cccsberg
-
Posts
3,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by cccsberg
-
-
Totally agree....funny how that works....I thought you wanted a proven vet?
With regards to the Flames untouchables, I do feel right now that everyone in that list is Basically untouchable at the moment, with Maybe the exception of Gaudreau. But even Gaudreau....there is just no way. Unless Gibson was a just an extra in part of a larger deal.
Gaudreau, for Shea Theodore and Gibson? Maybe that would be more of a fair trade, still don't know if I like it.
So, while most of us would love to have Gibson here, very few of us are willing to over-pay for him, and I doubt the Flames are either. Meanwhile, still very hard to imagine Anaheim giving him up.
So, we shall see.
Gaudreau is a non-starter, end of story. In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of anyone I would trade straight up for Gaudreau at the moment.
-
I don't feel this is much different than CalgaryNext when you take into consideration CalgaryNext includes the residential development in the Pumphouse Theater area. It's a "live, work, and play" West Village redevelopment proposal. Sure, throw in a library or school too, that was never ruled out or anything.
Yes, exactly. Ottawa's plan: $3.5B, 10 years in the making, 500 arena parking stalls, lots of digital fluff and "green" drivel.... Yikes! CalgaryNext looks like a GREAT plan in comparison.
-
The expansion will be announced in June if it's going to happen. If it is announced it will impact what happens over the summer. If it is announced it will change which goalies are available.
Yes, absolutely. Over the next few months there are several dates which will each clear up the fog considerably, starting with Saturday's draft lottery. Let's win that then see what develops.
-
1
-
-
Agreed. Flames would be fine I think because the demand is there but the CSEC has more than just the Flames. I think if you put an arena/Stadium out by CrossIron your attendance for Hitmen, Roughneck and Stamps game would likely drop and in some cases significantly. Need to think of more than just the Flames.
I was thinking in terms of developing a mega-entertainment, multi-sport, multi-venue locale. Cross Iron Mills just comes to mind because it already has some of the necessary infrastructure, with great access and with the horse racing going there, venues. Obviously something closer in would be even better. Heck, Stampede Grounds is ideal but it would have to expand significantly and the vision would beed to expand beyond its current plans. They already had a track but lost it and now look to be in peril of losing the Arena.
-
I agree and say the same thing but to me its coaching, 100%. They did this all year, they did it 5 on 5 and they did it on the PK. If a team does something like that with the consistancy they did to me its by design. And if its not the Hartley wanted them covering the front of the net and they just weren't well then he is probably the worst coach of all time because no team should have a major flaw like that go unfixed all year. For the recrod, I don't think Hartley is the worst coach of all time....
Its not just the Flames though, if you watch over teams you will see guys being left open in front of the net more often now. The problem is the league basiclaly officiated the rough play in front of the net out of the game. You can't lean on guys, you can't cross check and heck now you can't even stick check because if the guy drops his stick you're in the box. If you can't do it you have to avoid it and if you can't cover the front of the net you've got to stop shots from getting to the net. I think the :Flames have made the decision to base their defence around leaving guys in front of the net and focus on blocking shots so the puck just never gets to the net. Right or wrong, its the decision they've made IMO and I don't think that is going to change. I dont' think it has anything to do with the size or nature of the Flames D its what they believe is the right way to defend and like I said its not like they are the only team doing it.
I think you're probably correct. Certainly the rules have changed, and what elevated certain players to All-Star or cult status years ago (e.g. Scott Stevens) would probably get them suspended so often they would be out of the league in a few years via multiple suspensions....
-
There were only a small handful of games where the flames played great. And then games where they got no puck luck because they didn't deserve it, games where they didn't deserve it but got it and won (end of the season), and games where they did but didn't get it. This season was more than a Jeklyl and Hyde one. Some remember the few good playing games more than a lot of the poor games.
The thing about for me is, a team who doesn't give it their all for the whole season and comes to play do not deserve playoffs and won't win the cup. The reason I am debating against goaltending is that unless this team comes to play 60 minutes, they're not a cup contender. Not finding a goaltender to mask the deficiencies that I see, which are a lot in my eyes.
For me, it is slow starts, there were a lot of games this year when the team was not present and engaged, and I agree, the fee games that they were, it would've been nice to have better goaltenders.
The team looks good when they give the effort. Too many times did they only give that effort against the higher end teams this year. They have to get up for all games. That's not happening.
The one thing the D are allowed to do, which ours almost never does, is rough up the other team after they've hacked at the puck after our goalies cover it. When team do that to us, there are hardly any penalties. This is part of what I mean by easy to play with and not mean enough.
The other thing which often seems to be a problem is being able/willing to box out the opposition in front of the net. To me that comes down to a combination of will and strength, but perhaps its assignment too and I'm just missing something. When we play Anaheim their big forwards just go straight to the net and camp out there, and personally I would like to see our D make it much harder for them to get there in the first place and make it miserable to stay there. If big and strong enough you can jostle for position/push them out and that is something we rarely see from our D. Engelland is pretty much the only guy that does so on a semi-consistent basis and Gio less so. The others, not so much.
