02-20-2013, 02:51 PM
|
#21
|
NOT a cool kid
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psytic
I think its pretty accepted that getting a return for Iginla would at least give the Flames a better chance at preparing for the future. letting assets erode to 0 worth is bad asset management (via ownership not letting management deal our aging assets). Unless of course you have a stacked team and can afford to hold onto your vets which we don't. We need to get value for what we have at this point. Putting all our eggs just in the draft still seems a bit foolhardy when we can mix in prospects further along in development via trades. This is on ownership.
|
Don't disagree with this, but I also believe that the ship has sailed on getting good value for Iggy and you now hold him, as he is a better asset then what you will get back. If we moved him 2 years ago, different story. You could very well be correct that it falls on ownership, but can we be sure they specifically blocked a trade?
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 02:55 PM
|
#22
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Calgary
|
if thats managements plan with iginla and he does resign here this team is going to be forced to go through an oilers rebuild in 4 years.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to jg13 For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-20-2013, 02:57 PM
|
#23
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Words from a man that only seems to understand or care about the business side, and is treating players as business investments instead of doing what is right for the hockey side of the equation.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-20-2013, 02:58 PM
|
#24
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-bo09
Don't disagree with this, but I also believe that the ship has sailed on getting good value for Iggy and you now hold him, as he is a better asset then what you will get back. If we moved him 2 years ago, different story. You could very well be correct that it falls on ownership, but can we be sure they specifically blocked a trade?
|
How is an asset that depreciates to zero in 4 years, better than an asset that could play on the 2nd line for 10 years or be traded for another asset during that time?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to kyuss275 For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:01 PM
|
#25
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-bo09
Don't disagree with this, but I also believe that the ship has sailed on getting good value for Iggy and you now hold him, as he is a better asset then what you will get back. If we moved him 2 years ago, different story. You could very well be correct that it falls on ownership, but can we be sure they specifically blocked a trade?
|
Move him at the deadline and sign him back. They should at least try to get something for him. I am not sold on Jankowski at this point and Gaudreau is small and Bart and Backlund are injury prone. To me management still hasn't done enough to stockpile prospects and picks to be competitive. I think its quite clear in everything King has said not just this, that Iggy has always been off the market in the eyes of ownership. There was also a lot of speculation that part of why Brent was let go was that he wanted a rebuild and ownership said no.
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:01 PM
|
#26
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
I wish we could get an actual quote of what he said. But the more I think about it, the more what he apparently said angers me.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:03 PM
|
#27
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
I wish we could get an actual quote of what he said. But the more I think about it, the more what he apparently said angers me.
|
Ditto.
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:04 PM
|
#28
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyuss275
How is an asset that depreciates to zero in 4 years, better than an asset that could play on the 2nd line for 10 years or be traded for another asset during that time?
|
Agreed. I know everyone likes to bring up the hypothetical "Iggy to the Penguins" trade but even to be able to get one of their D prospects and their 1st would be a reasonable return at this point and much better than letting Iggy deteriorate into a 3rd liner on a brutal team.
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:04 PM
|
#29
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
I've never been to the 'dome, or to Calgary for that matter, but it seems like a nice building from what I've seen from pictures, and sportsnet. Also people say the dressing rooms are really nice. And there's no arguing it's the best looking arena from the outside. Just kind of asking WHY there's a need for a new one? Not arguing that there isn't a need, just curious what that need is?
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:09 PM
|
#30
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace
Thought i'd pass along some highlights from a speaking engagement with Ken King (this is all paraphrased so I hope it's reflects what he said well):
On Iginla: Paraphrased "We didn't invest 80 Million dollars in Iginla to send him off to another team to win there", He also mentioned that they don't owe it to Iginla to have him go win somewhere else, he should be here to help us win. Would like to see Iginla be a first ballot hall of famer (and I think the inference was that he play his entire career here).
