darth_henning
-
Posts
1,217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by darth_henning
-
-
I'd much rather be slow and meticulous to give up something relatively small that we can afford, for something relatively good that may not be a game-breaking goalie, but will be able to get us into the playoffs.
We do't have a lot of assets that are expendable that have value. The only position we have developed depth at is Center, and that's the one position that's most essential for our future success. Otherwise we're selling picks or prospects that we don't want to lose.
-
Here is an example with an arena development with a vision. Off course it's in Ottawa, so the Fed $$ will flow into the project.
I don't remember seeing anything close to this is Calgary Next.
That's basically like the Flames posting pictures of the arena and the entire west village development project.
The arena isn't going to build all of that, its part of a much bigger project.
I don't feel this is much different than CalgaryNext when you take into consideration CalgaryNext includes the residential development in the Pumphouse Theater area. It's a "live, work, and play" West Village redevelopment proposal. Sure, throw in a library or school too, that was never ruled out or anything.
as People said.
I watched an interview with Ken King yesterday. Was quite good, and the points he madoccupyingreat in that he pointed out the numbers havent changed, but the city is inflating them based on 3 things:
1)The city is going to develop the west village anyway
2) the land will need to be cleaned up regardless if they build NEXT or not
3) the city already had intentions of building a fieldhouse
So regardless the city was already facing approximately a billion or more in costs with or without NEXT
He also pointed out the clean up bill is for the entire area, of which NEXT will only occupy a percentage of that area
I think if they can come to some agreement on sharing the cleanup costs it should still be moving ahead
This is exactly the thing that bugs me.
Is the arena expensive? yes. Should the city be paying specifically for the arena/stadium (not includig field house)? No.
But, should they be claiming that the costs of the field house and area cleanup are solely part of Next? Not in the slightest. Those costs are going to be outlaid eventually.
Let alone the fact that the cleanup bill is the entire area.
As I said on the previous page, the area could be turned into a major development district with arena/stadium/field house/convention center/new glenbow/expanded pumphouse/riverfront restaurants and bars.
That would far surpass the idea presented for Ottawa.
The problem is only partially the arena cost (which should indeed be mostly covered by the owners/attendees, not the city). Claiming that the city's costs for remediation/infrastructure, which have to be done no matter what goes there are part of the arena is attempting to obscure the fact that the city does not want to put money into redeveloping the area.
As to the LRT vs. Stadium thing, the transit line will away be WAY more important.
-
The idea of combining venues has problems. Combine events in the same timeframe and you have a logistical nightmare. A concert or hockey game the same night as a CFL game. 20,000 + 35,000 fans arriving the same day. That's just a scheduling and attendance problem. Having available transit and/or parking for 35,000 fans in a city center is problematic.
BC Place and Rogers Stadium are within a block of one another. Dozens of venues in the states (for the NFL and MLB) seat in excess of 50,000 on their own.
Its definitely possible to iron those problems out.
LRT capacity increased to 4 cars running at rush-hour peak levels would take care of the transit issue.
Proper interchanges from Bow Trail and Crowchild into an efficient parking structure would mitigate the vehicle traffic.
Yes, it would be something that would have to have careful logistics involved, but there are about 12 CFL games per year. That's not likely to be a frequent problem given the lack of overlap between the seasons. (Concerts more of a concern granted)
I don't see that as prohibitive.
My bigger problem is that using a remediated site would add years onto the construction. Even if things went as planned, you are talking about waiting about 5 years from breaking ground. What if there is a huge environmental impact that doesn't show up right now? Calgary has let the area fester for too many years to use this kind of project to fix.
But I do grant that this is a major problem.
A 5 year delay before construction can even start. And that's being a little optimistic given the scale of clean-up and infrastructure involved in something like this.
However, if the Flames have to start looking at another site, is that going to be ready much (any) sooner? Let alone if we talk about sites for BOTH the arena and stadium?
As you point out, Calgary administration has let the area fester. This at least provides impetus to finally do something about it.
-
The convertible arena/field idea is certainly an interesting one. And one that I have to admit I was wondering about when they first started talking about a new arena.
