08-11-2017, 03:12 PM
|
#81
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Calgary
|
I want to see more articles like this. Let people underestimate what this team will do this year. The exact opposite of the Coilers. Everyone thinks they are going to be huge. I think Talbot is coming back to earth this year which means the Edmonton suckiness will return.
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 03:21 PM
|
#82
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
A lot of ad hominem attacks in this thread. All the "Lambert sucks" posts do nothing to contribute to quality discussion on CalgaryPuck. If he's as dumb as you say, it should be easy to tear him apart using actual things from the article posted.
Hold yourselves to a higher standard, CP.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to SebC For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-11-2017, 03:25 PM
|
#83
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Someone always has to be slightly sanctimonious, don't they?
SebC, please. Lambert has earned the attacks twice over. Proven to be a fool and a click bait based troll for years now, he's getting what he gives. Some of his comments and analysis over the years has run the gambit from foolish to downright childish.
Lambert sucks. That isn't an attack, it's a fact.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JFK For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-11-2017, 03:32 PM
|
#84
|
Needs More Cowbell
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not Canada, Eh?
|
If Smith can continue to be that third d-man behind a relatively stack d-corps then I think the Flames will be just fine. If for whatever reason we're riding Lack like we did Johnson last season then all bets are off.
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 03:32 PM
|
#85
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
A lot of ad hominem attacks in this thread. All the "Lambert sucks" posts do nothing to contribute to quality discussion on CalgaryPuck. If he's as dumb as you say, it should be easy to tear him apart using actual things from the article posted.
Hold yourselves to a higher standard, CP.
|
There have been all kinds of posts tearing apart actual things from the article. But after a while, it becomes redundant.
Also, Lambert has a long track record of attempting to #### on the Flames. His disdain is real, clear, and well documented. So he deserves posts that roast his body of work as well.
I find posts like yours, that attempt to suggest there has been little or no quality discussion to be just as pathetic as the posts you are trying to attack.
|
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-11-2017, 03:40 PM
|
#86
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
How in the blue hell do some of these guys get employed to write such garbage?
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 03:41 PM
|
#87
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFK
Someone always has to be slightly sanctimonious, don't they?
[...]
Lambert sucks. That isn't an attack, it's a fact.
|
What makes a writer suck? Fallacious logic? Arguments made without supporting evidence or contradicted by available evidence? By most reasonable standards, including those used to dismiss Lambert, the drivebys are low quality posts (and thus also hypocritical).
This isn't about Lambert, it's about us. Whether he sucks or not is irrelevent - either way, we should aspire to not suck, and that means backing up our thoughts with sound arguments, and not dismissing arguments because we've disliked previous arguments made by the same source.
Lambert could be a total hack and therefore have written a completely bogus article. Or he could be the stopped clock showing the right time. We sort that out by discussing the content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
There have been all kinds of posts tearing apart actual things from the article. But after a while, it becomes redundant.
|
I didn't say there weren't people addressing the content. I said that there are a lot of posts that don't. And those become redundant as well.
Last edited by SebC; 08-11-2017 at 03:44 PM.
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 03:52 PM
|
#88
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jah Chalgary
|
Heavily regretting clicking on that article link right now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champion
The Oilers don't need a Giordano. They have a glut of him.
|
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 04:07 PM
|
#89
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
If I were a Calgary fan I'd be upset with the goal tending solution as well.
I think the writer wasn't wrong in identifying that the Flames are in a window to potentially put themselves over the top and they defaulted to a what is in my opinion a goal tending solution with very limited upside.
Giordano likely has 1-3 years left as an impact player if we go by the general history of NHL players of all types. Father time gets them all.
If the Flames are wanting to push to win while he is still a top 10-20 D-man, they need to do it now. There is no guarantee that either Brodie or Hamilton develop into that guy.
I think they would have been better served paying the price and getting a good young goalie with upside. It would have cost a lot for sure, but would have been worth it IMO.
|
Okay that's all well and good, but what's the realistic suggestion here? Who is a "good young goalie with upside" that was available this summer?
I'd argue that Darling and Raanta have an equal number of question marks as Smith and Lack ( l believe a new goalie coach and system will benefit Lack tremendously).
I'm tired of hearing about how the Flames didn't go out and "pay the price" for a good young goalie. Who exactly were they going to pay? Sorry, Matt Murray wasn't available.
The Flames have 3 very good young goalies in the system right now. I like the odds of one of them emerging over the next 3 seasons.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to bax For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-11-2017, 04:13 PM
|
#90
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bax
Okay that's all well and good, but what's the realistic suggestion here? Who is a "good young goalie with upside" that was available this summer?
I'd argue that Darling and Raanta have an equal number of question marks as Smith and Lack ( l believe a new goalie coach and system will benefit Lack tremendously).
I'm tired of hearing about how the Flames didn't go out and "pay the price" for a good young goalie. Who exactly were they going to pay? Sorry, Matt Murray wasn't available.
