[Rumour] Friedman: Flames aggressive in trade market. Getting calls on Hudler.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Are you sure? There are no houses on the reservoir being built right now in my neighbourhood and I don't think there is anywhere else houses are actually on the res... Unless he bought the one knock-down property that was for sale.

I was told by a Friend who is doing some work for him. He could be wrong on if it's new build and if it's by or on the Reservoir. Those were his exact words to me anyway.

[Vinny01]

I don't think signing a 25 year old Dman coming off multiple 15goal 40pt seasons was a bad move. The issue was keeping Dion, Reggie, and Sarich especially considering that Gio was emerging. The Flames could have sold high on Dion or tried to move Regehr or Sarich for picks to keep Cammalleri around.

The Flames forward group had 9 guys making less than $2M and that is not the way to build a team.


That is why I don't see Seabrook coming to Calgary. He and Gio will both command #1 money ($7-$8M) and I am not sure a team can afford to pay 2 Dmen that type of money. Luckily for Chicago they got Keith locked up cheap

[activeStick]

A lot is said about pushing defensemen down the depth chart to limit the minutes of the 5/6 guys, but often, it seems that the opposite is true. When given more minutes, guys seem to elevate their game and find a groove playing 16-20 minutes instead of 5-9.

I recall Engelland also commenting at one point when he was bumped up to play with Brodie, mentioning his improved play was because he was able to get into a groove with the added minutes.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by activeStick

A lot is said about pushing defensemen down the depth chart to limit the minutes of the 5/6 guys, but often, it seems that the opposite is true. When given more minutes, guys seem to elevate their game and find a groove playing 16-20 minutes instead of 5-9.

I recall Engelland also commenting at one point when he was bumped up to play with Brodie, mentioning his improved play was because he was able to get into a groove with the added minutes.

Yeah, here's hoping Engelland can handle that 16-20 minutes a game and with a mobile partner he may be able to. I look at it in much the same way as the forwards being able to roll 4 lines. If we can roll our 3 defence pairings while giving some the special teams times and maybe extra in the last minutes of a close game, we'll save on the wear and tear of our top defencemen.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, he was tried there because none of the regular centres were clicking with Iginla and the coaching staff wanted to get him scoring.

Which is another way of saying we had NO options for a true top line centre.

Again, the fact that needed to be tried speaks volumes.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Which is another way of saying we had NO options for a true top line centre.

Again, the fact that needed to be tried speaks volumes.

Yes, it speaks volumes about the incompetence of the coaching at that time. At other times, Langkow had worked very well indeed with Iginla; he had a 70-point season playing on Iginla's line. The idea that Langkow was so bad at playing centre that Moss was a better alternative is beyond laughable.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, it speaks volumes about the incompetence of the coaching at that time. At other times, Langkow had worked very well indeed with Iginla; he had a 70-point season playing on Iginla's line. The idea that Langkow was so bad at playing centre that Moss was a better alternative is beyond laughable.

You're either being obtuse, or missed what I was getting at completely.

Lagkow was never a No. 1 Centre on a true cup threat team, and our awful lack of centre depth during that time was one of the biggest organizational blunders.

Yes, of course Langkow worked with Iginla at times. The amount of players that got huge contracts because of Iggy's dominance in that time is a long list.

That doesn't change the fact we never had a true top line centre, and that our depth at that position was absolutely awful. If they wanted to roll the dice and change things up when Langkow wasn't working, there was nothing close to a backup option, because Lankow was essentially a backup option (as a top line centre) to begin with.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, it speaks volumes about the incompetence of the coaching at that time. At other times, Langkow had worked very well indeed with Iginla; he had a 70-point season playing on Iginla's line. The idea that Langkow was so bad at playing centre that Moss was a better alternative is beyond laughable.

I think you should say Langkow had a 70-point season playing with Huselius. People really forget how much his puck-possession game drove our offense. And we finally have it again wit JG...

[Mattman]

So how about that Hudler rumour...

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

You're either being obtuse, or missed what I was getting at completely.

What you were getting at is that the Flames used Moss as their #1 centre because they didn't have anybody better. This was an obvious lie.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

What you were getting at is that the Flames used Moss as their #1 centre because they didn't have anybody better. This was an obvious lie.

Not even close. You responded to someone who pointed out the Flames were defensive heavy during that era and as a result were thin up front. He then pointed out Moss was a No. 1 centre, which wasn't a good indicator of that point because it was only briefly tried.

I added that the fact that was even tried points to the lack of depth we had at that position at the time.

You are completely hung up on Moss, and missing the fact the centre depth was pitiful during that time. Really easy point to make, and unsure why you're so stuck on it.

