cccsberg

The back-ups were very good to excellent the majority of their games and poor to terrible the rest, more or less. There is every reason to believe it will be better this season. The young guys should be getting better, and more games. Also, BP should be evening out Smith's starts which should bode better re his health. But, we've already been over this ad naseum. Long summer I guess.....

Both Rittich and Gillies COULD settle in as starters, or 1A/1B starters after next season. If that doesn't happen then all bets are off and someone like Bobrovsky or Varlamov are the targets. Of course, we could give Smith a 1yr deal as well if he is playing well.

Ottawa 2 years ago was a darn fine team. Until Phaneuf got selfish about his NTC things were rolling and they were a serious contending team. Well, now that I think about it, the end with their long-time Captain wasn't all that great. Hmmm, the Hamburgler-Stone run.... OK, you have a point.

I agree in a sense, however the reality (it seems) is that FHamilton was all about keeping DHamilton happy and nothing about FHamilton himself.

BT is a great negotiator, clearly. But that’s not the point. Timing and great signings have kept the numbers down. If Gaudreau re-signed today he would be higher. As for Tkachuk, he isn’t even the Flames top, second or even third best forward at this point. If he gets to that point then something above Gio will be warranted. At this point it isn’t.

If Brouwer stayed for his final 2 years the Flames would have paid him $9. Buying him out they pay him $6. The ELC replacement player is minimum $650 x2 or $1.3mm, or maximum $900 x2 or $1.8mm (e.g. Hathaway, Lazar, Foo, Gawdin....). Added to Brouwer’s $6mm that’s either $7.3mm or $7.8mm total. Management saves a MINIMUM of $1.2+mm and the team is improved. The ONLY negative is BT has to eat crow on his mistake.

If he is replaced by a guy on an ELC the overall costs are pretty much the same, likely even $1-2mm less than keeping Brouwer. The owners pay less and the team gets better. They are probably rejoicing.....

Why in the world would you be choked? Lack was beyond terrible last year and HAD to go. Players fluctuate all the time but how long can you hang on to a complete failure? I guess you’d also be choked if Rittich and Gillies turn the corner and become consistent or amazing goalies? Those two looked like All-stars compared to Lack last year....

Yes very valid points. Tre has a plan and is sticking to it, which I think is appropriate. If it doesn't work out he will be replaced, if it does he'll be cemented in for the long term.

Good plan. As an emergency backup plan I might be willing to sign someone like Mason for cheap and 2 years and ship him to the minors before waivers to back up and work with Parsons there, and put both McDonald and Schneider in KC. That might not be too attractive to Mason but its about what he did last year and if there are injuries or the prospects falter he could get another shot. And of course, in 2019 there may also be an NHL spot available depending on what happens this year. Even if things work great Smith isn't getting any younger and if Gillies does well and gets elevated having a vet alongside is probably not a bad idea. It would also mean you can trade Rittich, along with Stone......for some picks.

That may be true, but that’s because people like an easy comparable and are generally too lazy to figure out the true answer, which, true, then becomes debatable. Like, for instance, who is the greatest player/scorer/goalie of all time? If you only use 1 comparable and fail to acknowledge major era differences you are not doing justice to the question.

I believe Calgary has many players that can be significantly better, and certainly the team as a whole can be too. The better players you have the less the other factors have to be in play, which is what I believe happened with Washington. One curious thing I will always wonder about is why Vegas switched to a zone defensive scheme versus Washington, especially since their man to man scheme had worked so well up to that point. We will never know.

Although I tend to agree with your comment, what really makes a good coach is having each player, and the team as a whole reach their maximum potential. If the players they have are good enough, that translates into wins. If not, they won't. I believe Calgary's current players are good enough, so in our case I agree with you fully. As for Peters, the argument is that Carolina's players were not good enough. We'll see how it works out. Oh, and Vegas has many outstanding players, including a first ballot Hall Of Fame goalie.

Yes, there is always that issue of players being millionaires and the jealousy that comes with it, however I think the city needs to look past that and get some decent facilities in keeping with a world-class city that Calgary probably feels it is. I don't disagree that it is, but based on our recreational facilities and professional sports facilities the city is pretty much second-rate. Heck, Edmonton has 5 field houses for pete's sack... and world-class football and arena facilities. Not surprised, though, being a liberal/NDP bastion that's right in line with those parties... Jack up taxes, throw money at problems and have government take over virtually everything they can....

Cochrane had similar creosote issues where the testing and monitoring (i.e. did nothing) went on for decades, then as soon as they got serious about developing it and had a couple major anchor tenants, they shifted to actually cleaning it up and the work was complete in less than a year. Meanwhile, in Calgary, the monitoring continues nd it continues to seep and now the creosote plume apparently is all the way across the river. Crowchild "tinkering" is going on now, but until they add another bridge and extra lanes all the way from the current McMahon Stadium all the way to 17th Ave S there will be problems. I agree with an earlier comment that this wasn't included in some earlier proposals, but shifting lanes and interchanges was.... oh, btw, does anyone know why they have that "sky" station? Just an easier way to get up the hill to the West? Having cycled that riverside trail many times I know how beautiful that stretch of land is where the CalgaryNext proposal was. Its too bad its basically an industrial/commercial wasteland at the moment, it could be a real gem and attraction for the city. No matter how many Stampede Casinos or a new arena they put in Vic Park, I can't see that area ever being much more than vast parking lots for the Stampede grounds. As many have said, this has been argued already. If they want an Olympics in Calgary something needs doing. I guess we'll see what Mayor Nenshi is willing to stomach to push through his "legacy" event......