The Flames have 3 very good young goalies in the system right now. I like the odds of one of them emerging over the next 3 seasons.
|
The next 3 seasons isn't soon enough IMO. They need a legit starting goalie now. This team's window is open, and they can't be wasting any more years with mediocre goaltending.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Before you call me a pessimist or a downer, the Flames made me this way. Blame them.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to codynw For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-11-2017, 04:31 PM
|
#91
|
Franchise Player
|
The biggest flaw in that article is the identification of the window. And to be fair, it's not just Lambert that has falsely identified the win now window as starting now and ending in 3 years, there are lots of fans on here who seem to have that same sense of urgency. Far too much perception around here that that the core has to be in their early 20's to succeed (i.e. younger than 25) and after that there's a decline. No evidence to suggest that elite NHL players (which our core will have to be if we are going to succeed anyway) aren't still in their prime in the back half of their 20's as well.
Other than Gio, who I agree will at best give us 3 more years, there is no reason to believe that we can't continue our window, and IMO potentially have an even stronger team 3 years after that. While as someone pointed out, there is no guarantee that one of our younger Dmen will step up to replace Gio, I'd say there are very few teams with as good a chance of absorbing his decline as ours with any one of Hamilton, Brodie or Hamonic taking that step. We also have no reason to believe that Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Ferland, Bennett etc.. will be on the decline 3 years out.
What the Flames have on their hands right now is a chance for the window to legitimately start early, and I agree with the Lambert that goaltending is the biggest question mark on whether we can take advantage of that opportunity.
And LOL to the development comment. Hate it when comments like that are made without context. The Flames are in this position because their prospects have moved along so quickly in recent years (whether luck, development or good drafting)and the home grown talent has become the core he's writing about. When you are literally starting from scratch about 3 years ago, pretty tough to bring through the supporting cast when all of your top prospects are actually turning into the core (which is what you want).
You can't successfully fast track a rebuild in about 3 years the way the Flames have and not have some holes still left to fill, especially with only 1 top 5 pick. Much better than having to take 10 years, and a multitude of 1st overalls, lucking out on a generational talent with those picks and still not having any less holes to speak of.
Last edited by Cleveland Steam Whistle; 08-11-2017 at 04:35 PM.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cleveland Steam Whistle For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-11-2017, 04:56 PM
|
#92
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bax
Okay that's all well and good, but what's the realistic suggestion here? Who is a "good young goalie with upside" that was available this summer?
|
Because of the expansion draft, I'd imagine that just about all of them were available.
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 05:32 PM
|
#93
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto
Because of the expansion draft, I'd imagine that just about all of them were available.
|
All of them as in who?
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 05:34 PM
|
#94
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto
Because of the expansion draft, I'd imagine that just about all of them were available.
|
Based on what? None of them actually were traded. So who do you think, in terms of a good young goalie, was available?
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 05:35 PM
|
#95
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
|
If the idea was Treliving didn't want to gamble a year of his core "going for it" on an untested starting goaltender, the guys available were basically Ben Bishop, Marc-Andre Fleury and Mike Smith. He went with the guy he knew the most with the lowest acquisition cost.
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Freeway For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-11-2017, 05:36 PM
|
#96
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by codynw
The next 3 seasons isn't soon enough IMO. They need a legit starting goalie now. This team's window is open, and they can't be wasting any more years with mediocre goaltending.
|
Still don't hear a realistic suggestion for who you think they should have traded for that is a legit #1
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 05:40 PM
|
#97
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeway
If the idea was Treliving didn't want to gamble a year of his core "going for it" on an untested starting goaltender, the guys available were basically Ben Bishop, Marc-Andre Fleury and Mike Smith. He went with the guy he knew the most with the lowest acquisition cost.
|
Also the guy with the least term, keeping an option to promote Rittich, Gillies, or even Parsons to the NHL by 2019-20. Not exactly the worst trio of goaltenders there.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
|
|
|
08-11-2017, 05:43 PM
|
#98
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Also the guy with the least term, keeping an option to promote Rittich, Gillies, or even Parsons to the NHL by 2019-20. Not exactly the worst trio of goaltenders there.
|
And that was also probably intentional. Treliving doesn't usually do things on accident.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Freeway For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-11-2017, 05:49 PM
|
#99
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
A lot of ad hominem attacks in this thread. All the "Lambert sucks" posts do nothing to contribute to quality discussion on CalgaryPuck. If he's as dumb as you say, it should be easy to tear him apart using actual things from the article posted.
Hold yourselves to a higher standard, CP.
|
I love how CP's most sanctimonious posters always demand that others live up to their expectations while rarely adding value to the forum themselves.
Physician, heal thyself.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-11-2017, 05:55 PM
|
#100
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Right behind you.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeway
If the idea was Treliving didn't want to gamble a year of his core "going for it" on an untested starting goaltender, the guys available were basically Ben Bishop, Marc-Andre Fleury and Mike Smith. He went with the guy he knew the most with the lowest acquisition cost.
|
Smith was the right choice for the Flames for so many reasons:
Contract price - was the lowest available with a $4.25MM cap hit ( with Arizona retaining salary) vs Ben Bishop at $4.9MM and MAF at $5.75MM
Term - at two years was what the Flames wanted (Treliving believes either of Gilles or Parsons will be ready in two years for a #1 workload)
Cost - the Smith signing didn't cost any valued assets (Brandon Hickey was an acceptable acquisition cost)
Mentoring - The Flames stable of young goalies will benefit from Smith's experience, mentoring, puck handling skills etc.
Smith could easily prove to be a better than average goaltender with the Flames this year, and if he starts out strong he will quickly silence his critics.
I would argue Smith wasn't just the lowest acquisition cost, but the best combination of all relevant factors for the Flames.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Gaudfather For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:46 PM.
|
|