cccsberg
-
Posts
3,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by cccsberg
-
-
2 hours ago, Horsman1 said:
First of all, thank you Flames for live streaming the pre-season.. secondly.. I'm still afraid of what we have for backups.. Rittich looked extremely slow in reaction time last night and other games I've seen him play.. Maybe the fundamentals are there.. That;s what teaching is for.. but.. Personal skills is what makes a professional athlete .. He doesn't seem to have elite skill
Notwithstanding that NO GOALIE is going to do well stopping well executed 2 on 1s and breakaways, Rittich looked pretty leaky last night and although Gillies was much better against a much better roster, he wasn't heavily tested. Round 1 of the goalie backup wars to Gillies in a decision. He's ahead but leaving the door open and people searching for alternatives.
So, next question: are the defensive breakdowns symptomatic or juggled roster/early pre-season rust?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, rickross said:
She ain't lyin! After seeing a true backup on display in Halak against a full Flames NHL lineup..we are looking extremely weak after Smith right now. It's preseason blah blah indeed but I'll take the sharp goalie tandem over the leaky one that is ours everyday!
No one is saying Gillies is miles ahead of Rittich yet? C'mon you guys, what's up?
-
3 hours ago, travel_dude said:
Isn't that $13m?
No, 5.5 & 6.5=12. I'm assuming lower contracts on both, saving $1mm.
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, travel_dude said:
Noah Hanifin and Matthew Tkachuk. The two big challenges for BT this summer.
Hoping for less than $13m for the pair, both signed long term.
We need a goalie next season, so the cap will be a bit tight.
Assuming that Ras can take a big step this season, Stone is the likely first victim for a trade or buyout.
Buyout next summer is only $1.16m, but it's not desirable. A trade makes sense.
If Stone rebounds this year to overtake Hamonic or Brodie, then a trade doesn't make sense.
Somehow I doubt Stone rebounds.
As it stands today, we have $19m for 19/20.
If the cap increases to 81m, then we have $21m with 9F and 4D and 1 backup goalie.
Subtract $13m for Hanifin/Tkachuk.
Lazar and Hathaway (or replacements) $2m
Ras and Kulak (or equivalent) for $2m.
13th F for $0.8m
Leaves us with $3.2m with 13F 6D and 1G.
No Bennett signed.
No extra D signed.
No goalie signed.
We can't cut costs on Tkachuk. Hanifin will get $5m minimum, unless a bridge deal is possible and then it's still around $3.5m. Unless we have two goalies that can share the load (Rittich and Gillies), we have to shell out for a starter. Stone being traded is almost a necessity. Next most likely is Frolik. After that there is only Brodie and Hamonic, of which we have a bigger need for a RHS D-man.
Nice take, here's how I would adjust:
As it stands today, we have $19m for 19/20.
If the cap increases to $81m, then we have $21m with 9F and 4D and a 1B goalie.
Subtract $12m for Hanifin/Tkachuk at $5.5 & $6.5 respectively... (10F, 5D, 1G, $9m)
Lazar and Hathaway dropped. Add Mangiapanne & Klimchuk at $750 each = $1.5m... (12F, 5D, 1G, $7.5)
Kulak traded at TDL and Stone traded after playoffs saving -$3.5m the following year... (12F, 3D, 1G, $11m)
Add Ras, Valimaki & Kylington for $2.4m. Re-sign one of Hogstrom/Prout for $800.... (12F, 7D, 1G, $7.8)
Add Dube and Foo for $1.7m... (14F, 7D,1G, $6.1)
You have Bennett un-signed and need another goalie, probably at least a 1A type starter to go with Gillies. You have $6.1m in Cap Room. Bennett is either traded or you sign him and switch him in for someone above or already signed. If Bennett has a huge breakthrough and needs $6m, you trade Frolik, saving $4.3m then add $1.7 leaving $4.4m for a 1A starting goalie. If either of Rittich or Gillies develop into a 1A starter you can utilize the other or Parsons for the 1B/Back-up which is going to add <$1m for the second goalie. If Bennett ends up a 3rd liner he'll sign for maybe $3m, allowing you to keep Frolik and have ~$4m for the 1A starting goalie depending on who Bennett bumps from the 14F above.
