[Rumour] Flames, Canucks, and Oilers are believed to be frontrunners for Zach Hyman

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm just hoping that that's a thing of the past.

The last two off seasons have been fine and last year's actually quite good ... older Tanev but hits it out of the park.

You'd have to think given the Brouwer and Neal debacles that they did some sort of a "how did that happen?" analysis.

Yeah, I thought Tanev was literally just Brouwer the defenceman…but clearly the Flames had done some good pro-scouting on that angle, as Tanev has flourished here.

In regards to Hyman, he’s the opposite of Brouwer in my eyes. A guy who drives play and produces well. If we do land him, I like the player profile and I think it shows a strong change in approach towards free agent forwards. The term will be problematic, but he’ll be a good player for the first half of the deal and that’s an improvement on those disastrous Neal/Brouwer signings.

Signing a player like Hyman, signing Darryl Sutter, and signing Jacob Markstrom all in the last calendar year? That shows me that Treliving is improving as a general manager.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Signing a player like Hyman, signing Darryl Sutter, and signing Jacob Markstrom all in the last calendar year? That shows me that Treliving is improving as a general manager.

It remains to be seen about Hyman, but I'm quite willing to substitute Tanev to make the same point. And a refreshing point it is, after weeks of ‘Treliving must be fired immediately’.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yeah, I thought Tanev was literally just Brouwer the defenceman…but clearly the Flames had done some good pro-scouting on that angle, as Tanev has flourished here.

In regards to Hyman, he’s the opposite of Brouwer in my eyes. A guy who drives play and produces well. If we do land him, I like the player profile and I think it shows a strong change in approach towards free agent forwards. The term will be problematic, but he’ll be a good player for the first half of the deal and that’s an improvement on those disastrous Neal/Brouwer signings.

Signing a player like Hyman, signing Darryl Sutter, and signing Jacob Markstrom all in the last calendar year? That shows me that Treliving is improving as a general manager.

A contrarian viewpoint may include the notion that the owners helped influence the Sutter signing and that the verdict is very much still out on Markstrom as he was a below average goalie on the whole last year

Tanev was pretty good though

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yeah, I thought Tanev was literally just Brouwer the defenceman…but clearly the Flames had done some good pro-scouting on that angle, as Tanev has flourished here.

In regards to Hyman, he’s the opposite of Brouwer in my eyes. A guy who drives play and produces well. If we do land him, I like the player profile and I think it shows a strong change in approach towards free agent forwards. The term will be problematic, but he’ll be a good player for the first half of the deal and that’s an improvement on those disastrous Neal/Brouwer signings.

Signing a player like Hyman, signing Darryl Sutter, and signing Jacob Markstrom all in the last calendar year? That shows me that Treliving is improving as a general manager.

I have a hard time passing judgment on Markstrom and Tanev after one year. Markstrom didn't have the best year last year. I hope that he improves, and looks a little more calm back there, like he did to start the year. As for Tanev, he was this teams MVP last season, and I was impressed. I hope he can keep it up throughout his contract.

For me Hyman is a lot like Frolik, when Calgary acquired him. He will contribute offensively, and be good defensively. I just don't see him as being a able to take over a game. I also don't see him as being the guy you look to in order to score the game tying goal. Finally, the mentioned term scares me.

As for your point on Treliving, he did okay in free agency. It seems like he didn't make any blunders in the last off season. He signed a bunch of league minimum contracts(because he had to), and honestly he missed on most of them. He also had to offer Mangiapane a bridge contract, which was a missed opportunity due to the cap. Again, most of it is due to COVID, and the cap staying flat, so it's not his fault. Hindsight 20/20 would re-signing Talbot and getting more forward help made the team better last season? I am not sure, but it does seem like it.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

A contrarian viewpoint may include the notion that the owners helped influence the Sutter signing and that the verdict is very much still out on Markstrom as he was a below average goalie on the whole last year

Tanev was pretty good though

We saw good stretches from Markstrom last year. The concussion really threw a wrench in his season though, and I think he came back before he should have. Towards the end of the season I thought we saw him rounding back into form.

I just don’t buy the “owners forced him to sign Sutter” narrative. If it was that sort of situation I feel like the owners would have just fired Treliving.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

We saw good stretches from Markstrom last year. The concussion really threw a wrench in his season though, and I think he came back before he should have. Towards the end of the season I thought we saw him rounding back into form.

I just don’t buy the “owners forced him to sign Sutter” narrative. If it was that sort of situation I feel like the owners would have just fired Treliving.

I have seen these arguments too.

Fact is, ideally Markstrom would have just been good. But what we have is not good plus excuses. I’m not saying he won’t be good. But so far, inconsistent

There are plenty of reasons the owners could ‘encourage’ that coaching decision as it has been a glaring weak spot for the GM and arguably embarrassment for the organization, and notably they have been involved in coaching decisions before.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Fact is, ideally Markstrom would have just been good. But what we have is not good plus excuses.

