Flyerfan52
-
Posts
13,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
138
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Flyerfan52
-
-
17 hours ago, jjgallow said:
So how do we get Roman Durney?
Offer him a PTO?
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, MAC331 said:
You have no appreciation for what is being worked on as an organization.
Please explain to the class what is being worked on by the organization. I'd love to hear that master plan.
What we saw as changes for both the short & long term somehow seems not to be working. People complained abou D Sutter trading draft picks but are giving BT a pass for that. Difference is as GM Sutter got his team to the payoffs every year.
-
Lack traded to NJ for defenseman Dalton Prout. Prout assigned to AHL.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, travel_dude said:
The cost of the stadium(s) aside, the location choice only checked a couple of boxes. The cleanup alone was enough to doom it. Nenshi will never agree to pay a cent to clean it up fir any sports facility. There's no votes available for taking on that monster, He'll wait until the Feds step in or until low-rent housing or luxury condos are built there that bring him votes.
It's pretty clear that Nenshi has a vision for "his" city. He wants developers to build things according to his plan. You build the new stadium adjacent to the Dome and we'll tell you what going to be in that area. His plan may never be built, though he won on the basis of it.
Nenshi reminds me of our mayor. Ours has a vision of rapid transit we can't afford during a time regular ridership is falling because service is so ineptly run (but fares keep going up). Meanwhile the cost of that rapid transit that few want/need rises as the feasibility studies show it to be a hair brained idea. Ours also figures re-opening Portage & Main (the windiest, coldest intersection in NA) to pedestrian traffic is a great idea even though there was an underground walkway built to faciltate closing it due to the highest death tolls occuring @ what is the junction of the 2 busiest streets in town. They all want a heritage but don't seem to realize that heritage isn't what will have you remembered in a good light.
As far as the cleanup isn't that supposed to be funded by all 3 levels of government? I know finally it all came together for the flooding of reserves in the north out here. In the meantime the residents lived in hotels in & around Wpg. which probably cost as much as rebuilding those towns,
Various departments will obviously fight over which pays what @ all levels (as if the money doesn't come out of the taxpayer's pocket regardless). Whether the cleanup is done for a sports facility or housing it still will need to be done. But politicians think short range as by the time a long range project starts to pay off odds are some other person will have been elected in their stead.
-
On 12/25/2017 at 3:24 PM, CheersMan said:
I’ve never been in any of the buildings or facilities you identified above. I believe the LA Lakers share a building with the Kings, but do any of the other buildings/facilities accommodate more that one sport? CalgaryNext could accommodate all the above sporting events plus some, with the exception on MLB. Do any of those buildings promote public training and activities for amateur sport? Is the covered BC Place to fancy for the Lions? CSEC says the cost is $890M, City says its $1.8B, one would think the cost is somewhere in the middle depending of what each side is including in their estimates.
Some can’t see the big picture so they want to start with just an arena and figure out how that’s going to be funded. Then they want to turn their attention to a stadium and figure out how that’s going to be funded. Then they want to turn their attention to a field house and figure out how that’s going to be funded. Then they want to turn their attention to the contaminated land and figure out how that’s going to be funded. What are all these added up going to cost and where is the savings?
I see the rational for digging one hole, one foundation, one roof, shared walls, one parking lot. One can only imagine the supporting staff required to manage all the separate sporting facilities but with CalgaryNext the supporting staff (parking attendants, ushers, cooks, servers, cleaners, concessions, restaurant’s, security, police, mechanical, electrical, etc.) would be under one roof serving the entire facility.
I’m not sure if the stadium portion could accommodate a concert, but with 30,000 seats and thousands of possible temporary floor standing/seats, could we see some of the largest concerts imaginable? Garth would only have had to do one or two shows, not 8.