-
1
-
-
Sorry for the long post. I appreciate any who bother reading it.
We go around and around in circles when we discuss defence and goaltending here. Part of the problem is that the NHL simply does not collect appropriate data to make intelligent assessments of play. NHL statistics are largely an heuristic device for the media to generate fan interest. Goaltending save percentage is not a valid statistic since a goalie can stand on his head, but if the defence is allowing a shooting gallery, it misrepresents what is happening in reality. As well, a goalie can play poorly, but if the defence is excellent, he is going to look unbeatable. Shot blocking can indicate great heart or poor defensive play. Puck possession is usually a good indicator of play, but the LA Kings were the best at that this year and look how they performed. They had the puck and were unable to translate that possession into offence. We can make similar arguments about other statistics including the Corsi that is based on already insufficient, invalid data. Anyone who uses Microsoft programs knows that placing crap upon crap results in mega-crap. As Quenville said before the last game, he makes decisions on the basis of his gut. I am not anti-statistic, I am saying that there is insufficient data to produce valid statistics. You just cannot Moneyball hockey at the moment.
The Flames suffered from Oilerthink this year when it comes to defence (and goaltending). On paper, we are excellent. Dougie has massive potential, Gio is great all around, and Brodie is simply amazing. But this does not mean that they are necessarily playing well in relation to other aspects of the game. All year, the front of our net has been a safe haven for other teams. I half expected that a family of Syrian refugees would set up camp in front of our net because nobody would ever remove them. It has made life very difficult for all of our goalies. So many times, we just dump the puck around the boards due to a lack of hustle, hope for the best, the puck goes to their point man, and they score. It was rinse, repeat playing Anaheim. Like the Oiler’s offence, we have great players who have not played great defence.
Compare that to the Hawks. They usually get to the puck first (is there a statistic for that?). If not, they bang away until they strip it from the other team (is there a statistic for that?). And then, they usually have several passing options when transitioning (any stats here?). That is almost rare for the Flames. We wait for the other team to give us the puck after they get a scoring opportunity. We hope our goalie stops the puck and it bounces to us before the other team gets it. If not, we start shot blocking.
Hartley does have some explaining to do in this regard, and I kind of like the guy overall. Is he aware of these problems, but the players are not responding? Are they unable to respond how he wishes? Or, is Hartley too focused on offensive play? Does anyone dispute that one of the best hits by one of our defencemen was when Wideman put the zebra in the hospital? Sometimes I wish Reggie was our defensive coach.
You make a lot of great points, especially the lack of appropriate/good data on which to really figure out what is happening. That is so, so true and why watching the game is so critical to really know what is happening, and who is either playing great or just benefitting from others.
The more I'm thinking about these things it seems to me that each team has(or gets) a very few key players(or a coach) around which the team develops (usually) a unique personality based on those few players/coach. For Calgary its a quick counterattack, kamikaze attack style of play that incorporates their forwards but also all their D. Its fast, its high pressure and it feeds off the rush and catching the other team off-balance and out of place, and getting better than average scoring chances. This is probably mostly a BH playing style, supported by BT, that uniquely fits our best players, Gaudreau, Giordano and Brodie to a "T". It works well overall but it also leaves the team vulnerable to a slow, methodical cycling/possession game with an emphasis on physicality and wearing down our players. It also makes us susceptible to a stacked D/trap system in the neutral zone that shuts down our fast break attack.
Thinking back to our 1980's powerhouses we had massive skill and strength, but played more for break even at 5 v 5 then kill them on Special Teams.
There probably is not 1 way to make a team, it will totally depend on a combination of players/coach and so hey, if we end up with 6 skilled offensive D in three years, great. It will be more about execution and effort than anything else.....,
-
^ ya with the size difference in playing surface, it's very difficult to achieve a one-size-fits-all complex.
The only way it can work is if the football field can roll into the arena above the lower bowl, ultimately making the second bowl of the arena into the lower bowl of the football field. Basically, the ice surface and lower bowl would be beneath the football field. Only problem with this is the roof better be extremely high or can raise/lower to suit the event.
If the lower bowl seats 9000 and the second bowl seats 15000, then you'll have a 24000 hockey arena and a 15000 football field.
Lots of ideas. How about just build a more compact covered football field/bowl for about 25,000 and have deluxe seats with personal TV screens for the games like on an airplane, just a lot better quality. You could pipe multi-video streams, game stats, other games, pause, rewind, zoom and interactive responses into individual seats/mini-boxes. Its the 21st century, start acting like it with some truly innovative thinking and live-game experiences.... the best of both worlds combined into one unique performance hall. Then in off days you could use it for all sorts of things from meetings to conventions to teaching to lectures.... a truly transformative place for a far broader segment of the population. The outdoor hockey games in huge stadiums seem to fill up petty well, and that experience is crap vs what could be done....
