cccsberg

Agree with the hypocrisy of it all. Disappointing how it has all turned out. If injuries are the only way to give the prospects a real opportunity, then so be it.

Oh, just to update this topic to include Saturday's game against the Jets, Smith was excellent and the game's first star. Looks like he's building for the start of the season. I'm not giving up on him. He didn't win multiple games for the Coyotes last year all on his own for nothing.

Here's a couple thoughts. Amazon is so huge it may act as an "anchor" business and draw in others in the same or associated businesses. Plus, 50,000 new employees is a lot of families, houses, restaurants, cars and etc. Any major industry moving in is never just about that business. Secondly, we don't know over what period the reported $20B is over. If its, for instance 5 years, then you give up $20B in the first 5 years, but then collect that same $20B every 5 years for the next 50 years (or pick your own number) of the business, netting $180B just from Amazon over the life of the project. Even if you include discounting to calculate everything back to today's dollars (i.e. today's dollars are worth more than future dollars because of inflation) it would still be a win though much less.

Well reportedly New Jersey has offered Amazon $Billions in tax breaks to build there, which makes it even more unlikely we'll still be in the running much longer.

Agree in part, but with transportation infrastructure e.g the Green Line isn't included in the Victoria Park discussions of cost, whereas the Crowchild interchange costs are for CalgaryNext. In the latter case they are required because the facility sits over current roads, but really the upgrades need to be done whether CNext happens or not. In the same vein the Green Line needs to happen, and will with a new arena or not.

In the overall discussion many comments come up that Calgary Next is $1.2-$1.8B versus just $550mm for Victoria Park. My only point, which seems to agree mostly with yours(?), is that the two are not the same thing. Not only does the first also include a much-needed Stadium and Field house, but the "other" factors like transportation and infrastructure, etc are not treated the same for both. To me, when you strip down each proposal to just looking at the arena portion, the numbers are fairly close. If this is in fact so, then the discussion should really be about the other stuff, i.e. the stadium, field house, the clean-up, the district development and how the city gets approvals for needed infrastructure projects. Certainly, if you price things out piecemeal a smaller project may look cheaper and more amenable, but in the end be more costly. Highway upgrades are an example of this which happens all the time. If you don't have the money for a bigger project, or the vision that holds up the greater public benefit of a grand project, for actually a very small individual contribution, then smaller normally wins. To me the CalgaryNext proposal was such a long-term vision that benefitted both the CSEC teams but also the community as a whole and the whole West Village district.

Don't disagree with anything you've said here, certainly the surgery screwed up the normal development path. You also have a good point about the back-up role, however since they brought in Lack (a more veteran presence with a previous good track) there's no way BT is kicking Lack to the side at the start of the season, especially since none of the goalies have really stood on their heads so far. If Gillies goes back to Stockton and kills it, and Lack flounders in his first handful of games here then that's the time to seriously consider a switch.

Agree, which is the point. Arena/Stadium/Fieldhouse($200mm)/Riverside-District kickstart for $890mm versus Arena for $555mm.

20,00 or less is the actual seating for the Saddledome, multiplied by xxx number of events, plus Calgary Hitmen/Roughnecks/xxx, plus the access by xxx millions every year during the Stampede for multiple events (more with the Corral coming down).... So, in total, not just 20,000 rich guys watching hockey.

Wow there, I'm pretty sure CalgaryNext included major transportation/infrastructure costs that need to be done anyways, stadium or not, e.g. Crowchild interchanges whereas Victoria Park excluded those same type of costs, e.g. Green Line which the city is already moving ahead on. Is this not the case?

The comment about Haynes is stupid and offensive. If you read his stuff that would be readily apparent. As for Lack, he's played reasonably well so far, considering, and there is little sense to thinking our best near-ready goalie is going to be riding the pine here anytime soon.

Let's put it this way. The west end of downtown is a mish mash of car lots, disorganized businesses and empty land. The traffic flow is pretty pathetic and the tie into the primary Crowchild Trail artery is a joke. Add into that there is an ongoing major environmental disaster with toxic poisons leaking not only in a big part of that area but also under and into the Bow River, which is a major drinking water and irrigation source for southern Alberta, as well as underneath communities across the river. Perhaps the city/province should get their act together and fulfill their responsibilities to their own communities by cleaning up their own backyards, without throwing all those costs onto a beautiful CSEC proposal and pretending it is so costly it will never get done. If it costs a $B to do what needs to be done with or without CSEC then so be it and let's get it done. As far as the stadiums go, I'm surprised the fire marshalls/ health officials allow continued use of either due to the massive overcrowding of the hallways and limited bathrooms. I guess the fact that concrete and steel doesn't burn, and figuring you can spread WC use out over a whole game (not reality) makes that acceptable? And then the lack of a single field house, whereas Edmonton supposedly already has 5, and even little Airdrie has one just goes to show where Calgary really stands in discussions about great cities. One thing, though, even Calgary can't screw up the fact that we're just an hour from Banff. Take that, Edmonton!

