AlbertaBoy12
-
Posts
3,402 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by AlbertaBoy12
-
-
7 hours ago, rickross said:
Flames have a good bevy of prospects but not enough blue chips to go about saying the cupboards are stacked to the reserves. Flames could always rely more on college and international UFAs but we'll see who BT trades down the line to acquire more picks, assets.
We dont need a ton of blue chip prospects just waiting in the wings in the AAA to say the cupboards are full. I get what youre saying but that really doesnt make sense, if we had loads of blue chippers it would be a bonus for sure, but they wouldnt have spots and would be used as trade bait. At this point it would be nice to maybe have another guy or two in the system, but im happy with having Dube and Janko, among other guys who havent signed contracts yet, like Lindstrom, Mattson, Phillips or even Ruzicka this year. Those guys are all decent to have in the system for the forward group. Also I guess it depends how you feel about Mangiapane(he had a good first year), Pribyl(the flames seem high on him), and Tuulola(although not sure things are looking great for him)
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
It's a reasonable assumption that we could lose both Dougie and Hamonic. On the other hand, how many defensive core players walk away like that.
Im not sure they walk away necessarily. I guess it really depends how things shake out in a few years, maybe we move on from gio who knows
-
Interesting article on flames from 80 feet reference the progression of our D corp over time.
http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2017/06/six-year-plan-two-new-additions.html<------For anyone interested.
A little clipping from the article.
2017-18Giordano (33) - Hamilton (24)Brodie (27) - Hamonic (27)2018-19Giordano (34) - Hamilton (25)Brodie (28) - Hamonic (28)2019-20Giordano (35) - Hamilton (26)Brodie (29) - Hamonic (29)2020-21Brodie (30) - Hamilton (27)Giordano (36) - Andersson (23)2021-22Valimaki (23) - Brodie (31)Giordano (37) - Andersson (24)2022-23Valimaki (24) - Andersson (25)Brodie (32) - Fox (24)Not a sure thing obviously, but the future could be interesting. -
If this hamonic deal is for real, which no reason to believe it isent.
Do we have a great top 4 now or what?
-
4 minutes ago, zima said:
After listening to Fan 960 they make a good point who will take eng place in the toughness aspect we really don't have that at all any more when playing the Oilers now with out the policing of eng they are going to take even more liberties same as LA there will be some big problems in the protection. So question who will take his place any idea's ?
I think this whole toughness thing is overstated, pittsburgh doesnt have a "tough guy", they have kunitz who stirs the pot and theres plenty of other guys that dont have tough guys. Toughness is a great attribute to have, but with ferland, gio isent afraid to drop them, brouwer has been in fights, I really wouldnt be that concerned. If you are referring to a D men thats tough to play against in his own zone, gio fits that mold, hamilton has had his moments but really id like to see stone brought back for that reason, but im not overly worried about it.
-
15 minutes ago, MAC331 said:
Wotherspoon was Andersson's partner but I would do what you are suggesting putting 2 rookies together for our 3rd pairing. I would sign Stone and use him on the 3rd pairing and Andersson with Brodie. This provides for some adjusting should the match ups not work out. I actually would like to see Wotherspoon make it as our 7th D along with Bartkowski.
Ive said it before but I really think andersson has a chance to make the top 4 but it really depends on what he does this summer. I know BT said in one of his interviews its hard to jump into the top 4 and he doesnt see it, but im really hoping. I still think we make a trade for a guy but who knows as of right now.
-
Just now, MAC331 said:
Back to our own situation. Does BT sign Stone now that Engelland is gone for sure ? Personally I would like to see Stone brought back and have they give Andersson a real serious look on our RSD.
I posted in the draft thread, but I really wonder if signing stone depends on who they draft or if they make a trade. It sounds like they see andersson in a third pairng role, so I guess it depends if they see stone in the top 4 or not.
-
2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:
I can never figure out why Suter gets the ratings he does.
I honestly think the only reason is because he plays a crap ton every night.
