Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Hockey_Canada1

Discussion & Debate Thread: Flames and Canucks

Recommended Posts

Elliott Friedman was on the radio talking about how most franchises have ownership involved due to the high contracts being dealt. So some are more involved than others, but to what degree and how public are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, robrob74 said:

Elliott Friedman was on the radio talking about how most franchises have ownership involved due to the high contracts being dealt. So some are more involved than others, but to what degree and how public are they?

 

I believe he is right and I think there is an extent to which owners should be involved when it comes to decisions.  I don't think ownership should decide on hockey related staff decisions, draft decisions or trade decisions (unless there is a major financial obligation attached to it that might be unreasonable down the road).  But buyouts or large contract offers I absolutely think they should have veto power.  I know the reported Bishop deal nixed by ownership irked a lot of people, but why should an owner want to give the largest contract they have ever given to a player that wouldn't be a franchise altering player.  I'm glad were not looking at 6 more years at 7m for a goalie who has been either on par or slightly worse than the mediocre goalies we've had the last two years.  If people think Treliving has had issues, imagine what Coates, Button and Sutter had to deal with pre lockout, they had way less wiggle room for spending.  I remember hearing Sutter say the only reason we got Kipper was because ownership wouldn't pony up for CuJo.  I'm not saying I agree with ownership meddling in too much, but I doubt many of us on here would be fine with having others waste your money if you owned a team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sak22 said:

 

I believe he is right and I think there is an extent to which owners should be involved when it comes to decisions.  I don't think ownership should decide on hockey related staff decisions, draft decisions or trade decisions (unless there is a major financial obligation attached to it that might be unreasonable down the road).  But buyouts or large contract offers I absolutely think they should have veto power.  I know the reported Bishop deal nixed by ownership irked a lot of people, but why should an owner want to give the largest contract they have ever given to a player that wouldn't be a franchise altering player.  I'm glad were not looking at 6 more years at 7m for a goalie who has been either on par or slightly worse than the mediocre goalies we've had the last two years.  If people think Treliving has had issues, imagine what Coates, Button and Sutter had to deal with pre lockout, they had way less wiggle room for spending.  I remember hearing Sutter say the only reason we got Kipper was because ownership wouldn't pony up for CuJo.  I'm not saying I agree with ownership meddling in too much, but I doubt many of us on here would be fine with having others waste your money if you owned a team.

 

Yeah, so true. If I were ownership, I would wonder about those high cost vets that seem to be what plagues franchises and their caps. If I am spending to the cap, I don’t want to pay players that aren’t worth the contract. I get it that apparently we have to. 

 

Detroit cut bait on Hudler when he wanted to get paid. They ended up overpaying on the goalie though. But still, I guess it is an art when to know enough is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sak22 said:

 

I believe he is right and I think there is an extent to which owners should be involved when it comes to decisions.  I don't think ownership should decide on hockey related staff decisions, draft decisions or trade decisions (unless there is a major financial obligation attached to it that might be unreasonable down the road).  But buyouts or large contract offers I absolutely think they should have veto power.  I know the reported Bishop deal nixed by ownership irked a lot of people, but why should an owner want to give the largest contract they have ever given to a player that wouldn't be a franchise altering player.  I'm glad were not looking at 6 more years at 7m for a goalie who has been either on par or slightly worse than the mediocre goalies we've had the last two years.  If people think Treliving has had issues, imagine what Coates, Button and Sutter had to deal with pre lockout, they had way less wiggle room for spending.  I remember hearing Sutter say the only reason we got Kipper was because ownership wouldn't pony up for CuJo.  I'm not saying I agree with ownership meddling in too much, but I doubt many of us on here would be fine with having others waste your money if you owned a team.

 

There is a cap though.  As an owner, write a cheque for the cap limit.  Give it to the GM to manage.  Walk away.  Evaluate at the end of the season if the GM has done well or not and if not, replace him.

 

This idea that owners want to know who they are paying shouldn't have merit as they pay up to the maximum that is allowed by the league in total (I know actual salary could vary from cap hit from year to year but it averages out over the length of the contract).

 

This idea that owners want to protect  their wallets would be true if there was no cap.  You dont want your GM handing out $25-mil contracts like candy.  But since he can't, then why get involved?  Too many chefs in the kitchen is bad news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

There is a cap though.  As an owner, write a cheque for the cap limit.  Give it to the GM to manage.  Walk away.  Evaluate at the end of the season if the GM has done well or not and if not, replace him.

 

This idea that owners want to know who they are paying shouldn't have merit as they pay up to the maximum that is allowed by the league in total (I know actual salary could vary from cap hit from year to year but it averages out over the length of the contract).

 

This idea that owners want to protect  their wallets would be true if there was no cap.  You dont want your GM handing out $25-mil contracts like candy.  But since he can't, then why get involved?  Too many chefs in the kitchen is bad news.

 

I agree with this. Owners should for sure approve budgets and should be kept in the loop when it comes to long team contracts or unique contracts but they don't need to be in the day to day or part of the decision. 