-
I personally disagree on Monahan I thought he did take some steps forward but maybe not a giant leap.
Part of the problem is pretty easy to diagnose, they lack experience. We should not expect guys like Mony, Gaudreau, Bennett, Ferland to have very good defensive games, it takes times for guys like that. I think the real problem is where is their support? From a bottom 6 perspective Hartley has to use guys like Jooris, Bolig, Stajan, Colborne all of which are IMO not very good in their own zone. Stajan is OK but thats just is he is ok. Outside of Backlund/Frolik, they don't really have guys that currently play a solid defensive game and that needs to be addressed and part of the reason I say the Flames need to compeltely re work their bottom 6. It's really below average from an NHL standpoint.
You look at a team like the Blackhawks, when they were building up their dynasty they had guys like Yanic Perrault, John Madden, Martin Havlat, Robert Lang, Patrick Sharp etc etc. They had veteran guys who knew the finer defensive details of the game. The Flames have not supported their young case with the same type of players.
It take time, didn't happen overnight for the Hawks either but this is just one of the may things you can look at as to why the Goals against is where it is. There is no 1 fix to rectify it there are many and IMO forward is a bigger need than defence. I really don't think changing the D is going to get you a significant result, you need more experience up front.
Flames have too many guys in their bottom 6 who IMO are not NHlers. Bolig isn't, not full time anyway, Jooris isn't, Ferland wasn't last year but that is a learning process, and personally I don't think Grant is either. I think the Flames should have alot of interest in guys like Mike Richards, Boyd Gordon, Kyle Brodziak, Chris Kelly etc. I think they need that veteran presence especially on the PK.
People are going to jump all over me about how the "youth needs to get played" and "giving prospects a chance". My counter, is the Flames already get the most production into the NHL out of their youth, its time to support that youth.
Its a balancing act. If the Flames replaced marginal guys like Bollig, Stajan, Jooris with solid vets, they can still play enough prospects to transition the team.. Part of the problem is being active at keeping the best players and not getting fixated on vets who aren't really helping.
-
Thanks ccsberg, I'm forced to respond in essay format.... but short answer: You need both. Offense/Defense, these days. Often in the same player. Agreed. But having an offensive defenceman, doesn't mean you have both.
I guess, to answer that we have to go back to what the topic is, and what "defense" means. Is it a position? A responsibility? A system?
The start of this topic (no offense to anyone) was an eery reminder of what I fear we see defense as, and what you confirmed in much of your reflective quote above.
This topic was started with the subject line "Defense", followed by a list of the top Flames point producers.
http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/topic/21053-flames-defense
By my understanding of defense, it is hard for me to post on here, without being "off topic" given that direction. Yet, the thread is frighteningly popular. My own thoughts on what a team "should" look like, maybe don't matter that much. But, everyone else's visions of a 5-forward team, or the future of hockey, maybe aren't the most relevant either.
So the first question you need to ask, is what we want.
I really, honestly, truly....want a Stanley cup in Calgary. That's it, that's all. But that's NOT what everyone else necessarily wants.
Many on here want Entertainment. They want to be entertained, they're often willing to pay for it. They want entertainment consistently.
They want entertainment.... win or lose. Effort. Excitement. Red lights, Fire.
And, I get it. I really do. My needs might also be more complex, if I was a season ticket holder, or otherwise financially invested.
But when it comes to the Stanley Cup....Sometimes, you don't get to have both. And, we have to at least recognize, that they are Not the same thing.
- Los Angeles has NOT been an exciting team over the last 5 years. But, they are one of the Only teams that plays into summer.
- Boston is NOT an exciting team. But they Do have a recent cup and Often succeed Post-season.
- Chicago Can sometimes be an exciting team. And, possibly, the team that many on here model the Flames after.
But, we may be modelling ourselves after some of chicago's weaknesses, instead of their strengths, and definitely the exception to the rule in terms of playoff success.
So...ok...we can talk about Chicago. Not about my ideal D lineup. Say we talk about the last Stanley Cup winner. (because if we talked about LA, or Boston, there ...just ...wouldn't be anything to compare)
So...for example: Doug Hamilton. He is NOT a top 4 defenceman on an NHL contender right now. He has the potential, and I think he will reach it. But he just Isn't defensively responsible in that role. Yet. We all bank him in. I've been guilty of it too. We're getting ahead of ourselves. The blackhawks have nobody, never did have anybody, who was this much of a defensive project. We need to realize, while I support it, we're taking on a lot here. And Los Angeles, or Boston? NOT A CHANCE.