-
9 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:
Johnny Oduya and Oliver Kylington are pretty good friends from what I've heard. I wonder if Oduya would be willing to sign here due to his relationship with Kylington. I think Oduya would be a good reliable 3rd pairing guy, who at the age of 35 I think you could get at 1.5-1.75 for 1 or 2 years.
Also I think Chicago might be the best bet for acquiring a #4 D. The Hawks are cap strapped as everyone knows, I've got my eye on Hjalmarsson, with 2 years left at 4.1 IMO he is the ideal #4 and his playing style would complement Brodie perfectly. I think Hjalmarsson may be the cheapest #4 option but I say that tongue and cheek because while CHI may need to move him, there's gonna be a ton of competition for his services
I really dont see us being in on a trade for hjalmarsson if he was being traded, I think hes going to cost way too much especially being traded within the western conference. I think chicago will do what they always do and find a way to keep everyone. While I agree he may be the cheapest #4 in terms of cap hit, I dont think franson will be that much more expensive. Obviously franson isent at the same level, but I think he will be a better acquisition for us in free agency, or trading for someone that vegas selects.
-
Just now, MAC331 said:
Yeah that won't happen. I think BT traded for Smith so there was no question of using the #16 for a goalie.
well I think thats a good plan, as alot of people are seeing either parsons or gillies as a #1, so no point in using that kind of pick as well for a goalie.
-
26 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
I'm perfectly willing to smile and give up #16 for Raanta or Grubauer.. but if we start talking a Goalie prospect back no higher than McDonald, then I feel its UFA time for the #2
My worry is McPhee will factor in also the player they would have gotten from say , NYR instead and expect us to pony up a similar player.. in which case, Pass
Im curious why we would want to see raanta or grubauer here at the cost of #16, id be ok with using the #16 pick to acquire a top 4 d man but to acquire another goalie, when we already have parsons and gillies coming, I think we should pass. I would have taken a stab at one of those two for the same deal we got smith for, but for a first rounder and probably more which it sounds like was the asking price ill take a pass.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:
Geez, Friedman tweeted Mrazek left unprotected by Detroit.
They did expose him yeah, but I guess the price of a trade might have been too rich for the flames which is totally fair in my opinion. The lists can be found here.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-reveals-protection-lists-ahead-of-expansion-draft-1.782246
-
1 hour ago, kehatch said:
It's Christmas morning and we got the 7 year old Honda instead of the new Audi we wanted. Plus mom and dad arguably paid a little too much. Disappointing, but it will get us to work safely in the morning.
The Flames couldn't go back to Elliott. He was the single biggest reason we played catch up all year. He was also the single biggest reason we were out in four. Fair or not, those are the facts. The GM had to make a change.
The Flames couldn't go with a gamble. We are at the point in our build where we can't afford a gamble in net.
I was hoping the Flames would have went with a better temporary fix, or even better a long term fix, but we have seen many of those options disappear and who knows what is actually available and at what cost.
Smith is fine. He is a decent number one and a clear upgrade in net. He gives us a year or two to get a kid in net or find something else. A second and a okay prospect without a contract isn't the moon (even if it is a bit much).
I am meh on the deal. But at the end of the day it is better then biking to work. At the very least he is a solid option for next season.
Holy crap you live to post another day.
-
45 minutes ago, JTech780 said:
That must be why we traded for him, just so we can win in Anaheim.
-
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:
I haven't seen anything about a 2nd, only the conditional 3rd.
Yes its a conditional 3rd and the condition is we make the playoffs, if we make the playoffs it becomes a 2nd.
It was reported by elliotte friedman on twitter, I just cant link the tweet.
-
21 minutes ago, MAC331 said:
making the play off or Hickey not signing ?
IT was reported the condition is on the flames making the playoffs, so unless we collapse it will be a 2nd.
-
Just now, phoenix66 said:
In this day and age , assuming you see them as a decent prospect.. any player who doesn't sign into their 4th year is trade bait.
I was on record as saying if Johnny entered his 4th year , he needs to be on the block..