 

This gets me really frustrated because in 2 straight CBA negotiations the owners have locked out the players and always claim the previous deal is unfair to them and they can't operate. What is it agents and the players side can always adapt and innovate but the owners/GMs can't, but then they result is let's let this guy who has money but limited hockey knowledge get MORE involved...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this. Owners should for sure approve budgets and should be kept in the loop when it comes to long team contracts or unique contracts but they don't need to be in the day to day or part of the decision. 

 

This gets me really frustrated because in 2 straight CBA negotiations the owners have locked out the players and always claim the previous deal is unfair to them and they can't operate. What is it agents and the players side can always adapt and innovate but the owners/GMs can't, but then they result is let's let this guy who has money but limited hockey knowledge get MORE involved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I agree with this. Owners should for sure approve budgets and should be kept in the loop when it comes to long team contracts or unique contracts but they don't need to be in the day to day or part of the decision. 

 

This gets me really frustrated because in 2 straight CBA negotiations the owners have locked out the players and always claim the previous deal is unfair to them and they can't operate. What is it agents and the players side can always adapt and innovate but the owners/GMs can't, but then they result is let's let this guy who has money but limited hockey knowledge get MORE involved...

 

Yups, approve the budget.  Write the cheque.  Then get out of the way.  Let the professionals take care of the roster moves.

 

In a cap world as an owner, it doesn't matter if your highest paid player is paid $12-mil or $7-mil, you still write one cheque for the total allowable cap hit.  You can't go over.  

 

Hire a GM you trust.  Give him the reigns.  If he doesn't perform, then replace him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yups, approve the budget.  Write the cheque.  Then get out of the way.  Let the professionals take care of the roster moves.

 

In a cap world as an owner, it doesn't matter if your highest paid player is paid $12-mil or $7-mil, you still write one cheque for the total allowable cap hit.  You can't go over.  

 

Hire a GM you trust.  Give him the reigns.  If he doesn't perform, then replace him.

 

I'm not saying ownership needs to approve every decision, but just saying let the GM do their thing and replace them if it doesn't work.  If it doesn't work it could leave an organization with unmovable long term, high money contracts or a depleted farm system and lack of draft picks.  If you have that situation you become limited in the quality of people who would choose that job over other potential jobs.  I believe the owner should set the goals and hockey ops need to relay whether the goals are realistic for the current time period and what is needed to get there.  As I said I'm sure we all might say ownership needs to stay out, but if we were in that position we would avoid wanting to have a GM make decisions we didn't want.  Personally, I would not allow a GM to make a UFA offer over 5 years without consent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sak22 said:

 

I'm not saying ownership needs to approve every decision, but just saying let the GM do their thing and replace them if it doesn't work.  If it doesn't work it could leave an organization with unmovable long term, high money contracts or a depleted farm system and lack of draft picks.  If you have that situation you become limited in the quality of people who would choose that job over other potential jobs.  I believe the owner should set the goals and hockey ops need to relay whether the goals are realistic for the current time period and what is needed to get there.  As I said I'm sure we all might say ownership needs to stay out, but if we were in that position we would avoid wanting to have a GM make decisions we didn't want.  Personally, I would not allow a GM to make a UFA offer over 5 years without consent.

 

What turns premium top tier GMs away from working for your team is NOT having to fix a broken team but rather, an owner who micromanages and gets involved in roster decisions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What turns premium top tier GMs away from working for your team is NOT having to fix a broken team but rather, an owner who micromanages and gets involved in roster decisions.

 

 

 

But if its as big of an issue in these places.  Why does Burke take the job here?  Why does he stay for 4 years?  Why does Tre stay when there are other options, I know the speculation is a meddling stipulation, but wouldn't that also decrease job security?  Why did Chia jump to work for a reportedly meddling Katz? (Yes I know McDavid, but having a meddling owner and a generational superstar can cause other issues).  Jim Benning was a highly sought guy at the time, why did he go to Vancouver if he was going to be told what to do?  

 

I don't know how much of this meddling is real or how much is speculation or perceived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sak22 said:

 

But if its as big of an issue in these places.  Why does Burke take the job here?  Why does he stay for 4 years?  Why does Tre stay when there are other options, I know the speculation is a meddling stipulation, but wouldn't that also decrease job security?  Why did Chia jump to work for a reportedly meddling Katz? (Yes I know McDavid, but having a meddling owner and a generational superstar can cause other issues).  Jim Benning was a highly sought guy at the time, why did he go to Vancouver if he was going to be told what to do?  

 

I don't know how much of this meddling is real or how much is speculation or perceived.

 

Only 31 people can call themselves NHL GM and only a couple jobs usually pop up every year. Beggars cant be choosers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 2, 2018 at 8:52 AM, cross16 said:

 

I find it hard to believe that Benning stabbed Linden in the back because that suggests Benning outwitted someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

I find it hard to believe that Benning stabbed Linden in the back because that suggests Benning outwitted someone.

