[News] Bouma on waivers for buyout

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

A line of Baertschi - Granlund - Bouma would look pretty sweet!

Its the failure line.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

IIRC Bouma was scratched for the last game during playoffs. Against a heavy team like the Ducks one would think he would've shone. Now maybe they just wanted to shake things up due to zero wins but I didn't think CGY brought enough physicality that series.

Bouma could skate well and was a good grinder. I'm interested to see what Treliving has in store for the makeup of the bottom lines.

You think Bouma skates well?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Stone in the #5 spot is not "just another depth defender." His addition to the current group would give the Flames arguably the best group of defensemen in the NHL. The team took a dip in scoring last year, and part of that had to do with new coaching, but there is a strong case to be made that the Flames should be back among the top-ten offensive teams in the League again this year.

I am not convinced that scoring depth is a serious problem.

But it's a fine line. With the money and assets invested in the top 4, you simply shouldn't expect the bottom pairing to play many minutes. So although I agree a veteran defenseman is still needed, if you invest too much money in the position you're causing problems down the road. Unless ultimately you might be willing to part with one of your top 4 in a trade. Stone just might be too expensive.

[Ryan Coke]

GG said on 960 today that he foresees his #5 D to play in the 18 minutes a night range, #6 around 12.

To me that definitely points to wanting a strong #5 signed.

Then also mentioned Kulak having a good chance to be on the roster (sounds like as a 6).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Dammit, whatever you posted isn't opening for me.

#curious

[Oling_Roachinen]

Ha, going to have to eat crow on this one but I don't get the buyout from a "hockey operation perspective." He could have sat in the box for most of the season and the Flames would be nearly the same cap wise as having some scrub healthy scratch up there for this year, and obviously better off next.


But maybe they just wanted to give Bouma a chance to find a team that will play him, which might not be the worst idea. Never hurts to have former players talk good about the organization and management. Or they just wanted him away from the team and dressing room for whatever reason.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

GG said on 960 today that he foresees his #5 D to play in the 18 minutes a night range, #6 around 12.

To me that definitely points to wanting a strong #5 signed.

Then also mentioned Kulak having a good chance to be on the roster (sounds like as a 6).

Hmm...so Stone may get some PK time with Gio and free up Hamilton for more PP time?

Also will be good if Kulak and Wotherspoon get regular ice to see what they are. It's now or never for those two.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Ha, going to have to eat crow on this one but I don't get the buyout from a "hockey operation perspective."

Trust 'The Process'.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Stone in the #5 spot is not "just another depth defender." His addition to the current group would give the Flames arguably the best group of defensemen in the NHL.

... his non-addition to the roster would leave the Flames with still arguably the best group of defensemen in the NHL. Stone isn't the difference between having that and not having that. I mean if Stone is willing to sign a 1 year contract for cheap... sure have him back... but I'm not convinced he'd take either in which case all he's doing is blocking a prospect and eating up cap that could be better allocated elsewhere.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Trust 'The Process'.

Dammit....now I have to drink. Its early man! Dont just throw that around all willy-nilly.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... his non-addition to the roster would leave the Flames with still arguably the best group of defensemen in the NHL. Stone isn't the difference between having that and not having that. I mean if Stone is willing to sign a 1 year contract for cheap... sure have him back... but I'm not convinced he'd take either in which case all he's doing is blocking a prospect and eating up cap that could be better allocated elsewhere.

It's been mentioned several times to you: we don't have #5 right now.

Throwing in two rookies to play on our bottom pairing would be extremely risky and disadvantageous, especially if someone needs to step up to play top four in case of injury.

It's a much bigger need than you're trying to assert.

And yes:

Gio-Hamilton
Brodie-Hamonic
Stone - Rookie

is a MUCH deeper and better blueline than

Gio-Hamilton
Brodie-Hamonic
Rookie-Rookie

[MikePatton]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Dammit, whatever you posted isn't opening for me.

