[Rumour] Flames interested in Tobias Rieder

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

Honestly I'd rather take a gamble on a couple of cheaper guys than give a guy like JVR a huge contract.

Every year there are players that sign for 1-2M and they get 40 pts for the team. If we can get find some of these guys for our 3rd and 4th line then we'll be in great shape.

I think the rumoured guys (Ryan, Rieder) are solid targets.

40 points for which type teams? Playoff bound teams? Stanley Cup champions?

Or are these bargain bin signings accomplishing these things due to good circumstances thanks to poor depth on the teams they’re signing with?

I’m genuinely curious, because we always hear about these type of signings every year but are those types of signings more damning of those teams than they are great finds? I can’t spot any bargain signings from last season worth much of anything, let alone one that made an impact on a good team.

edit - Chris Kunitz looks like the only one I can really spot, as he posted 29 points for $2M.

[dino7c]

[QUOTE=Jimdon;6727421]

Originally Posted by Krynn

Well I guess if you watch an organization start bartkowsi to start the year over prospects then watch the young highest scoring defenseman take a year and a half to make the number one PP unit while signing a third pairing defenseman in stone for more than he deserves despite having an abundance of young d prospects waiting to fill those roles you might wonder the same thing.

The defense was terrible last year, the team underachieved big time as a whole and we still didn't see enough of our d prospects to allow them to prove themselves. Why would fox want to sign here?

What's wrong with letting young dmen develop in the AHL for a year or two? All the guys you are talking about will be better for it.

[Jimdon]

[QUOTE=dino7c;6727436]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

What's wrong with letting young dmen develop in the AHL for a year or two? All the guys you are talking about will be better for it.

I don't buy it. If your argument is that watching the big team struggle on defense while having a stocked cupboard of prospects was good for either the players or the organization I disagree.

[dino7c]

[QUOTE=Jimdon;6727438]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I don't buy it. If your argument is that watching the big team struggle on defense while having a stocked cupboard of prospects was good for either the players or the organization I disagree.

Who on the Flames blue line would those guys have replaced and out performed defensively last season?

[wired]

Originally Posted by Royle9

I think they can, but if you think the Flames are going to pay Troy 4.5 mil to NOT play on the Flames roster you're kidding yourself.
We just saw this happen ALL season last year.

That contract unless bought out completely F__K's us this year sadly.

New coach, me thinks this will not happen if he has a crap camp.

[Jimdon]

[QUOTE=dino7c;6727439]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

Who on the Flames blue line would those guys have replaced and out performed defensively last season?

Now you're on the right track. The answer is we don't know and it doesn't matter, because the flames were terrible on defense.

The better question is why we paid to bring in defenseman that didn't move the needle and didn't help the team win when we have a surplus of defensive depth on the farm.

Would they have improved the team? Maybe, we don't know. Would they have benefited more from sheltered NHL minutes then they did from playing on the farm? Maybe, we don't know. Would the Flames have been a worse team if Wotherspoon and Kulak started the year as a third paid instead of stone and bartkowksi? I mean, we don't know but I think it's safe to assume we couldn't have been worse.

We had one of the strongest defensive prospect pools in the league coming into this year and we crapped the bed and still have no idea what these guys are made of.

[dino7c]

Bart sat in the pressbox almost the entire year...without Stone I suppose one guy could have made the jump and played in the 3rd pairing.

Gotta think top pair AHL minutes would be better for development.... honestly I think you are way off base here. AHL team wasn't exactly the 95 Devil's either

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Bart sat in the pressbox almost the entire year...without Stone I suppose one guy could have made the jump and played in the 3rd pairing...

Uhhhh. He did. His name is Brett Kulak.

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Bart sat in the pressbox almost the entire year...without Stone I suppose one guy could have made the jump and played in the 3rd pairing.

Gotta think top pair AHL minutes would be better for development.... honestly I think you are way off base here. AHL team wasn't exactly the 95 Devil's either

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong although I can't say I 100% agree either.

All I know is that if I'm a prospect that sees a team carry 6 veteran d men plus one younger guy in Kulak and then struggle all year and not make any changes despite having an abundance of prospects that look like players... How does that give me the confidence that I'll be given the opportunity I think I deserve?

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Uhhhh. He did. His name is Brett Kulak.

Kulak proved he deserved a chance last year and still got sat to start the year for barrkowski.

