cccsberg
-
Posts
3,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by cccsberg
-
-
22 hours ago, rickross said:
So...what is the plan in net moving forward? Do we extend Smith one more year until we know for sure if Rittich/Gillies are ready to handle the workload? Or do we go and spend $ in the FA pool or acquire a #1 goalie via trade again? I don't believe there are many options in free agency and I don't see Tre wanting to part with anymore high draft picks/prospects via trade.
Could it it be possible that Rittich and/or Gillies could be valid NHL starters after this season? It seems like a stretch but you never know. Rittich showed flashes at times while Gillies struggled a bit more. At this point I don't know how we can ever consider ourselves contenders without a proper starter in the organization. Smith is good but he's aging and will get injured again. There doesn't seem like there are many if any viable plays at the moment, I guess we just wait and see if Rittich, Gillies or Parsons pan out?
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.
-
18 hours ago, travel_dude said:
I don;t understand the concept of a Gio cap. It once made sense that your best player and captain should be making the most. But that was 3 years ago, and it was for a player's last NHL contract. You can only use that number for so long. JH and Monahan today would not be that cheap.
It makes the most sense for BT to offer max dollars now. Don;t worry about what Gio or JH is making. Find out what number you need to get to and sign the deal. It's only going to go up. Even if he doesn't score 30 this year, the cap will go up just a little more. A smart agent will look at % of the cap and compare JH's at the time of signing. You have to be reasonable as a GM and understand the market. Players less important are being offered way more. Some artificial internal cap will result in becoming a team like OTT.
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.
-
21 hours ago, conundrumed said:
Like giving Familton a one way to watermark who gets one ways?
Then piss and moan that everyone wants one ways?
He wants to use benchmarks when it's favourable to him, but would like to forget his own benchmarks.
It was that signing that kept Jankowski/Hathaway off of the starting roster last year.
Freddie Hamilton on a 1 way
I agree in a sense, however the reality (it seems) is that FHamilton was all about keeping DHamilton happy and nothing about FHamilton himself.
-
3 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said:
I think Giordano is the best defenseman this team has had since Al Macinnis. I won't be at all surprised if Brodie is suddenly a really good player again this year.
Having said that, it's not like he plays at the level of Crosby, Stamkos, Ovechkin or McDavid. I see no reason why he has to be the highest paid player on the team. Three or four years from now there is a very good chance Tkachuk will be a much more important player than Giordano. I am sure Tkachuk's agent will find it difficult to accept that Giordano should be paid more than Tkachuk in 2021.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that this team can't be a true contender if their best and/or highest paid player is "only" worth $6.75 MM/year. Unless, of course, one subscribes to the belief that Brad Treliving is a better negotiator than every other GM in the NHL.
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.
-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:
I dunno man, that sounds a lot like my ex's logic. "Honey, I know that I just spent your entire paycheque at Shoppers Drug Mart, but with all of the points I got, we saved just as much. Your welcome!"
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.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:
When Treliving bought out Brouwer, I wonder if he had to consult ownership. I can see owners getting cranky when you acquire a guy at that price point and then send him packing with a big bag of cash.
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.....
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:
Unfortunately, that likely sums up our situation. I find it difficult to believe that Treliving would stake his job on our current goaltending. Maybe he comes up with more magic this summer.
Man, I am going to be choked if Eddie Lack comes up big this year.
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....
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, kehatch said:
I understand the skepticism and I am not trying to start a debate about the hire. The point is, that hire painted a target on Treliving that could cost him his job and future opportunities. But he had a plan and he stuck with it.
Same thing with the Hamilton trade. He got rid of one of the big "feathers in his cap" when he traded Hamilton to Carolina.
It's nice to have a GM that doesn't just talk about "bold moves" but actually makes them. It helps that his bold moves aren't the caliber of trading Hall for Larsson.
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.
-
2 hours ago, JTech780 said:
The more I think about it, I want to see Gillies get the backup role and see if he can run with it. I also want Parsons to get the bulk of the starts in Stockton, with Mason MacDonald as his backup. Parsons needs to take the next step if we want him to be ready for the NHL level in the next few years. With MacDonald this is his last year on his current contract, let's move him up to the AHL and see if he can run with it a bit. Schneider would slide into the start role in KC.
