cccsberg
-
Posts
3,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by cccsberg
-
-
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.
-
1 hour ago, Cowtownguy said:
If they spend $20 billion to get $5 billion, then they also cannot compete. Amazon may locate there, but what is the point at that cost?
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.
-
On 2017-09-28 at 7:51 PM, Cowtownguy said:
It would be great to land the new Amazon headquarters given that they will invest a lot into the city they choose. The bidding process is quite competitive. It makes sense for the city/province to bid aggressively because billions will pour into the city for decades. Now, if the city were to nullify the advantages of getting Amazon by giving them back every dollar they invest, then it does not really make sense. You would just be moving around money. On the surface, it seems to me that the Flames are expecting just that. When Ken King maintains that the city is investing little into the project because the Flames will pay taxes for decades, they are basically demanding that they get back anything they put into the city, and they have not really measured the value of that impact.
I would like to see a new sports complex built here. It would be great if it could be built using Canadian labour and materials. I am not sure how possible that is. I like the idea of CalgaryNext. I am not sure about the location, and it was a wee bit over the top in terms of cost. I cannot believe that they ever thought the city would opt for that project.
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.
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
I think we are sort of the right page. I guess my only clarification is that are we not treating the transportation/infrastructure costs the same or are they just much higher with Calgarynext than they are with Victoria Park option? Based on everything i've read the transportation, infrastructure needs, and clean up would add alot of costs to the CalgaryNext project that just are not needed with the Victoria Park option so the total cost really gets up there in a hurry and IMO I think it's necessary to consider the total costs of the project as opposed to jsut compare the cost to build the buildings.
What it comes down to for me, and where I think most agree, is that the City needs a new fieldhouse, new arena, new stadium and a revitalized West Village but where I disagree is I don't think CalgaryNext was the best avenue to accomplish that. Would it be cheaper, maybe slightly and for sure it woudl be "easier" but I think long term the vision i think is best is separate facilities and a revitalized West Village the City can use as it sees fit. That is the more efficient and proper use of taxpayer funds IMO.
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.
-
22 hours ago, cross16 said:
No, the point is those 2 costs include different things.
My point is if you are trying to argue total cost and saying its 890 million vs 555 mill and decide which is better that isn't accurate. I think you need to take a more holistic view because costs are not the same for every project.
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.
-
9 hours ago, jjgallow said:
Agreed, but it can also be said that had Gillies not had major season ending hip surgery, we might not be discussing lack, or Smith, or anyone else (potentially).
Last year was a major wildcard year. If it wasn't for the surgery factor, I would have written him off. But given the surgery, it was impossible to evaluate his season. We were never really going to know until this year. And to me a big thing to look for was whether he plateaued, or showed a return to improvement as expected in his originally projected development curve.
IMHO, we have seen an improvement in him this preseason over last year. In lateral movement, in quickness, in general mobility. All the kinds of improvement that would make sense after such a major surgery.
For this reason my outlook for him is considerably more optimistic. Not because of this pre-season on its own, but because of his original projection and the signs he has shown that he's returning to that development curve. I personally think he has a better case right now for the job than Lack. But I'm not concerned about it either. I'm seeing the improvement and the rest should take care of itself...in the near term.
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.
-
20 hours ago, jjgallow said:
Sure, whatever. Your call. But the above is immature.
Right.
Are you Really going to play that card? What part of what I wrote was offensive?
Al Jazeera... seemed like a political comment.
Maybe if you watched/played more hockey and read less ESPN articles, my point would be more apparent to you.
Never read an ESPN article nor watched a single minute of it in my life....
20 hours ago, jjgallow said:This also makes zero sense. Explain why the next best option is not an option.
I believe Lack's 5v5 Sv% is 0.923.... and shouldn't Gillies be getting major minutes rather than riding pine for the majority of games? My thinking anyways.
-
1 minute ago, cross16 said:
In the study the city did yes but I never saw that in the Flames proposal that indicated a cost of 890 million. The Flames proposal, again correct me if i'm wrong, only indicated it would cost 890 million to actually build the facilities.
Agree, which is the point. Arena/Stadium/Fieldhouse($200mm)/Riverside-District kickstart for $890mm versus Arena for $555mm.