Compare that, to, say, Duncan Keith. We do not have a Single player that does, defensively, what Duncan Keith does. People seem to think, that because Gio and Brodie put similar (or even better) points up, that they are better defensemen. They are clearly not, defensively better, and Nobody outside of this City thinks they are. We sometimes like to kid ourselves. And it holds us back. We have nobody like him defensively. Period. Not in the NHL, not in the development system, not anybody we've drafted.
Seabrook....Defensively, I would say the same, to only a slightly lesser degree. At times, Gio could compare. Unfortunately, Gio is getting older. And yes, offensively, we've got lots to talk about. But..that's only half the game.
The famous comparison: Too often on here, it is said:
Keith+Seabrook = Brodie+ Gio.
No. Offensively, maybe. Defensively, Brodie/Gio lack the size, sense, system, and play to be compared. They compare in offensive categories only. They are OK defensively. But for the minutes they take up, we would need a much deeper supporting cast of defense than we do.
And our prospect pool? All offense. Even the defencemen. Or, B-C grade defensemen.
So....to be honest....gaps can be filled in, yes. But we need those Top D, who are all things. Offensive, Defensive, at a world class level. And if you have to favour one over the other, Defensive Still wins more cups. And probably will continue to.
I believe there are lots of areas to get us from bad to average, but in terms of getting from Average to Elite, this is the area the Flames will need to focus on the most.
Yes, we have some offense now. Even there, probably not enough. Because....the Truth is....when we actually start playing a system and take defense seriously.....
Other teams are going to stop laying their backups against us.
Only then will we even know how much offense we really have.
Ok, GREAT response. Well thought out and elaborated.
I would agree that our best overall D is Giordano, and I might argue he compares favourably with anybody out there. Keith, Seabrook, Doughty, whoever. That being said its a steep drop-off down to Brodie and even more to Hamilton, who defensively has a lot to prove as he continues to mature and grow.
As for the prospects, the big three seem to be in the same mold, though I'm not certain on Andersson. Of the others I think guys like Ollas-Maatson, Kanzig, Sieloff and Bruce all could be very fine, defensively, one day but certainly skating may get them to the NHL but is never going to be Elite.
Getting back to my original question, though, nobody else really has a great top 4 with the exception of perhaps Nashville from what I see. Chicago is top 3 only, LAK top 2/3 maybe, Boston in their prime top 2/3 only, TBL now top 2/3 maybe, ANA now top4 very good but not great.... and on it goes. That seems to be the requirement, so having all top 6 offensive guys just might do it, if you play a strong system and have strong supporting guys?
I finally fully agree on your overall assessment of this thread and general thinking on D, its all about the numbers. Though this is concrete and entertaining I'm not sure its the primary reason for team success. But then again, look at perhaps the best D/best player to ever play the game: Bobby Orr.... ALL offence, so much that he pretty much single-handedly changed the NHL for all time!
-
1
-
Ok, I can work with a lot of your last post. Except, this part above.
I get the importance of goaltending. But, when you finish last in the league for goals against, and your farm team is following suit....
"Our defense is good to very good right now" is not a reasonable statement, imho, no matter who you have in net. You can say we have good offensive defensemen. You could argue that we have a bright future on defense (and I would disagree, currently), but if you come out of this season happy with our defensive coverage, that's honestly a Really hard sell. I hope you can at least appreciate that, given our league-worst outcome.
IMHO, my guess on next season:
- We will improve out goaltending
- It will still not be elite, and thus you will still not be "happy"
- We will have a better season next year, and it Might even include a post-season.
- But it will leave many unfulfilled. Including me, and you.
- From our conversation right now, I'm assuming you will blame this on a lack of "Elite Goaltending"
- However, more likely, the post-mortem will be more complex, pointing at just a bit too much "average"....Everywhere
And that....is my fear, because out of all the positions, Defense is the hardest one for an organization to bring from Average to Elite (and takes the longest). Goaltending can change overnight. We saw that with Kipper. Offense develops quickly. Defense requires initiatives at the organizational, team system, coaching, and development levels, as well as trades (GM) in many cases.
jjg, I can appreciate a lot of what you say.
Certainly, the focus on getting to "average" is probably only going to get the team to average results. The Flames as a team need to aim higher. One of the great things from last year is the Flames were exceptional in a couple of areas. Firstly, the overall effort and hard work, and secondly, the "never quit" attitude that fuelled a lot of comeback wins. They also were at or near the top in a couple other items, like PP chances against.... These are all intangibles but frankly, are pretty crucial to LT success. All these areas slumped this year, at least relative to the league as a whole. The team needs to continue strong in those areas while continuing to build to exceptional in other, primary areas, like offence, defence, GAA and Special Teams.
The other thing I agree with is the team defence wasn't all that great in defensive zone coverage this year, which has been clearly shown in a couple FN articles (e.g. D coverage of great D offences?) and just eye-balling the myriad of D lapses this season. I'd say the actual D were average to above average overall in defensive zone coverage.
