JTech780 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 Just now, cberg said: Simple question: Where can I find the full list of players under control, including draft picks? CapFriendly only includes signed players, and NHL.com only NHL roster players...? On capfriendly, if you go to a teams page, look for a link that says Reserve List. This will show all the players that the team has rights too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 4 Author Report Share Posted March 4 2 minutes ago, JTech780 said: Apparently is was Edmonton offering a 1st for Tanev, but Calgary would’ve had to take a roster player. I thought I had read that it was a player with term as well that they had to take to get a 1st. I think Conroy was smart to take the Dallas deal. I thought it was also mentioned that RJ was offered with a first from Colorado. That player hasn't aged well in COL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, phoenix66 said: No but Daryl once made the most brutally honest statement .. if you want to be a contender.. first you must be a perennial playoff team .. then you take the next step.. you don't just add players and say "ok time to win now".. that starts now .. playoffs are always the goal .. until they're just expected .. the only difference is that starts in the room.. you dont add players just to make the playoffs .. you add when you want that next level Daryl was an elite coach and a terrible, terrible GM lol. He says that, but his record here is the opposite. Adding to get to that next level never got him anywhere, and....the greatest success he had here was sudden without any previous perennial playoff success. I would be hesitant to accept quotes from him on long term team strategy. To your point though, I agree. Makes zero sense to add aging and overpriced vets right now. It's time to build for the future. It should Always be that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, phoenix66 said: No but Daryl once made the most brutally honest statement .. if you want to be a contender.. first you must be a perennial playoff team .. then you take the next step.. you don't just add players and say "ok time to win now".. that starts now .. playoffs are always the goal .. until they're just expected .. the only difference is that starts in the room.. you dont add players just to make the playoffs .. you add when you want that next level From what we can observe of other teams that have won Cups, timing is essential. You basically want all your young core players to peak at the same time. When the time is right, then add the veteran peripheral pieces. But yes, it's a process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 4 Author Report Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, jjgallow said: Daryl was an elite coach and a terrible, terrible GM lol. He says that, but his record here is the opposite. Adding to get to that next level never got him anywhere, and....the greatest success he had here was sudden without any previous perennial playoff success. I would be hesitant to accept quotes from him on long term team strategy. To your point though, I agree. Makes zero sense to add aging and overpriced vets right now. It's time to build for the future. It should Always be that time. Oh my Gord, are we starting to agree again? Dogs and Cats living together. Fire and Brimstone. Mass hysteria. I know you prefer to trade players when they have a standout season. Well that was 2 seasons ago when we had JH and MT. Is it really 3 already? So, now is the next best time. A chance to add some young players and get a 1st or 2. Our 4 oldest F and our oldest D are not going anywhere. Only one of them is not performing to his contract. But, he also is on a line with a guy known more for being a RW'er. And Hunt for now. The water is poisoned with Marky, so get him out. Hanifin is not signing. Kylington may have future value but is still too fresh this year to have value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 2 hours ago, cberg said: Many seem to believe that "tanking" for a high pick is somehow leading to a "losing" culture in the locker room. I guess having a "winning" non-tanking culture for 35 years (Flames), 25 years (Winnipeg) or 54 years (Vancouver) is deemed as success and is proof that non-tanking works? Frankly, whether tanking/rebuilding or not, it is extremely hard to win the Stanley Cup, likely the most difficult trophy in major sports today. How many examples of key injuries, a bit of "luck", bad officiating at a critical moment or the "hockey gods/bad bounce" have changed the course of a series? The Flames are not winning anything with their current team, so let's refill the cupboards now, while keeping remaining players accountable and professional... The problem is..... Look at Buffalo. How has that tanking been doing for them? Look at Flames and tell me how well we did with selling off Iggy and JBow? and who did we end up with "that plays" from those two trades and the picks? The people who own the team don't want tanking. They want competitive team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 23 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: The problem is..... Look at Buffalo. How has that tanking been doing for them? Look at Flames and tell me how well we did with selling off Iggy and JBow? and who did we end up with "that plays" from those two trades and the picks? The people who own the team don't want tanking. They want competitive team. We aren't buffalo, we aren't Toronto, maybe closer to Toronto in the way we do things... We aren't any other team but the Calgary Flames. We will do it differently. Regardless of where we are right now, we are getting a pick that is 12-15 (again). So we keep drafting there. If our draft is gonna be bad, it's gonna be bad and if it's good, it will be good. Basically, no matter where we draft, we need to have scouts ready in every draft year. If we get a higher pick on a year that sucks, we still get to pick from the best of the best at that time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 41 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: The problem is..... Look at Buffalo. How has that tanking been doing for them? Look at Flames and tell me how well we did with selling off Iggy and JBow? and who did we end up with "that plays" from those two trades and the picks? The people who own the team don't want tanking. They want competitive team. No one, but I don't think this makes the point you think it makes. I look at that and say let's learn from our mistakes. I think the Flames could have turned Iginla into a core player. Never been confirmed but there were a ton of rumors that LA was prepared to give the Flames Brayden Schenn. They said no, because you know we have to be competitive, and only dealt Iginla when he basically told them to. Here we have the same situation with Markstrom, and to a lesser degree Hanifin/Tanev. A chance to get a better return but many here, and potentially the Flames, don't want to move him because again we have to stay "competitive". But what is competitive? Great we kept Iginla and we didn't tank but they also never made the playoffs so what do we have to show for our competitiveness? Is a first round playoff birth worth the talent we are giving up on? This franchise needs to learn from it's previous mistakes and so far, doesn't look like they are 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 44 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: The problem is..... Look at Buffalo. How has that tanking been doing for them? Look at Flames and tell me how well we did with selling off Iggy and JBow? and who did we end up with "that plays" from those two trades and the picks? The people who own the team don't want tanking. They want competitive team. Deeds, that just too short sighted and aiming too low. Just merely "competitive", I mean, 50% of the league makes the playoffs every year. If that's all we want then that's too sad. I hope we aim for the Cup or bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, JTech780 said: Apparently is was Edmonton offering a 1st for Tanev, but Calgary would’ve had to take a roster player. I thought I had read that it was a player with term as well that they had to take to get a 1st. I think Conroy was smart to take the Dallas deal. That would point to Ceci IMO. I've heard he's out there. I agree that the Dallas trade is better than Ceci and a 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberg Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 2 hours ago, JTech780 said: On capfriendly, if you go to a teams page, look for a link that says Reserve List. This will show all the players that the team has rights too. Ok, thanks. I must have missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said: The problem is..... Look at Buffalo. How has that tanking been doing for them? Look at Flames and tell me how well we did with selling off Iggy and JBow? and who did we end up with "that plays" from those two trades and the picks? The people who own the team don't want tanking. They want competitive team. More trades work out like the Iggy and Jbow, its the reality of the situation, I'm not of the boat of trading guys and expecting to get a future core out of our returns because its highly unlikely, but I'm passed the point of thinking there is anything to build off of here. I'm not of the belief we are picking high this season, nor that the future of this franchise depends on trading Markstrom this week. Its funny mentioning Iggy and Jbo trades, because the worst thing about those trades may be that the team finished the season 5-5 on the backs of a strong game from Mark Cundari, and Sven Baertschi playing the best stretch as a Flame and, the team doing what everyone always asks for them to do and play the kids, they wound up 3 points ahead of Colorado who won the lottery, so essentially take away 2 wins from that team and they potentially have a #1C today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberg Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said: The problem is..... Look at Buffalo. How has that tanking been doing for them? Look at Flames and tell me how well we did with selling off Iggy and JBow? and who did we end up with "that plays" from those two trades and the picks? The people who own the team don't