-
16 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said:
In 03-04 (the season before the cap was put in place) Detroit spent $77.85 MM. The Rangers ($76.5 MM) were the only other team that spent more than $70MM. Only 5 other teams spent over $60MM. The average salary was $44.4MM. I don't think this is a cherry picked view of how salaries were in the 90s and early 2000s.
Detroit was spending 1.75x the average salary, with only one team spending more than 90% of Detroit's payroll. That is a big advantage. Off the top of my head, it allowed them to bring in (and keep) the following hall of famers: Shanahan, Larry Murphy, Chelios, Hull, Robitaille, and Hasek.
They also drafted well, as I mentioned earlier. Off the top of my head, Yzerman, Lidstrom, Draper, Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Holmstrom.
And note, Detroit was garbage for a long time before they finally built a powerhouse. They missed the playoffs 12 out of 13 years prior to drafting Yzerman. That is some major tanking.
No doubt it was a big advantage, but you also said NYR also spent massively, and they got very limited results.....
-
15 hours ago, robrob74 said:
Youre right. I just can’t give up the hope that Bennett will get it and become what we’ve hoped.
Although, I’d love it to be a Stanley Cup year where he dominates. I just don’t see it happening that way though.
He shows glimpses.
Bennett's biggest problem isn't his lack of suitable line mates, but the 6" between his ears. If he's able to fix that, watch out.
-
On 2018-08-11 at 0:09 AM, robrob74 said:
Gaudreau is also 3 years older. Not much, but still 3 years is a lot at age 20 / 21.
Marleau is good, but he is also 80.
monahan is a scorer, I don’t know when his injuries occurred. All season? I don’t think so.
I feel like a poor pp goes against Gaudreau because he is the catalyst, plus we have the players that should make it one of the best in the league, at least one would think.
i don’t get it, people like to play the, who he played with to help their arguments, but when it doesn’t fit it is, it doesn’t matter who they’ve played with they still have to put up points.
Which is it?
Every good player Gets to play with other good players and rack up points. If we had a Marleau, would we not have played them together?
Next year Gaudreau gets Lindholm or Neal. Can we then say, we’ll he got the best players so that’s why he put up points?
Like with Bennett, he’s not putting up points because he has no help. Jankowski was a rookie.
I think you are correct about the partners thing. Hey, if you are truly good enough you elevate whoever is with you to star status, a la Crosby, who is still the best player in the world by a mile. As for the Monahan 4 injuries, the first was in mid-November if I recall correctly.... so basically the vast majority of the season. Finally, I'm not so sure about Marner either. When in Junior everyone thought he drove his line, but now that we have Tkachuk and see what he can do, its obvious they were just three very good players, and not one superstar. Gaudreau clearly carries his teams, both in college and here too, especially his first year. Marner, not so much.
-
On 2018-08-10 at 8:37 PM, stubblejumper1 said:
Detroit was a powerhouse because along with drafting well, they were able to outspend every other team in the NHL. They are a big reason why the cap was implemented.
Many other teams had that same ability and didn't dominate for a generation.
-
On 2018-08-10 at 5:53 PM, robrob74 said:
I dunno, Tavares is pretty dammed good, and Matthews is as well. Then Marner is just as good or better than Gaudreau, so they have a pretty good punch. Tavares will only make a ton more room for both whether he plays with them or not.
Andersson is no slouch in net. Babcock won the cup with Osgood.
Oh I agree they are all good, very good, just not as good as the Pittsburg three. And the Osgood point backs up my original thought, that overall, TML still have some big holes as a team and there remains a valid question as to whether they have improved the team overall this off-season, or just super-highgraded an element of the team while leaving big holes elsewhere?