-
10 hours ago, rickross said:
These arena talks have become quit fascinating, a very intriguing and unique process unfolding before us. This will be the new comparable for future arena builds with all the sly politics and business savy talk. Love how Ken King is crying about the Flames now being revenue bottom feeders in the league and receiving cheques from revenue sharing like its a welfare cheque. We get it. Your rich BUT u should be even richer! The city is in a tough position, if they fold they risk a potential backlash from taxpayers. Let's be real, less than 20,000 Calgarians can actually fit into the Dome, as symbolic and important of an arena it is, it really facilitates a fraction of the city's population. I'm all for a new arena but let's find some balance already! I agree there is little economic benefit from arenas other than from parking lot owners and public transit seeing a good boost. In the end it becomes more of expense, all the amenities will see price increases (beer, nachos and merchandise) however, will we see a better product on the ice? I'd be pretty pissed to simply watch the Flames continue to falter in the 1st round of the playoffs after they've been handed a shiny new arena.
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.
-
17 hours ago, cross16 said:
Not sure you are missing something but I also don't think its a valid comparison. The Victoria park option is 555m including land and some infrastructure costs but $890 was for facilities only (unless i'm forgetting something?). Since neither proposal included interest/financing charges I think a more valid comparison would be Calgary Next costs about 1.2-1.3 billion (when you factor in land cost, utilities etc) and the Victoria park option at 555 million. Probably not equal but at least closer because then you are including infrastructure costs into the Calgary Next budget. So if Victoria Park costs 555 million that is still almost 700 million you could spend on a fieldhouse, stadium and remediation of West Village to get the same result as CalgaryNext.
Probably end up spending more money yes but then you have usable land in West Village the city can use at their own discretion. I believe you are right that nothing more can be done in West Village until it is cleaned up because the creosote is contained until you start digging. I think this opens up a much larger debate as to what is best in the long term interest of the city. Building them all separately, which i'm not sure would cost all that much more than building CalgaryNext, and then having the city being able to sell West Village and develop it like East Village. Personally I think that is the better long term vision for the city and in the long run actually wouldn't be as expensive. The problem I have with CalgaryNext is it is a lot of taxpayer money for a project that will end up providing, IMO at least, not a lot of positive economic spin off to the city because you will eat up so much real estate in a building that won't generate any property tax for the city.
However, I am also fully aware that would require a council that would value sport enough to the level that they would want to invest in all of those projects separately and given that the fieldhouse has been agreed to for about 3-4 years now and is still unfunded i'm not very confident that is going to happen but IMO it's the best vision for the long term future of Calgary.
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?
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
Well, if a football player from Al Jazeera says so, who are we to question?
Gillies aside, "Lack is a Lock" has to be some of the poorest assessment of the Flames we've ever had, and goes against the vast majority of media pundits, fans, and likely Flames brass. Even from a football player, it's bad. Referring to Gillies, one of our top prospects, as an "insurance piece" is a close second. The old scraggly mediocre veterans we've brought in are clearly the insurance pieces while we wait for the likes of Gillie and Parsons.
Gillies already has the edge, and even if he does go down to the AHL, the term would be "stint".
The old arguement of "premature" when a new player breaks into the league always makes sense until they step onto the ice in an NHL arena and then it doesn't.
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.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
It's fair to say the true costs lays somewhere in between $890M and $1800M. It just sounds like even at $1800M, Cheersman seems content on moving forward with CalgaryNext. I'm just wondering is this true?
Because at $890M, we are there with him. $890M is a fair price for such a grand vision. $890M will have massive support behind it.
Unfortunately, most Calgarians are saying 'no' to $1800M but Cheersman thinks Calgarians are saying no to $890M.
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!
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
It's fair to say the true costs lays somewhere in between $890M and $1800M. It just sounds like even at $1800M, Cheersman seems content on moving forward with CalgaryNext. I'm just wondering is this true?
Because at $890M, we are there with him. $890M is a fair price for such a grand vision. $890M will have massive support behind it.
Unfortunately, most Calgarians are saying 'no' to $1800M but Cheersman thinks Calgarians are saying no to $890M.
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!
-
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:
The $890-mil proposed by CSEC did NOT include creosote clean-up, correct me if my memory serves me wrong. Including cleanup was $1.2-billion. The city then did their own study and reported a $1.8-billion total price tag.
That's an aside from the discussion but are you still interested in CalgaryNext at $1.8-billion. Not even saying that is accurate, but just wondering if you are still personally a 'yes' at that price?
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.
-
10 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:
Im curious what everyone thinks of the new proposal released this morning at 5 am. Im not a huge fan of ken kings comments, but as with Edmonton it doesn't seem like these arena negotiations can be a pleasant process.
Missed it, where was it released?