Let's put it this way. The west end of downtown is a mish mash of car lots, disorganized businesses and empty land. The traffic flow is pretty pathetic and the tie into the primary Crowchild Trail artery is a joke. Add into that there is an ongoing major environmental disaster with toxic poisons leaking not only in a big part of that area but also under and into the Bow River, which is a major drinking water and irrigation source for southern Alberta, as well as underneath communities across the river. Perhaps the city/province should get their act together and fulfill their responsibilities to their own communities by cleaning up their own backyards, without throwing all those costs onto a beautiful CSEC proposal and pretending it is so costly it will never get done. If it costs a $B to do what needs to be done with or without CSEC then so be it and let's get it done. As far as the stadiums go, I'm surprised the fire marshalls/ health officials allow continued use of either due to the massive overcrowding of the hallways and limited bathrooms. I guess the fact that concrete and steel doesn't burn, and figuring you can spread WC use out over a whole game (not reality) makes that acceptable? And then the lack of a single field house, whereas Edmonton supposedly already has 5, and even little Airdrie has one just goes to show where Calgary really stands in discussions about great cities. One thing, though, even Calgary can't screw up the fact that we're just an hour from Banff. Take that, Edmonton!

Perhaps a better question is whether the City/Province should be shouldering their responsibility and clean-up the ongoing pollution leaking poisins into the Bow River, and if so, is there some way we can lessen the burden or at least end up with something great and long-lasting as a result? The clean-up should be happening regardless of anything related to the CSEC.

Missed it, where was it released?

Absolutely correct about those facilities. The only reason they got public money is because they are money losers with nobody to pressure for funding. Are they for the public? Yes, but I bet one year's worth of Dome usage during the Stampede has more public visitors than these will in their lifetimes.

If the Flames moved to the US all of their income would be US$ which automatically improves their income by anywhere from 20-35% due to the exchange rate. If they moved to a huge population area like Seattle, which is roughly 3-4 times the population base as the Calgary area, there is a much stronger population base to pull in fans, not to mention local TV contracts which are pretty much non-existent here. Seattle also has several mega-companies, e.g. Boeing and Microsoft that dwarf anything in Calgary so even though Calgary does have a huge corporate base I don't think Seattle is losing anything in that regard. They may actually be better. To imagine that the Flames are not much without Calgary may sound good as a homer Calgarian, but really its nonsense. As far as the Flames' tactics go, sure it seems pretty standard fare, but really take a look at the Dome. It just got flooded (2013) and remains in a floodplain surrounded by parking lots and dilapidated housing. What's being developed is 100% Stampede which might be good for them, and Calgary but not sure if it enhances the CSEC at all. The Dome has roof design issues that result in the loss of a lot of high-level concerts and events, limiting income opportunities. I've heard 30-something event losses in the past year... which seems like quite a lot. The concourse level at the Dome is pretty bad. Overcrowding is the name of the day and I'm somewhat surprised the fire marshall is OK with it. Bathrooms...need I say more? Food...need I say more? Although the team can keep playing there, which they will, the deficiencies will become more and more a detriment as time goes on. As far as other teams being ready to switch with us, may be but is the NHL going to encourage much less allow that? Very doubtful. Finally, good points about taxes. The Province and Feds should be involved in the discussions somehow because they are definitely benefitting from taxes. We may have to wait until the Olympics talks really heat up, and perhaps that may be the bottom line thing the Flames are waiting for-the Olympics discussion which automatically brings the Province and Feds to the table.

Playing 20/20 draft hindsight can be depressing. Why not cheer yourself up and congratulate the Flames on getting the best player of the draft with both Gaudreau and Monahan. VERY impressive!

yeah, good points, but unfortunately you may have to wait for another generation or two. In regards to Smith, I'm also believing his puck-handling skills can be a HUGE asset to the team, especially with our D who know how to turn up the ice and go. I'm really looking forward to seeing how that develops and how GG tweaks the offence to utilize his talents handling and passing the puck.

Yes, the season starts with a bang, and could easily be a foreshadow of things to come. Tons of pressure, key opponents, needed wins.

Like the line-up assuming Foo can fit that spot. The only change would be inserting Poirier for Brouwer and playing on any line except for Backlund's. I believe Pribyl will make a strong case as well before the end of the year.

Bishop got a third, for his rights only. I think you're a bit too high.

Seriously I'm at a loss why there is so much angst over this trade. Calgary has what looks like two potential franchise-level goalie prospects, plus another older one that played the best of the three last year. Rittich is probably ready to move up this year, and the other two next year or the year after. Smith has been a very solid goalie for one of the worst teams in the league for the past several years, has a great record against our tough division, and an even better record in the playoffs, plus he's proven he can carry the starter load and thrive. The Flames haven't had anyone as good for years. Smith also is a terrific puck handler which should benefit our attack and if he can pass on some of that skill to the youngsters, bonus. As for the price Johnson is UFA so he doesn't even count except as an x-draft number. So it really is Hickey and (hopefully, likely) a 2nd for Smith on a reduced contract. How much is that extra $1mm plus worth? Something, we will see in the coming months after the dust clears. As for Hickey, I like him, but to be honest he's fallen behind Andersson, Killington, Falkovsky(?), Fox and perhaps others. Since I don't see Giordano, Hamilton or Brodie going anywhere anytime soon, and Hickey choosing to go back for his senior year rather than battle for an opening this year, there is a very high likelihood he'd go UFA next summer and we'd lose him for nothing since we get no compensatory pick because he wasn't a first rounder. If that is the case, then it's REALLY a reduced-price Smith for a 2018 2nd rounder that won't be ready for 2-3 years beyond that. Guys, our window is opening NOW, this is a tremendous trade for the Flames, a steal even considering all factors. It fits our team, it fits our timing, it fits our up-and-coming goalies. Get ready for a great year.

We don't need another goalie. If the Flames don't re-sign Elliot or Johnson then bring up Rittich as back-up and run with them. Smith is the perfect starter for us, right skills, right age and can teach the youngsters as they move in over the next season or two. It's his big chance, and he's shown in the past he can be exceptional in playoffs so I have high hopes that this season we make the playoffs and do some damage.