Regardless of the brief Moss experiment, the Flames never had a No. 1 Centre during Iginla's time, and beyond Lankow the depth down the middle was atrocious.

[GioforPM]

Conroy had OK stats as Iginla's centre in the early 2000s. But that was probably because of Iginla, plus the added ice time. I remember an Oiler fan at the time insisting that Mike York would outscore Conroy and it didn't happen. He wouldn't take my bet though.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Not even close. You responded to someone who pointed out the Flames were defensive heavy during that era and as a result were thin up front. He then pointed out Moss was a No. 1 centre, which wasn't a good indicator of that point because it was only briefly tried.

I added that the fact that was even tried points to the lack of depth we had at that position at the time

But that is not a fact. It would only point to the lack of depth if there were so few centres on the roster that the team was forced to use a converted winger. What it actually points to is

You are completely hung up on Moss, and missing the fact the centre depth was pitiful during that time. Really easy point to make, and unsure why you're so stuck on it.

Centres on the Calgary Flames roster in 2009-10, before the Phaneuf trade: Langkow, Jokinen, Conroy, Boyd, plus a few games from Lundmark and Backlund. There was nothing wrong with the team's depth: they had plenty of NHL-capable centremen. What was wrong was that none of the centres were very good at that particular time. Langkow and Jokinen had a bad year, Conroy was over the hill, Backlund wasn't ready for a regular role. Converting a winger to play on the #1 line was a desperate move by an incompetent coach. The facts don't bear out the claim about Moss, and they don't bear out your claim about the team's lack of centre depth.

But here's the thing. Here are the centremen who played 60-plus games for the Flames in 2008-09, before Bouwmeester was added: Langkow, Conroy, Boyd. Lombardi played 50 games before being traded, and was replaced on the roster by Jokinen. Everyone at the time agreed (and it still holds true even in hindsight) that Jokinen was an upgrade on Lombardi. The total number of centremen that the Flames lost because of the Bouwmeester signing was ZERO.

The one critical loss that the Flames suffered from their forward ranks in '09 was Cammalleri, and they lost him because he had never had any intention of re-signing. He was traded from L.A. because he wanted $6 million a year on his next contract and they could not make the numbers work. So he went to Calgary, demanded $6 million on his next contract, and the Flames let him walk because, surprise, surprise, they could not make the numbers work. He then got his $6 million a year from Montreal, who regretted it, because Cammalleri never scored more than 50 points in a season again.

Now, if you were to argue that the Flames should have paid Cammalleri the big bucks and not gone after Bouwmeester, I would be prepared to hear you; but it would be a tough argument to make, given that he never again approached his '08-09 numbers. If you were to argue that they should have gone some other UFA forward (ideally a centre), I would be prepared to hear that; but you would have to specify some players that the team could have acquired at that time. Instead, you seem to be looking at the numbers in the abstract and not at the players who actually were available at the time; and you have yet to explain why the same group of centres that was adequate in '08-09 was suddenly pitiful in '09-10.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Man this thread really did derail.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Man this thread really did derail.

Well, I think all aspects of a possible Hudler trade have been covered. Nothing left to add unless there is an actual trade and/or actual specific rumours. Anybody hear anything down at the mall?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Man this thread really did derail.

Let's get this thing back on track:

[codynw]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Well, I think all aspects of a possible Hudler trade have been covered. Nothing left to add unless there is an actual trade and/or actual specific rumours. Anybody hear anything down at the mall?

I heard Hudler was spotted trying on a Penguins jersey at Jersey City.

Confirm/deny?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by codynw

I heard Hudler was spotted trying on a Penguins jersey at Jersey City.

Confirm/deny?

What would the Pens have to add with Malkin?

[tvp2003]

Cross-posting from the STH meeting thread:

Originally Posted by Robbob

I just remembered a quick story Treliving had on Hudler in regards to his mentoring. Mentioned that he really pushed Gaudreau and Monahan. Said that sometimes when the kids would make a mistake he would come back to the bench and mutter/curse in czech.

Treliving also shared a story after game two in Vancouver. After the loss on the way back to Calgary Treliving went to the back of the plane where Hudler was sitting in between Monahan and Gaudreau. The kids were struggling in the playoffs so Treliving wanted to have a chat. When Hudler saw Treliving he pretty much said don't worry I got this.

Somebody needs to help with the development of the young guys -- it's not just something that happens by itself. If not Hudler, then who?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Cross-posting from the STH meeting thread:



Somebody needs to help with the development of the young guys -- it's not just something that happens by itself. If not Hudler, then who?

Stajan comes to mind. Gio, Wideman.