I'm not sure how the funding would have to work for Calgary so I guess there would be a lot of horse trading needed but in the last 2 Jets game I saw how the ice suffers when a NBA team (the main tenant in most American barns) suffers. In Boston & @ Barklay there had been NBA the day before & the ice made the ponds I played on look better. In most barns in Canada the ice only comes out for concerts but those aren't as hard to adjust for as basketball.
Wpg. had an owner that built with some government help (mostly getting extra lottery machines & a bigger cut of the pie from those voluntary taxes) while a different set of owners of the Bombers got a sweetheat deal but ended up with inferior construction & those dreaded cost over-runs.
The problem might be that Calgary is trying to tie their entire sports scene into 1 package. Jets/Moose sharing an arena & practice facility works while the separate entity of the CFL team is miles away. There also aren't a CHL team nor others like the Roughnecks throwing a spanner in to cause the need for a building that needs that many uses. Maybe shedding the non-hockey parts to others might help so the Stamps, Hitmen & Roughnecks could play out of more suitable locations. WHL doesn't need a NHL arena with 2/3s closed off while football nor lacross are played on ice.
The new arena should be the main concern as the NHL is the main game in Canada. 2nd comes the CFL but it draws well even outdoors as the fans like to brag about braving the elements. WHL can make money in any decent local arena. Not sure how many fans the lacross attracts but probably not a need for 20+ thousand seats.
Concentrate on the 1 part that makes money. Lets the new owners of the rest of those teams sort out deals that help keep the more minor parts solvent.
-
2 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:
Province has little to do with a civic arena being built. They don't contribute very much and have already said they wont here.
Edmonton funding came from other areas .
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/how-the-edmonton-arena-deal-was-done
Didn't those costs rise from 485 to 604. 5 with Katz only adding 15?
Easy to hide #s for all levels of government. We'll get it back via taxes on the area or a surtax on tickets. What was the cost of infrastucture to get people there?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, ABC923 said:
Assuming Seattle gets an expansion, I would say the threat of moving the flames has diminished a lot in the near term. Quebec is not a great option for a western conference team, so I wouldn't worry much about them from a flames perspective. Houston maybe, but I'm not sure what their current arena situation is like.
Houston would be a best case scenario should the NHL finally decide to end the farce of a team in Arizona. Market size similar & Houston has a history of supporting pro hockey including the Aeros of the old WHA. There is also the built in cross state rivalry with Dallas. The Houston time zone meshes nicely with the Central division.
Add an expansion team in Seattle to balance divisions (with the owners pocketing the $650 million) & they might have got something right for a change.
QC is most likely to be used as a fall back plan for if/when an eastern franchise has to be moved (like Wpg. was). With the cap & revenue sharing a more or less fool proof albeit small market that will fill the joint for fear of losing another team. A smaller market but 1/2 a million interested customers > 5 million potential 1s where only 10 thousand have any interest.
-
12 hours ago, jjgallow said:
So ....I just want to know one thing...did you post this praise of our D before, or after, you found out your team won it's first game ever by beating the Flames a million to nothing? (or something like that).... Your timing could not have been better
Look @ the time stamp.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
Well if anything, I was really trying to talk about the Hamonic trade, and our situation on defense. I believe I made a remark somewhere about goaltending and it's sort of had some people gravitate to it. All I was aluding to really was the age of our core (especially D and G) and how we're not in a position to be handing over draft picks. In terms of defense, I don't know that our prospect development is that bad....but certainly if we don't draft any prospects to develop down the road, that's a problem.
Gillies....far from giving up on him. He still has a starter NHL goalie ceiling, but I'm not sure I would project him as a future starter at this point, if that makes any sense. Have not Yet seen the improvement we need to for that. But, another thread.
Yes we can.
Other than Gio our core D ranges from 24-27 which is usually prime for defensemen as D does take longer to translate from junior or Euro leagues.