want tanking. They want competitive team. I agree with Buffalo, also Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Columbus, Arizona and so many others. They got the benefit of obtaining and watching great talent, but no championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberg Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, The_People1 said: Deeds, that just too short sighted and aiming too low. Just merely "competitive", I mean, 50% of the league makes the playoffs every year. If that's all we want then that's too sad. I hope we aim for the Cup or bust. Agree, 50% in playoffs is pathetic, and the Bettman loser points forces mediocrity even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 2 minutes ago, cberg said: Agree, 50% in playoffs is pathetic, and the Bettman loser points forces mediocrity even further. I miss ties. Just don't bother with OT. If regulation ends in a tie, it's done. A team that needs wins would play for the extra point before regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberg Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 9 minutes ago, sak22 said: More trades work out like the Iggy and Jbow, its the reality of the situation, I'm not of the boat of trading guys and expecting to get a future core out of our returns because its highly unlikely, but I'm passed the point of thinking there is anything to build off of here. I'm not of the belief we are picking high this season, nor that the future of this franchise depends on trading Markstrom this week. Its funny mentioning Iggy and Jbo trades, because the worst thing about those trades may be that the team finished the season 5-5 on the backs of a strong game from Mark Cundari, and Sven Baertschi playing the best stretch as a Flame and, the team doing what everyone always asks for them to do and play the kids, they wound up 3 points ahead of Colorado who won the lottery, so essentially take away 2 wins from that team and they potentially have a #1C today. So true, just reinforces the randomness of it all. Best to sit back, enjoy the hockey and not get too emotionally involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, robrob74 said: I miss ties. Just don't bother with OT. If regulation ends in a tie, it's done. A team that needs wins would play for the extra point before regulation. I really hate the point system in general. I don't believe 2 ties or 2 OT losses should equal 1 win. I say eliminate points and just go wins and losses, it doesn't matter how many times you lose in extra time in baseball, basketball and football, a loss is a loss period. If you think about it if you play a 7 game series and 1 team wins 4 games in OT, but loses 3 in regulation the team with 4 wins moves on, but the team with 3 would have more points. Why if you played a team 7 times in the regular season with that same result should the team with 4 wins have less points? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 4 Author Report Share Posted March 4 Wennberg not playing tonight for trade related reasons. Too bad we didn't do that. I guess the last home game before TDL we want to be nice. I don't get the risk taking myself. No trade may be imminent, but we only have 2 games before TDL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfire11 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 10 minutes ago, travel_dude said: Wennberg not playing tonight for trade related reasons. Too bad we didn't do that. I guess the last home game before TDL we want to be nice. I don't get the risk taking myself. No trade may be imminent, but we only have 2 games before TDL. If Seattle turns out to be the Hannifin trade partner!!! Wow what a hit from left field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 3 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said: The problem is..... Look at Buffalo. How has that tanking been doing for them? Look at Flames and tell me how well we did with selling off Iggy and JBow? and who did we end up with "that plays" from those two trades and the picks? The people who own the team don't want tanking. They want competitive team. I actually always get a kick out of the reply being " but look at Chicago ".. well ok lets look at it - a HOF D man in the 2nd round - win a lottery to move up from #5 to #1 and get Patrick Kane ( could have just as easily ended up with Phil Kessel) - pick 3rd and get Toewes, (and #1 busted that year ) - first cup involved a hot goalie that was never good again after that, the usual and acceptable maintain process .. move picks for rentals etc .. that just normal . and when the window slams shut you start over .. all fair too much luck involved to use as a blueprint this could just as easily gone the Buffalo or Edm route Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 6 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: I actually always get a kick out of the reply being " but look at Chicago ".. well ok lets look at it - a HOF D man in the 2nd round - win a lottery to move up from #5 to #1 and get Patrick Kane ( could have just as easily ended up with Phil Kessel) - pick 3rd and get Toewes, (and #1 busted that year ) - first cup involved a hot goalie