Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

cross16

SeniorMembers
  • Content Count

    26,368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    359

Everything posted by cross16

  1. He is not in camp because his season has started in Sweden already and he’s staying over there.
  2. I’ll be a bit surprised if Brady goes term. I think he’ll get his 8mill but he probably wants a shorter term. Tkachuks don’t really do long term commitments especially with a organization like Ottawa.
  3. I agree with lots of this, in particular that the club is in better shape now and moving forward than many others think. However, to build on that I think it depends on what the end goal of this is. If the end game is to have a team that is competitive, able to make the playoffs more often than not, and maybe get lucky and go on a run than I agree things are on the right path. However, if the end goal is to win a cup than I am very much in the camp that I don't see that happening with the path they are on because I don't see where the impact talent is going to come from. As much as we can say ok well go find a Point or a Bergeron (and without question they should be doing that anyway and I believe they are) I would suggest personally it is very unlikely to happen. But yes if it's being framed that the Flames are doomed so they might as well tank then I hear you and agree with that. I've said in other threads I think this team is built to be competitive for several more years but there is a big leap between being competitive and winning a cup. I don't see the path they are on closing that gap personally, but happy to be wrong there.
  4. To be fair, that wasn't a Feaster call it was Button's. Feaster had almost no say over the draft he let the scouts do their work. the reason was that Kucherov was under contract to CSKA in Russia and it was not well known whether or not he ever planned to get out of that contract (I believe it was 2 more years). Fair to criticize the risk tolerance of the Flames at the time but at the same time passing on a Russian player, again at that time, who also happened to be only slightly bigger than Gaudreau isn't the WTF decision it appears to be in hindsight.
  5. This. This is being over simplified and being presented in a binary argument and that's what bothers me about this debate. I don't think it as simple as saying this way or that way is the right way because it ignores way too many factors. Boston is a good example to hold up of a team built for long term success without a high pick, but that ignores that fact they got a likely Hall of fame center in the 2nd round. How often does that happen (spoiler alert.... it doesn't). It's easy to say "well then draft better" but that ignores that it's not like these opportunities are available in every draft. You don't get players the level of of Bergeron or Kucherov outside the top 10 as frequently anymore. New York Islanders, as already pointed out used a #4 pick to gain Barzal but also got Barzal because he had an injury his draft year. How often does a top 5 talent drop due to injuries (it happens but not every draft). They've also got a perfect match of GM, coach and roster that isn't always easy to do. People will say "sure it is" but what's interesting in including the Islanders in this category is several years ago (before Trotz) the Islanders would have been a case to hold up to say tanking doesn't work. They bottomed out and weren't any good. Yes you have teams like the Oilers, Leafs and Sabres who did it and it hasn't worked out yet but that's because, as Peeps points out here, it's only one step. I happen to believe the Leafs core is good enough to win but what they haven't gotten right yet is the mix around that core. You have to do both, which is what worked so well for LA, Chicago, Tampa and Pittsburgh. A high end core through the top of the draft, but also a good supporting cast too. for me it comes down to less of a this pathway or that pathway and more a consideration of where is your club, what are the current strengths/weaknesses of your club, and what are the up coming drafts like. I think you need to weight all of those when deciding whether or not this course make sense because even though a team may not be a cup contender or may not have a top 2 pick doesn't mean they have to rebuild. I am pro Flames rebuild because I think they have a strong prospect pool with depth, some good supporting characters in the right age range on their big league team but they lack the high end talent to be able to compete for cups, particularly down the middle. When you look at the strength of the next few drafts and the amount of high end talent available, combine it with what is already a solid base, I think you have the makings of a really exciting product in 3-4 years. That wouldn't' have been my answer in 2019 or 2020. Lots should factor into the analysis IMO and it shouldn't be as simple as either get a top 2 pick or you'll never win.
  6. What I think they will do is they will stay the course. I read a lot into the fact that Treliving and Sutter both have contracts until 2023, it tells me that they are going to see this thing through until at least then. But even past that, i'm not sure I see a "rebuild" coming in the near future. I'm using this term in quotes to be intentional around what I'm defining as rebuild, which is the idea th they would tear this down, go to the draft and try to build this back up over a couple of season. When I look at the core of this team now (Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Backs, Coleman, Mang, Hanifin, Anderson, Tanev, Markstrom) you have an average age of 27. The only reason the Flames "rebuilt" last time was they had to. Their core was all over the age of 30 and were all UFAs within a year or 2 of each other, which isn't the case here and not to mention it all started because Iginla told them he wasn't going to re sign here if the team wasn't going to be good. This is a bit of a semantical argument, but IMO the Flames never decided to rebuild, it was a situation they were forced into and even then they (being ownership) never did really embrace the idea. I don't see why that would change now after they've been operating this way for over 20 years. The x factor in all of this, and what will make this post age poorly, is Gaudreau. I believe he will get signed but if for whatever reason he doesn't then they could reach that point of no return sooner than I'm anticipating now. But with Gaudreau in the fold I believe they've got enough of a competitive core that it will never convince ownership that it needs to be broken apart and rebuilt via draft picks. In terms of changes to the core that player I would have my eye on is Tkachuk. It sounds like they listened to offers this off season but had a very high price tag (as they should) but pending how this season goes I could see those discussions becoming longer. As I said above this isn't what I would do, it's just what I think they will do. I think that core is good enough to bounce in and out of the playoffs here and there and that will be enough for ownership to believe they should keep adding and not be ok with the idea of multiple losing seasons.
  7. Rookie camp open this week, Thursday to be exact. Will have 2 games on September 18th and 20th. Roster is listed below. Reminder- NCAA players are not eligible to attend this camp.
  8. i actually agree when it comes to Zadorov and Sutter. While im not Zs biggest fan he does bring a few positives to the table and I think Sutter can help him, especially with his penalties (big drawback to his game). I except him to take a minor step. but with Gudbranson I think that’s a different situation. I have a lot of faith in Sutter to rebuild players or get them to their best but my problem with Gudbranson is I just don’t think there is anything there. This isn’t a player who has fallen off lately, he’s just never been a solid player at the NHL level. I hope I’m wrong but that’s why I think the Gudbranson one is a mistake, especially id it leads to poor usage of him and other defenders (namely Valimaki)
  9. cross16