That leaves Rittich as the odd man out. Rittich is a solid backup option, but that's all he will ever be IMO.
I think we need to see start thinking about who will take over for Smith after this year.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:
In the end all coaches are judged by their wins.. Does not matter the quality of team you think they had to work with. Look up any list of best coaches and it is a list of the coaches with most wins.. There are no "well he had a good team or he had a poor team.. "WINS" is the only parameter for coaches.
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.
-
19 minutes ago, tmac70 said:
I disagree, this team has good players but we are not good enough in multiple areas to make a huge impact. As for Vegas, you had a group of guys that had a point to prove and they all bought in. When a team or group as a whole play with the same passion good things happen, lucky breaks, bounces go your way thing align. The cup final was proof of what occurs when luck runs out and doubt sets in. I do agree Peters is a huge upgrade over GG, however I believe their is a huge culture problem in that dressing room. To many passengers and not enough drive and will to win IMHO. BT has to know who the issue is and with that regardless of who remove them. Were we not Vegas in 2004, and we did have a bit of a splash few years ago. Average players playing above average with lucky breaks can be productive. Luck favors the most prepared!!!
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.
-
35 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:
Wins.
No variable is needed.
Vegas proved you can take a bunch of middle of the road players and if you make them play as a team they will be successful. That is what a good coach can do. He can assess the team given him and give them a team approach/game plan suitable for the players he has.
The metric is wins... GG didn't have it and BP has not shown he has it yet.
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.
-
1 hour ago, stubblejumper1 said:
Those are fair comments, but here is where I disagree:
- The West Village deal would have forced the City to pay for all of those projects at once, instead of spreading them out over 10+ years. The City would have had to put other important projects on hold to appease Ken King's legacy project.
- The cleanup costs were probably not inflated. I have been involved in several oilfield cleanup projects and they always cost much more than originally estimated because it is almost impossible to anticipate all of the unknowns associated with the project.
- I forgot about the Hitmen and the Roughnecks, they provide good value for family entertainment. However, the Flames could probably work out a deal at a facility like Winsport to host Hitmen and Roughnecks games at a tiny fraction of the cost of building a new arena. A new "Saddledome" would be built for the Flames - the Hitmen and Roughnecks would be a bit of an afterthought.
I would like to see a new arena built, and I think the City should help pay for some of it because the Flames do a lot for the community. However, Ken King and the owners need to realize that this city is four years into an economic slump and now is not the time for tax payers to give a blank cheque to a handful of billionaires so they can make a few more millions (especially Murray Edwards who moved away from the city to avoid paying taxes).
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....
-
31 minutes ago, CheersMan said:
I'd take a $100 million savings during the construction phase every day of the week. The savings will continue to be made long after construction when all venues are at one location under one roof.
The Crowchild Trail improvements are being worked on as we speak.
You continue to look at the number and discard the proposal. Try looking at the proposal and what it offers, then look at the number.
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......
-
3 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said:
We have to pay for access to the Stampede - I can't just wander onto the stampede grounds and go check out the displays in the Saddledome.
It is dishonest to suggest I could go to a Flames <$20 and even if I could, attendance is not free. The majority, if not all of the other infrastructure projects the City (using our tax dollars) pays for are free to attend.
I am fine with the negotiations occuring in private, but I believe no deal should be signed without public approval.
Did the Peace Bridge, the library, the airport tunnel or the blue ring cost over $1,000,000,000?
The C-train benefits over 100,000 people every day. A new rink benefits 10,000 season ticket holders for 40 nights a year (plus a few billionaire owners every day).
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.....
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, cross16 said:
I get that is a common idea, it's just not one that resonates with me. If the province or the Feds kick in money it's still the taxpayer and because i think all 3 level of government are not in very good financial shape it's just not how I want to see the money spent. Just transfers the debt IMO but that's a bias I have.
I just don't like Calgarynext either so I side with the mayor on that one. I read that report and once I did and actually thought of the idea I think it's horrible. I guess if they want to go back to the drawing board with ideas so be it, but I happen to agree with Nenshi that Vic Park makes the most amount of sense for a new building.
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?
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said:
As a tax payer I believe the City has a duty to inform me of negotiations that involve hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars. I don't need to know all the details, but I would like to know what the terms are before a deal is signed.