Assuming that Benning *did* outwit someone, it really goes to show how bad their hockey ops is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess we will see. I've seen tweets that says Boeser, Hughes, and Peterson are non starters for the Canucks. However maybe the Sens like Joellevi and the Nucks are willing to move him and Dhalen with some other pieces. 

 

Hard to see a match though and from everything I've read Karlsson wanted to stay on the east coast long term so would he re sign there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fins&FIre15 said:

Saw that van is apparently in on Karlsson.

 

What are they going to do? Give up boeser, petterson and horvat?

 

I sure hope so.

 

Ya man I hope they give up the farm for one year of Karlsson.  

 

Unlike the Flames where one year of Karlsson might win the Cup, one year of Karlsson at most gets the Canucks out of the basement of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-08-23 at 9:17 AM, The_People1 said:

 

Ya man I hope they give up the farm for one year of Karlsson.  

 

Unlike the Flames where one year of Karlsson might win the Cup, one year of Karlsson at most gets the Canucks out of the basement of the league.

How many points you got the Canucks pegged for this season Peeps? 

And the Flames while you’re at it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say however, that I'm absolutely terrified of what Vancouver has been building the last couple of seasons.

 

They seem to have drafted really well with their high picks, and are only a few years away from seeing what could be the core of a great team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like where the Canucks are going at forward. They've got some great pieces there and Peterson looks legit.  However, until their D prospects improve i'm not sure they can build anything special. I know they've got a couple of high picks there but they are ones that are not that impressive for me and i'm not seeing high ceilings out of them. 

 

With some more depth they can always make trades but I think they need some more depth to get there first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cross16 said:

I do like where the Canucks are going at forward. They've got some great pieces there and Peterson looks legit.  However, until their D prospects improve i'm not sure they can build anything special. I know they've got a couple of high picks there but they are ones that are not that impressive for me and i'm not seeing high ceilings out of them. 

 

With some more depth they can always make trades but I think they need some more depth to get there first. 

 

They scored two more goals than the Flames last year and let in 16 more.

 

By all accounts here, we are supposed to be a few miles ahead of them. According to most here, if they got league average goaltending they’d be close to a playoff spot. 

 

I think they can make up that lost D. If Triamkin came back, that’s one who was looking up. Who knows what Joulevi ends up as. They have Hughes who apparently in this new NHL will tear the roofs off. They could be closer than we think. 2-3 years away, sign some UFA D to supplement their situation. 

 

They're probably about 1-2D away realistically. And they can shelter some slightly above Borderline Dmen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

They scored two more goals than the Flames last year and let in 16 more.

 

By all accounts here, we are supposed to be a few miles ahead of them. According to most here, if they got league average goaltending they’d be close to a playoff spot. 

 

I think they can make up that lost D. If Triamkin came back, that’s one who was looking up. Who knows what Joulevi ends up as. They have Hughes who apparently in this new NHL will tear the roofs off. They could be closer than we think. 2-3 years away, sign some UFA D to supplement their situation. 

 

They're probably about 1-2D away realistically. And they can shelter some slightly above Borderline Dmen. 

 

That's a biased fan then. NHL is a parity league so i'm not sure they are many teams that are "miles" ahead of anyone as the gap between good and bad teams is really not that large. Arizona looks like a door mat to some, but I would easily argue with Raanta in the fold they'll be competitive too. 

 

However, fun fact, the Canucks had basically the same Save % as the Flames last year.

 

I'm not insulting the Canucks, as I said I think they have the makings of a good looking forward group but I don't like their D so while I obviously expect them to improve I don't think I will be "terrified" of them until they can get their D figured out. I don't see a top pairing dman in their system right now. They will get better though, as rebuilding teams should. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

That's a biased fan then. NHL is a parity league so i'm not sure they are many teams that are "miles" ahead of anyone as the gap between good and bad teams is really not that large. Arizona looks like a door mat to some, but I would easily argue with Raanta in the fold they'll be competitive too. 

 

However, fun fact, the Canucks had basically the same Save % as the Flames last year.

 

I'm not insulting the Canucks, as I said I think they have the makings of a good looking forward group but I don't like their D so while I obviously expect them to improve I don't think I will be "terrified" of them until they can get their D figured out. I don't see a top pairing dman in their system right now. They will get better though, as rebuilding teams should. 

 

I think a lot of us think that is going to be a few years away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we need to talk about Elias Petterson.  

 

This kid is a superstar in the making, if not already.  Top 10 in league scoring (albeit early) but he looks and plays better than Nico Hischier and Nolan Patrick.  The high end talent here is nothing short of elite.  

 

We're talking about potentially 35G 50A rookie year or something similar to what Matt Barzal acheived last season.  At prime.  Man, hate to say but 50G is not out of the question and maybe 120-points.  May only be second to McDavid in talent and scoring.

 

On the bright side, I seriously thought the Canucks could be the worst team in the NHL this season and finish dead last.  They would be front runners for Jack Hughes. But with the help of Petterson, the Canucks draft party should be ruined.  I'm guessing they miss the playoffs but will be in the 9 to 11th rank or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...