    Goaltending

    this is a great post. Well researched and well said.
  10. Sutters system will minimize the damage but imo this is now a below avg d core and a hard choice for Sutter. He either needs to pair a couple of boat anchors together, Zadarov and Gudbranson, so he can limit their minutes or he’s going to saddle to young dmen with them. This puts a ton of pressure on Rasmus Anderson to bounce back and it he doesn’t things could get ugly. i hope I am wrong but for me the flames have gone the wrong direction with their d core this off season.
  11. Signing 2 older ,and not very good dmen, to one year deals in order to trade your 24 year old dman doesn’t strike me as preparation.
  12. Stone is fine, depth and fine if he winds up in the press box. Zero shock, but not happy about Gudbranson. I get Sutter wanted him and better hope and pray Sutter has some magic because Gudbranson is not very good. He and Zadarov on the same D core is looking very rough going into the season. Gudbranson said today Sutter called him at the start of free agency saying he hoped he would consider Calgary. For me if they are just signing him now that would signal to me that they were awaiting a bigger move and are now out. That would line up with Friedman reporting yesterday that Buffalo re engaged with interested teams after meeting with Eichel a new reps
  13. I have no doubt he has influence, clearly showing up in the personnel moves, but to this level I would find hard to believe. The longer Sutter coached this team last year the more critical he became and the more upfront he was with the lack of certain pieces in the lineup. I have a hard time believing that Sutter would hold back from making moves, unless they made the team worse. I believe pretty strongly, and so do many closer to the team, that they tried and wanted to make changes. I just don't' think the value lined up.
  14. These are the types of signing I don't understand why people spend so much time getting upset about. He's good in his role, don't believe me look up his profile, a very good defensive player so you can now build a 4th line you can trust late in games. If he's as bad as you say he's either in the press box, where someone else making similar money would already be thus the comment about his cap hit is not relevant, or he's down in the AHL. The Flames are also only at 44 of 50 contracts so this "waste" is not preventing them from doing anything. No downside at all here. There is no spin here, it's just facts. Richardson is a good addition and fits what Sutter wants on his depth players to a T.
  15. Don't disagree. It's not the ideal off season nor would I try to paint it as such. For me I was for change but not change for the sake of change that moved the club backwards and that was avoided. But no question the ideal steps were not taken. GMs fault? Not IMO but to each their own on that one. And I do think someting is still going to shake loose but we'll see if i'm right or not.
  16. It will only if he makes their active roster. Right now Capfriendly is showing 24 players when only 23 count towards the cap so their number isn't accurate, which it often isn't in the off season. At least 1 player on Capfriendly right now will be sent to the AHL and perhaps 2 and the cap will adjust once they do.
  17. The 800 K is not relevant to their cap space as only their active roster counts. If Richardson wasn't on the team someone making the same type of money (Example Ruzicka who also makes 800K) would be in his spot counting the same cap space. If the Flames want to save that cap space then they would need to run with a 21 or 22 man roster and signing Richardson does not impact that decision.
