Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: Treliving Grade so far?
A 51 15.18%
B 222 66.07%
C 52 15.48%
D 8 2.38%
F 3 0.89%
Voters: 336. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-22-2016, 05:01 PM   #241
DoubleF
Franchise Player
 
DoubleF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Kulak outplayed both Russell and Wideman in camp. He was fully deserving of his position after camp. He was even better than both of those defensemen in his limited playing time while up, but as soon as Brodie came back, bye bye Kulak. You call that fair? The only reason those other two guys didn't get sent packing is because of their status. That ain't fair. That makes it very tough for a guy to get his opportunity when guys playing like garbage are all but assured of a spot solely on their contract. Same thing happened to Granlund. Deserved to be up from the start of the season but still got sent down, because of his contract status. That is opportunity being #### blocked by contracts and the number of veterans in camp, something the GM is responsible for. I'd much rather see a rotation of several young guys from the farm than seeing Raymond and Bolig eating up a spot on the roster.
Earned never given is a great mantra, but unless players all have 1 year contracts, it's not going to happen perfectly. Furthermore, vets earn their contracts with the body of work they have done before in the league. The kids have ELCs. What the rush? You speak of opportunities for the kids, but the opposite isn't true for vets? Why the heck do GMs ever sign multi year contracts then and turf vets after year 1 due to injuries or non-performance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
He wouldn't be playing 20+ minutes a night. He'd be playing 3rd pair. Odds are one of the other vets would be shuffled up the lineup.
If he's not getting 20 minutes, then you send him down so he can develop properly in a role where he gets 20 minutes.

Also, he wasn't sent down for Brodie, he was sent down when Smid was near and Nakladal recalled for our roster in his stead. Both would be considered 7th D.

http://www.matchsticksandgasoline.co...reassign-kulak

Last edited by DoubleF; 01-22-2016 at 05:06 PM.
DoubleF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2016, 05:03 PM   #242
Strange Brew
Franchise Player
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Yeah after a few games in the bigs Kulak showed he wasn't quite ready. Nakladal may very well do the same so I don't agree with Bandwagon that the guy has shown he is more than ready. Absolutely not.

But given where this team looks to be going this year, I'm not really on board with such an expensive veteran laden defense. I would say that is less than great management of our personnel.
Strange Brew is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2016, 05:20 PM   #243
DoubleF
Franchise Player
 
DoubleF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew View Post

But given where this team looks to be going this year, I'm not really on board with such an expensive veteran laden defense. I would say that is less than great management of our personnel.
I would assume management is on the same page with said opinion. That being said, they need to responsibly move the vets to make room for the kids. Having vets on extremely short leashes and throwing them to the minors the moment you have a kid that seems promising is poor management from a business perspective as well as an optics perspective for future FAs or players waiting NMC/NTC or even contract extensions.

Perhaps the lack of movement so far from Treliving is driving fans crazy, but one would hope (me too) that he makes a huge splash around TDL to address said issue. That being said, we know that he's fighting one hell of a uphill battle due to the expensive salaries on hand. If we don't want them, who else would? You'd probably have to pair other assets to get rid of them or retain salary. We could easily trade Wideman if we put him with our 1st and other kids like Andersson or Kylington, but that's counter productive.

Kulak, Wotherspoon, Andersson, Kylington and many others look like promising NHLers. Let's hope the D situation is dealt with sooner than later and in a responsible manner.
DoubleF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2016, 09:57 PM   #244
Strange Brew
Franchise Player
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleF View Post
I would assume management is on the same page with said opinion. That being said, they need to responsibly move the vets to make room for the kids. Having vets on extremely short leashes and throwing them to the minors the moment you have a kid that seems promising is poor management from a business perspective as well as an optics perspective for future FAs or players waiting NMC/NTC or even contract extensions.

Perhaps the lack of movement so far from Treliving is driving fans crazy, but one would hope (me too) that he makes a huge splash around TDL to address said issue. That being said, we know that he's fighting one hell of a uphill battle due to the expensive salaries on hand. If we don't want them, who else would? You'd probably have to pair other assets to get rid of them or retain salary. We could easily trade Wideman if we put him with our 1st and other kids like Andersson or Kylington, but that's counter productive.

Kulak, Wotherspoon, Andersson, Kylington and many others look like promising NHLers. Let's hope the D situation is dealt with sooner than later and in a responsible manner.
Well put. Although as a fan it's a little frustrating to see a lack of movement, that can all change overnight. And no one wants a deal for the sake of a deal.

That said, this talk of re- signing Russell makes me a little nervous. You could see the same 7 defenseman coming out of camp next year unless there is just a pure salary dump.
Strange Brew is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2016, 01:16 AM   #245
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew View Post
That said, this talk of re- signing Russell makes me a little nervous. You could see the same 7 defenseman coming out of camp next year unless there is just a pure salary dump.
I don't think there's much of a chance of that. If we re-sign Russell then I'd expect at least one of Wideman, Smid, or Engelland to be moved at the deadline, before the draft or in the summer. And I don't think it will be as hard to move one of those guys as some fans seem to think it will be.

Wideman is obviously the trickiest guy to deal but I can see it working if we take another team's problem contract. Ideally an overpaid scoring forward could come back to help our depth up front. Is there a team with too much money up front who needs to drop a forward but could use a veteran defenseman?
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:39 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy