The fortunes of the Flames won't turn around until the team can regularly graduate effective NHLers from their system. They're not yet doing that. It's only four years into the rebuild, so we should show some patience. But if the franchise doesn't start showing something from its 2nd round and late 1st round picks within the next few years, changing goalies and replacing coaches isn't going to matter much. You can't compete in the NHL today paying $3 mil and $4 mil for depth players.
I agree, they have definitely missed on the late 1st and 2nd rounders.
2013 is a prime example. Kimchuk and Poirier are not going to turn into NHL players (Klimchuk may turn into a marginal player if we're lucky).
Meanwhile, Andre Burakovsky and Ryan Hartman were both ranked ahead of Poirier and Klimchuk but the Flames passed on them. They're both solid producers for Washington and Chicago and Hartman also plays with sandpaper.
The Poirier selection especially was the Flames reaching and thinking they've outsmarted everyone only to end up with a bust. Also doesn't help when they reached again and drafted Keegan Kanzig in the third round.
Monahan luckily fell into our lap but the rest of the draft was a failure and it's hurting the team right now. Those are the players you should be inserting into your lineup 3-4 years after drafting them.
I agree, they have definitely missed on the late 1st and 2nd rounders.
2013 is a prime example. Kimchuk and Poirier are not going to turn into NHL players (Klimchuk may turn into a marginal player if we're lucky)...
Klimchuk's development was derailed by injuries the past couple of years, but he looks very good in his first full season in the AHL. It strikes me as grossly premature to be making declarations about what he will become at the NHL level at this point.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Just skimming through the posts and I see a nice few people looking to acquire a goalie.
Elliott is a proven goalie in the NHL. How many goalies does the Flames organization need to go through before they finally look internally?
I think its foolish to think about acquiring a goalie at the trade deadline.
Hillier - He's no good, get rid of him. (was fabulous in Anaheim)
Ramo - No good, get rid of him
Ortio - no good get rid of him
Elliott - no good get rid of him
Johnson - no good get rid of him
J***S CH***T. Elliott hasn't forgotten how to be a great goalie, he just played in a much more organized D group in St. Louis. So let the team address the defensive issues rather than looking for that 1/million goaltender who can consistently bail out garbage defensive decisions on a nightly bases.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Justin For This Useful Post:
Just skimming through the posts and I see a nice few people looking to acquire a goalie.
Elliott is a proven goalie in the NHL. How many goalies does the Flames organization need to go through before they finally look internally?
I think its foolish to think about acquiring a goalie at the trade deadline.
Hillier - He's no good, get rid of him. (was fabulous in Anaheim)
Ramo - No good, get rid of him
Ortio - no good get rid of him
Elliott - no good get rid of him
Johnson - no good get rid of him
J***S CH***T. Elliott hasn't forgotten how to be a great goalie, he just played in a much more organized D group in St. Louis. So let the team address the defensive issues rather than looking for that 1/million goaltender who can consistently bail out garbage defensive decisions on a nightly bases.
Elliott has never played 50 games in a season. The Blues had no problem moving him for a 2nd round pick even though he backstopped the Blues to the WCF. The Blues have up a huge package to get Ryan Miller a couple years ago because they didn't believe in Elliott. This was the first year he came in as the clear cut number 1 and he has answered the bell by giving several mediocre performances with some solid starts sprinkled in. The guy is not that great which is why the Blues easily gave him up when he is in his prime and that teams window was open.
Hiller was okay for the Flames in year one but again the Ducks had no issue with him walking and he is out of the league. The same with Ramo and Ortio. I think most people will agree Johnson has been fantastic as a backup but the Flames still lack a number 1.
Would it shock me if they went after Bishop? Not really but it also wouldn't shock me if they stood pat in goal. The fact is the goalies have not been good enough for Treliving to not at least kick tires on what is out there
Jam is Jooris before he forgot he needed to play at 100% for 100% of the time he was on the ice.
I miss that Jooris.
Not sustainable. Even in the 2014 season his game started falling off towards the end of the season. We have seen with Ferland as well that it's impossible to expect these guys to play 100% all season. If a player doesn't have any other qualities beyond 100% effort he's not going to be a full time NHL player.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
Not sustainable. Even in the 2014 season his game started falling off towards the end of the season. We have seen with Ferland as well that it's impossible to expect these guys to play 100% all season. If a player doesn't have any other qualities beyond 100% effort he's not going to be a full time NHL player.
I personally think that guys like Hathaway and Jooris are all over the place in the AHL. Maybe rather than signing guys like Bouma to big ticket deals, the Flames should only sign them maximum for 1 year at a time.
Also, why not have 2-3 guys like Hathaway and Jooris at all times during the season who can rotate and make sure we have a player like them at all times during the season. As much as guys want a full time position, I am sure there are plenty of other tweaners in the NHL who would do anything to even have a rotating spot in the NHL.
For example, this year they should have rotated between Hathaway, Ferland, and Bouma (in theory, all signed to 1 year deals that will be extended only if effort is continuous)... if someone's play drops off or they don't want to extend with the Flames, maybe a guy like Mikkel Aagaard would surprise.. usually these type of players come from no where and are not top picks.
I agree, they have definitely missed on the late 1st and 2nd rounders.