-
On 2018-08-09 at 5:26 PM, kehatch said:
That is the wrong question in my opinion. The questions should be:
Are we comfortable Mike Smith will stay healthy and effective over a 100+ game season? If the answer is no (and given his injury history and age my answer is no) then you need to ask: Are we comfortable Rittich or Gilles can be effective as a starter over an extended period of time next season? If the answer is no then we have a serious problem (and my answer remains no because past performance shows that neither has been capable of that).
It isn't that I have written either player off. But the objective of next season should be to win a Stanley Cup, not to give one of our goalies a chance to develop. Gilles still has a lot to prove in the AHL. Rittich would likely clear waivers and gives us some depth in the position. Both will likely be given another opportunity to show what they can do in the NHL. I just don't agree with gifting them an NHL position at the potential expense of a season. I also don't agree that a lack of options excuses the situation we are in, not when Treliving has had 4-seasons to fix this ongoing issue.
I will give this post a rest because people have clearly stated their positions and there really isn't any new ground to talk about. I get that not everyone's answers to the above two questions are no, and that is fine. I also appreciate Cross's stance that goal tending is a difficult position to address and the cost outweighed the players available, I just think by now we should have a better plan B then David Rittich (and no plan beyond this season). I do think the lack of short and long term certainty in net is on our GM, even though I like the work he has done in most other areas.
Kehatch, your post was so full of bias and misinformation I forgot for a minute I wasn't reading one of the Fake MSM "News" outlets in the USA. Let me respond, with a perhaps more balanced view.
My answer to your first question is also no, but I take that completely differently than your presumptions. First off, I am not comfortable that ANY goalie in the world will stay healthy and be effective over a 100+ game season. Such a person does not exist. Not MAF, not Bobrovsky, not Rinne, not Schneider, not Talbot, not Hellebyuck, not Grubaer, not Anderson, not Price, not Bishop..... none. By nature of the game and team play injuries happen, and slumps with stretches of poor play happen. I fully believe that Smith is basically the same as other top goalies with both injuries and consistency. You can state Smith will get injured and that's the end of the season because you don't like the options over and over and over all you want, but others have different assumptions and you are not putting forth any new ideas or arguments to support your view. I would challenge you to prove the point that Smith is particularly "injury-prone" versus others versus basically random, and secondly that he is inconsistent versus others. As part of that challenge show us other goalies that are substantially better in both those categories to back up your point and to prove that there are good options. The same can be said for the backups, though my answer there is yes, probably. Again, you seem to think there are better out there but I haven't seen much if anything to prove they exist in any place except your mind. When you bring up a guy like Talbot, it seems you are assuming a 2017 Talbot, but forgetting the 2018 Talbot... and etc.
Hockey is very much a team game, probably on a par with football but even more so because of continuous play and the very limited options to plug holes to cover off for injuries and someone else's mistakes versus the better options, and the set-piece play in football. In both a certain player is critical, quarterbacks and goalies, but frankly they alone cannot win you games, they need others. In hockey you can have a great team but if a key player gets injured it can derail a whole season, and that's especially so for goalies, but also true for others. If Smith does get injured the team certainly may sink, but I can name you basically every other team out there that could be in the same boat if one of their best players went down. That's hockey. However, certain things can be overcome, like Vegas last year who went through 5 goalies but still succeeded. Why do you think that happened? Is their success something others can emulate? What about Pittsburg Penguins when Letang went out in the playoffs? How did they adapt? How about Washington last season, went Holtby went in the tank for while during the season but Grubaer came through for a stretch, only to crater himself once the playoffs started? Every team is going to face challenges and every team is going to have to find a way, just like the "Find-a-way" Flames from a few years back under Hartley. The Flames are vulnerable via goalies, yes, but they are vulnerable in many other ways too, like most. How the organization is able to adapt and overcome is going to decide their fate, not whether or not they are susceptible. There are no magic bullets.
-
7 hours ago, The_People1 said:
Yup this is fair.
