VOICE OF THE NATION - Bring Out Your Dead

Vintage Flame
November 22 2011 02:24PM

 

 

This is one of the funniest movies known to mankind. The humour is subtle but deliberate and there are more underlying messages than Wilson counts scoring chances in a week’s worth of Flames games. Does this clip remind you of anything or anyone that we talk about often on this site?

It should.

Much like the poor bugger in the clip, teetering on the brink of death, but not quite there, the Calgary Flames have been teetering between wins and losses, but always maintaining the stench of mediocrity, which we all know is a slow painful death.

I'M NOT DEAD YET...

Indeed the Flames are far from finished. It is still early in the season and Calgary is not far enough from the pack to say they can’t make up ground in the standings and turn this thing around before the search and rescue becomes a search and retrieve. However, there is going to have to be something that comes from this team, some spark of life that shows the fan base that this season, this team is worth supporting and fighting for.

If we see John Cleese’s character as Jay Feaster, and the Eric Idle as any willing GM in the NHL, we see that no matter how much the Jay man wants to strike a deal to get rid of some dead weight, there just isn’t a buyer in the market... right now. Why not now? Well the simple explanation is that people just don’t want to take on dead weight, and no matter how good of a job you do with lawyer speak Jay, GM’s can still see the crap all over what you’re offering.

I have no doubt in my mind that Feaster is probably working the phones almost every day, but there is little incentive for a team that is doing well to find any need or value in any Flames player as we speak. When talking about any move the Flames make, the overwhelming factor has to be something that will benefit this team in the future, more than it benefits it at the moment. There is no instant fix, because the Flames cannot trade their marketable players to teams that are in the same state as Calgary, it does them absolutely no good. The Flames can also not trade their marketable players to elite contenders because they simply don’t need them...for now.

YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE...

At the beginning of the year, Feaster and company did their best to convince a sceptical and impatient fan base that the Flames were a better team and, a legit playoff contender. He went so far to call out the skeptics that were advocating a full blown re-build, similar to that of the Edmonton Oilers.

"I'm sorry - Edmonton finished where last year, caller? Want to wager on where we finish relative to Edmonton this year? I'm tired of this question, I'll tell you very honestly. I'm getting a little sour. how many teams... every year, for the last 10 years, five years, eight years, have finished in the bottom five, bottom seven, bottom 10? They've had to pick anywhere from No. 1 to No. 10 year after year after year after year, and they still wander in the desert. And they're no closer to getting out than they were 10 years ago."

Jay might be eating his words this year, and crow will be just the appetizer. Now I’m not saying that the Flames GM was feeding a line to the media and to the fans. I honestly think he believed in what he said then, and probably still does. I believed Jay as well. I liked the bold move, especially when he told the public to ”Write it Down”, when talking about the Flames return to the post-season.

The start of this season has been a polar opposite of Jay’s claims though, and so far his boasts of a head-to-head record with the Oilers is looking like a lot of hot air.

 

 

Will this continue? It’s not likely. The Edmonton Oiler will probably not continue their early trends and will eventually begin to slide in the standings. Is that going to matter to their fan base? Not in the least! They play a very exciting brand of hockey and the fans see what is in store for the organization in the near future. Flames fans on the other hand leave each game feeling more frustrated and filled with more and more contempt. Rather than seeing a not very talented team, giving it their all, and playing exciting hockey, they witness a bunch of stiffs playing through the motions like they don’t really give a damn.

Does this fall on Feaster and/or Sutter? Many of you will say it does, but I don’t agree. This is a problem with the players through and through. I chatted with Pat [Steinberg] on overtime last night and he brought up exhibit ‘A’ on this point. The Flames pathetic powerplay is a Jekyll and Hyde story. The PP that is executed during games is not the system that is being implemented or run in practices. Why not? This is not a fault of the coach, and certainly not the GM. When you run a system over and over again in practice and then when it comes to game time, the players take it upon themselves to implement a different style, the knocks and criticisms have to fall on the players and the leadership.

