cccsberg
-
Posts
3,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by cccsberg
-
-
9 hours ago, robrob74 said:
https://eyesonisles.com/2019/09/20/new-york-islanders-travis-hamonic-trade-worked/amp/
this is what kind of pisses me off about these kinds of trades. I like Hamonic but we give up a first pair D and possibly another yet more. I get it is hindsight and it expedited the rebuild a bit.
but just a year or two before that we gave up the same and missed out on a first line C.
For me, my philosophy is build through the draft. The way it looks is that we may have to give up a pick to get rid of a contract or two to get cap compliant.
i am obviously frustrated with the state of the team. I am not quite sold that the team is a 2nd overall or Division winner.
Yeah, if the Flames could accurately predict the future they'd be winning Stanley Cups almost every year. Unfortunately they can't, but they do the best they can and last year that was #2 overall in the league. As far as drafting, how about all those (5+) 2013 1st rounders? We finally got 2 good ones, Monahan and Lindholm, but I believe we drafted/acquired 3-4 others.... And "missing out on a first line C".... how do you think Boston feels with three straight missed high-end first rounders? Yikes!
-
7 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:
I think we've seen the last of Gillies, I expect him to be placed on loan to another American league franchise. It hasn't been for a lack of opportunity, the Flames have given him every opportunity to be the goalie of the future over Rittich and every single time Rittich has outperformed Gillies even in the AHL where he was given less favorable starts than Gillies (2nd half of b2bs).
Agree, it is sad to see but realistically this happens all the time with players just not quite good enough. The Flames certainly have given him lots of chances. I'm sure a change of scenery would do him a world of good.
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
ok,
So, I am really not seeing myself missing the point lol. Firstly I would like to say that I'm a pretty huge Monahan supporter and I put him in a similar category as Bennett. Always have. Also in terms of skill I consider all 3 of the below elite. And yes, Gaudreau moreso. But it's only enough to overcome his size in regular season play.
Bennett: 6g in 20 games Now 23 years old (did not get a ton of minutes)
Monahan: 8g in 20 games Now 24 years old (played more minutes)
Gaudreau: 4g in 21 games Now 26 years old (played way more minutes)
So when you adjust for age and minutes, Bennet and Monahan are your guys. Gaudreau not as much.
There is no question Gaudreau has size issues, but it’s also true he’s your best player and you want him ( or better) there with you in the battle. The challenge is to personally improve with more tenacity (the players), to put them in better positions to succeed (the coaches) as well as needing a little more luck (the fans’ prayers?). There are maybe a handful or two players you might potentially trade for Gaudreau and even stay level, much less improve, but if that’s the requirement good luck trying. The best and easiest option is #1, and hopefully both BT and BP are taking to heart option #2.
-
3 hours ago, The_People1 said:
What do you mean by "make it" though? I think 5-9 will get a cup of coffee at the NHL level but maybe only Pelletier will realistically "make it" aka Mangiapane, Jankowski, Andersson, etc. As in, "stay". We will always have a spot for players like Lomberg, Foo, Quine, etc to dangle the carrot.
Making it being something like 100 games in the NHL.
-
5 hours ago, The_People1 said:
Not surprised except Dube should still be considered a prospect. Outside of that, Pelletier is our best prospect and he's probably a 2nd line LW at peak. Parsons may have the highest ceiling as a Flames prospect but he had a bad season and had surgery (if I'm not mistaken). Who knows how that affects his game. He may project better as a back-up only. And that's all we have.
Phillips and Zavgorodny are hail mary top 6 prospects with no more than 25% likelihood they will make it. Tuulola, Ruzicka, Pospisil, and Gawdin have 3rd/4th line potential. This might be the worst the Flames prospect pool has looked in franchise history.