-
1 hour ago, conundrumed said:
How much money has the city poured into the East Village and the National Music Center with such a small area by comparison?
Can we rename the Flames and Stamps as "the Arts"?
Would that help?
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.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, cross16 said:
Imagine the Flames without the City of Calgary. If they are foolish enough to go to somewhere like Seattle, they will NOT have it as good as they do here. I laugh at their thinly veiled, and empty, threats to move the franchise. They are more than a handful of clubs that would LOVE to switch places with us, dilapidated arena and all. In fact, it really pisses me off.
While I agree that there is an economic effect from having a sports team in the city. That effect does not, in a direct way, translate into an ability for the City to collect higher property taxes. Your argument makes more sense to the Federal, and to a lesser extent the Provincial government who receive most of the benefit of the increased tax revenue, and both are going to contribute zero to a new arena. If you want City money, then it has to be tied to some sort of revitalization or redevelopment initiative (to increase property taxes), and then you must comply with what is in the best interests of the City.
This is not about being stoic, it is about not being strong armed into a bad deal. Calgary is much more than the Flames, but the Flames are not much without Calgary.
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.
-
On 2017-08-15 at 0:02 PM, rickross said:
Much improved drafting rapport..like night and day. I remember not even bothering paying attention to the draft during the Sutter regime. I'd say Flames have done quite well so far, a few misses were drafting Hunter Smith over Christian Dvorak, I still like Dube but we could have also taken Taylor Raddysh last year, Mason Macdonald over Thatcher Demko...jury is still out on both goalies even though Demko is further ahead in his development. Also we drafted T. Wotherspoon over Nikita Kucherov!..Kucherov would have been a great RW to pair on the top line.
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!
-
On 2017-07-31 at 2:34 PM, conundrumed said:
Exactly the way I view it.
I like what redfire is saying about Smith yelling at guys.
I want that emotion.
"You humiliated me out there"....boo-freaking-hoo.
Don't come back for seconds...
If a goalie isn't verbally abusive on his D, he probably isn't doing his job. lol.
Send the entire D corps for Sensitivity Training in reverse. Don't get all sensitive because you boardinged up.
Ahhh, if only the world worked that way again, lol.
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.
-
On 2017-07-29 at 11:32 AM, travel_dude said:
I'm not sold on Smith, but if he can give us a win in game 1 and our first home game, I will be very happy. When was the last time we had wins in those two situations?
Yes, the season starts with a bang, and could easily be a foreshadow of things to come. Tons of pressure, key opponents, needed wins.
-
On 2017-07-06 at 8:32 AM, MAC331 said:
Here is a "what if" for everyone and I know it is a big one but possible. What if Spenser Foo is the answer for Gaudreau and Monahan on our top pairing who will be entering their 4th season. This allows the rest of our forward group to be set up in its best format.
Gaudreau, Monahan, Foo
Ferland, Backlund, Frolik
Tkachuk, Bennett, Lazar
Versteeg, Jankowski, Brouwer
Stajan, Hamilton
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.
-
8 hours ago, MAC331 said:
You think Raanta ad Grubauer will fetch 1st round picks really ? I don't think so.
Bishop got a third, for his rights only. I think you're a bit too high.
-
6 hours ago, rickross said:
Wow, lots of controversy surrounding this trade. Personally I like Mike Smith, he's a big body and arguably one of the games best stick handling goalies. I get why some are upset over losing a good prospect in Hickey and giving up another potential 2nd rounder but would you be more upset if Treliving sat pat and missed out on an opportunity to secure a future starter? MAF was never a lock to land in Calgary, guys like Raanta/Grubauer were unproven starters with much more risk.
I do think Smith is one of the more under appreciated net minders around and he's won Arizona more games than they likely deserved. I too am not overly excited with his age but I can live with his cap hit of $4.25M, and the 2 yrs gives us some stability. It's not the perfectly ideal trade but I still consider it a good trade overall. Its too early to say who won this trade but for now i can applaud the effort by Treliving.
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.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, 420since1974 said:
IMO, Smith is an upgrade on Elliott and the cost was not outrageous.
I'd like to see the Flames sign UFA Anders Nilsson to be their backup for 2017/2018.
He had a decent .923 save % on a bad team at $1M per.
In 2018/2019, I hope to see one of Gillies or Rattich move up to NHL backup and Parsons move up to the AHL (assumes he starts 2017/2018 in the ECHL).
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.
Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation
in Flames Talk
Posted
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.