The problem is twofold (as others have already described)
1) The football field is WAY bigger than an NHL (or international) Ice rink (side note: i hope they make the arena able to convert sizes)
2) The football stadium needs to seat way more than a hockey rink.
So while it would theoretically be possible to make a lower bowl that was retractable to enlarge the surface and solve problem 1, that in fact reduces seating for football games rather than increasing it. Cool idea, but not functional sadly.
I like the concept of the entertainment district. Look at Staples Center. Or even the Gilla River Arena. Those areas have more than just a rink. The spinoff benefit is big.
Maybe it's just me but I think the idea of combining the venue is nuts. A rehab to McMann Stadium would cost around $65-80m.
Stick to replacing the Saddledome as a separate venue. Design something that wows. Build it where it is accessable. Get is away from a polluted site the city has dragged its heels on for years.
The concept may have been a "high priced option" to allow a lower priced option to get quick approval. Environmental cleanups are something hockey needs to stay away from.
I don't see why combining the venue is "nuts".
In a hypothetical world where the land in question wasn't polluted, I'm pretty sure everyone would be all over the idea and just debating how to fund it.
An entertainment district is a great idea. The West Village could become the home to:
- Next (stadium/arena/fieldhouse)
- Significant night life (bars, clubs, resturants), could be particularly cool to have a strip of these with patios looking out over the river
- The long needed larger site for a new glenbow
- Brand new large convention center (badly needed in Calgary)
- A food smattering of hotel and condo towers
With Pumphouse Theater (which is starting its expansion this summer I believe) and modern art gallery going in where the old science center is, it could become the main arts/culture/sports mecha of the city.
The problem is the environmental aspect. Which is admittedly a GIANT problem. And I am happy to concede I don't know how to get around that. But it is the most logical place for this kind of development.
The city administration doesn't want to delve into such a massive project right off the hop. There's the creosote, the clearing out of the car lots/bus depot (and finding a relocation point for said station), the infrastructure, road redesign, utilities...
Its a massive undertaking. And in the current economic climate its a really bad time (and risky to their election prospects) to take on something like that. BUT, proceeding with a massive project like that with a focus on making something that was that remarkable could really leave a legacy for the city of an absolutely stunning area.
Someone suggested doing the same in the Cross-Iron area. I'm not sure there's anything comparable on the outskirts of a city. Glendale has't exactly been a success for the Coyote's attendance. The Staples Center isn't comparable. Its a couple KM away from the Hollywood Boulevard, hardly on the edge of the city. Even if transit was extended out that far (which is inevitable in time) I doubt people are going to commute that distance to get to games.
Much though this is stereotyping most of the "big money" in Calgary is near downtown or in the Southwest. To a lesser degree in the Northwest. Sticking the Arena basically in the far north-east, past the airport, in an area that isn't exactly filled with people who can afford regular tickets, is going to make ticket sales much more difficult than a centrally located arena.
Personally I think McMahon is past the point of rehab and I'm not sure they can turn it into anything but an average at best stadium. I understand an arena is likely more of a priority for the flames but there is no question that if you want to talk about which one is needed more, it's McMahon. I'm a huge stamps fan and I would honestly rather watch most of the games on TV then suffer through an outing at McMahon. It's truly a terrible facility and I don't see how they can make it into a working one it needs to be replaced and IMO before a arena. I get the extra revenue debate and that's why the arena is taking more priority but if you want to talk from a pure fan experience there is no question in my mind that calgary needs a new stadium before an arena.
I do agree that a huge mega facility is not likely going to work but I don't agree at all with the idea of trying to save money by just renovating McMahon.This.
Lots of ideas. How about just build a more compact covered football field/bowl for about 25,000 and have deluxe seats with personal TV screens for the games like on an airplane, just a lot better quality. You could pipe multi-video streams, game stats, other games, pause, rewind, zoom and interactive responses into individual seats/mini-boxes. Its the 21st century, start acting like it with some truly innovative thinking and live-game experiences.... the best of both worlds combined into one unique performance hall. Then in off days you could use it for all sorts of things from meetings to conventions to teaching to lectures.... a truly transformative place for a far broader segment of the population. The outdoor hockey games in huge stadiums seem to fill up petty well, and that experience is crap vs what could be done....