 

 

You can wait. Flames fans won’t need to wait until next year, after the numerous contracts expire and all that money comes off the cap, but you will need to wait longer than you would like. As the trade deadline approaches, there will be more teams looking to shore up their rosters to make a playoff run. That’s when Calgary will have more leverage in trade scenarios. Teams will then be looking at Calgary for missing pieces to their puzzles, and this is when will most likely see the possible departure of people like Bourque, Moss, Jokinen, Kiprusoff and even Jarome Iginla.

Honestly, don’t expect any tinkering moves, they are a waste of time and resources at this point. As Pat said on overtime, the Flames cannot make a trade just for the sake of making a trade. The only deal we are likely to see happen buzz-wise or sooner-than-later, would be a deal to move Bourque; and that can’t come soon enough. All other assets are pretty much locked until the Flames have some bargaining power.

As for the fan base, we might as well get used to this frustration and aggravation for a while. News is all over twitter right now about the Kyle Turris signing in Phoenix, and with that comes the speculation of where he will now end up. At 2 years and $2.8M combined, I’d like to see the Flames take a shot at him. That being said, Bourque is the only name that comes to mind, and he would be a good fit for the Coyotes, reuniting with Daymond Langkow. On the flip side to that coin is the fact that there are probably a lot of teams interested that have more to offer the Yotes than Calgary does, or is willing to give up; so don’t get to excited.

On the topic of excitement, wouldn’t it be nice if Flames fans could experience this level of excitement over someone in our line-up? Have we ever been THIS excited about anyone??

E42f2ca09dfb26046c3060ff46473aff
Vintage Flame is a Calgary based sports junkie that prefers to call hockey a "religion" rather than an addiction. He believes there are two types of hockey fans. Those who cheer for the Flames, and those who don't understand the sport yet. Follow Vintage_Flame on Twitter
Avatar
#1 RexLibris
November 22 2011, 05:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

I forgot one trade scenario! How about Steve Staios for Aaron Johnson and a conditional 3rd round pi-*...oh, nnnnnevermind.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Avatar
#2 kevin r
November 22 2011, 09:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
snappingpaco wrote:

Just heard that Berglund has been put on waivers, will the flames have any potential interest in picking him up? he is a low cap hit and is still relatively young, wouldn't be such a bad pick up if your out of the kyle turris sweepstakes!

Berglund played tonight, sources for this one? If its true, if I were Feaster, I would be all over this one like a rash on an Oiler cheerleader.

Avatar
#3 everton fc
November 22 2011, 02:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Good post.

I ranted on the previous thread. My opinion; if the players are quitting on the coaching staff (yet again?)... I still think this says something about the coaching staff - not to mention the players... The Executive.

The demolition starts from the top down. King/Feaster. We could go after GMs the likes of Hextall, Fenton, Botteril, McNab... Others.

I see so many young, inexperienced coaches coming into this league the past few seasons... and having great success. We see what Tippett has done in the desert Southwest. Is his roster much better than ours??

Fed up. As are many fans.

Avatar
#4 jeremywilhelm
November 22 2011, 02:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I dunno, CP used to get pretty excited over Jaime Lundmark.

Avatar
#5 Shredder
November 22 2011, 02:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

As an Oiler fan, formerly living in Calgary during a "rough patch" of Oilers history, I took a lot of abuse from your fanbase. I did think that a few free agent signings, maybe a trade, and our team would be better...the whole Smyth and Pronger trades didn't exactly help this team's future, especially in that we were viewed as a team on the downhill slope, thus making it tougher to sign the guys we wanted, and in some cases there were overpayments...I don't need to tell you guys that though, you guys were right in my face about how bad those signings/deals were, and guess what, you were right!

Vintage Flame has a good point here...patience is the only thing you need, because chances are, it will take a while before you get what you're looking for. If Feaster makes a trade right now, it will look like a panic move and you'll get pennies on the dollar. I don't think he'll do that anyways. You could chase depth, but then you get another Phaneuf trade. You could make a few signings, but the fact is, no one knows what the identity of this team is, so how would any player evaluate where they might fit in? There's some dead weight to get rid of, and a lot of that comes off the books at the end of this year. You might be able to get rid of some of it early, like around the trade deadline, but only once a team knows they can take a run at the cup. Even then, they'd be looking for a depth signing, a role player, or Iginla. And what would a team give up...to maintain comptetiveness they wouldn't give up more than a draft pick or B-level prospect (hence why the Oilers weren't able to pry away Schenn from LA last trade deadline). Turris is not the answer, as I really don't think the guy has done anything in the NHL. The "Fail for Nail" is a rout the Oilers went (see "fall for Hall"), and now it's paying off, but that was 2 years of severe misery.