that was never good again after that, the usual and acceptable maintain process .. move picks for rentals etc .. that just normal . and when the window slams shut you start over .. all fair too much luck involved to use as a blueprint this could just as easily gone the Buffalo or Edm route Phil Kessel was 2006, but to your point the 2007 draft that lottery win was huge because of what Kane became and how the rest of the top ranked guys from that year worked out and most were worse than Phil Kessel. But I generally don't like giving them too much credit nor do I give any team credit, you have to be horribly run to be the worst in the league and stay down. And despite belief around here the Flames haven't been. And I don't think they came out of the lockout signing the Bulin wall, and Cullimore from the defending champs, Adrian Aucoin who was an all star and 5th in Norris voting the previous season, and superpest Matthew Barnaby with the intention of bottoming out. And once they were coming around they signed a hall of famer to a contract that is now forbidden that gave them an extremely generous cap hit. Amazing we forget how many teams benefited from those contracts or the compliance buyouts, Tampa would still have Lecavalier on the books for another 3 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 2 minutes ago, sak22 said: Phil Kessel was 2006, but to your point the 2007 draft that lottery win was huge because of what Kane became and how the rest of the top ranked guys from that year worked out and most were worse than Phil Kessel. But I generally don't like giving them too much credit nor do I give any team credit, you have to be horribly run to be the worst in the league and stay down. And despite belief around here the Flames haven't been. And I don't think they came out of the lockout signing the Bulin wall, and Cullimore from the defending champs, Adrian Aucoin who was an all star and 5th in Norris voting the previous season, and superpest Matthew Barnaby with the intention of bottoming out. And once they were coming around they signed a hall of famer to a contract that is now forbidden that gave them an extremely generous cap hit. Amazing we forget how many teams benefited from those contracts or the compliance buyouts, Tampa would still have Lecavalier on the books for another 3 years. sorry yes you are correct ! they could have picked from Sam Gagner or Karl Alzner lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 25 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: I actually always get a kick out of the reply being " but look at Chicago ".. well ok lets look at it - a HOF D man in the 2nd round - win a lottery to move up from #5 to #1 and get Patrick Kane ( could have just as easily ended up with Phil Kessel) - pick 3rd and get Toewes, (and #1 busted that year ) - first cup involved a hot goalie that was never good again after that, the usual and acceptable maintain process .. move picks for rentals etc .. that just normal . and when the window slams shut you start over .. all fair too much luck involved to use as a blueprint this could just as easily gone the Buffalo or Edm route It wasn't just Chicago though. There's also TB, COL, WAS, PIT, and LAK. All tanked and then eventually won a Cup. STL and VGK have been the exceptions... although, VGK was an expansion team so that's a very unique case. STL, depends if you want to count Erik Johnson #1 overall and Pietrangelo #4 overall. It's really hard to find a team that completely avoided the tank and still won the Cup. There are nearly no case studies for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberg Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 33 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: I actually always get a kick out of the reply being " but look at Chicago ".. well ok lets look at it - a HOF D man in the 2nd round - win a lottery to move up from #5 to #1 and get Patrick Kane ( could have just as easily ended up with Phil Kessel) - pick 3rd and get Toewes, (and #1 busted that year ) - first cup involved a hot goalie that was never good again after that, the usual and acceptable maintain process .. move picks for rentals etc .. that just normal . and when the window slams shut you start over .. all fair too much luck involved to use as a blueprint this could just as easily gone the Buffalo or Edm route Sure, but when you look at all the talent on those teams, that's exceptional drafting and team assembly, along with some luck as you mentioned. Can say the same things about the Flames. We drafted Gaudreau in the 4th Round, and Tkachuk at 6th overall. In a re-draft, both would have been at or very near to 1st overall for their particular years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 https://flamesnation.ca/news/seravalli-don-maloney-nixed-markstrom-trade-with-new-jersey-on-behalf-of-flames-ownership take it with a grain of salt if you will, but there is belief that Maloney nixed the deal on behalf of the owners. Serevelli but I dunno what is truth coming from him. But I think they've done it before so there is reason to believe it happened again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now