  18. I guess it's different for everyone but I think there has been quite a bit of change this off season, and I still think they want to make more. But going into next year: New captain new member of the top 6 (could be 2) New member of the top 4 D core (perhaps 2) Half of the bottom 6 turned over New coaching staff I don't think change is always new players from external too it's also elevating players within your organization. They are putting players like Mangiapane, Valimaki and Dube in a position to become more significant players in the organization. Time will tell if it's enough but I would contend that's certainly well above an average level of turnover for a team. Again, I get the desire for more but for more change that was going to have to come via the trade market. I don't know the behind the scenes and what was, or wasn't, being worked on but when I look at the deal that were made this off season it makes sense to me what the Flames appear quieter. Certainly not what you probably expected in May and I would agree with that too, but I also think it still beats what could have potentially happened.
  19. I certainty don't expect anyone to get excited about Brad Richardson, but at the same time calling him washed is unfair. He is a pretty ideal 4th line player.
  20. And for me I think this has been done well under Treliving. That culture should already exist IMO and these signings shouldn’t change that. But I also think if we’re being real, the guys in the AHL right now just arnt ready, minus maybe Phillips , and when it comes to the bottom 6 Sutter is going to lean on veterans.
  21. Age is not relevant for putting contracts in the AHL, it's about dollar amount. Any thing below 1.075 you get full cap relief, and anything above that number stays on your cap. Richardson, while his numbers are not pretty is still a solid NHLer so I don't agree this is a case of he is retiring without the Flames calling. Lewis you could maybe make that call but both still bring positive attributes to the table. I agree with Jtech, make Ruzicka beat these guys out. I'm still not sold that Ruzicka deserves as much praise as he gets around here, i'm not that high on him, but the job is still there is he proves me wrong.
  22. I agree, I like the Coyotes the most in this one so far. I do think the Habs swapping Kotkaniemi for Dvoarek is an upgrade for them, but it's not really a move the needle type of move either given where they are trending.
  23. It's fair to be disappointed I think as I understand the appetite for change, especially looking at the big move. For me though I still thikn one of the worst things you can do is change just for the sake of change. Look at the Flyers offseason: https://broadstreetbuzz.com/2021/07/25/grading-philadelphia-flyers-offseason/ A lot of pieces out to get, IMO at least, not even better as a team. You can argue they are better sure but on paper I don't think they are and even if they are better there season still rests on Carter Hart just like it did before all of those moves. It's really, really hard to trade you way out of problems so while I too was hoping for more change, i'm not that surprised it hasn't happened yet.
  24. i think Dube could be an nhl center but I don’t think it would ever be his best position. I think it would limit his offensive game and overall effectiveness
  25. I agree with the idea that you have to be careful drawing conclusions off last season. Lots of anomalies that make it tough. I look at Edm. Based on points last season they look to be head and shoulders above the Flames. Look at their season and really the keg difference is Smith went on a great run. In a short season I think an older goalie can do that but can he do the again with 30 more games on the schedule and more travel? It’s why I’d argue the gap between the Flames and Oilers is small. I’m fact I think you could argue the Flames are the better team actually and will finish higher than the Oilers if you look past last season. I don’t really look at it that the Flames were more penalized last season. I think it’s more realizing there isn’t much to be learned from last season and it’s true of the Flames and the league imo.
×
×
  • Create New...