Then again, the Flames aren't as bad as the Oilers were, but a few injuries can change that (as it did to Edmonton). They impressed me last year how they went from worst to playoff hopeful, but do you really want your team to do that again?

Avatar
#7 RexLibris
November 22 2011, 02:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I know this is a re-post from an earlier article, but I was hoping VF would have up a VOTN or STF issue by the time I had it ready. As Maxwell Smart used to say "Missed it by THAT much!" So, I apologize for the rerun, but I felt this was best expressed in this forum rather than a game-day autopsy:

Okay, I've looked at some possibilities for moving Iginla and here are a few that I came up with. I have based these on Iginla being moved to a contender, his willingness to waive his NTC, that team's ability to absorb his salary and the price required in roster players and prospects to acquire him, as well as a more general "fit". I haven't included Washington, Philadelphia, or Vancouver. Washington I have discussed with Kevin R, Philadelphia I don't believe has the room or personnel to ship out to stay under the cap, and I believe that Feaster would be roasted alive on a spit were he to trade Iginla to the Canucks. I also left out Toronto, but I imagine you all know why I won't even go there.

So, here are the teams and the returns that I see as plausible for Iginla should he be traded at the deadline this year or at the latest at the draft. The returns are broken down into three categories: roster players (usually in order to balance the books, make space on the roster, or give an immediate return for the Flames fans), prospects (often the second-best prospect in most team's systems as GMs rarely move top-rated ones - sorry, no Brayden Schenn), and picks. For the sake of brevity I basically threw in a 1st round pick in each deal. At this point Colorado is the only team that no longer retains it's own 1st round pick. I also toyed with the idea of including either Chris Breen or a 3rd or 4th round pick in addition to Iginla as a "sweetener". Feel free to disregard it if you choose or debate it. Whatever. Here goes: Iginla + Chris Breen or pick.

To Boston for Chris Kelly (roster/cap), Gregory Campbell (roster/cap), Alex Khoklachev (prospect), Zach Hamill (prospect), Boston's 1st round pick in 2012.

To San Jose for Ryan Clowe (roster/cap), Torrey Mitchell (roster/cap), Tommy Wingels (prospect), Benn Ferreiro (prospect), Taylor Doherty (prospect), and San Jose's 1st round pick in 2012.

To Chicago for Michael Frolik (roster/cap), Mark McNeill (prospect), Phillipe Paradis (prospect), and Chicago's 1st round pick in 2012.

To Detroit for Jiri Hudler (roster/cap), Tomas Jurco (prospect), Landon Ferraro (prospect), and Detroit's 1st round pick in 2012.

To Pittsburgh for Chris Kunitz (roster/cap), Tyler Kennedy (roster/cap), Joe Morrow (prospect), Dustin Jeffrey (prospect), and Pittsburgh's 1st round pick in 2012.

To Buffalo for Jochen Hecht (all cap space), Brad Boyes (roster/cap), Luke Adam (prospect), Justin Jokinen (prospect) and Buffalo's 1st round pick in 2012.

and this one would just be serendipitous...to Dallas for Michael Ryder (roster/cap), Jaime Oleksiak (prospect), Alex Chiasson (prospect) or Scott Glennie (prospect) and Dallas' 1st round pick in 2012.

You can check any of the prospects talent analyses here http://www.hockeysfuture.com/ but for the most part I have tried to give an outcome in Calgary's favour.

Iginla is having a slow year thus far, he is on the wrong side of 30, and he is a high cap-hit. He is also a proven scorer, a large body that has been injury-free for most of his career, and has one year remaining on his contract and thus isn't strictly a rental. If he is on the trading block this year at the deadline his price might even increase, depending on the number of teams that are near or in the playoff cut-line. If his stock does go up it is likely to increase the price in all scoring wingers the way Kovalchuk's did for Alex Ponikarovsky.

