year and a bit later, we have Hamonic, and god I can't wait.
Our O will get better just by practicing against our D...
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.
-
7 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:
Then you'll be surprised.
ummm are you saying hamonic is more physical then larsson?
-
13 hours ago, rickross said:
I think we should temper our expectations for our D core until we actually see them play at an elite level. All this pre-hype seems like the perfect setup for disappointment. There's always the chance Hamonic doesn't live up to his billing or he doesn't pair well with Brodie at all, let alone adjust to the Western conference. Maybe Gio-Hamonic and Brodie-Hamilton turn out to be the better pairings? Who knows!? I just don't like the idea of our D being crowned before they've even hit the ice, I get the excitement about the potential but I recall when we had J-Bo, Phaneuf, Regehr and a young Gio and they never did quite live up to their elite expectations.
GG should make good with all the high talent on the blue line, and hopefully the forward group can pitch in enough to keep some of the pressure off the D and still create offence. This year they need to be prepared for the start of the season...there'd be nothing worse than to see our highly touted D get embarrassed on opening night by McMoney and Co.!
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.
-
6 hours ago, jjgallow said:
100%.
but I'll take it one step further.
He gets an extra year, AND... IF he blows people away in training camp or the first 10 games in the AHL.... I'm all for calling him up (to keep him up).
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.
-
52 minutes ago, conundrumed said:
BT has gone over-the-top trying to build the team from the net out, and I agree with that.
The "upgrades" in net haven't been working out. Inheriting Hiller, Ramo...
The 3 headed monster, okay, that approach didn't work...
Elliott-Johnson...
Now it's Smith-Lack.
Nice grabs with Hamilton, (Stone, Bartkowski), Hamonic.
() - in a time of need...
That's a passing grade, easy. Pretty much epic.
Huge BUT though, the work at the forward ranks is subpar.
Our forward roster, in the right now, sorry to anyone that finds this breaking news, isn't gonna cut 'er.
We don't have enough up front to intimidate the top teams.
Another point is Bennett's handling...wtf?
He has definitely spent on D, next year is definitely "O" right?
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.
-
5 minutes ago, zima said:
Hold on there young fellow I never said they were better I said they had way more prospects.
Where do you get the idea they have way more prospects?
-
12 minutes ago, cross16 said:
Seeing what Steve Mason signed for today, I definetly would have preferred the flames go that route and save the assets rather than trading for smith. Pretty had to argue smith is an upgrade over Mason and It's marginal at best. One was free and one the Flames gave up a lot for in trade.
Too bad.
We dont really know if mason would have signed here, we can argue all day that he would have but who knows.
-
5 minutes ago, JTech780 said:
You have to look at the team's they were playing in front of. Eliott's numbers would have been much worse playing in front of that Arizona team.
GAA is about the worst stat to judge goalies on.
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.
-
1 minute ago, MAC331 said:
I don't know if I agree with you here, maybe marginally better but not out of this world better. I like Backlund but I really don't see paying him anymore than 5M if that high.
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
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
wait what? what part of goalies taken in the first round didnt make sense?