In goal we are indeed betting the farm on 35 year old Smith as the Flames really do seem to have a blind spot as far as developing goalies. The last top ender we had was Kipper who we had to trade for. But as long as I can remember goalies when they finally become greats have a tendancy to play to higher ages. From Sawchuk to the current Lindqvist & Luongo the best seem to last a while. Patrick Roy & Marty Brodeur are 2 more that were good well into their 40s. It would be nice to have 1 developed in house for a change. Goalies are a different breed to start but it's funny how even where they were developed as youths goes in cycles. For a while it was PQ, the Finland & recently the US seems to have 1 heck of a system based on what we see in the WJC.
Up front the core is still young with Monahan, Gaudreau & Tkackuk.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
So, my version of a solution to this example would be to acquire Lindgren (the younger of these goalies). The price would be similar and so would the performance. Plus, you know...future.
So we could debate that.
But I'll just be honest, cause you already know, I'm a touch more extreme than that too. While Lindren would be a better long term acquisition in terms of age, he's not impressed me enough either. I think, while he's good, similar (in terms of age and promise) could be had for free (worth consideration). And to provide an example, pretty sure we could acquire this guy almost anytime if we wanted (open to correction, but he's not alone): http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=105929
or...http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=101860 or... http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=73457
or http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=91267 (not free but likely cheap)
So,
I think the goaltender position is important, and I think we want the very Best, most promising prospects available, and I think we should acquire them and if need be, pay for them. I'm not opposed to any of the above, as long as they're free or cheap. But the Christmas wish list would be the likes of:
Eric Comrie, Thatcher Demko, Juuse Saros, Max Domi, Ville Husso
OR... OR...
We could just drop all that nonsense for my current favorite: the Finnish Veini Vehlivainen http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=176290
Veini Vehlivainen: NO NHL CONTRACT, NOT NHL DRAFTED
- Currently the Best goalie in Finland, of any age or rank.
- 20 Years old with a .939 Save Percentage in SM Liiga, 6'0
*What does this mean?
*Kipper achieved a similar .936 in the same league, but Two years later (at 22 years of age)
*Juuse Sarros, at a similar age, achieved .929 in the same league. Not as good but still almost unheard of.
*Ville Husso, a top Blues prospect, achieved .927 (not quite as good) at 20 as well
*Joni Ortio had a .908 at the same age in that league, and I was excited.
*No Other Modern Finnish comparables that I can find, positive or negative, due to how exceptional this is.
- Arguably the Best goalie in the World Juniors last year.
So I'm not really familiar with the lying, cheating, and stealing contractually required to obtain someone like this. But there's gotta be a way.
I hope Santa brings you your wish.
-
1
-
On 11/24/2017 at 0:30 PM, The_People1 said:
Maybe a buyout? Lack is needless in Stockton. We'd all rather Gillies and Parsons get all the starts.
The buy out chance is only in June. Best the Flames can do is save 0.35 on the cap by putting him in the minors.
It doesn't matter if he's in the NHL, AHL or ECHL he still costs the same in real $s. So unless we can trade him (stand alone or throw in) he's ours until the contract expires this year.
-
Just an idea that popped into my head.
In Montreal Lindgren has been the best of the 4 used. Price is close to a return so they will run those 2 for as long as possible. My ? is what happens when Montoya is cleared to play. Lindgren is waiver exempt but a win hungry team isn't going to send down the only goalie performing.
I still see Montoya as the ideal backup so should that situation arise I certainly hope BT looks @ the cost to acquire.
-
7 minutes ago, ABC923 said:
I find it frustrating that there is so much noise about the team moving, but it seems more and more likely to happen. Seattle has just announce a $600 million renovation of their current arena, so they will be a viable location soon enough. The most frustrating aspect to me is the league almost seems keen to move the flames, a profitable franchise, rather than move a money losing venture like Pheonix, Carolina, etc. There are at least a half dozen teams from a purely economic standpoint that make more sense to move than the Flames, maybe more, but it's us that seems to be on the chopping block. Again, the flames are profitable - the only reason for a new arena is to make them more profitable and to generate spin off benefits for the owners (flames owners are rumoured to have wanted to get into development of condos etc. around the new building).