To that end I'd like to know, what do you see as the ideal 7-man D in the NHL? Many, many on here seem to think high-scoring, offensively gifted, puck-moving D is ideal and any departure from that is not only bad, but a type of D from an earlier age that should be avoided at pretty much all costs (e.g. Engelland).
So here's the scenario.
- Right now with Giordano, Brodie and Hamilton we have what many would call three #1D (albeit Hamilton still adjusting). All three guys are pretty fast, good to great-skating, excellent passing, puck-moving D that jump into the offence at a moment's notice, if not lead it into the zone. And they can score, adding a significant element to their team's overall offence. Defensively they are all pretty solid with coverage and positioning, but not too physical nor what I would call great along the boards or in front of the net. All three could easily be a #1D on a LOT of NHL teams.
- In our prospect pool we have at least three additional guys that play and sound and look a LOT like our current top 3, those being Kylington, Andersson and Hickey. Let's assume for a minute all three continue to progress and grow and make it to the NHL Flames in two to three years, and are able to contribute to the same extent as our current top 3 D are, both defensively and offensively. Since we still have our current top 3 D, we'd end up with a top 6 D all in the same mold of puck-moving, offensively-gifted, D-positioning "#1-type" Defensemen.
QUESTION: Is THAT your ideal NHL defence that the Flames should be working towards, or are there other elements that are currently present, or perhaps missing that are CRUCIAL to a successful NHL D corps? You can give examples, please.
-
1
-
I think he played pretty well in a limited call-up. The question is whether he could do that over a full season on a playoff bound team. We see a lot of players look good in short call-ups but fail to handle a full competitive season. His season reminded me a bit of Derek Smith's. Lots of supporters since he came out of nowhere and showed he could play the game. But at the end of the day he is an AHLer.
That said, this is his first season on North American ice and he at least proved he can play the game at the top level. I would love to see him back on a small short term contract to see if he can take another step. He can play the 5/6/7 spot or play well in the AHL if someone passes him.
I agree, we shouldn't get all gaw gaw over Nakladal. He played a consistent game, has a good shot and held his own.
Fully agree, he paid his dues in the AHL, came up and has been consistent and steady, an upgrade over the guys he replaced. We shouldn't be gaw gaw over him but he doesn't deserve the "AHL player" or "Derek Smith-like" comparisons either. Give credit where credit is due.
Never said I had anything against the guy.
Except you consistently talk him down and dismiss him as an effective player, even if his play is just the opposite.
-
Agreed. He's a good NHL role player, maybe a bit more, at the AHL level.
Not sure what you've got against Nakladal. He came up and played very well. An upgrade on D.
-
Why would Pittsburgh want to separate a strong tandem? How much are they both being paid?
Expansion Draft. If it goes, it opens up the whole goalie market, whether directly with current teams or with the expansion team via a post-draft trade.
-
As someone who lived in Calgary in his youth (age 8-13), I am enjoying this debate as I knew nothing about these issues back then.
Also, one suggestion, instead of building up, we could build down. Ie, find a plot of land big enough that fits all the criteria for transit and location, then build under whatever is there. The cost to build underground is probably less than to clean up the contaminated area. Besides, how cool would it be to have the only NHL arena that could double as a disaster bunker?
The benefits are that you are protected from all the elements, the ground provides some natural insulation, the novelty attraction, and all the usage for emergency shelters. Charge the owners of other buildings a fee to connect up to our stadium (not including the owners of the land we built under) and you can get some funds.
Anyone have any good name suggestions for this proposed arena?
[i am mostly joking, but building underneath current downtown could solve some of the available land issues and [i]come on[/i] you have to admit that it's a cool idea (and more feasible than a sky stadium)]
*x-strike is currently pot stirring with reckless abandon*
How about half-buried bunker like the South end of Nose Hill? Terrific views, still have the park above, but would need transit. Perhaps a gondola from DT? LOL
-
As you have pointed out, the only block of land that meets reasonable criteria to build both arenas is the one contaminated and expensive to clean up. If that is true then they may need to build them in separate locations.
Personally I would love to see them build it at Crossiron Mills. But I understand the lack of transit and municipal funding that makes that impractical.
Yes, I agree on CrossIron Mills too. Develop it into a huge entertainment/sports district. With the excellent highway links it already has great access to most of the city. Although just outside the city at the moment it could easily be annexed.
One way or another, someone needs some vision for the city going forward.
-
I'm not criticizing them for create a proposal. I'm criticizing them for creating a very weak proposal after spending over 5 years telling people we need a new arena but we "just aren't there yet". This feasibility study should have taken place years ago and IMO the Flames never should have put forth a proposal that rested on such flimsy and out to lunch ideas and numbers. This was very poorly planned on King's part.