While this is certainly a cool idea (an I wouldn't be against seeing some of it implemented) a large part of the reasons people go to games is to see them live, not on a screen, and be able to interact in some way with other fans and maybe even the players.
I don't think this satisfies that particular desire.
-
Adjust the criteria then. We might have to add one that says not to build it on polluted land that will add hundreds of millions and years to the project.
They may not be able to build a multi complex in the city. Perhaps that isn't realistic......
The thing is to build any arena those are minimal criteria - car access, transit access, space, reaosonable location. You couldn't get more minimal criteria than that.
As for whether or not we can build a multi-complex, that's a possible debate. But I'd be curious to know if building 2 separate stadiums and a field house would cost any less than building all 3 in one place (personally I'd expect it would cost more, but I don't have the experience in construction or economics to actually say).
I tend to think they can build the new arena where CalgaryNext proposed the West Village condo's to go. Just slide the whole damn thing a bit further West and remove the condo portion of it. Done and done.
The creosote is beneath the Greyhound Station, so don't touch it. Leave the Greyhound Station where it is. Just build further into the Pumphouse Theater.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Creosote contamination covered the Greyhound station AND all the car lots in the area which is why they've been car lots all this time.
Its really hard to find an actual map of the contamination.
However, THIS paper: http://74.3.176.63/publications/recorder/1994/04apr/apr94-gpr-investigation.pdf
Suggests that it would cover that land as well since you can see the ties stacked along the river all the way to the current location of Pumphouse Theater. The writing states specifically that it is bordered by 14th avenue and Crowchild, suggesting the entire West Village (not just the bus station) is affected.
-
Like I said. Pipe Dream.
Personally I'd like to see commitment to the guys who come up through our system. To my mind that means keeping Ortio on a 1 year deal. (unless there was some clearly amazing deal like the hypothetical above)
Bring in a starter and let Ortio compete. Let him have the 1 year contract. If he flubs then he goes. but he had the chance. If he's a backup, then he's proven himself a backup. If he can step up to play as a tandem player or challenge for starter's games, then more power to him.
I think if the team shows that anyone who can play their way onto the NHL roster will be given the chance to take the best job they're capable of, that the players in our system will work harder to take that chance.
-
1
-
-
Much though I don't like giving up on Ortio as I think he'll develop into a good NHLer at some level, a duo of Andersen and Murray would definitely make us not just playoff competitive, but win a round or two competitive.
#pipedreams or should i say #betweenthepipesdreams
-
1
-
-
Backstrom definitely won't play in the NHL again.
If he wanted to he might be able to do like Hiller did and find a job somewhere else for a few seasons before retiring.
Even if he hangs up the skates professionally,
a ) Does he WANT to coach?
b ) CAN he coach?
If both of those are yes's I'm open to giving him a look. If either is a no....run away!
-
Actually despite current build out there is precisely one city block of land available in the east village Labeled "K" on this map in orange
Everything in red is in progress of development, everthing in blue has been zoned and is awaiting developer.
Even that block is iffy because you can see they want "the rift" walking path to cut through the buildings there, making a stadium basically out of the question unless its elevated with a walkway beneath (and I doubt you can fit two stadiums in a city block.
So no, East Village is not an option as it fails criteria 4
The stampeed grounds MAYBE are an option. For ONE stadium.
The northern part of the grounds has already been plotted out for the new "Youth Campus" north of the existing gate on 14th Ave
That leaves the 2 blocks between 12th and 14th Ave, and Olympic Way and 5th Street right behind Cowboys.
Two city blocks is about 125% the size of the current Saddle dome. Which means that you can fit one arena there, not both. Its about equi-distant from the train station as the current dome. So OK that works. But that leaves the football stadium and field house out of the equation.
So that fails Criteria 4 as well.
If you want to fit both anywhere around there you're looking at the current bus barn just by the river. With the CPR right-of-way and the neighbourhood on the other side of Elbow that's going to be a tough land deal, and is also getting to be quite far from the LRT station.
Therefore it likely fails Criteria 4, and definitely fails Criteria 1 unless you expect people to take a 20 minute walk from the train or there to be shuttle service provided.
Keep trying. Trust me I've looked and if you can find something I haven't I'd be happy. But I follow Calgary development as a hobby, and its very hard to find large parcels anywhere near the middle of town now.
-
All right. Where do you suggest that is:
1) Along a Transit Corridor (preferably LRT, but I'll accept BRT)
2) Relatively close to the center of the city (lets say less than 60th Street/avenue in any direction)
3) Near a relatively high capacity road
4) Has either:
a ) an existing empty space
b ) contiguous properties that could be purchased and cleared without significant expropriation (Or difficult land deals)
If you can point to another place that fits those criteria that isn't a park, then I'll agree with you.
McMahon lot fits Criteria 1-3 but fails 4
The Zoo parking lots fit criteria 1, 2 and 4, (assuming you build a parkade) but fails on 3.
Those are the other suggestions that I can even think of being close.
(also re: Flames Coolaid. Even before this was announced I've long thought that that was the best area for a new stadium pairing to be put. Just FYI)
-
There is already a ticket tax and let's be honest who doesn't think prices will go up once the new building opens? do you want to provide the Flames ANOTHER avenue to add costs to going to a game? I'm fine with costs going up to a certain degree to fund it but I think this is going to make a game just that much more expensive.
However, where I would fully agree with you is a reasonable agreement is the City pays all the costs for transportation, re mediation, utilities etc and turns the land over the Flames and they build the entire arena. City chips in 200 million for the fieldhouse and then the flames are on the hook for the remaining 700. I don't think the Flames will go for it, but I think its a pretty fair compromise.
I don't know what the current ticket tax is (wasn't actually aware there was one honestly) but I don't think that adding to it to pay for the remediation costs of a new building is horribly unreasonable. Of course it depends how much no debate there. But I think its an option hat should be considered.
Your seond paragraph is also fine by me and was my initial suggestion (or similar enough) when the project was announced.
Becuase after 6 years of planning this is the best you can do? The containminated land is not knew, everyone know it was there and everyone knew it was going to be expensive to clean up. Not only that, everyone also knows that is a terrible spot for traffic instructure. Quite honestly, i'm not sure the Flames could have picked a less feasible spot. If this was about having a conversation, why not make the proposal 5 or 6 years ago so the conversation and study could have been done by now?
You could be right, I am just passing on what was in the report and the report estimated it was going to be a minimum of 6 years. Maybe its faster but i'm just going off of that.
I actually disagree with those who are saying the city wants to ignore this and wont' do anything about it, in fact I think the opposite. I think the city is going to clean up the land regardless of what the Arena plan is. I jsut don't think they want to pay to clean up it up, get it ready and then kick in ANOTHER 400 million plus for a stadium.
I'm not sure where youd suggest that is more feasible though. The only other open tract of land in the core was the East Village, and the master plan for that was done years ago.
The Stadium needs to be on a major transit route and that means the LRT. Even if you move it out of downtown there are no good options. Ignoring the Green line which won't be running for 20 years...
Along the West LRT line there's no empty space large enough for any stadium.
Along the South LRT there may be some spaces along Macleod, but that would involve massive land purchases and a huge amount of traffic increase on an already congested road.
Along the NE LRT the only open space is by the Zoo where the parking lots are. (which might not be a horrible idea for better use of the land by that and the science center) but its really hard to access that by car.
Finally the only space along the NW LRT line is where MacMahon is now. As I live in the area I'm going to be honest and say that there is sufficient car and LRT access that that could work. But there are two problems:
1) The crowchild redevelopment in that area may well disrupt construction in that area for a while
2) That's University owned land. Its unlikely that they'd just hand that over to the Flames organization without one very protracted land deal.
So the only real option for a project like this is the West Village which needed some jumpstart to redevelop anyway.