Why? Because this is a piece of infrastructure that tax dollars will help pay for, but unlike other infrastructure projects, I will not be able to use a new arena without shelling out hundreds of my own dollars.
The airport tunnel may not be anywhere near my home, but if I want to drive in the tunnel I can. The new arena will be off limits to me and my family unless I spend hundreds of dollars on event tickets.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the city needs to put any arena deal to a referendum.
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.....
-
35 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Some great discussion. What were we talking about?
Oh, right goalies.
Does anyone think we will be in on one this summer, like every other year?
As good as our D looks on paper, and how they played for parts of some/most games, we still need to be concerned about nets.
Build from the net out.
We seem to try to do that and come up short on the G side.
The defense is fine, even without Brodie and Stone. We can survive that part.
We can;t have another season of up and down goaltending.
Great Smith. MVP.
Ok to bad Smith.
Injured Smith.
Terrible Smith.
It's like watching Elliott struggle here and in Philly. Was STL the only place he could play?
Are we setting ourselves up for another letdown this year with Smith, if we do nothing else?
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.....
-
2 hours ago, robrob74 said:
I really don’t! It’s scary! Right now I see the two closest prospects topping out as decent back up goalies. That’s okay if we have a starter.
Can Parsons become one? How many years away is that?
my problem is that we’ve spent so many assets on trying to stop gap the position. I like Hamonic, but the picks that it cost to fill both positions lately, D and G, is what I am really upset about.
With th our supposed depth on D in the system, we’ve possibly paid an arm and a leg for 3 years is Hamonic. I know I am a little too pissed about it, but I think it is somewhat warranted.
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.
-
On 2018-05-29 at 11:42 AM, Cowtownguy said:
I am a little skeptical about it not being a problem. I believe I read somewhere that the creosote has been found on the other side of the river. Apparently, there is another river underneath the river. I would assume that the 2013 flood must have resulted in the chemical moving downstream. Regardless, a big chunk of the inner city is not useable; not a tourist attraction. I agree that they have completed all of those studies suggesting that it was a poor idea. I have never quite understood why the Flames then suggested a multi-complex in the very area that was considered inappropriate. Have they not been talking over the years?
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.
-
12 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:
I find that rather disturbing. Perhaps it is not surprising, but it is concerning.
I understand that such projects are going to generate conflict. Each party has to protect their interests. I will be upset if we host the Olympics and many of the hockey games are played in Edmonton because it will be an opportunity lost. Refusing to externalize the arena costs to the provincial and federal governments will be a slap in the face to the Flames. It is one thing to hold strong in negotiations. It is another thing to intentionally waste such an opportunity.
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.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, kehatch said:
I agree that is likely. Plus, I don't see Rittich as a future starter. With this being Smiths last season I would prefer someone with starter upside was under him.
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.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, kehatch said:
Normally I agree with the premise of trying to develop your own goalies. But it isn't the only way and it may not be the best way for the Flames.
First, a good chunk of the best goalies in the league were not developed by their current team (Anderson, Dubnyk, Bobrovsky, Luongo, Talbot, Fleury, Varlamov, etc). Some of these guys were acquired cheap.
Second, I don't like the Flames options. Parsons might be good, but he isn't ready. Gilles doesn't have the head space and Rittich doesn't have the ability.
Smith is back regardless, so that buys a year for Parsons. But I wouldn't mind having a plan B in the backup role. Both as security for Parsons, but also for security for Smith if age catches up to him or he gets injured again.
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.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, kehatch said:
I understand the frustration. But let's try and be at least a little rational.
The GM has made a reasonable effort to bring on a starter. Smith was one of the top goalies in the league before he got hurt. Parsons was a steal in the second round. Rittich was a free pick up. I am as sick of the revolving goalie situation as anyone, but I am not seeing a bunch of lost opportunities that another GM would have capatilized on.
The sky isn't falling. The Flames are still in good shape with good young pieces up front, great pieces at D, and a decent set of kids and prospects (Anderson, Jankowski, Valimaki, Foz, Foo, Dube, Kylington, Phillips, Mangiapane, Parsons, etc).
This entire fire the GM, management, get new ownership, we won't win a cup until Gaudreau has grey hair, etc dialogue is an irrational rant that is pretty tough to take seriously.
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.
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
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.....