I've been waiting for the "I told you so" from this community for probably 5+ years. FIVE PLUS. And I know you guys want to shut me up with a Vegas win, or a Preds win, etc but I'm still waiting.
I will change my stance on tanking when new information presents itself, like for example, a team wins a Cup without having tanked previously. I'm willing to do that because that's the sign of open mindedness. When new information presents itself that counters what you previously thought, you need to re-evaluate your previous conclusions. Otherwise, you are just a stubborn bigot.
I even remember members saying a couple years back that if a team won a Cup that year having previously tanked, that they would jump to my side of the argument. But it was either Chicago or Pittsburgh that won and rather than jump to my side, those members never showed their face around here again. So sad.
Which really means one thing. This is an argument about ethics and morals. It's not about whether tanking works or not because it can clearly work.
C'mon Peeps, you yourself proved your assertion incorrect. Detroit never tanked, won multiple Cups and was a powerhouse for 2 generations.
-
On 2018-08-09 at 9:40 AM, robrob74 said:
Pittsburgh won with what was supposed to be questionable D, even with Letang out of it for a bit. I think Toronto can manage. There D is going to get a year older and a bit better.
if they can stay on offence, they don’t need the D.
Pittsburg did, but then again Crosby, Malkin and Kessel are all a notch or two better than their TML equivalents.... And MAF is one of the All-time great goalies.
-
On 2018-08-09 at 7:43 AM, The_People1 said:
Except I wasn't playing 20:20. If you were around during that time, I was playing in real time.
That may be the case, but at this point, its all 20:20
-
5 hours ago, robrob74 said:
Mae can quote any team for our point. Toronto did it right once they got the right personnel in place, and now they’re cup contenders. Chicago did it right and won 3 cups. LA had to lose a bit until they landed Doughty high in the draft.
That is basically saying you have no faith in our scouts and development because when anyone quotes both Edmonton and Buffalo that’s kind of what is wrong with those teams.
Toronto is still a work in progress, with questionable to poor D, same as Edmonton. Whether they succeed or not is still in question. Actually, isn't the "right' way a sequence of G, then D then F?
-
10 hours ago, conundrumed said:
I agree cross, that's a hard debate to have. You don't have the pick of the litter, because every one is in on it.
One thing I'd like is a new goalie coach, which is something he can control.
When I watch the work with goalies at camp, I find it lame. Take shots on him, that's pretty lame. "Okay let's work on your blocker clears", lame.
There's a lot of downtime with the goalies.
No reason. "okay butterfly, how many can you do in 2 minutes? When your gloves start dropping because you're tired, I'm ringing shots around your ears".
Skate them hard. They have legs.
Make the whole team go hard. The point is to make them better, not privileged
I think we're mentally soft because we that's how we teach it.
It doesn't work..
I haven't watched the goalie practices that closely but you may have a point.
-
9 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:
you can't schedule opportunities. They are what they have become when they happen. if they(Backups) aren't ready when the opportunities come for them then you have to try to judge when it is time to cut bait.
Kehatch is right. If they(Gilles and Rittich) are not ready for a #1 if/when Smith goes down our year is screwed. BT should have a better plan and a Plan B than just run with last years combo.
No, Kehatch has a point but he is not right. This is a team game. Every team could have struggles if their #1 goes down. Heck, Vegas had to go to goalie #5 last season after injuries, I guess that really killed their season? NOT! Assuming Smith will get injured is just as much a foolish thought as assuming to know what our back-ups will do if it happens, or how the team responds if it happens, or assuming no outside relief if it happens.
-
17 hours ago, YounGuns said:
To be fair to our GMs, they certainly have tried to improve our goalie situation. MAF "thought" he was being traded to Calgary, only the asking price was reportedly absurd and not worth it, and the trade fell through. You have to remember, at the time the Penguins were giving up on MAF and were quite happy to expose him in the draft. Although he is the ultimate team mate, and he's won cups, he also has had several collapses in both the regular season and post season, so he wasn't a "sure thing". All he did since then was turn in the best season of his already pretty spectacular career, but even he has been a question mark and "gamble" at times.