I get it you don’t like it, but maybe you could get more realistic information to get a more balanced picture. First off, access. It’s a simple 10-15 minutes walk from downtown, which is not only zero cost but also good for you. C-train access is relatively cheap, as it is for using the C-train for anything else, like work. If you drive, you have the option to park a few blocks away and walk, or perhaps just north of the Stampede grounds and pay $5. As for the Stampede, yes you MAY have to pay for entrance, but not specifically for the Dome. Nosebleed seats at the Flames are pretty cheap. Go on Stubhub and many games you can get other seats for <$20, as I have lots of times. Most of the Hitman or lacrosse seats are cheap. A new arena isn’t anywhere close to $1B. If you are referring to the CalgaryNext complex, it was under that amount for three separate facilities: hockey arena, football stadium and sports field house, all of which are desperately needed in the city. It also included public use space and accommodations to use it as a performance facility. It also would have acted as a catalyst to clean up some environmental damage that the city/province is responsible for and should have been been completed years ago. The city threw in an inflated clean-up cost and transportation costs to come up with their huge number. BTW the Crowchild interchange issues are also something the City needs to do. All in all, important non-hockey projects, and yes, overall expensive. But even if Vic Park ends up going ahead these things will also need to be done, at taxpayer expense.....

What was your problem with the CalgaryNext concept? Personally I thought it was brilliant in developing a new region plus including multiple & public facilities all together, so would be interested in what part of that you have a problem with?

Talk about a misleading and biased comment. Anyone could have used the Saddledome for free for the many Stampede displays there, and easily attended multiple events for well under $20pp, like the Hitmen, lacrosse, heck even the Flames. Yes, you could also pay hundreds for the Flames and others but to intimate that you couldn’t enjoy any events without shelling out hundreds is nonsense and dishonest. As as far as notice goes, the earlier comment I believe was referring to negotiations, before being brought to the public/council for a vote. I believe both sides already know it’s controversial and there are strong opinions on both sides. What good is stirring those up again in the midst of negotiations? And as far as I’m concerned, a referendum is a cop-out. We have a council and aldermen to make decisions and they should do so. Did the city have a referendum for the Peace Bridge? The library? C-train extensions? The airport tunnel? The blue ring? No, but they do have elections.....

A month-long or longer injury to one of your key players is going to be difficult to handle, no matter who it is. This is especially true with goalies. The funny thing is that Rittich was actually playing great before the injury and only fell apart when given the ball and told to run. Perhaps its the team, perhaps its the goalie, in his first big stint. In any case with young goalies we're in the same situation and hopefully they can be better, and the team can be better too. I think we need to keep the same and try again, or else we might as well write Rittich and Gillies off right now. I'd give Gillies the back-up role and ensure he plays every third game, week in, week out. That's the only way we're going to really know what they can do.....

All your points may be valid (I disagree on the prospect goalies) but when are we going to move on past the upset, past the anger on the Hamonic trade and other things and look to the future? We are where we are, everyone probably has some legitimate gripes but really, there's zero we can do about it now.

The city has identified the West Downtown area as not appropriate because it doesn't want to build there, and included the creosote and transportation upgrades to weigh it down to "prove their point", even though both issues need to be dealt with come stadium or redevelopment or not.

If the Olympics come and hockey games are played in Edmonton its a slap in the face to all of Calgary, not just the Flames.

Personally I would sign and trade Rittich for a young goalie prospect with potential, or sign the most promising KHL/European guy to backup in Stockton. I would play Gillies as Smith's backup getting 25-30 games and give Parsons the net in the AHL. If both Gillies and Parsons crap the bed then next year its all-out for a solution, though both have been elite and carried their respective teams to championships as starters. If they don't you have your natural succession plan well underway and can either let Smith walk or perhaps re-sign him for 1 year while Parsons stays in the AHL another year.

Your assessment of goalies is brutal. They are all good. Smith was top5 in the league for over half a season but then over-use and injury derailed his season. Rittich was even better when played as an occasional back-up, but then folded under the pressure, like the whole team, when Smith got injured and the competition forced an "every game is the most important of the season" mentality with over 30 games left. Gillies actually did quite well last year, developing, and in the past carried his team as the pressure starter all the way to a championship. Parsons isn't ready, agreed, but multiple injuries derailed what should have been a good development year, and he too has carried multiple teams to championships as the pressure starter. Instead of putting all the blame for team failure on the goalies and then tossing them aside as if they are no good, why don't you look at the complete picture and and assess all of the problems? Looking at the Stockton Heat, with the Flames' mandate to develop and win secondarily, how do you think that impacts the goalie numbers? Do you ever wonder why so many teams are able to get elite-level goalies via trade? Too many teams do exactly what you are and give up on guys prematurely. Going ahead with Smith, Gillies and Parsons is a solid plan, and Rittich has stepped up admirably as an alternative back-up, at the least. The Flames have way worse problems than their goalies at the moment. They've already addressed the coaching, and the new guys are just starting to work on a new plan going forward, check, check. Still work to do elsewhere. We await, though time is getting close. In another month we'll pretty much know what they have to work with.

Exactly. Look at a couple moves for RHS players, while moving out the lackadaisical, bring in the more ready prospects and install an attacking, in-your-face style that never gives up while having some smart, adaptive, inspirational coaching and full accountability across the board and they will do just fine.