I'd say Zavgorodny and Pospisil are going to make it, along with Pelletier and Parsons and 1 of the defensemen, let's go with Yelesin. I'd also say 3-4 of the remainder will also make it in lower, but important roles, let's say Pettersson and Tuulola/Ruzicka/Gawdin/Phillips/Wolf/Robinson/Lomberg/Lerby/Koumontzis/Nikolayev/Roman.... That would mean 5-9 of our current "prospects" make it, in addition to Anderson, Valimaki, Kylington, Mangiapanne, Dube, Jankowski, Quine, Czarnik and Rittich, 9 additional prospects who have "made it" within the past 2 years. I'd say that's pretty outstanding prospect development and pipeline. If the Flames can continue to bring in 2-3 players per year, or more that will easily keep them going at a high level. Consider that in the past 5 years we've also added top level to elite players Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Hamilton/Hanifin, Ferland/Lindholm and Bennett.... we are doing well. The only thing about the current crop is outside of 3-4 just "graduated" we don't have any obvious blue-chipper elite guys in the system. If they get there they'll have to battle the naysayers who think everything is apparent with 16-17 year olds.... Ha!
-
5 hours ago, The_People1 said:
I guess at least Lucic has Cup winning experience. Neal is always the bridesmaid and never the bride.
So true. Plus, when Lucic speaks I expect people will listen.
-
On 7/9/2019 at 2:06 AM, robrob74 said:
I do see it as an upgrade or the very least as even to last year. It is a waste of the core plus a lot of picks spent on goalies in the past how many years. With the way the team has placed an emphasis on drafting skill, the picks we’ve spent on goalies could’ve possibly garnered some very skilled players and we could still be at this same place we are now.
i am not happy either, because at the time I didn’t want to use those picks on the goalie(S) that we did use them on. Our D and team play tends to exploit average goalies. We say we had a good goal differential but then look at how many games the score was lopsided in our favour. Good to score goals, but we still have up some bad ones. We were lucky to outscore mistakes. But I am as positive as you are so I can see your problem with the situation.
The one big point I see in it, we didn’t have to give up assets to acquire a stopgap. No prospects are ready.
Youre right, we’ve ruined them since Vernon. Kidd was the last best drafted goalie and he was average because we rushed him. But we need something to hold us over,
what are you willing to give up to get a true long term #1? We sure as hell aren’t going to draft or develop one in this core’s lifetime.
Maybe one will by the time this core is in need of another contract.
Complaining about goalies seems like a fool's errand. We have not had great success over the past decade or so, though we have had some great goaltending in that time. The problem is in the position itself. There are extremely few elite-level goalies that consistently stay there year after year. Even guys like Price and Lundquist and Bobrovsky have bad years and fluctuate. I'm betting you complainers would even complain about them, and then where do we go? The other issue is who do you pick-up? The only elite guy we passed on recently is Bobrovsky, and for $10mm/year+ (way plus+++ to get him to even consider Calgary) even you guys were not hot to go get him. Goaltenders are in many ways like Forwards and D, predicting future success is fraught with problems. Hey, we picked up a solid, consistent, agitating playoff-performing scorer last year and look how his first year here was. Not as predicted.
Who has succeeded at Goalie recently? Binnington, some 3rd-string nobody who came out of nowhere?..... Fleury, well yeah, a first-overall no brainer with something to prove..... and.....? BT has been after a top-level goalie for years..... aforementioned Fleury..... Bishop, 3 times..... probably others. He has also brought in multiple guys succeeding in the KHL/Europe (e.g. Rittich) and drafted some multiple elite-looking prospects. This is a team game. Outside of Elliot a couple years ago I don't think goalies killed our playoffs recently. Certainly not Smith this past Spring. If it makes you guys feel better venting/complaining/negativity, hey..... But personally I think the combo of Rittich (top5 goalie last year before injured)/Talbot (top3 goalie before Oiler reality caved his early career)/ and multiple previously elite-looking prospects still developing and waiting is pretty much a home run for the team, especially considering Cap, contracts, age and availability. Will that be enough? We'll have to see what else happens. Many-a-team hit a home run or three and still lose their game. Could happen here but at least BT has given the team a chance.