We tried to get Bishop. He went to LA instead, and then signed with Dallas. Which in hindsight might have been the best for us. There were reports he refused to come to Calgary anyways, but by all reports we were trying to get him.
Treliving did land one of the best options available in Smith. Sure he's old, but Treliving knew we needed to do something after not being able to come to terms with Pittsburghs asking price for MAF.
And those are just the ones we know of. Who knows what other conversations have been had with the various GMs around the league. We'll never know what other "star" goaltender we were close to acquiring, if any.
The argument that the team has been gambling is somewhat valid if you're only looking at the results, but star goalies are like star centers or star defensemen...you almost need to draft them and develop them, as they just don't change hands very often and are very hard to come by, so I don't really know what people expect Treliving to do here, other than sell the farm or give away the likes of Tkachuk. Even when we got Kipper - our last solid goaltender - at the time of the trade he was a nobody. We hit the jack pot on him, but it's not like we traded for an all star. We traded for depth pieces, took one of those "gambles" you seem to hate, and we just happened to land a star.
Also, it's worth considering that we do have some potential great pieces in Gillies and Parsons that are coming up in the system. Gillies hasn't proven himself in the NHL yet, but he's still a prospect. Parsons is continually rated as one of the best goalie prospects in the league, even after last season's less-than-impressive stats. My point here is that you don't necessarily want to go and sell the farm for a legit number 1 when you could very well have a legit number 1 in the making in your own system already, and all you'd be doing by landing someone else is removing the opportunity for them to showcase their skills in the big league and possibly develop into the player we're trying to find. Until I know what we have in Gillies or Parsons, I can see Treliving being hesitant to bring in someone for the long term, when he hopes they are our long term...
I will admit that goaltending is our biggest question mark going into this season, and could sink what might otherwise be a really promising season. But I just don't see what other options Treliving has, or who is available. I am confident that this concern is not lost on Treliving.
Very well said, thanks!
-
18 hours ago, travel_dude said:
Well, we are going to find out what we have in Rittich fairly early in the season. As for Gillies, I would like to see him develop into a consistent starter in Stockton before we make any kind of move to bring him in. But that's just me. We may have no choice. Rittich may not show up good in camp. Smith could have a season ending injury.
My point about Gillies is that he's been wildly inconsistent in the AHL. 18-14-1 in his first full year. 17-16-3 in his last season. I won't point to his GAA or his SA%, because that doesn't show enough. He's won games where he looked really good. He's lost games where he looked really bad. Peaks and valleys, but I am more concerned with the valleys. Need to see that flatten out.
Agree we need more consistency in them all.
One factor I would throw in here is big changes in off-ice personal lives which I believe are huge but rarely get considered. One of the biggest examples is Byron who got married just around/after we lost him then he buckles down and suddenly he's scoring like crazy and becomes indispensable. Rittich just got married about a week ago, and Brodie's wife has gotten much better and they have a very recent baby about a month ago as two examples of key payers on the current Flames. There are probably others too. When you go from happy go lucky to settling down and playing for more than just yourself it can make a huge difference. Hmmm, didn't Backlund get married fairly recently too? Others?
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, The_People1 said:
No one's going to agree with me but BT should've tanked while he had the green light from fan expectation when he first took over. We would have had Ekblad instead of Bennett and could've drafted Barzal because we wouldn't have needed the Hamilton trade with Ekblad as our #1 RHS RD. Not to mention the 2nd rounders given up in that trade.
But alas, rush into mediocritry first and build from there. And here we are.
Besides the problem with tanking, way too many assumptions, though I agree fun.
