Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

darth_henning

SeniorMembers
  • Content Count

    1,217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

darth_henning last won the day on July 11 2016

darth_henning had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

About darth_henning

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. 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.
  2. Rumor mill is saying that: 1) the Flames and Oilers have been talking 2) Oilers are said to be willing to take a 3rd rounder for Yakapov 3) Flames are looking to move up into the top 5 of the draft (some sources say add another top 10 pick but i have no idea how) SO: To Calgary: 4th Overall Yakapov To Edmonton: 6th Overall 54th Overall Wideman (2 mil retained) one of Nakladal, Wotherspoon or Kulak Calgary gets a bit of a reclamation project in Yakapov, and gives Edmonton a slightly better pick than they'd get otherwise (54th) to compensate for the rivalry. Wideman and the D prospect give them both short term and long term help on defence which is their biggest weakness, and one of our biggest points of strength. That's enough to let them trade down a couple spots in the draft to go after a top defender (or whatever else they want) while we ge to move up and hopefully go after an NHL ready right wing. Gaudreau - Monahan - 4OA Shinkaruk/Ferland - Bennett - Yakapov Colborne - Backlund - Frolik Bouma - Stajan - Hathaway All at once our RW problems are potentially solved. Just leaving goal, and opening another few mil in cap space from Wideman.
  3. 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.
  4. I'm curious to see where things go with him. With talking about using Stajan as a veteran leader, I'm curious where he's thinking of putting him in the lineup. That suggests he won't be playing 4C next year. He talked up a lot of Gaudreau and Bennett, but did he mention anything about Monahan? (Didn't see the press conference and videos from the flames load at a snails pace for me) Though I'm liking what you guys have quoted about his plans for our D-core and Transitional play. Both sound like steps in the right direction if implemented. Reasons for optimism, but a lot of curiosity what he has in mind for the personnel.
  5. In Bennett I see a very good passer, elite scorer, and average defensive ability. In Monahan I see a very good passer, very good scorer (more from dirty areas, much less flashy), and excellent defensive ability. Bennett has had weaker wingers, so maybe that's why, but personally I feel that better wingers will definitely help his production, but not really do much for his defensive game, which I personally think has been weaker so far. Could that change? sure, that would be fantastic. But I put Monahan a few steps ahead of him in that category. Regardless though a 1-2 punch of Monahan and Bennett very much looks like a comparable to Crosby-Malkin. Both good enough to be 1C on most teams and devastating when you can roll one after the other.
  6. I assume you're referring to Bennett. Don't get me wrong I like Bennett, and he may very well outscore Mohanan at their respective career peaks. But I think Monahan will be the better all-round player for the entire length of their careers which will have him locked in as our #1C.
  7. I'm not belittling Johnny. If it came across that way that's not my intention. Anyone who's top 5 in NHL scoring at any point in their career (let alone their sophomore season) is an impressive player. I'm just saying a top 3 winger changes hands at least once a season. A top centerman entering the prime of their career changes hands .... couldn't tell you the last time.
  8. I'm glad we're doing Monahan first. Firstly it sets a standard for Gaudreau which may help bring his price down. More importantly, I think Monahan is the more important player to sign. A top winger (like Gaudreau) is extremely difficult to find. But as we learned with Iginla a legitimate #1C (like Monahan) is downright impossible to find. So to me its way more important to lock down Monahan (and Bennett if his contract was up) than it is to sign Gaudreau regardless of how good he is. Ideally? We lock both up for the full 8 year term. Because that gives us what could be the most powerful offensive duo in the NHL in a couple year's time.
  9. 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. as People said. 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.
  10. 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. 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.
  11. 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 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. This. 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.
  12. 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 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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!
×
×
  • Create New...