travel_dude

How was he coming in the odd game from December onward? 5 wins 7 losses? I don't know that Gillies or Rittich would be any better than that in their 1st year, but you would hope for at least 500 hockey from a backup. Most here were all over Elliott for coming up short, but CJ should get a pass for his November?

He's coming off a bad year, so he isn't worth $3m as it stands. Forget what he made already. Just because Russell gets 4x4, doesn't mean he's worth that. It makes more sense to him to build back his reputation on a shorter deal. He can get the bigger payday then. 2x2 is easy to move to a team needing a top 4, if we don't need him for depth or he can wait till it expires and there is older guys out there. I get he has family connection in CGY, but if he is looking for $3-4m, he should wait till July 1st. Somebody will give it to him.

A deal in excess of $2m for a 3rd pairing guy is a big cap mistake. Yes, you have the proper depth, but a deal like that puts us in cap hell before it's done. Consider Backlund's next contract. Consider a possible low-dollar 2 year deal for Bennett and re-signing him if he knocks it out of the park. Consider Tkachuk's next contract. We had $3m for three years of Engelland, and that was meant to be depth playing on the 3rd pair. The deal was the biggest problem with that situation. Over the cap last season, and we only got a reprieve by having Smid on the IR the entire season. If BT can swing a 2-year deal at $2m, it makes more sense. Doesn't impact the cap as much for as long. Gives us the added depth. Saying that, I would prefer to somehow have two prospects on the roster. Andersson has more interest to me, but playing him on the wrong side may not be the best. Rotate the three (Stone, Andersson, Kulak) into the 3rd pair somehow?

So are you prepared to give up the 5th rounder in 2018 to sign Stone for depth? If not, then Franson or other may be a better bet in FA. At least all you are paying is money. Stone as a #5 is fine, except for that extra pick. Any other year a 5th wouldn't be a big deal, but at some point we have to either recoup some of stop dealing them.

It's a reasonable assumption that we could lose both Dougie and Hamonic. On the other hand, how many defensive core players walk away like that.

That would be the most sensible from a cap and development perspective. Also need to show the farm hands that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Some love Russell for his shot blocking and warrior ethic, like many did here. That's fine. He made them better than they were in a lottery spot. They have Sekera and Larsson, basically a 2nd pairing guy now and a potential 1st pairing guy in Larsson. They have Klefbom, who is a good player. Not sure if would call him a top 2. He has a wicked shot. They have Nurse and Benning, who have potential but can make bonehead plays most nights. SO, I would say they have a decent set of players. Not all-star. Enough to go deep in the playoffs? Nope. No depth at all. Russell without Sekera is just a good 3rd pairing guy that can block shots.

Sorry, but a nut shot is dirtier than anything that Kesler does. Most of the time....

There's a thread all about him. Lots of discussion.

Some numbers to compare Hamonic to Demers:

Sure, but that was ages ago. Point out a few examples of how Engelland curtailed this. Seems to me that teams were more watchful of Ferland than Engelland. But people remember him grabbing two Canucks and seem to think he was the ultimate warrior. I will miss him for his PK and team spirit more than his "protecting" people on the team. Big Ern was the last player we had that was a nuclear threat.

I think Bennett fought more than Engelland did. Between him, Tkachuk, Ferland, Gio and Johnny Goon (JK), we have people that will step up to anyone, whether through being nasty or starting up stuff. No pure fighter other than maybe Bouma. But I doubt you see much of Bouma anyway. If we need toughness on the ice, then get a #4D that provides that while being a top 4 D-man. I don't see teams like EDM or ANA beating us with their team toughness. Their speed is a big reason they beat us. That and having sub-standard d-men or goalies on the ice.

It's too bad that you constantly resort to insults. What do you know about me - nothing. If you are a professional hockey coach, then fine, you must know what you are talking about. But anyone can coach; it's a learned skill. Lots of sub-par players become them. Lots of people shouldn't be coaching (ask Theo Fleury). Some people have that personality that makes them a natural. There are good ones and bad ones. I'm sure you will want to get the last word in on the topic, so have at 'er.

The goalie coach is going to work with whatever one is performing sub par. It's more than just preach and remind. It's recognizing the areas of the game that need work. It's spending time with them in the video room. It's working with them on their confidence. Anybody can coach. Some have the insight and skill to bring out the best in any player. What I am suggesting is that given the results, regardless of who they have had, it's time to make that change. If we bring in Rittich or Gillies to backup Smith, or get a near-ready starter to backup, then we need someone that can achieve better results.

It's nice to hear something positive from the players. I think they have big expextations, and may be suffering from a big let down at the end of the season and hope that Smith is a guy that can come in and win games on his own.