I don't think he could really say anything else, but he did make it a point of addressing it. I'm sure they could change their mind, but it sounds like the plan is to stick with #12 til the end. I always expected this, as I don't think winning the cup is the most important thing for Iginla.
|
I'm not surprised by this. I can see the reasoning if:
1. The offers at the trade deadline are not sufficient to trade him
2. We can sign him for a significant amount less than he's receiving
3. He assumes a lesser role on the team.
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:10 PM
|
#31
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakari
WHY there's a need for a new one? Not arguing that there isn't a need, just curious what that need is?
|
The building is showing it's age in several respects, but still it is a nice facility. I think from the standpoint of revenue generation and being able to host a wider variety of events, a new arena is certainly needed. Having said that, for hockey games there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Saddledome from my perspective. I've watched hockey in Philly, New York, Vancouver, New Jersey and maybe one more and my only real complaint is the crowd itself, way way too quiet and passive most nights.
Oh yea the other rink I've seen NHL hockey in is Edmonton, almost blighted that from my mind.
Last edited by zamler; 02-20-2013 at 03:19 PM.
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:11 PM
|
#32
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakari
I've never been to the 'dome, or to Calgary for that matter, but it seems like a nice building from what I've seen from pictures, and sportsnet. Also people say the dressing rooms are really nice. And there's no arguing it's the best looking arena from the outside. Just kind of asking WHY there's a need for a new one? Not arguing that there isn't a need, just curious what that need is?
|
It is old, dated, the concourse is too small and/or too crowded, and, most importantly, there are not enough luxury suites. Also, due to the shape, certain concerts have to skip it, as the roof cannot support the weight of the sound systems.
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:11 PM
|
#33
|
I believe in the Pony Power
|
I would caution everyone not to over-react without knowing what specifically he said or how he said. Tone and specific words mean a lot.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:13 PM
|
#34
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakari
I've never been to the 'dome, or to Calgary for that matter, but it seems like a nice building from what I've seen from pictures, and sportsnet. Also people say the dressing rooms are really nice. And there's no arguing it's the best looking arena from the outside. Just kind of asking WHY there's a need for a new one? Not arguing that there isn't a need, just curious what that need is?
|
The Flames want more money and it is going to be the most transformative thing to hit Calgary in 40 years, even moreso than the LRT which came into being in 1981
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:13 PM
|
#35
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
|
Not surprised at all by what King has said. However, believing it is another story. I really don't think he would come out and say that they would consider moving Iginla. After all, that's Feaster's job, not his, and he would be undermining the GM's ability to wheel and deal by saying anything else about Iginla.
Come trade deadline day, I would not be shocked to see some long time players get moved out. This season is wacky already, trade deadline day will be real interesting.
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:14 PM
|
#36
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Uhhh....no.
Are you?
|
No... that's why I don't enjoy watching these train wreck threads.
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:14 PM
|
#37
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CGY
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
I wish we could get an actual quote of what he said. But the more I think about it, the more what he apparently said angers me.
|
If this thread blows up enough I wouldn't be shocked to see King address The media or 960 in the not too distant future. You know he or people that work for him check these forums to get gauge the overall temperature of the fanbase
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:14 PM
|
#38
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
I would caution everyone not to over-react without knowing what specifically he said or how he said. Tone and specific words mean a lot.
|
I hope so. But it certainly jives with other statements he's made and the general direction of the team. Meaning Iginla is the man and the face of the franchise no matter what actually happens on the ice.
I would love to see Iginla find the fire in the belly again and lead this team by example, but most games he is just gong through the motions. Sad.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:14 PM
|
#39
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
It is old, dated, the concourse is too small and/or too crowded, and, most importantly, there are not enough luxury suites. Also, due to the shape, certain concerts have to skip it, as the roof cannot support the weight of the sound systems.
|
Please confirm or correct what you are quoted as saying in the original post.
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 03:15 PM
|
#40
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
The building is showing it's age in several respects, but still it is a nice facility. I think from the standpoint of revenue generation and being able to host a wider variety of events, a new arena is certainly needed. Having said that, for hockey games there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Saddledome from my perspective. I've watched hockey in Philly, New York, Vancouver, New Jersey and maybe one more and my only real complaint is the crowd itself, way way too quiet and passive most nights.
Oh yea the other rink I've seen NHL hockey in is Edmonton, almost blighted that from my mind.
|
How did my name come up on the Quote you are comenting on?
I've been to Xcel in Minny and it is day and night compared to the Saddledome.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:43 PM.
|
|