Flames fans may not like what they see as the return and I have often heard it said that the Flames need to turn Iginla into another superstar they way they turned Nieuwendyk into Iginla, but that is highly unlikely and did not play a role in my trade estimations. Anyway, tell me what you think. If any of these are realistic, ideal, insane,...or should Iginla be kept and enjoy the privilege of spending his entire career with one team?

Avatar
#8 jeremywilhelm
November 22 2011, 03:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

If only the Flames could have trade Iginla two years ago for Jamie Benn. Goddamn that kid is good.

Avatar
#9 icedawg_42
November 22 2011, 03:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I heartily agree with you Vintage- this team has given up on 4 coaches in 5 years now. They should be freakin ashamed and embarassed - i did NOT watch the game last night, opted to have a pregame nap, and boy am I glad I did. But from what I'm hearing the team looked like they could give a f*ck that they were even there. Sad. I'm now 100% in favor of "blow it up at all costs"

Avatar
#10 Shar
November 22 2011, 03:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I am sick of this balance in hockey where if you don't win, you're automatically on blast.. What people don't understand is there is so many circumstances that goes into a loss, not just the political ideals of a hockey organization. The team doesn't gel - and it hasn't for over 5 years, what makes this year different? We cycle through the same types of players when we trade them out, and bring them back (Oli/Tangs) - and the fans are absolutely impatient.

As far as I am concerned, the game in Ottawa and the game in Chicago happened to be the best Flames play in a long-while, and as a Flames fan it was the most exciting hockey to watch all year.

I have faith, we just need consistent scoring. We need the D to be more involved - we need our '04 team back.

Avatar
#11 xis10ce
November 22 2011, 03:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

I like a lot of these options, but I think we might also be hogtied with the 50 contract limit, we are at what 49 right now? So by moving Iggy we would have to bring in no more than 2 contracts or ship out some spare change just to accomodate a deal. Then again I am foggy on what counts towards the 50 and what does not. Some of the Abby players do, some don't?

Avatar
#13 RexLibris
November 22 2011, 03:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@xis10ce

Any NHL-equivalent contract counts. Exemptions are for players in junior or players in the farm system that have signed contracts specifically with the AHL affiliate. Kirill Tulupov had a Pro tryout contract with the Oilers and was cut after training camp. He has since signed a pro contract with our AHL affiliate in Oklahome City making him their property and a free agent for any NHL team. He also doesn't count.

I didn't take the 50 contracts into account in fashioning those trade ideas because it would have taken so much more time, but it is a very good point. Thanks for mentioning it.

Avatar
#15 icedawg_42
November 22 2011, 03:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:
I didn't take the 50 contracts into account in fashioning those trade ideas because it would have taken so much more time, but it is a very good point. Thanks for mentioning it.

There is more wiggle room in the 50 SPC's in your scenarios, I think. Making deals of this nature would result in other players being waived immediately. *cough* Stajan, Morrison...

I missed something there - how does waiving Stajan or Morrison buy you wiggle room in contracts? After waiving all you can really do is send them down isnt it? Im not exactly clear on how waivers work.

Avatar
#17 icedawg_42
November 22 2011, 03:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Vintage Flame

I couldnt really see either of them claimed...I think Hagman was pretty much the only logical option for that route. Someone like Bork would get claimed, but not a good idea for the Flames.

Avatar
#18 VK63
November 22 2011, 03:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

U think Iggy carries that much cache in the league right now?

Avatar
#19 everton fc
November 22 2011, 03:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:
"I ranted on the previous thread. My opinion; if the players are quitting on the coaching staff (yet again?)... I still think this says something about the coaching staff - not to mention the players... The Executive. "

If the players have quit on Sutter, I think that says more to say about the players. It's an unprofessional attitude and it turns the fan base against you.

"I see so many young, inexperienced coaches coming into this league the past few seasons..."

I see the inexperienced talent on the team not being led by the vets.. It exaggerates the lack of direction of this team.

I agree with your points...

However, how does a whole team quit on 4 of the last 5 coaches? Could one say this is an organizational issue? And which players have "quit" on the coach?? All of them??

@ Shar.

Our '04 team had grit. Character. Guts.

This team has none of the above at the moment. Especially if they are quitting on the coach, en masse...