2013 is a prime example. Kimchuk and Poirier are not going to turn into NHL players (Klimchuk may turn into a marginal player if we're lucky).
Meanwhile, Andre Burakovsky and Ryan Hartman were both ranked ahead of Poirier and Klimchuk but the Flames passed on them. They're both solid producers for Washington and Chicago and Hartman also plays with sandpaper.
The Poirier selection especially was the Flames reaching and thinking they've outsmarted everyone only to end up with a bust. Also doesn't help when they reached again and drafted Keegan Kanzig in the third round.
Monahan luckily fell into our lap but the rest of the draft was a failure and it's hurting the team right now. Those are the players you should be inserting into your lineup 3-4 years after drafting them.
Way too early to be saying what Poirier and Klimchuk will definitely be. Either you haven't followed prospects very long or haven't followed hockey very long if you're comfortable writing off players in their early 20's. Ever seen late bloomers? Ever followed Backlund's career progression?
You can't possibly know how good a player like Klimchuk will be, nobody knows the future. Stop pretending you do
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Way too early to be saying what Poirier and Klimchuk will definitely be. Either you haven't followed prospects very long or haven't followed hockey very long if you're comfortable writing off players in their early 20's. Ever seen late bloomers? Ever followed Backlund's career progression?
You can't possibly know how good a player like Klimchuk will be, nobody knows the future. Stop pretending you do
For some fans there's never a right time to express doubt about a prospect. It's too early, too early, too early, too early, and then when they're cut loose at 24, it's what's the point in talking about that bust now? When was the right time to express doubts about the NHL future of Max Reinhart? How about Bill Arnold?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
For some fans there's never a right time to express doubt about a prospect. It's too early, too early, too early, too early, and then when they're cut loose at 24, it's what's the point in talking about that bust now? When was the right time to express doubts about the NHL future of Max Reinhart? How about Bill Arnold?
Expressing doubt is not what Highlander was doing. He was DEFINITIVELY STATING that Poirier is a bust.
He is most definitively NOT a bust. He may not be trending correctly, and it is fair game to question his likelihood of reaching the NHL and/or at what capacity, but to make a definitive statement that a prospect is already a bust is both premature and completely wrong. Until he is a bust, he simply isn't. I would be fine with a post stating: "I think Poirier is going to bust because 'x'...". Re-read his post, and you can see why FDW took exception to it.
It is just as wrong to make grandiose proclamations that "Prospect X will be a super duper awesome franchise player" as well. However, given a choice between the two statements - and being an actual 'fan' of the team - one can guess which statement becomes more annoying, no?
It is one thing to offer an opinion with your underlying rationale (wrong or right). It is another to make such a definitive, "irrefutable" proclamation.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Expressing doubt is not what Highlander was doing. He was DEFINITIVELY STATING that Poirier is a bust.
He is most definitively NOT a bust. He may not be trending correctly, and it is fair game to question his likelihood of reaching the NHL and/or at what capacity, but to make a definitive statement that a prospect is already a bust is both premature and completely wrong. Until he is a bust, he simply isn't. I would be fine with a post stating: "I think Poirier is going to bust because 'x'...". Re-read his post, and you can see why FDW took exception to it.
It is just as wrong to make grandiose proclamations that "Prospect X will be a super duper awesome franchise player" as well. However, given a choice between the two statements - and being an actual 'fan' of the team - one can guess which statement becomes more annoying, no?
It is one thing to offer an opinion with your underlying rationale (wrong or right). It is another to make such a definitive, "irrefutable" proclamation.
I really hope Poirier turns it around, but is it really that irrational to call Poirier a bust? At what point is it allowed? Is Yakopov still not a bust, just trending the wrong way, as he is only a year older? What about Alexander Daigle or Pavel Brendl, can we safely call them busts yet? Brian Lawton still got a shot?
Expressing doubt is not what Highlander was doing. He was DEFINITIVELY STATING that Poirier is a bust.
He is most definitively NOT a bust. He may not be trending correctly, and it is fair game to question his likelihood of reaching the NHL and/or at what capacity, but to make a definitive statement that a prospect is already a bust is both premature and completely wrong. Until he is a bust, he simply isn't. I would be fine with a post stating: "I think Poirier is going to bust because 'x'...". Re-read his post, and you can see why FDW took exception to it.
It is just as wrong to make grandiose proclamations that "Prospect X will be a super duper awesome franchise player" as well. However, given a choice between the two statements - and being an actual 'fan' of the team - one can guess which statement becomes more annoying, no?
It is one thing to offer an opinion with your underlying rationale (wrong or right). It is another to make such a definitive, "irrefutable" proclamation.
I would say he is nearing the bust label and that it would not be out of the question to stick it to him. Of his draft class there are only three players from his round that have played less games - those being Sam Morin, Jason Dickinson, and Morgan Klimchuk. The next closest is Hunter Shinkaruk. There are 27 players selected after the 1st round who have played more. Seems pretty close to busting based on the draft list.
What should be most alarming is that three of the bottom five players for games played in that 1st round are all Flames property. Anyone still want to try and argue the Flames don't give their prospects the chance to develop like other teams do? It's that, or we have a serious problem with being able to draft and develop players.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