Perhaps Barzal doesn't get injured his last year and goes top5 instead of being available? Boston gets Gaudreau just before us. Carolina picks Monahan vs Lindholm? Or even worse, Colorado doesn't match for ROR and we lose him to Edmonton once he has to go on waivers, along with the Monahan pick and others to Colorado? We get left holding the bag. Elliot doesn't let a couple easy ones in in the Anaheim playoff match, but we lose anyways, and we re-sign him for 6 years at $6.5 mm per, but he's no better? Edmonton not only takes Tkachuk vs Puljujarvi who we get, but also selects Barzal and Chabot instead of Reinhart? They also keep Hall and Eberle, and get Hamilton for a couple later picks? Then they get Bishop for a 4th instead of Dallas, and take the wasted picks on Talbot and instead put them to Hamilton? Earlier they draft Kucherov with an early 2nd and win 2 more lottery's getting Ekblad and Dahlin? With their draft luck who would even think twice? The Oilers win the Conference for 12 years straight and win another 5 Cups in a decade (with Toronto winning 4 others) including a 47 game win streak against the Flames?........ ALL very possible. This game can go both ways. I'll stick with BT and our current path, it somehow seems a bit better and I don't have to give up hockey forever and live with nightmares of over-aggressive and arrogant Edmonton and TML fans. Of course, if those teams accomplished that much it would probably be deserved. I may have to leave the country.... YIKES!
Hall-McDavid-Eberle
Tkachuk-ROR-Kucherov
RNH-Barzal...
Ekblad-Hamilton
Dahlin-Nurse
....
Bishop
No, no, NO! I do NOT want to play that game of 20:20 hindsight dreaming!
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, kehatch said:
I get the argument of "I see the concern, but at this point we don't have a lot of options and there are some reasons to hope for good tending next season". What I don't get is the posters who refuse to acknowledge the gamble, the issues with addressing this position over the last half a decade, or who take offense that others aren't giddy about the situation we are in.
Every horse is dead in August. There is very little new to discuss. Goaltending will remain a hot topic until the season starts because it remains are biggest question mark going into the season.
Yeah, this heat is going to be stifling this week....
I'll give you that of all the gambles the Flames are taking this year, goaltending is probably the biggest of them all. As stated previously, I just don't see any good options out there, and we NEED to find out if Rittich and Gillies have a future or not. If yes, then we likely can re-sign Smith for a year as a 1B, if no then we'll be scrambling next summer to find at least 1 replacement.
-
11 minutes ago, kehatch said:
No, you don't get it. I am not saying the can't handle it. Smith has been a legitimate starter when healthy and Rittich had a good ratio of quality starts when doing spot duty as a back-up. Those are facts, and it is possible the Flames have adequate to good goaltending next season. But also facts: Smith is injury prone, coming off an injury, and will be 37. Rittich isn't a young up and comer, he is a 25 year old who had significant struggles when he had to carry the load. Expecting those two to take a step forward is naive, and not identifying a real possibility of a step back is foolhardy.
What I am saying is that the Flames are taking a real gamble by going with the same two goalies as they did last season. Goaltending was a problem last season and it is more likely to regress then improve. It is also inconsistent with their approach in every other area (where they have spent significant assets to bring on depth and insurance). I strongly disagree with your assessment that the Flames shouldn't be going for a cup this season. We have given up futures, have our best players in their prime, and we just spent a bunch in free agency. We are in our window. I also think your assessment that the Flames can just go out and get a starter if things don't work out is naive. You can't just get a starter early season, and catching up from a poor start is very difficult.
I am also getting tired of this 'lets just hope' approach to goaltending. First we ignored all the evidence to the contrary that Ramo/Berra/Ortio could be the guys. Then people just ignored Hiller's age and history because he had one decent season. Its the same situation and same debate. Just replace Hiller with Smith, Ramo with Rittich, and Ortio with Gilles. We are set up to have a repeat of the 15-16 goaltending all over again. We just need to add this seasons version of Backstrom.
Beyond those guys it has been a series of budget half measures. Good goalies have been changing hand. The Stars are a big player for next season, in part because of Ben Bishop. Fleury was a big part of the Vegas run. Talbot was an MVP in Edmonton when they made the playoffs. Andersen is a big part of the Toronto movement. Jones is a legitimate starter in San Jose. I don't think being disappointed in having Smith/Rittich going into season unreasonable.
No, you are beating a dead horse. “Good goalies have been changing hands”? BS: the only potentially good starter who changed hands this summer is Grubaer, who is far from proven. “The Stars are a big player for next season, in part because of Ben Bishop”? BS: I guess just like last season when they also had Ben Bishop, who by the way is not available? “It is also inconsistent with their approach in every other area”? BS: How many years in a row did our GM do the goalie shuffle going and getting the best available goalie(s) only to have it fizzle? “Fleury was a big part of the Vegas run?” Yeah, duh, Fleury is a likely Hall of Fame goalie, one of the best ever. Should we have given up Tkachuk plus for a couple years of MAF? Never, the rest of the team wasn’t in place to make that move. We lost out on Anderson and Jones, just like 29 other teams. So what’s your point? They are not available. Talbot has never been even close to league MVP, much less team MVP. Even if we accepted your premise and gave up massive assets for him last year, even you would be all over BT now after Talbot crapped the bed this past season. Is that due to your poor goalie evaluation skills or other things, things you refuse to acknowledge with our Flames goalies?
As for the Flames, if Smith plays less games the probability increases that he will not run into injuries from wear and tear. Check. Both Rittich and Gillies are both developing young goalies just getting their feet wet in the NHL. As per normal young players we should expect they both will be better next year. Check. The Flames just hired a new coach who believes in accountability and doesn’t accept lackadaisical play, which should result in more consistent defensive play, and better goalie results. Check. The Flames brought in more speed in a better defensive player while moving out an offensive-minded guy who was a tire fire before pairing with Gio, plus are moving their second best D back to his preferred side, both of which “should” improve the D game and overall, plus goalie results. Check.
Having said all this you still have to play the games and we’ll see what happens. It sure makes for good August blog fodder.
-
5 hours ago, robrob74 said:
I don’t agree. I understand the numbers/stats will say that goalies hold us back. It’s easy to place the blame on them because that’s what numbers say. Truth is we are a bonehead team that makes boneheaded mistakes at the wrong times that everyone knows you can’t make them. Other good teams make you pay. Then the goalies’ numbers go down and then the blame gets placed on them.
Theyre not 100% to blame for this team’s failures.
That said, I think we are screwed until we fix that part of the game because history has shown, only Carey Price can fix a team like ours. That is what everyone is asking for.
On paper, we’ve looked better than the Canadiens, but in reality, were we? No.
Wow, that's a slap. Can't agree with that at all. I wouldn't mind Carey Price though. BT, get on it.
-
6 hours ago, kehatch said:
We might as well trade Gaudreau and Monahan and put Bennett and Jankowski in their place. I know both of those guys were 25 point forwards last season, but boy oh boy did they look good in flashes. I mean, Jankowski had 4 goals in one game. Imagine if he did that for 82 games?
In fact, I have no idea why we picked up Neal. Gawdin was a 120+ point forward last season and Foo's production projects at 40+ goals over 82 games. Plus, both of these guys actually have RH shots on the RW.
Why did we get Lindholm/Hanafin back for Hamilton when we could have just used Dube/Valimaki? And Ryan is just taking up Klimchuks spot. Ridiculous.
At least Treliving didn't pollute goaltending like he did every other position. I mean, subpar performances last season should indicate stellar performances this season. Obviously. And Smith is like a fine wine, better with age and all that. It's really smart thinking not to add depth to the most important position, and one where we had significant struggles. Better to trust the current situation and do the exact same thing this season. What could go wrong??
Hey, nice try. Actually I would just as soon have stayed with/promoted 4 of the 7 guys you mentioned.... We shall see.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, conundrumed said:
That's poor mgmt practice if true though.
Agree, never said I liked it.
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
They are not final opinions, but they play the games for a reason.