Based on the roadblocks they're throwing up for the Stadium, I'd be willing to bet that if the Next project doesn't go ahead it will be 2030 on an optimistic timeline before you see remediation even attempted
-
1
-
-
They won't, but they will pay property taxes that an arena will not generate. I think the problem the city is going to have, or say they will have, is what is the overall benefit to us to spend a huge amount of money on something that won't generate much revenue for the city? Most studies will show you that arenas have a very small net benefit, if they have a benefit at all, in terms of money back to a municipality, whereas if the city spent the 400-500 million just to clean up the land and get it ready for developers, it would generate more revenue back to them so overall I think it would be a net benefit to the city.
I wonder if part of the issue for the city is do they want such prime real estate going to a building that they won't see as much benefit from? From a stricly dollars and cents perspective, I don't think there is any debate that it is is far better interest for the city to use that land to sell to developers as opposed to build an arena.
Simple solution. Agree to let the Flame's build there and pay the cleanup costs.
But on the condition that there will now be a 5% tax on every ticket sold to every Flames/Stamps/Hitman/Professional game hosted there and on any concert hosted there.
College/highschool/community uses would be tax exempt.
The average price for a Flames ticket i 2013 (fastest i could find on google) was $262. A 5% tax would therefore be about 15 bucks a ticket.
$15 per ticket
x20,000 per game
X41 games per year
12.3 million from Flames tickets alone annually.
Just off the professional teams (Flames, Hitmen, Roughnecks, Stamps) you're looking at about 25 million per year in a ticket tax like that.
Then add in all the concerts that would be put on. Im pretty sure that would eclipse the property taxes for a similar amount of land used.
It also appears the City and any others involved are not interested in undertaking the cost to start the cleanup with or without the project.
Which is horribly short-sighted in an i-dont-want-to-risk-the-next-election kinda way.
6) Calgary Flames – Avg Price: $262.10 (up $25)
-
To quote the article:
"But the city report concludes the actual cost — including financing, related infrastructure and creosote clean-up of the contaminated land on the identified site — would be much higher."
That's not a cost of the arena though. That'a a cost of building ANYTHING on that land.
If you fill it with apartment blocks are the developers going to pay for that cleanup and infrastructure? Not a chance. If you want to put office tower there are the developers going to pay? Not a chance.
Why is this rolled into the cost of the arena?
Its a result's based argument. We don't want to fund it so we'll come up with whatever excuse we need to to say we can't.
Of course its cheaper to build the stadium where there's no creosote and no infrastructure adjustments. But it would be cheaper to build anything on other land when you roll in those costs.
Basically the city intends to sit on some white-elephant of that west side of downtown until they can hook some for-profit organization into paying for cleanup? Might as well get used to it looking like it does now for another 100 years before he city realizes that its going to have to pay for the creosote and infrastructure no matter what gets built there.
-
Ramo could be a fine backup, assuming full recovery. But, he was a starter and paid starter dollars. I am not in favor of paying over $3m for a backup.
Particularly when the Goalie Budget is about 5.5-6million next year on the optimistic side.
-
Wideman and Raymond's contracts would expire before we get to the expansion. its not going to happen this off season. I just don't see how that's possible.
Stajan is the one questionable guy who would be an issue therefore. It's also a factor that's going to make him harder to trade.
-
We need a RW yes, but I think you're getting too caught up on that RW needing to be as good as Iggy. Gaudreau is in that place. What really hurt the team was not finding a center for Iginla, not a LW.
What we really need is a goalie, a winger for Bennett and to shore up the bottom6.
I am more than okay with pairs than trios.
Look at the Canucks with Bertuzzi, Morrison and Naslund. They were a great line sure, but they lacked depth to go the distance.
We need to shore up all lines.
Oh I'm not saying that we specifically need someone at Iginla's level, just someone who's good at that position as a power forward.
Just pointing out the irony that powerforward RW and goaltender were our strengths for so long and are now the two holes we have. Go figure.
I really hate the thing about "pairs", it means that every line has a weak link with whoever the tack on player is. Doesn't mean we need to have guys signed to 8 year contracts to play together for time immemorium or something. Just some level of consistency and chemistry with that third player.
Obviously depth is as (or more) important than having any one perfect line, But if the option is between three trios and a grab bag, or four sets of pairs I take the three trios ever time because you know that the majority of the time you have a solid line out there for the role, rather than the constant risk of some weak link.