From my perspective, there are a couple reasons for this. #1, I know it's conspiratorial, but I don't think Bettman cares much for Canada as a whole. I think he carries a grudge against Nenshi, and is petty enough to push to harm him regardless of what's best for the league.
#2, and this is more likely. I think the nhl is keen to make an example of us. Extortion only works if people believe your threats. We at least appear to be calling their bluff at this point, so what better opportunity to show the other 30 cities with nhl franchises that they better cough up the dough for new buildings when asked or else.
Bolded #1, it was almost Arizona that went home to Winnipeg until city council out there caved. So as a consolation the NHL gave up on Atlanta for the 2nd time & TN paid much less than they would have for an expansion team. It looks like if QC gets another team it'll be a similar sweetheart deal moving a money loser because they (ownership) are playing nice.
Bolded #2, The Gnome is saving expansion for US sites that can pony up the $s. He's an (.) but not stupid & knows that Canadian sites will make money even if playing on a frozen river. Butthead saw how Katz manipulated the levels of government & figures it can be done in Calgary or Ottawa. If not, he's just trying to help 2 of the 31 clubs that pay his wages. Until the controversy he'd probably never heard of Nenschi.
The Gnome works for the owners. A move takes a majority vote & they won't vote to move a team that makes money as it adds to the pile they pay into equalization. Owners tend to vote with their wallets.
-
1 hour ago, zima said:
Funny I was listening to sportsnet and im not sure his name but he feels Houston will not see a team for a few yrs and he be leaves that the Coyotes or another team in as much trouble will go before CGY the guy thinks CGY will never move because the team is to good as far as stability goes.
It's Houston (named after Sam Houston). I'll let the other errors go but I have a good deal of admiration for old Sam.
But Arizona (as usual), Carolina & Florida are the 3 most likely to move. Add Colorado as a dark horse.
Calgary (& Ottawa) still make money for the league despite the Gnome pointing out both need a new arena while those I mention survive on league welfare.
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
Conditional or not, we'll lose that 3rd. Moreso, that it seems to be a 2nd or 3rd every year. And that is the issue imho with the rent-a-goalies. Were Smith the only way to achieve wins, then ok. But, not the case at all. I see it as lack of foresight, lack of planning, and laziness. We could have acquired an actual long term solution and gotten similar results.
If Smith leads us deep into the playoffs, my apologies. But that aside (and very unlikely), we had better options to achieve the same success this year.
I'll bite.
Who was this actual long term solution & what was the cost?
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, travel_dude said:
I think we are agreeing, but let's fight about it anyway.
We brought in Lack because BT wasn't sure that Rittich or Gillies could do the job as a NHL backup. He went out and got Lack for that, rightly or wrongly. The only way it makes sense to keep Lack is if he can win games. They didn't bring him here to lose. I haven't seen a goalie that is poised to win a bunch of relief games, it looks like a guy that has lost him positioning and confidence.
Sending him to the minors is the only fair thing to do if there is nobody interested in him (Hello Vegas).
Give him 50% of the games down there if possible to get him back in game shape. If he falters down there, then you know Parsons gets the call to the AHL.
More fun to disagree.
BT thought he hit the jackpot with Smith so went to the bargain basement for a backup. The 1st part worked out but part 2 didn't.
Time to eat crow & dump Lack even if as far as the ECHL so we can develop goalies with more future in the organization.
-
3 hours ago, jjgallow said:
True, lots of other teams never ever win the Stanley Cup. As we've gone through many times on here, there is clear favoritism towards contenders who don't overplay their top goalie, or somehow manage to have a relatively fresh goalie in the playoffs. They simply have better odds of winning the big one. Not 100% true, but a very clear indisputable correlation.
I would argue that a lack of that thinking is why we're always on the verge of doing lousy.