On August 3, 2011 Sigalet was hired as a goaltending coach for the Abbotsford Heat of the American Hockey League. On August 19, 2014, the Calgary Flames of the National Hockey League announced Sigalet as their new goalie coach. His body of work in the Flames organization is all I am looking at. His impact on games was not just coaching the goalies but also weighing in on who the starter was going to be. If you are a big fan of him, I'm not going to argue with you. I just think his results here justify him being kept on. I can see them not switching all the coaching staff at the same time, but Gully will probably have some say in whether he gets to stay past this year.

Yeah, I don't think that's fair. I don't think he has done a great job, but I think the Flames have kept him around because they are a moral team. They value hard work and personal connections over results.

Seems like both goalies struggled early on, so it sounds like they didn't figure out the plays before the season started. The defense struggled as much as the goalies. I won't single out Sigalet but will say that the coaching left a lot to be desired in the early season. The new system wasn't easy to switch to, and the use of useless defensemen didn't help. There was a natural learning curve. Now onto Sigalet. Regardless of how the team was playing in front of the goalies, I think a lot of fault rests with him. There had been very little success with NHL goalies or prospects that have played here. Time to move on. RE: Bolded - I can understand the enthusiasm of getting a new goalie. Perhaps it would make sense to see if he plays well in camp before you go projecting these great qualities on him. Does he have a great attitude? I'm sure he is excited to go from a basement team to a potential playoff team.

The only way we should logically use the #16 overall to get a goalie, is if it just means trading down a few spots + a prospect we are not high on. Vegas is going to have picks close to us, possibly NYR, SJS. It would also have to be a situation where the guys wanted are already picked and the next one available will slip down the board. To Vegas #16 Shinkaruk Mason MacDonald To Calgary Grubauer or Raanta #21

If you are sure about that, then let's hope part 2 is better than part 1. This ranks up there with trading a 3rd for Bollig, signing Brouwer long term, and extending Bouma.

I know injuries can impact any player, but keep in mind that an "athletic" goalie at age 35 has risk. What do we have as the fall back plan? Gillies and Rittich or is one of those the backup this year in the NHL. Not going to get bent out of shape about the trade, but this is a very short term fix, if it in fact fixes anything. If one of the current prospects isn't ready next year as a backup, then we are hooped. If BT makes another smart trade or UFA signing, then it's not so bad.

Very few goalie are waiver exempt. Vegas may not choose more than one if they are available. The teams that lost goalies aren't going to turn around and trade with Vegas for a goalie. They could have done that initially. Nobody is going to trade for Mrazek to be a backup. They are also not going to break the bank if they have internal options. Worse case they sign a guy like Elliott or Mason. The big loser is the team that gets stuck with more than 3 waiver eligible goalies come October.

Vegas can draft all the goalies they want, minimum 3. Think the max they could get would be another 4. What the heck do they do with them? That many and the trade market is watered down. Can realistically only keep 2 on the roster. Let's say they ended up with MAF, Mrazek, Grubauer, Raanta, Domingue, Coreau. I'm not even counting the lesser names that are good prospects. Who is going to pay a high asking price? WPG? PHI? Flames?

There were some rumblings about his work ethic and maturity. He was given the keys and left a few dents. He makes sense to draft, but what do you do with him if you are Vegas? Backup to MAF? Forget MAF and go with him? Trade him to a team needing a starter? There's not many teams that need one now.

What was the asking price for MAF? I didn't even think he was on the trade market. They opted to expose him instead of losing key pieces of their future. Non starter if you ask me. Last year was an option year for the Pengies so they could keep him or trade him; they needed incentive. Who knows what other options would cost. Teams will probably lose the player they wanted the most and the goalie that could have brought back assets will still be there. If Vegas picks Grubauer and Raanta, what are they going to do with them? Gru is a RFA. Raanta wants to be a starter. Neither will get what they want in Vegas and teams may not want to pay a big amount for either. especially a RFA. Unless they want one as a starter. BT blinked first. Not the worst decision to make, but not one that had to be done prior to the deadline. Smith was not going to be protected. And he wasn't going to be picked by Vegas. Trade could have been made in the summer. The only reason to trade before the deadline was for a player that would be scooped. May not have got anyone from Vegas, but maybe Raanta will still be a Ranger. Maybe they would like to get something for him after not losing him to Vegas. A conditional 2nd and Hickey is nothing to sneeze at. He was an expendable (to us) trade asset. SO, he was offered a 2-way NHL contract that pays him $70k or so versus completing a degree and having something to fall back on should he fail to make the NHL. Purely selfish. He probably wants to play for the Rangers, like every Alberta born kid. The high risk is players that have no morals, like Schultz or Vesey, that string along a team. He didn't come out and say he wasn't going to sign ever. Maybe he's a douche and would have done that, but that's more rare than not.