Personal opinion.
-
Reimer is someone who again I'd feel comfortable taking a risk on...if he was the only risk.
That;'s the problem. Any of Ortio, Reimer or or Raanta could well develop into starters. But the reason we're not in the playoffs this year is goaltending. an we risk missing the playoffs again by taking a risk on two guys if neither works out?
If both do fantastic, if one does we're fine. But if neither does? ouch.
Its frustrating. During the Iggy/Kipper years we had the best RW in the league, and one of the most game-stealing goalies.
What are the two things we need right now to have a team that could go deep into the playoffs?
-
Does anyone think Antti Raanta is ready to become a NHL starter?
26 years old, 64 GP over 3 seasons, 2.35 GAA, .914 SV%.
UFA coming off of a $800k contract.
Potentially? Maybe.
But those are Backup level games played.
That's taking a huge risk with Ortio being the other goaltender likely to be signed. Two inexperienced guys whose numbers aren't bad, but are hardly stellar either. Very very risky.
-
I'd say be happy with a 4th or 5th rounder
Done. Where do we sign?
-
The Jets.
With 2 years @ 3.125 just don't expect a worthwhile return.
At this point salary clearing is a worthwhile return.
Heck, an AHL level prospect or low pick I'd even be OK with. Makes space for Grant, Shore or Arnold to center Bouma and Hathaway ad we suddenly have a much more interesting 4th line.
-
Definitely no to offer-sheeting him. We need those picks more than we need to offer-sheet.
If they'd consider a trade of rights (say Andersen's for Colborne's) then I'm VERY interested.
Actually.....that's not a bad idea. Wonder if they'd take that deal....
-
This may sound like a bit of a stretch, but I think Dallas' playoff run this year could impact our goaltending situation next year. If they manage to get to the conference finals, we get their first draft pick. That pick would be a useful tool in prying a starter away from another team.
For the record, I'm not thrilled with any of the UFA/RFA goalies who'll be available this summer. (I'm semi-interested in Frederik Andersen and Calvin Pickard, but that's it)
Also for the record, Joni Ortio is the only goalie from last year's group that I would offer a contract to this year. I'd expect to pay him backup money and play him backup minutes.
Interesting thought. Might be useful for a goalie, but also should we not manage to move up in the draft, I would almost be more inclined to package it with our 1st to see if we could move into the top 3 to get that RW we need.
Andersen would be the most interesting for me of the ones I'm aware of. Not sure what his cost would be off the top of my head.
Agreed on Ortio in terms of contract. Though I wouldn't assume backup minutes. I would say split the time between him and whoever we bring in, see if Ortio is up to tandem or not.
-
I'm not sure Ortio has to do to empress you people. I suggest you being tunnel focused on the Flames and look around the league. Give the guy a chance for F sakes.
I've said several times in this very thread that I think, based on how he looked since his recent call-up, that Ortio has the potential to be good enough for a 1A/1B Tandem next year if he can maintain consistency, and may be able to challenge for a starter roll.
The problem is the word "MAY". He did well this season, no question. But can he do that over a full season where he's not getting a series of consecutive starts? We simply don't know. Definitely we give him the chance, but he's an unknown and therefore a risk sice we don't know what the result will be.
We can't have two unknowns in goal unless we want a repeat of this year.
-
If Ramo was healthy, I'd be uncomfortable, but willing to take a shot on him next year. He improved after a rough start and was consistently...average.
But with a major injury like that, even if he is playing, we don't know if he'll be able to play to that level. He's not going to get better, he may be the same, but he could be worse. Even if he is "healed". ACL injuries are hard to rehab. Some people can come back from them, many cant.
Ortio as backup is risky already. I don't want that risk on the starter.
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
Elliot for 2.5m...costing a 2nd and maybe a 3rd.
That's kinda a steal. Again. BT really knows how to work the trade market.
Also opens up about 3 mil of cap space we were expecting to invest in goal (as I think its more likely than not, say 60/40, that Ortio is backup next year).
Now we just need that RW.