If the goal is the Stanley Cup, and we are more likely to win the cup some Other year in the next 10 years than this particular year, we just reduced our odds.
So, assuming all years equal, 10% of the next decade's opportunity to win the cup is this year. (Except we know we're not a contender yet. So it's really more like 3-5%)
The other 90% (or more) of our opportunity to win the cup is compromised by our short term "need", acquiring a goalie who is extremely unlikely to have a significant impact past this year.
Now, if your goal is just to "win now", then maybe it looks like a good trade. But, if you have any intentions of "winning now" next year, and the year after, and the next 10 years....again.... we reduced our overall odds over the next decade with that trade.
the only arguement is that "we had no choice". I disagree there too. I think there were equally acceptable ways of succeeding this year that didn't involve sacrificing our future.
I want long term solutions, not quick fixes.
A couple of players that didn't fit & a conditional 3rd reduce our odds of being good down the road? Do you really believe that putting the players seen as core in a losing situation is better than getting @ least close to the prize?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
Good assessment of the trade. I wasn't a fan of the player, but whatever. His play this season is all I am really caring about, and the fact he can't string together good periods as a backup. IT's not an easy role, because you get into games on B2B's and relief after the other guy gets the hook. There are guys that can handle it though. Lack does not appear to be that guy.
The choices that best come to mind are pick your backup from the farm and use him, or go and get a guy like Hutch that has shown he's quite good at times. Rittich probably makes the most sense from the farm because he's not the Flames #1 goalie prospect in the AHL. He's also used to sitting out 2-3 in a row. And he's a older guy that has pro experience beyond the AHL. Get him in every 5 games or so. If he doesn't pan out, then go to Gillies and do the same thing. It's either that or go buy a goalie.
You might remember my take on goalies to acquire in a unique year but ce la vie.
BT rolled the dice & Smith looks like a win while Lack looks like a loss. On the whole still better than the combo he started last year.
Unless we trade for a backup I figure we should run the guys in the system with the most pro experience to see if 1 is finally ready. Rittch is 25 & RFA next year. Time for him to show he can hold his own in the bigs even if only a backup. If not try Gillies & so on to see who copes. We can't coddle players forever due to fear that they become good/great on a new team.
We have 5 goalie prospects in the minors & since our highest selections in the next 2 years are a 3rd next year & 2 4ths each of the following odds are good we'll add to the pool as that's where teams usually resort to goalie depth. How many should we have just in case 1 becomes a great?
-
1
-
-
I've seen posts saying we made a mistake in trading for Lack. We paid almost nothing taking a chance Lack could become what he was in the minors & bigs with Vancouver. A low risk bet.
We traded Keegan Kanzig (playing in the EHCL) & a 6th rounder in 2019 for Lack (@ 1/2 price), Ryan Murphy (who we promptly bought out) & a 7th in 2019.
Our cost is the 0.1 & 0.137 we pay Murphy plus the 1.375 we'll pay Lack this year. A gamble but we risked 1.5 over 2 years on the chance Lack would be a decent backup. We lost but considering the possible gain for a small bet it was 1 worth taking. Waive Lack & if we'll lucky he's claimed. If not we (& Carolina) pay an ECHL goalie to be the highest paid on his team.
IMO the solution is either trying another low cost backup (I mentioned Hutch) or call up a prospect already in the system. I've seen mention of having Gilles & Rittch take turns as backup so both stay playing in the AHL when Smith is back which sounds good in theory but doesn't take into account that it leaves both unsure every day on where the heck they are in the system. Imagine prepping for a game for the Heat prepared to backup when suddenly you're the starter while the assumed starter finds himself holding a clipboard after getting in game mode, travelling & watching. That's far from developing either. (If that's the plan the 2 should share an apartment as neither has a clue how many days they get NHL $s.)
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, jjgallow said:
ok, you have a point there....
Err....I am not sure if you're encouraging or discouraging justifying your own opinion with one game lol.