Didn't last too long but why was he even there to begin with?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

Kulak proved he deserved a chance last year and still got sat to start the year for barrkowski.



Didn't last too long but why was he even there to begin with?

Who? Bartkowski?

Can you think of a better defenseman to sit the entire season in the press box?

That was a WAY better option than having him occupy the #6 slot, or a development spot in the AHL.

Complaining about the fact that Bartkowski barely played is ridiculous.

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Who? Bartkowski?

Can you think of a better defenseman to sit the entire season in the press box?

That was a WAY better option than having him occupy the #6 slot, or a development spot in the AHL.

Complaining about the fact that Bartkowski barely played is ridiculous.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here, but I was complaining that barrkowski got handed the 3rd pairing role for the first couple months of the year in the first place despite having clearly better, younger options

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

40 points for which type teams? Playoff bound teams? Stanley Cup champions?

Or are these bargain bin signings accomplishing these things due to good circumstances thanks to poor depth on the teams they’re signing with?

I’m genuinely curious, because we always hear about these type of signings every year but are those types of signings more damning of those teams than they are great finds? I can’t spot any bargain signings from last season worth much of anything, let alone one that made an impact on a good team.

edit - Chris Kunitz looks like the only one I can really spot, as he posted 29 points for $2M.

Two seasons ago we signed Kris Versteeg to a 1 year, 950k deal and he got us 37 points in 69 games. Also that year, Grabner signed for 2 years, 1.6M/per and got 40 pts.

Last year, I really liked the Pitlick signing, 1M/per for 3 years. He only had 27 points but I thought was a solid 4th line guy with upside.

You're right that circumstance played a big role in how these players did. My point is that I'd rather take chances with these types of players.

I agree that we should get another established top 6 forward. I just think it should be via trade, not free agency. The tradeoff between free agency and trade is that you have to give up assets to acquire someone via trade, whereas you have to outbid everyone else in free agency. I'd rather give up an asset and get someone with a good cap hit, term and control than dish out the 6M-7M cap hits going after big name free agents.

If I were GM, my general rule of thumb would be acquire top guys via trade, sign depth players in free agency and give out no more than 3M/year for players in free agency.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here, but I was complaining that barrkowski got handed the 3rd pairing role for the first couple months of the year in the first place despite having clearly better, younger options

Bartkowski played:
8 of Calgary’s 13 games in October;
3 of Calgary’s 13 games in November; and
2 of Calgary’s 14 games in December.

I would suggest Bart’s play caused him to lose games after the first 7 games of the season.

Kulak played:
4 in October;
12 in November; and
13 in December.

I would suggest Kulak’s play caused him to gain games after the first 7.

Unless a coach is blown away by a player in camp/pre-season, they will always err on the side of the vet. Here, it only took 7 games for Kulak to replace Bartkowski.

[Samonadreau]

^ It should have been sooner

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

^ It should have been sooner

Yup.

Not like we didn't know what barrkowski was, and not like we hadn't seen Kulaks potential before.

[Calgary4LIfe]

We have seen Kulak before this season - looks good, and then starts to fade with the more he plays. Wotherspoon was in the same boat as well from previous call-ups.


I didn't like Bartkowski getting signed, but I understood why the Flames did it. Was this the year that Kulak finally took that step forward and remained in the lineup? Or would he start fading again like in the previous seasons.


I didn't like the Gulutzan inserted Bartkowski in almost as a reaction to a loss - I argue that in many of those losses, Kulak played a good game and didn't deserve to get benched. I thought Kulak had some rough patches here and there, and at times he deserved to watch a few games, but I also think he took not just a step forward this season, but probably two. He started becoming poised with the puck.


In the end, I don't think it made a whole lot of difference. Kulak had a fine year developmentally in taking the steps forward, and Bartkowski was great in the room apparently. The right decisions were made I would say.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

Yup.

Not like we didn't know what barrkowski was, and not like we hadn't seen Kulaks potential before.

7 games isn’t “the first couple months”

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

7 games isn’t “the first couple months”

Well he played 10 out of the first 15 games stretching through Oct and nov

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

^ It should have been sooner

Sure but the coach has been fired...besides the Flames have had no issue with playing young dmen and are gonna have a 21 year old in their top four next season. Still not sure what this had to do with Tobias Rieder.