TIL that when a professional athlete suffers a concussion, it doesn't affect his performance; it's just an excuse.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

TIL that when a professional athlete suffers a concussion, it doesn't affect his performance; it's just an excuse.

Well that is sad that it is your takeaway.

I didn’t say a concussion didn’t affect his performance. Absolutely not. We can’t know. But I would say the Flames had a goalie who didn’t have a good season.

All that matters is the results. They were below average.

You don’t have a goalie that played well. You have a goalie that was inconsistent plus your justification /rationalization of it.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Well that is sad that it is your takeaway.

I didn’t say a concussion didn’t affect his performance. Absolutely not.

You were the one who used the word ‘excuse’.

I didn’t say a concussion didn’t affect his performance. Absolutely not. We can’t know.

We can't know?

So you're saying he had a concussion that put him out of the lineup for a considerable time, and yet it might not have affected his performance?

Good grief.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You were the one who used the word ‘excuse’.

Yes, it was an excuse for below average performance

Look up excuse in the dictionary

It is an excuse

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yes, it was an excuse for below average performance

Look up excuse in the dictionary

It is an excuse

If you look at his season:

Elite > Injured > Bad > Good

The fact that he was concussed could be an explanation as to why his play dipped so much.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yes, it was an excuse for below average performance

Look up excuse in the dictionary

It is an excuse

excuse noun | ɪkˈskjuːs, ɛkˈskjuːs |
1 a reason or explanation given to justify a fault or offence: there can be no excuse for any further delay | the excuse that half the team failed to turn up.
• a reason put forward to conceal the real reason for an action; a pretext: as an excuse to get out of the house she went to post a letter.

It's quite clear in context that you mean the second definition and not the first, since you are attempting to blame Treliving for his goalie's poor performance. It's quite evident that you think Markstrom is just a bad goalie and that Treliving deserves no credit for signing him, and that his concussion is just an excuse in the second sense – a reason put forward to conceal the real reason why he did not play well.

If you thought Markstrom's performance actually was, you know, excused by his injury, you would not be holding it against the person who signed him to a contract before he was injured.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Well, sorry, I live in a complex world where multiple ideas can coexist.

Markstrom had inconsistent play and below average results. He also had a concussion. Tre is not to blame for the concussion.

I don’t like the contract and have seen issues with his save selection leading to poor recovery and issues with rebound control. These led to goals against, contributed to losses, and to narrowly missing the playoffs

It is a moot point because a goalie would have to be Hiller level bad to have bad stats with Sutter D. So he will “bounce back” somewhat for sure. May even look really good.

Anyways, it’s not the point of this thread

Hyman is a good player but will not end up being a steal

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Well, sorry, I live in a complex world where multiple ideas can coexist.

Markstrom had inconsistent play and below average results. He also had a concussion. Tre is not to blame for the concussion.

Right. You just seem extremely reluctant to accept that the concussion was a major contributing cause of the inconsistent play and the below-average results.

You see, I live in a complex world where multiple ideas coexist and there are actual cause-and-effect relationships among them. Let me know when you get that far before treating me to another helping of your condescending snark.

[FlamesAddiction]

I can't recall too many times when Markstrom was bad. He didn't stand on his head to steal wins, but I can hardly blame him for that. I think on most nights, he gave the team a chance and was rarely, if ever, the reason the Flames lost.

[Bourque's Twin]

Teams are sure not afraid to give players term these days. Hyman for 8 years is absolutely ridiculous.

[Rollin22x]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I can't recall too many times when Markstrom was bad. He didn't stand on his head to steal wins, but I can hardly blame him for that. I think on most nights, he gave the team a chance and was rarely, if ever, the reason the Flames lost.

I thought he stole a few games early in the season.

[sticktrick]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I can't recall too many times when Markstrom was bad. He didn't stand on his head to steal wins, but I can hardly blame him for that. I think on most nights, he gave the team a chance and was rarely, if ever, the reason the Flames lost.

Well said. I am really surprised to see posters commenting Markstrom’s performance this past year in negative light. He certainly wasn’t the reason for the Flames poor season. I think he came as advertised and expected, considering the concussion he suffered. The flames are fortunate to have him.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I can't recall too many times when Markstrom was bad. He didn't stand on his head to steal wins, but I can hardly blame him for that. I think on most nights, he gave the team a chance and was rarely, if ever, the reason the Flames lost.

This is fair. I’m hoping for more next season.

[N-E-B]

7 years for Hyman is absolutely insane. I’d be all in for a 4 year deal but no way would I want to be the team paying a 36 year old Zach Hyman $6m/year.