Food for thought, Katz bought in the Oilers in 2008. 2 years later he had a report for Edmonton City council to debate, within 5 years he had the funding approved and in just over 8 will have a new building. Its been 5 or 6 years now and the best King has managed is a feasibility study to show his own idea was crappy and he has said publicly multiple times, there is no plan B.
I'm all for a new arena, but its pretty hard to get around the fact that King and co have done a very poor job going about this new arena and their proposal. I'm not shocked, King doesn't do a good job with many things so just add this to the list.
Cross, I'm not sure where you think King did a shoddy job. The City basically agreed with what he put forward on the facility itself. King never outlined road/utility costs(not his responsibility), and he was trying to be a catalyst for the clean-up discussion(which has happened). As for the 6 years to clean-up, I wouldn't believe everything just because someone puts it into a report. Cochrane had a similar contamination issue and once a developer got serious it was dealt with like in two years. You will note 3 year of the supposed clean-up is to get permits. Like it takes that long if you are really trying. The City is going to be on the hook for the 100's of millions of clean-up and road/utility dollars whether this project proceeds or not.
-
Aplogoies in advance for the novel
Thought I'd weigh in on this one as well, and put together my goalie target list in order of preference. I personally see a 3 horse race, followed by followed by some plan B's which wouldn't be the end of the world (and would only act as a stop-gap solution to buy development time). Teams in the market for goalies appear to be slim - Calgary, Toronto, and Carolina (did I miss any?) which I think bodes well for us in our search as there is a less competitive market.1. Matt Murray (PIT):My ideal candidate for our team. Despite the lack of "NHL experience" on his resume, it does speak very well for his potential. Potential that won't cost us a $6M contract in the next few years. He's also NHL ready *now*. He's the right age to grow with the team. IMO I believe he will allow us to be a perennial Stanley Cup contender in the near future. Yes, it's been reported that BT has reached out to Pittsburgh regarding Murray - and the response was NO... however, I believe this to be posturing for Pittsburgh to get a better return... Hear me out. Marc-Andre Fleury is a Penguins Stanley Cup winning goalie who is only 31, and is locked in with 3 more seasons @ $5.75M plus a No Move Clause. He is a cherished teammate, has great personal relationships with many including Sid, and is loved by the fans. I do not forsee a scenario where Pittsburgh trades this franchise player to another team - I just can't see it. That said, I believe Pittsburgh would prefer to hold onto BOTH goalies... HOWEVER, if the NHL announces EXPANSION, this tips the scale back in our favour and benefits us immensely in the pursuit for Murray, as I believe even with a 1-team expansion, Murray would be targeted along with an unprotected veteran goalie mentor. Expansion would force Pittsburgh's hand to choose to protect 1 goalie over the other, and again I can't see Pittsburgh doing that to Fleury. Heck, if the NHL rules that players with NMCs take a 'protected spot' automatically, Murray would become available no matter what! Pittsburgh would not risk losing Murray for nothing, would they? Toronto would likely compete with us for Murray. They have a ton of draft picks at their disposal, but they are also in the Eastern Conference. Here's hoping we win this one.2. Ben Bishop (TB):Established NHL goalie whose resume speaks for itself. Save percentage better than average on a team I do not view as a defensive powerhouse. Current cap hit $5.95 with 1 year remaining and no movement clause. If we are able to move out Dennis Wideman and his contract @ $5.25M, I don't think twice about "helping" Tampa Bay move out this contract. It's been reported that TB needs to free up cap space for their RFAs, Stamkos, and they're apparently high on giving the reigns to Vasilevsky from various articles I've read. If we plan to challenge for the cup in the next few years (2-4), I'm confident with Bishop. Bishop will instantly make us a better team IMO, however, Murray is my number 1 because I think he brings more longevity to the position and is a lower cap hit for us than Bishop over time.3. Frederik Andersen (ANA)RFA Goalie at the end of this year expecting a pay raise. Anaheim is NOT a cap team, and they have MANY RFA and UFA players to consider re-signing this year. Andersen could be pushed out as they've reportedly chosen Gibson as their starter. 26 years old, GAA is average to above average on a good defensive team. NHL ready goalie with potential to improve - unsure what his ceiling is, but anticipate he would help us challenge for stanley cups. Wouldn't cost $6M like Bishop, but would cost us more cap space than Murray. Western Conference adversary may not want to trade with us, but I could see Toronto as better suitor with draft picks and/or low cap prospects going back in return.4. James Reimer (SJ)UFA. How much demand is there for goalies this summer? I'm not sure Reimer gets the pay day he's looking for, which may benefit us if none of the above scenarios pan out for us. I must say I *am* very concerned about his concussion and injury history, but this is a goalie that competes hard every night, wears his heart on his jersey, and didn't throw in the towel playing for a terrible leafs team - he RAISED his game. Playing behind one of the poorest defense corps in the league, Reimer more than proved he should've started the lion's share of leaf games. But politics plays a role. Toronto had to protect the optics of the trade they made with LA for Bernier, hanging onto hope that Bernier would come around. Meanwhile, Reimer towed the company line and outshone Bernier in most of the opportunities that he got. If healthy - he solidifies the position to get us into the playoffs and I guess anything can happen then.5. Darcy Kuemper (MIN) / Ondrej Pavelec (WPG)If all else fails - this is the last resort. I give the edge to Pavelec (especially if WPG will take Stajan off our hands in return) and hope he finds consistency for us if we end up with fewer goalie options than anticipated. He could get us back into the playoffs IMO. Kuemper is bigger risk with average stats, but has room to improve his game. I don't think he gets us into the playoffs next year, but cap and potential could fill the need immediately.I love the potential of any of the first 3, especially if an expansion draft is in the works. zNone of those teams is going to be willing to lose their guy for nothing, its just a matter of when they make a move and if they are able to do a side deal with the expansion team NOT to pick their goalie.....
-
i agree i odn't see the upside in Nak either. I thikn he can be a decent 5/6 guy but nothing more, his hockey sense and decision making IMO won't allow him to be a top 4 dman and I think thats why he isn't getting the opportunity becuase if i'm Hartley I wouldn't be playing him more either.
I'd like to bring him back and ideally a 2 year deal in the 1-1.25 range would be great but anything more i'm prepared to let him walk.
No, don't agree on the Nak appraisal. He is strong in the D zone, good positioning, strong on the boards and one of the best net-front. Not as strong offensively I agree, but he is coming and getting more involved as his games increase.
Propping Nak isn't to say I'm down on our other guys. They are very good too, but have a slightly different skill set. Although I agree that Brodie is a terrific D, skating and puck movement is elite, he's smaller and gets beat on the boards and net-front, like on the 2nd LAK goal tonight.
My liking Nak is mainly in terms of looking at our whole D corps. We have several terrific offensive D but few that are big, tough and mean who can regularly compete on the boards and net-front. Engelland and to a lessor extent Gio are the only ones who do this. On rare occasion Hamilton gets more physical but it is rare. Although its great to have these great offensive D, we also need some guys who can clear the front of the net and win board battles against the NHL's best. To me Nak is doing that job very well right now and we definitely need more of that on the team.
Of our developing D prospects the ONLY one who meets that need is Kanzig (with other deficiencies), although I admit to not really knowing how Bruce or Ollas-Matsson will turn out.
We definitely should be re-signing Nakladal for say a couple of years and see how he continues to develop, which should give more time for our young guys to develop.
If we end up drafting #6 this June I would be all for picking up either Chykryn or Sergachev as from what I've seen both are more like the physical/strong/offensive/skating D that we are missing. Although we have lots of D prospects, its the type that really matters now.
-
We are seeing two very different players in Nak then. I see Nak get beat quite frequently, especially with outside speed. he can't close gaps like Brodie can so players can make a move on him on the blueline and get around him and he dons't recover as fast. his board play is solid I agree but he gets beat there too. I also find nak is prone to some poor defensive reads and pinches or tried to force a play at the blueline whe he really shouldn't. That happens to everyone, but if you re seeing he is more sound defensivly than Brodie/hamilton i respectfully disagree. I konw you said Defence and thats what i said as well. IMO, Brodie is a top 10-15 blueliner in the league just based on his ability to defend beucase Brodie can defend against some of the best forwrads in the league. Nak hasn't draw near the tough minutes Brodie does and its nearly as successful as Brodie is either, so like I said I think comparing the two isn't right.
Top 4 blueliner is all about being able to hand the minutes. you can have players that trend either direction, offensively or defensivly, but for me its about handling the minutes. Can your game thrive when it reaches 20 mins, 23 min, 26 mins a night? Can you keep the other team at bay but also create chances for your team at those minutes level. What makes Hamonic good, and a top 3 dman IMO, is he can handle those minutes. he can keep the opposition at bay and still allow for his team to create more chances on the ice all while drawing very tough minutes. Nak has not shown me enough for me to warrant he could handle that becuae IMO he's not exactly thriving right now while drawing lower quality of minutes. he is playing solid for sure so don't think i'm putting him down, but I woudln't say he is thriving and if he was i'd be more akin to give him top 4 minutes. right now though he is also being outplayed by Jokipakka and he is more desevering of those minutes.
YOu don't have to sell me on the internal options on D. I've already said in a few threads i don't think the Flames should be aggressive in upgrading their D in the off season. i think there is more than enough talent here to have a good D core next season and i would rather look for growth in guys like Hamilton, Jokipakka, Nak etc then spent assets. not to mention I think their execution and structure in the D zone is the main cultprit and not their talent level. I'm very comfortable keeping the same D core next season.