So Lack: Never liked the trade. But I don't blame him for this considering he came in cold. Yes, I'm capitalizing on last night's game to express my opinion. But I've felt for quite a while now like we need to acquire a young potential franchise goalie because I've pretty much given up on us ever drafting and developing one. And the rent-a-goalie system we have is just an aweful mistake...always has been.
Lack never made sense here. But what happened last night was the result of the Flames continually putting all their eggs in a 35 year old basket, over-playing Smith, and letting Lack go cold. Lack, with a few more games under his belt, would not have looked like that.
We have mutiple problems here, of poor veteran acquisitions, poor drafting, poor development, and over-playing rent-a-goalies.
All of that can be solved for the next decade by acquiring one NHL ready franchise calibre goalie.
Thus the Thatcher Demko example proposal. Not because of last night's game. But because we've seen last night's game too many times here since Kipper left. Including in last year's very short playoff series.
Normally you claim every minor league goalie in the Flames system (do the names Ramo or Ortio ring a bell) was exactly that young potential franchise goalie.
-
Watching Raanta against the Jets twice I'm glad we didn't trade for him.
He'd probably look different behind the Calgary D but remember my choice for starter was Mason who isn't looking good for the Jets as Hellebuyck suddenly plays like a star.
I think Carty will agree goalies are strange.
-
5 minutes ago, lou44291 said:
Hey FF, ya, I was being facetious. Though I like Schlemko, I know there's no way Bart gets it done and I'm aware of the lack of picks we have as well. Even if we had the picks, I wouldn't be sweetening the pot for the 6D position with any of them.
My Brouwer comment was equally facetious but I hit the wrong emoji - meant for it to be a wink!
I do agree with you that Montreal would have interest in Backlund, and I'm glad you're on the don't trade Backlund bus now!
No worries. I thought you were just funning.
On a serious note if Backs refuses to sign for under market (if I were his agent I'd push that he seems to be more valuable than Monny or Gaudreau) can you imagine a place that needs him more than Montreal? I wonder what ransom we could get filling their main need.
I really don't want to trade him but am afraid we/management are hitching our star to that imaginary tomorrow where we compete now but end up losing midstream as we wait on all the future to grow up.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, lou44291 said:
I'm with you TD. I heard Schlemko has a broken hand now, and Montreal is reeling... think they'd take a healthy Bart for Schlemko (broken hand and all?)
I doubt it, but I still like Schlemko and think he's be a decent fit as 6D with Stone.
Think Montreal would take Brouwer?
No & no.
We don't even have picks to offer as sweeteners.
The only feasible trade I see with the Habs is 1 I don't want to do as it involves Backlund. A year ago I was for trading him but now I'd trade any other center before him.
We have centers (or wannabe centers) that might make Backs disposable in the future but if I were the GM of a team that needs to win in the now I want Backlund rather than wait for a possibly more talented 1 to mature. If Montreal you want it while Price is still usually elite (& Habs fans are alreadt burning MB in effigy) so I pay for a center. Eyes are still on Tavares but if that ever happens it's too late.
We could maybe get Schemko, picks & possibly even dump a shorter contract than Brouwer if we throw in Bart to give them a warm body on the blueline.
-
3 hours ago, The_People1 said:
I don't get all this Bartkowski hate. He's a decent Defensive D. Biggest weakness is bad first pass out the zone but that's what you expect from a 3rd pair D. When it comes to actual Defense and blocking the cycle, position in front of the net, tying up sticks, stuff like that, Bartkowski is good.
Decent. AKA not very good but will do when you lack better.
I guess with 5 that are better we can afford his limited minutes for now. I dread 1 of the top 4 going down with him trying to fill big skates.
-
1
-
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
That was a very odd trade with so many conditions attached. That 4th could rise to a 2nd.
There was also a conditional 3rd based on the Flyers re-signing Mrazek.
I wouldn't be surprised to see conditions like that attached by teams trading for other rentals soon. If the player produces the return goes up.