-
6 hours ago, sak22 said:
I think people are being a little harsh on Sigalet, I don't know if he's the answer or any good. I still find it hard to come to a conclusion based on what he's had to work with. I can't fault him too much for the prospects as he doesn't work with them on a daily basis, but at the same time in a year Rittich went from a decent AHL goalie that we needed to find an upgrade so he wouldn't be the backup, to a guy many fans have faith to take on a primary starting role. Can we give him any credit for that? Outside of that all he's had are veterans stuck in there ways and at times all vets have played very well. I put another playoff choke as to why Hiller fell apart after a really solid 2015 season, also felt Hartley played into their heads too much. Elliott went from a terrible start to a great finish to his usual choking spot, I don't put that on Sigalet. Meanwhile Johnson has been brutal since leaving. Smith I was never a fan of before or after but there is very little coaching done with 36 year olds. I think if it is a Rittich-Talbot combo next year we should have a more clear indication on Sigalet as a coach.
Many good points. Many are frustrated here and too often fans rush to judgement, a la Rittich not even a year ago. Personally I would like to see Gillies as backup before jettisoning him after all these years. He and Rittich formed a good combo in the AHL, pushing each other, and perhaps they can do the same here? If they bring in Talbot, who I believe would also be ok, they should move Gillies. After all, how many times do you tell a guy he is not good enough before you move on?
-
7 hours ago, jjgallow said:
The Flames are a class act in this regards, yes. But.. Maybe there is some Better way of having their back? Scouting? Operations? Marketing? Surely?
We talk a lot about how goaltending is a head game, a confidence game. It's between the ears.
So is it the best decision, no matter how inspiring, to have someone battling constant depression to instill this? Maybe as an experiment, but...I think we're past that stage. Apologies in advance for my huge A-hole post. I just really do wonder.
More to the point: It's not working and has never worked. Reasons aside.
No, still reasonable post. Results matter, but opportunity matters as well. I would certainly agree our prospects haven’t blown the door down, but I still believe in them and it would be nice to find a way to get them in.
-
21 hours ago, jjgallow said:
Hey,
I totally get the accountability thing. Many times on here I've held staff accountable and people say "can't just blame staff".
But this is a numbers thing.
You cannot, in all serious, blame any single goaltending prospect for a 25-year failure to develop goaltending prospects.
You cannot even blame a single goaltender for any particular year. Because if there is only one, management has totally failed already.
I can go through a list of dozens, and dozens, and dozens of failures. And yes, at Least half of them, maybe 80%, were never going to make it in any system. But odds dictate that at least 10-20% of them should have turned into something. The data and history is overwhelming and systemic. This is much bigger than any one tender.
Thanks for the reasonable post. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to pinpoint if the goalie coach(es) are the problem or whether it’s the goalies themselves. As for our current situation, the odd thing is our goalie coach has survived intact a couple of coaching purges, with continuing mixed results so it makes you wonder what goes on. Personally I think the lack of real opportunity and trust from management plays as much in the goalies minds as any coaching. That would be tough, but, hey there definitely is something to say about proving yourself first. Not an easy problem.
Going forward, I’m with Rittich. He was basically the starter last year and one of the top handful of NHL goalies before his injury. It affected him and he never got back to the same level. We don’t have the funds for a top name goalie, and I doubt whether Rittich isn’t already better. I’d like to see Gillies as backup, but Talbot I like too. Problem is, as I mentioned above....bringing in a new guy from outside doesn’t do much to enhance the minds of the other 4 guys we already have. If we sign Talbot BT should trade Gillies to give him a fresh start elsewhere.
-
On 6/28/2019 at 9:20 AM, The_People1 said:
Why so salty recently?
I agree. After the disappointment of the playoffs and no significant changes since, many are on edge, me included. Personally I’m avoiding most threads, but occasionally a post making outrageous/false claims, or someone posturing as a 20/20 rear view know-it-all just requires a response. With the combination of a hugely dampened trade market on the one hand because of a lowered Cap via expectation, and a pile of greedy RFAs looking to set new precedent for first new contracts, which will upset the Cap situation even more.... on top of the frustration of needing two separate teams for playoff success due to arbitrary reffing changes... it’s a hard time to be a fan. Looking forward to putting aside hockey for a few months after another week or so...
-
2 hours ago, JTech780 said:
Oh I would absolutely love to get in the net and take shots from NHLers, if I ever had the opportunity I would do it in a heartbeat.
Being prepared doesn't always guarantee results, Gillies has been given chances at the NHL level he hasn't looked good.
Past results are the best indicator of future success, Gillies' past results haven't been very good.
And yes the goalie should be one of your best skaters.