OK, good discussion. I guess I'll have to keep watching closely, especially the gap control and recovery of each guy. I still believe Nak is one of our best on the boards and net-front. I agree Brodie is one of the best D overall, just that his weakness is being smaller stature and struggling occasionally in board battles with bigger guys or handling guys in front of the net. Hamilton is still learning to be aware before dumping the puck up the boards, right to the opposition, and needs to play physical, especially behind the net. He is getting better in that, though.
Of course it is hard to argue with quality of opposition and TOI because the coach doesn't play Nak that much, but to me he could. With the experimentations going on lately Nak has been getting more minutes so we'll see how he handles it. Hopefully they re-sign him. Jokipakka is very good at using his stick to poke the puck away and seems very sound positionally. He is the least tentative offensively but both he and Nak are becoming more familiar and becoming more involved. Offensively, of course, Gio, Brodie and Hamilton are all near elite and it shows in their points and impact on helping drive the whole Flames offence.
-
Brodie's defence i would argue is in the upper echelon of the league, probably at least top 15 so are you suggesting Nakladkl is right around a top dman in the league?
I don't mind Nakladl but that comparison is getting way ahead of ourselves. IMO he is nowhere close to Brodie and still a step behind Hamilton. He's playing decent, but doing so in a pretty shelterd role while Hamilton and Brodie perform better while handling more minutes. Not a very close comparison at all.
I like him but IMO Nadkladl is not and is not likely to be a top 4 dman. I think at this point it would take a very unprecedent development curve to turn Nadkladl into a top 4 dman. not impossible, just unlikely IMO. he could settle in as a decent bottom pairing guy though.
My point which you seemed to ignore is what defines a Top4 D? Is it defensive skill/responsibility, offensive contribution or a combination of the two?
When I compared Nakladal to Hamilton and Brodie I was only speaking of the defensive aspects of their games. Let's put it another way. Watching games I regularly see a defensive gaffe/missed assignment/player get beaten re: Hamilton, and to a lessor degree Brodie, but rarely see it with Nakladal. For instance, when have you ever seen Nakladal knocked off the puck along the boards, versus Brodie who can't fully compete against the bigger forwards. Now, we can argue that its because they are up against better competition/players so you can't really compare, which is likely true to some extent. However, I also believe that Hamilton & Brodie's focus/contributions on the offensive side of things offsets how we view them overall, which is also important, of course.
The bottom line is defensively I see Nakladal as very strong, and if we define Top4 D as primarily defensive-minded he can easily fit into that slot. Again I'll ask. How do you (specifically) define Top4 D?
Another way to think about it. What makes Hamonic a Top2/Top4 D, even though he doesn't actually contribute much offensively, and makes so many here seemingly going ga ga to get him in a trade?
The bottom line is we often seem to fall for the "grass is greener" syndrome, while all the while having just what we think we need staring us right in the face. With Nakladal, Jokipakka and Wotherspoon I believe that is very much the case......
-
I think he is stronger on the body than Brodie, but lacks the elite vision and puck sense. Brodie will take away the puck with finesse, while Nakladal would do it with effort and pinning the player. BTW, Nakladal isn't sheltered at home, but seems to have been on the road. By that I mean he gets more D-zone starts than O-zone.
I don't see Nakladal as a top 4 on this team, though. I am fine with the Russell replacement Kevin, as he hasn't hit full stride yet. If you want to audition Nakladal in the top 4, then pair him with Broidie and put Hamilton with Gio. Alternate who gets the top assignments to see who rises to the top.
Hmm, how do we define Top4 D? Our D is supposedly one of the best, but the results are not there defensively, just offensively. Defensively I'd put Nakladal above Hamilton and right around Brodie. They play differently but both are effective in different ways. As long as the Flames' focus is on offensive-minded D joining/leading the rush, Nakladal may not be ideal Top4, but that doesn't mean he's not capable as a Top4. I mean, really. What do you think Regher was for the Flames, a #6/#7D?
-
13/14 great start. Last two years, including this year, not good. NHL start this year - not good.
I think he will be fine as a backup, assuming he can translate this end of season to training camp to whenever he gets his first start next season. He has Hartley's faith right now, so he has to keep it through those events.
AS I recall you have the history correct. Based on his recent play I believe he should be re-signed and given the shot to compete for the starting job this Fall. His current 0.908 is a compilation of the whole season, he's been better recently.
-
MTL has just put Ben Scrivens on waivers. Given how much is (not) left in the season, would he be worth claiming?
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canadiens-place-goaltender-ben-scrivens-waivers/
Although he might be able to fill a back-up role, we already have that with Ortio, plus, and we should therefore just stick with him for the rest of the games. I can't see Scrivens being a serious starter consideration, so therefore, no.
-
1
-
Calgary Flames Drafting and Development: Your Analysis
in Flames Talk
Posted
Overall a good assessment, though you are being a little harsh about depth players. Half the 6 you listed are depth players, including our best two players overall.