Look at Jimmy Vesey .. told them right up to the trade deadline he was 100% planning on signing ..in the end they lost him for nothing .
Obviously only the Flames know for sure, but if he was even the slightest wishy washy about his intentions, they had no choice .. then there's also where they see him in the organization , is he ahead of Andersson? Kyllington and Kulak?..
I dont really agree with that, just because a player goes back for his 4th year doesnt mean hes not going to sign, bill arnold is a recent example for the flames.
1 minute ago, DirtyDeeds said:The Flames are running out of quality choices unless they want to go full out trade for someone expensive.
I fall into the expensive for an aging goaltender who isn't much of an upgrade if at all, group
The flames could have easily brought back elliott in my opinion, while smith is an upgrade, giving up hickey and a 2nd just doesnt make sense to me either.
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, zima said:
I knew Hickey was not coming to Calgary hence the trade of Hickey we gave away a player that would have gone into the free agent group any way so no lose there
You know? do you have the inside track on hickey, or is he your friend/family?
Hickey was a great young d man and all indications were that he was coming here, this way too much to pay for a stop gap.
5 minutes ago, cross16 said:The only caveat I will add is if Hickey told the Flames he wasn't going to sign, then I would be ok with this. I have no reason to believe thst is the case, but if it is I would not feel as negatively about this as I do.
It would make me feel less negative, but still giving up hickey and a 2nd(im going to assume we make the playoffs), is beyond frustrating for a stop gap. But if smith comes here and shows well, maybe we will all be less upset.
-
2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:
But he was a stable D during the juniors?
I think it's poor asset management. I guess at least it isn't a 1st?
If Hickey was re-drafted, would he be a 2nd rounder? So it's a, whatever Hickey is worth, plus the 3rd (maybe a 2nd), for Smith.
i was interested in seeing what Hickey could turn out to be...
I agree. I dont like the deal that much, hickey and a 2nd rounder for smith basically.
-
2 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:
Smith and Duclair
for
Brouwer and bouma/stajan
bob mckenzie reporting ari retains 25% of smith for hickey and conditional 3rd rounder....
-
Just now, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:
I still dont see it as an upgrade. Vaguely comparable numbers, 5 mil, plus losing whomever goes the other way. Not liking this at all.
It really doesnt make sense in my opinion, unless arizona is asking us to take him off their hands, I dont see him as a huge upgrade on elliott.
-
8 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
Obviously not my first choice, but I do agree its an upgrade on the #1 spot... the key now is going to be what #2 looks like ,not sure you go with Johnson .. this is where you slide in a 1b. Assuming the cost is low, now you can take a serious run at getting Raanta from LV when they take him.
Saw a game in Phoenix last year , due to cheap tickets I was right up close to Smith.. granted it was against Vancouver , but he shut them out .. he definitely doesn't move like a 35 yr old
Its a bit of a upgrade, but mike smith hasent exactly had great seasons the past few years obviously being in arizona has not helped that. But I would hope we arent giving up a ton for a 35 year old making that much a year, if anything maybe we get something coming with mike smith.
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
Well if you trust ray ferraro hopefully that settles the debate on him coming here.
-
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:
I missed the talk regarding a goalie to protect, do we need to have this covered, seems stupid if you are making one available.
I dont think it really makes a difference if we protect elliott or johnson if we have to protect one, the odds of them getting taken are minimial and they become UFAs july 1st, so really not the end of the world.
Calgary Flames Drafting and Development: Your Analysis
in Flames Talk
Posted
True but both fox and andersson are right shots, but it never hurts to have more depth. The only position im worried about at this point is RW, in our entire system its really the only position where we are lacking guys who project as more then bottom 6 players. Of course we could move guys around or from center, but at this point its not really a big hole as I think having three pairs in the top 9 with 3 complimentary players is more then good enough. Top 9 of the future in my opinion.
Gaudreau-mony-Fill in
Tkachuk-Bennett-Fill in
Klimchuk-Janko-Fill in
Obviously klimchuk needs to stop getting injured for that to happen, but at this point having three complimentary guys to go with that group is pretty good.