#curious

It's a picture of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog and the caption says "For me to poop on"

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

It's been mentioned several times to you: we don't have #5 right now.

Throwing in two rookies to play on our bottom pairing would be extremely risky and disadvantageous, especially if someone needs to step up to play top four in case of injury.

It's a much bigger need than you're trying to assert.

And yes:

Gio-Hamilton
Brodie-Hamonic
Stone - Rookie

is a MUCH deeper and better blueline than

Gio-Hamilton
Brodie-Hamonic
Rookie-Rookie

Really? "MUCH"?... no it isn't. It's a slightly deeper and better blueline. I don't want him eating up cap and term that our prospects feel blocked (and don't get an opportunity to build NHL value) and I don't want us to lose out on a more significant upgrade at forward by allocating a bunch of money on the bottom pairing.

Like I said if we can get both cheap and short... go for it. Otherwise I'd rather go grab another scoring forward and address the bottom pairing later.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Really? "MUCH"?... no it isn't. It's a slightly deeper and better blueline. I don't want him eating up cap and term that our prospects feel blocked (and don't get an opportunity to build NHL value) and I don't want us to lose out on a more significant upgrade at forward by allocating a bunch of money on the bottom pairing.

Like I said if we can get both cheap and short... go for it. Otherwise I'd rather go grab another scoring forward and address the bottom pairing later.

They're leaving a spot open for a youngster. And injuries are almost inevitable which means prospects will get their chance. Having 2 rookies on the bottom pairing seems as unlikely as having a rookie backup this year. You want a veteran 5th in case one or more of your top 4 go down.

I'd say that yes, a 5th defenceman is a more pressing need than scoring depth. You want more scoring? Look to Bennett, Tkachuk, Ferland and Jankowski. That's likely where we will be looking for improvements

[868904]

There is definitely a need for a veteran RHS defence.

As it stands, Andersson is the only option there now. If any of the RHS defencemen get injured, there is no one else capable of stepping up. Andresson could also use some more AHL time.

On the left side, Kulak probably has the inside track on the 3rd pairing LHS with Bartkowski and Wotherspoon battling it out for the"4th pairing". Kylington is not ready.

It'd be nice if the Flames could get a guy on a 1 or 2 year deal, so as not to "block" Andersson in a year or two, but worst case, if Andersson is as good as we hope he is, and a veteran is "blocking" him, then we deal Andersson for a first rounder.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

They're leaving a spot open for a youngster. And injuries are almost inevitable which means prospects will get their chance. Having 2 rookies on the bottom pairing seems as unlikely as having a rookie backup this year. You want a veteran 5th in case one or more of your top 4 go down.

I'm not saying don't get a veteran #5D for this year... I'm saying don't get one that wants term and a big paycheck. Don't sign a guy to be on the bottom pairing and give him a contract as if he were a top 4.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I'm not saying don't get a veteran #5D for this year... I'm saying don't get one that wants term and a big paycheck. Don't sign a guy to be on the bottom pairing and give him a contract as if he were a top 4.

I don't see why we wouldn't. Build contending depth if you can. If all of Andersson, Kulak, Fox, Kylington turn out that will be a pleasant problem to have in the future. That could be when somebody is traded to recoup picks/prospects

[TheFlamesVan]

You have to assume you will have your 5th D playing in at least 10 games in the top 4 due to injury/illness/family etc. This is great depth planning. 3 years with a strong 5 man d core. Wow.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You think Bouma skates well?

He's not McDavid but he isn't slow either.

1. Mikael Backlund (Red) - 13.786
2. Sam Bennett (White) - 13.971
3. Hunter Shinkurak (White) - 14.143
4. Garnet Hathaway (Red) - 14.201
5. Lance Bouma (White) - 14.324
6. Brett Kulak (Red) - 14.456

https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/team...nt/c-284352698

[CalgaryFan1988]

Im disappointed. One would say, I may even be a little Boumed out.