Your memory is defective, just like your opinions. Gillies first NHL games I believe were on a critical California road trip. The results were just the opposite of your claim. Why don’t you educate yourself before trying to pass yourself off as some expert.....
-
1 minute ago, travel_dude said:
We have Gillies and Schneider and Parsons signed that have played in NA.
Zag is a great sounding prospect, but may not be ready this year.
BT isn't expecting him to crack the lineup.
Do you get the sense that Schneider will even be an AHL goalie? I don't.
Gillies and Zag will split starts in Stockton, and Parsons gets the lion share in Kansas with Schneider backing up.
That assumes we have Rittich and 1b in Calgary.
Anything can change, but this is almost identical to last year.
Last year Gillies and Parsons got the splits, while MacDonald and Schneider got Kansas.
They would move an AHL guy to the ECHL to get more starts.
Perhaps one of Gillies and Parsons shows enough in camp/preseason to end up on the NHL roster.
If not, then we have a hole in nets.
You want to wait till October to deal with it?
Rittich & Gillies-NHL
Parsons & Zagidulin-AHL
Schneider-ECHL
...dealt with.
-
On 6/26/2019 at 11:44 AM, travel_dude said:
I never got the sense that Philly was bringing back Talbot.
4 games played.
Elliott at least gave them a reasonable SA% and GAA.
Better than Smith.
I seriously doubt that Talbot is going to get multiple offers close to $2m.
I don't think he's any worse than Koskinen, but that's not saying much.
EDM won't touch him and he won't go there anyway.
I would like to make a trade for Jarry and sign Talbot to less than $2m, preferably closer to $1m.
One gets sent down come October.
Unless a big trade is happening, there are not a lot of good options available.
Jarry is more of a risk, but potentially a better long term asset.
Talbot is at least a NHL goalie, but he may not be able to recapture his form.
Crazy. We already have 4 goalies signed, not including Rittich. Where are they all going to go? Talk about not backing your own guys.....
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
I think they have two guys they can run with, so Jarry is expendable.
DeSmith had better NHL numbers recently.
Jarry could bring them back a prospect or pick.
Or maybe, we go crazy:
Kessel (2m retained) + Maatta + Jarry for Brodie + Janko + Czarnik
We buy out Stone.
Trade Frolik for Zucker.
Trade Maatta to TOR for Kadri.
JH-Monahan-Kessel
Tkachuk-Kadri-Zucker
Bennett-Backlund-Lindholm
Mangiapane-Ryan-Neal
Gio-Ras
Hanifin-Hamonic
Valimaki-Kylington
Fantenberg
Rittich
Jarry
Like it. I’m hoping BT does at least this much this off-season as some serious shake up is required.
-
4 hours ago, travel_dude said:
Ruzicka is probably the best case of jumping to the AHL next season. Will be old enough. Really needs a good coach to work the bugs out of him. He seems to lack motivation. Zav will only be turning pro if it's on the Flames next season. He's been looking like he's ready, maybe just a little small. He's 175 pounds, so he could be the goal scoring version of Gaudreau with a little more beef and a harder shot.
One guy we never seem to talk about is Filip Sveningsson. Don't know if he makes it to NA next season, but would be a dark horse.
Tuulola?
-
On 2018-12-11 at 10:21 AM, cross16 said:
100% agree
BPA is subjective not objective like some like to argue. I competely reject the idea that there should be master scouting list or consensus among prospects. Your list and your BPA criteria should absolutely change and be adapted to fit the vision of your team and what style of game you want to play.
The likelihood of this happening is pretty much zero so it's a pretty extreme example to counter the point. Most teams, and Flames are included in this, group in tiers so if you've already taken a goalie or two your list should be flexible so that you just pick another player with the same tier provided you have equal grades on both players. But if there is a goalie that is in a tier above everyone else, then I would fully support taking them even if another goalie has already been picked.
The possibility or goal of drafting every element of your team is simply not realistic. You are going to have to make trades or sign free agents to fill holes and on top of that needs change all the time so if you draft for need what's to say that need will still be there in 2-3 years? Going into the Valamki draft the consensus was the Flames needed a forward but took Valamaki and how does that decision look now?
