[News] Granlund recalled from Abbotsford

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Flames have him listed at 5'11, 185, which is still bigger than his brother.

Here it says he's 6'.

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=697978

What the Herald article says to me here

“I talk with Troy on a weekly basis,” Hartley said. “There are quite a few guys (performing) right now. We wanted a centreman in the event Backs can’t go. It might be just for tonight, it might be for a couple of games. We don’t know. Markus Granlund has been playing very well and he deserves it.”

is that Hartley has control of what players he keeps, besides just determining the game line up. I was under the impression that the GM usually has the final say on the team makeup. This would also mean that it was Hartley's call that Bartschi was sent down.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Really? I couldn't.

Three twenty goal seasons and another 17 goal season. I'd be ecstatic.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

is that Hartley has control of what players he keeps, besides just determining the game line up. I was under the impression that the GM usually has the final say on the team makeup. This would also mean that it was Hartley's call that Bartschi was sent down.

I think it would be a joint effort but in terms of who to bring up from the farm team I would guess that you would lean towards who the coach wants.

No point bringing in a guy that he doesn't think can play/contribute.

I would think the GM is in charge of creating the roster and the coach more in charge of managing the roster in terms of who plays and how much.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Really? I couldn't.

If Granlund ends up as good as Hagman was in his prime, we should all be happy.

Right now it's questionable if he'll ever even be a legitimate NHLer, so if even a Hagman quality turnout isn't enough to make you happy, then I don't know that you're going to be a big fan of Granlund.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by strombad

If Granlund ends up as good as Hagman was in his prime, we should all be happy.

Right now it's questionable if he'll ever even be a legitimate NHLer, so if even a Hagman quality turnout isn't enough to make you happy, then I don't know that you're going to be a big fan of Granlund.

To be fair, most of us Flames fans only remember the terrible Hagman from the Leafs and Flames days. Sour taste and all from the Dion trade.

[puckluck2]

If we wanted a Hagman type player we would have kept Hagman.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

If we wanted a Hagman type player we would have kept Hagman.

Well I suppose we should've just kept Iginla instead of worrying about drafting a player as good as he is.

What are you even saying man? That doesn't make any sense.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

If we wanted a Hagman type player we would have kept Hagman.

Lol...

Hagman was a solid player in his prime.

[puckluck2]

Hagman was a solid one dimensional scorer. If you guys are hoping he turns into that then that's sad. 301 points in 770 games does not make up for the type of player he is. There is a reason a 33 year old Hagman couldn't find a job in the NHL. If Granlund develops into Hagman I'd rather he not develop at all.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by strombad

Well I suppose we should've just kept Iginla instead of worrying about drafting a player as good as he is.

What are you even saying man? That doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make sense because you're having problems with reading comprehension. "Hagman type player" not "as good as Hagman".

Was Hagman an ok goal scorer? Yeah, but that's about it. I don't want Granlund to turn into a one dimensional player.

[moon]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

It doesn't make sense because you're having problems with reading comprehension. "Hagman type player" not "as good as Hagman".

Was Hagman an ok goal scorer? Yeah, but that's about it. I don't want Granlund to turn into a one dimensional player.

Considering about 25-35% (just a guess) of second rounders turn out to play 500 games in the NHL for Granlund to turn into a guy who plays 770 games would be a big success.

You would honestly prefer nothing over a decent 2nd line player?

[Igster]

Really sucks that Granlund couldn't have played this game. So many players that should sit IMO and let the kids play. At least might have been something interesting to watch over players like Jones or Stajan.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

It doesn't make sense because you're having problems with reading comprehension. "Hagman type player" not "as good as Hagman".

Was Hagman an ok goal scorer? Yeah, but that's about it. I don't want Granlund to turn into a one dimensional player.

I'm not sure you saw Hagman play much.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

It doesn't make sense because you're having problems with reading comprehension. "Hagman type player" not "as good as Hagman".



Was Hagman an ok goal scorer? Yeah, but that's about it. I don't want Granlund to turn into a one dimensional player.

Take it easy with the smart ass "reading comprehension" comments, you're better than that.

It seems like you're confusing "Hagman vibe" with "Granlund is going to be the exact same player as Hagman in every way".

Heed your own advice. As I said, we'll be lucky if we get a guy similar to Hagman out of Granlund.

[djsFlames]

Want some Granny next game.

Would not be surprised if he nets the team's next goal at the rate our offense is clicking. Haha.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Here it says he's 6'.

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=697978

Here it says 5'11, 185 pounds.

Flames official roster and player profile

Not that it matters much. I hope he gets in the lineup at the expense of David Jones.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Here it says 5'11, 185 pounds.

Flames official roster and player profile

Not that it matters much. I hope he gets in the lineup at the expense of David Jones.

Not that it matters much but the Flames site is the last place I go to, to look up player sizes. They make little effort to be current.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Hagman was a solid one dimensional scorer. If you guys are hoping he turns into that then that's sad. 301 points in 770 games does not make up for the type of player he is. There is a reason a 33 year old Hagman couldn't find a job in the NHL. If Granlund develops into Hagman I'd rather he not develop at all.

I dont disagree entirely, but Hagman was one solid MOFO in his hayday (full on BEAST in Dallas). Just because he sucked in CGY means squat.

That being said, I'll bet both Granlund brothers have a better career that good old Hagman.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I dont disagree entirely, but Hagman was one solid MOFO in his hayday (full on BEAST in Dallas). Just because he sucked in CGY means squat.

That being said, I'll bet both Granlund brothers have a better career that good old Hagman.

I also seem to recall that he played a pretty good 2-way game back in his prime. I wouldn't call him a "one-dimensional scorer".

I am still not sure what happened to him once he got to Calgary, but he stopped playing like he used to.

[Caged Great]

Hagman was a decent player on Dallas, a valuable 2nd/3rd line player. That's basically what Granlund's upside is. Not everyone is going to become a superstar. We need good depth players that can contribute in a positive manner. If Granlund can become a solid 2 way guy that can pop 15-20 in while not playing a key role, that will be awesome.

I would be thrilled if Granlund turned into a carbon copy of Hagman even though I don't think their games overlap a huge amount (Hags was a lot better defensively).