[PGT] Kings 3 Flames 1 minus 1 because refs

[Benched]

it's annoying despite the score that a league can be this mickey mouse they can't even agree with what they're doing and what the rules are, especially when it's the same person making the an extremely similar call...

[Weitz]

I don't even get mad at the refs anymore.

They are so bad that it just balances out by the end of the season haha.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by AcGold

2017-2018 is when we'll be a good team. We simply have too many anchors on payroll; Stajan, Bollig and Wideman take up a large sum and contribute very little. No way we'll fit in a big RW UFA and a decent starter when so much is being spent on players that would be useless in Stockton.

Bollig only gets paid 1.1 million. Hardly an anchor contract.

The goalies are off the books this summer, freeing up 8 million.

Where exactly are the flames having cap issues?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Bollig only gets paid 1.1 million. Hardly an anchor contract.

The goalies are off the books this summer, freeing up 8 million.

Where exactly are the flames having cap issues?

The flames have just over 24M next season free but need to sign Monny, Colborne and Johnny. That likely means around $7.5 for a defenseman, two forwards and two goalies.

That's extremely tight

[Flash Walken]

Another one of those losses where the flames were the better team?

I don't think so.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The flames have just over 24M next season free but need to sign Monny, Colborne and Johnny. That likely means around $7.5 for a defenseman, two forwards and two goalies.

That's extremely tight

EDIT: NVM. Didn't realize Johnny needs to be signed next year. My bad.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

They don't need to sign Johnny next season. It's the season after that.

And at that point, Wideman will be off the books and so will Bollig and Raymond, freeing up space.

My gut tells me Stajan will be traded at the deadline 2017.

Gaudreau's an RFA at the end of this season.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The flames have just over 24M next season free but need to sign Monny, Colborne and Johnny. That likely means around $7.5 for a defenseman, two forwards and two goalies.

That's extremely tight

Very tight. They will get a minor amount of additional relief with the likelihood that they don't keep Jooris and some other guys in the AHL and maybe LTIR relief for Smid. I keep bringing this up in the trade speculation thread but people insist we can afford Lucic, Okposo, Bishop etc. Not without a lot of bodies moving out. And lets not forget they have to keep contracts a few years down the road in mind.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

And that is why we we will likely be trading Wideman this offseason

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

And that is why we we will likely be trading Wideman this offseason

I think they would desparately love to off Wideman, Smid, Raymond, and Stajan. But I can't see them being able to make a deal unless they take back a David Clarkson contract.

At best they find a way to trade Wideman or Smid for a forward with an overpriced one year contract.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I think they would desparately love to off Wideman, Smid, Raymond, and Stajan. But I can't see them being able to make a deal unless they take back a David Clarkson contract.

At best they find a way to trade Wideman or Smid for a forward with an overpriced one year contract.

Lecavalier?

[Vinny01]

Too bad Backs didn't get his 40th point last night. He has gone ice cold

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Lecavalier?

I believe he's retiring after the playoffs.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Does it really matter though? We were still losing and they were still winning the game at 3-1 or 3-0. There is no extra credit in the standings for preventing a shutout.

I see being annoyed only for fantasy reasons if you were up against someone with Quick. (High 5 JS!)

Exactly, because all other things would be equal. Scoring there, to make it 2-1, would have no effect on the rest of the game.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I would live to put those videos side by side and get the NHL to explain why the play where there's considerable contact in the crease is considered a good goal while the other which is basically a perfect screen play with little or no contact is not a goal. I don't think they could come up with an answer to defend themselves based on comparing the two videos. They basically got both calls wrong so there's really no point in reviewing the goals if you cant get the reviews correct.

The explanation is simple:

2 wrongs make a right - especially when it is with the Kings who don't have any rules apply to them.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I would live to put those videos side by side and get the NHL to explain why the play where there's considerable contact in the crease is considered a good goal while the other which is basically a perfect screen play with little or no contact is not a goal. I don't think they could come up with an answer to defend themselves based on comparing the two videos. They basically got both calls wrong so there's really no point in reviewing the goals if you cant get the reviews correct.

I agree that Oilers call was bad. Both should be no goals though. Colborne was in the crease and Quick's head couldn't move and made contact with Colborne. Text book no goal.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The Flames have to go with Hiller next game. It is an important game and his veteran leadership was brought in by BT for a reason. I think Hiller will get us the results we need the rest of the year, we cannot risk going with the young guy in net.

And..and the Flames still owe him for his play last season!

(I'm going to quote the poster that said that in every PGT/GDT until the end of this debacle)

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I agree that Oilers call was bad. Both should be no goals though. Colborne was in the crease and Quick's head couldn't move and made contact with Colborne. Text book no goal.

The funny thing is from the over head it look like he made contact, but to me in the other angles it looked like his was much lower and just brushed the jersey. I hardly think the jersey should be considered enough for incidental contact.