Pick good players and you always have assets that you can move in trade. Reach for needs or pick players for other reasons you wind up with prospects no one wants (see Darryl Sutter)
BPA is a fantasy supported by scouts and reporters and lots of fans to justify their jobs and favourites but with little reality in actual fact. Even if we drafted thirty two 25 year old pros there would be no fully consensus BPA list everyone would agree on. Not even close. If you think of it that way it exposes the BPA problems and the issues about team needs. Heck, even if you tried to get a BPA for top player in the league between the "supposed" top 5 you would get a lot of arguments. It all depends on how you value different skills and abilities versus someone else. Would a goalie be in that list, the most important player on any team? If you set a rigid criteria, like Goals scored, then fine, Ovechkin wins every year, but as you broaden the terms it quickly becomes muddy. The exact same thing happens for 17 year old kids. On top of that, the player who might have been 100% the correct pick at 17 years old may not develop any further and become a bomb at 20 or 23 years old.... Bennett anyone? Since most teams are drafting for those years down the road, developmental projections are critical and if they don't happen you look like a fool. Take Hunter Smith for example. The guy had size, toughness and was just starting to score and put it together at 17, all things a team needed at the draft at that time, functional toughness, which today is hardly needed, or so it seems. Unfortunately the skating and scoring never evolved enough to make him a player at the next level. Also look at McDonald versus Demko. Do you pick proven track record or pick burgeoning potential? Because it won't become critical till 4-5 years later it's a very difficult choice.
-
1
-
-
On 2018-12-11 at 10:01 AM, travel_dude said:
Let me be a bit more specific, so as not to confuse criticism with being a Neg. Nancy.
Smith has a few different things that he does:
1) stop the puck behind the net on a dump in
2) play a soft shot with his stick to his D after he gloves it down
3) make short passes with no traffic to his D
4) make longer passes in traffic to his D or a forward back in the zone
5) fire the puck up the glass
6) hang onto the puck behind the net with forecheckers coming at him and the defense less than 3 feet away
7) freeze the puck behind the net against the boards
8) fire a long pass to a streaking forward
I have zero issues with 1, 2, 3, and 8 if they are safe. Even 4 can be made safely sometimes.
5 can result in a turnover, and mostly does because you are clearing the puck not moving it from goalie to D to F.
6 and 7 can work, but is risky most of the time.
8 can be picked off if not perfectly executed, much like the stretch pass doesn't always work.
I may be a minority here, but I prefer to control the breakout starting with a short pass to the D. Use the goalie to do it in an emergency only.
Very thoughtful summary. I don’t disagree with your preferences, lower risk and all. The thing is, these are not always available, and certainly not equally so. Although you could possibly make a case that you can perfectly identify when the risky events occur, I believe that most of the time they are happenstance, i.e unpredictable primarily based on the defender’s movements, puck bouncing and ice condition. If that is the case, at least the majority of the time, then he went in thinking it a “safe” play and, whoops, turned out to be more dangerous. How do you criticize that? Regardless, even with the dangerous cases, he”s only been burnt by a goal against 2-3 times that I recall, versus the dozens of time it didn’t. Again, I contend pretty good odds......
-
On 2018-12-09 at 10:21 AM, travel_dude said:
Well said.
Rittich's last two starts weren't goalie fails, they were more the team in front.
Smith drives you ro drink because of his puck handling.
Yes, there are a lot of them that set up the play.
There are a lot more that result in turnovers in the D-zone or neutral zone.
And his penchant for freezing the puck behind the net drives me crazy.
We need both goalies getting a feel for the game, not sitting while the "hot hand" gets the starts.
Rittich is the reason we are not in the basement.
Smith helped once he came back, and while he is making some great saves, he is also looking uncontrolled.
The Scorpion save was because he was swimming.
Last night he gave up a really bad goal that almost truned the tables.
His save right afterwards was a combo of position, luck, the D helping and a weak shot.
I think they need to get back to one or two each, not giving it to the "starter".
Determine each start by scouting and circumstance, not so and so played good or bad.
Honestly, TD, you're seeming more and more like a negative Nancy that can find something to nitpick no matter the situation. To say Smith has "a lot more that result in turnovers" versus setting up the D is so far from reality it's laughable. Sure it happens a handful of times a game but far, far from most likely. If you want to seek out "bad" goals, we can easily find them for both of the goalies. We can also find many exceptional stops. We now have both goalies playing well. I'm not seeing a problem here.
-
On 2018-12-09 at 9:23 AM, cross16 said:
I am a little frustrated by the fact that Smith was giving ALOT of latitude to find his game but Rittich has 1 bad period and they seem to have gone back to Smith as the starter.
See how how it goes I guess but it's a little frustrating. I get the stats won't back me up but I honestly don't think Smith is even playing thst great. Teams been really good in front of him and he's gotten a little lucky, which happens and he was very unlucky to start the season. There are still a ton of holes in his game.
Both are currently playing well. Why not sit back and enjoy it?
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, rickross said:
Was just mentioning BT's impact on our drafting and player development in another thread. The highlight being how currently the majority of our defensive starters are Flames draft grads. Pretty impressive to have 2 starting D men both drafted in the same 2nd round in Rasmus and Kylington. Quite a rare feat IMO, these players have progressed at a rate where a player like Stone is now an expendable piece.
Our forwards have have seen some success with guys like Janko, Mangiapane and Dube. The Flames have produced greater balance and depth however, with all the recent graduations we already need to reup on more blue chip prospects. We have a lot of good solid depth players but we still lack impactful players. Lots of players that can fill in but no real game changers in the cupboards. As much as I like what we have, the gap in top end talent is still a work in progress. We don't have another Monny, JH in the ranks yet and hopefully 1 or more of our recent late round picks will pan out.
With the Flames trending up for the next few years it's hard to see them drafting high for the foreseeable future. It will be interesting to see how they go about remaining competitive while still acquiring future assets.
Most of what you say is right on. But when you say we don't have another Mony or JH in the ranks you make me laugh. Neither one of those guys ever made the farm team, skipping right into the NHL. If we had more they'd do the same. Down the road, though we COULD have several Top6 forwards from guys we've already drafted, we'll have to wait and see how they develop.
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Just because the answer is obvious, does not mean the goalie coach and BP agree.
Things have changed a bit since the LA game, but there's a chance that Smith plays one of the the next two games.
Personally, I'm not convinced we are close to having Smith ready to go again.
Next 5 games:
Nov. 23 - @Vegas
Nov. 25 - @ARI
Nov. 28 - DAL
Nov. 30 - LA
Dec. 2 - @CHI
Any of those games scream Smith's name? ARI may be too soon to go back to him, but it makes a bit of sense.
Against his old team, Arizona sounds about right. See if he can get back to playing well. If not, back to Rittich for 4-5 games. Hey, even IF we accept and put Rittich into a "starters" role, you don't want to overplay him. Whoever is starting, it needs to be a 3:1 or 4:1 split, at worse to keep them both fresh.
-
1
-
-
On 2018-11-16 at 10:28 AM, The_People1 said:
I never thought I'd ever say this but Alberta probably benefits the most from Separatism. No more equalization payments.
Another alternative is to become the 51st of the US instantly eliminating exchange rate hurdles and our product is just US grade. No more of this Western Select pricing. Also, instant access to world markets piggy backing on US markets. Pipelines to both coasts are already there.
US debt per capita is very close to Canadian debt per capita so that's a push. We get US army protection. And maybe more than anything, we give BC and Ottawa the middle finger.
If they come kill me after I post this, then I want everybody to know I'm very happy in life right now. No depression at all. I don't work out so I won't drop dumbbells on my neck. I don't own guns so I won't shoot myself in the back of the head twice like they may report on the news. Thanks.
Good one. Unfortunately, the US is swirling down the toilet pretty fast and even the Trump “revolution” is straining to turn the tides. Not as desirable as it once was.... but, nice thinking outside the box.... not sure if that impacts the Olympics bid though.
-
1 hour ago, kehatch said:
Rinne just extended. I wonder if that makes Saros available?
But only for 2yrs so doubt Soros available because he is the future.
Sam Bennett
in Flames Talk
Posted
Absolutely true. Sure he plays an aggressive style, but the issue is inequality in the reffing. Seems like he is getting singled out.