Avatar
#21 everton fc
November 22 2011, 03:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:
However, how does a whole team quit on 4 of the last 5 coaches? Could one say this is an organizational issue? And which players have "quit" on the coach?? All of them??

It doesn't take the whole team, Only key members of it. Remember back in the 90's when it only took Nieuwendyk, MacInnis, Suter, Gilmour and Vernon, to quit on Terry Crisp to get him fired?

Yes. I remember.

But quite a cast there, hey? All Hall of Famers.

Those "quitting" the coach here... have quit the last few coaches.

Or so it seems....

Avatar
#22 Kevin R
November 22 2011, 04:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

Hey Rex. Lots of thought in this. Numbers in the player movement could be involved depending on timing. Players like Moss/Sarich/ Joker/Jackman/Kosto/Hannan all could possibly be shipped out for picks,thus freeing up contract space. Cap space is a non issue. The variant I dont think your analysis takes into account is urgency of the potential trading partners(ie injuries)/ the number of buyers at the trade deadline versus sellers(recent history shows there are very few true sellers) I think both Iggy & Kipper will bring back "A" tier prospect(s), 1st rounder & a salary dump at the trade deadline. You are right, off season, I dont think the returns are as good as many of us would like to hope for.

Avatar
#23 Kevin R
November 22 2011, 04:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Shar wrote:

I am sick of this balance in hockey where if you don't win, you're automatically on blast.. What people don't understand is there is so many circumstances that goes into a loss, not just the political ideals of a hockey organization. The team doesn't gel - and it hasn't for over 5 years, what makes this year different? We cycle through the same types of players when we trade them out, and bring them back (Oli/Tangs) - and the fans are absolutely impatient.

As far as I am concerned, the game in Ottawa and the game in Chicago happened to be the best Flames play in a long-while, and as a Flames fan it was the most exciting hockey to watch all year.

I have faith, we just need consistent scoring. We need the D to be more involved - we need our '04 team back.

Shar, we all would like to turn back the clock but you have to move forward. Kipper & Iggy traded or not will always be hockey heroes in my heart & I will pull for any team they are playing for as long as its not Calgary. 2 games out of 19 is not something we should hang onto cvery hard,-.

Avatar
#24 T&A4Flames
November 22 2011, 04:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

Some good ideas here I think. Here is one I was thinking of:

To LA: Iginla, Karlsson To CGY: Penner ($ dump), Bernier (roster), Forbert (prospect) LA's 1st in 2012

We then (hopefully) flip Penner (or let him walk at seasons end) and Kipper.

According to an article in bleacherreport.com, Bobrovsky could possibly be had for a 2nd. Seems really low but if it's close, maybe add Bourque and take back another salary dump and pick. Let Bernier, Bob and Irving battle it out for 1 and 2 spots on the big team.

Avatar
#25 T&A4Flames
November 22 2011, 04:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Some good ideas here I think. Here is one I was thinking of:

To LA: Iginla, Karlsson To CGY: Penner ($ dump), Bernier (roster), Forbert (prospect) LA's 1st in 2012

We then (hopefully) flip Penner (or let him walk at seasons end) and Kipper.

According to an article in bleacherreport.com, Bobrovsky could possibly be had for a 2nd. Seems really low but if it's close, maybe add Bourque and take back another salary dump and pick. Let Bernier, Bob and Irving battle it out for 1 and 2 spots on the big team.

Another team I think we should really look at is St. Louis. With Hitchcok now aboard there is bound to be some guys who don't fit with his style. They have an excess of RW with Oshie, Stewart, Perron (soon to return) and Dagostini just for starters but not too many LW. I would love to grab either one of these guys. How about Bourque and Moss (yes I know he's a RW) for Stewart?

Avatar
#26 Kevin R
November 22 2011, 05:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Another team I think we should really look at is St. Louis. With Hitchcok now aboard there is bound to be some guys who don't fit with his style. They have an excess of RW with Oshie, Stewart, Perron (soon to return) and Dagostini just for starters but not too many LW. I would love to grab either one of these guys. How about Bourque and Moss (yes I know he's a RW) for Stewart?

Would love to see Stewart in Calgary & best part is, he's struggling a bit in St Louis & they're stacked in RW. Real good possible fit.

Avatar
#27 FireOnIce
November 22 2011, 05:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@T&A4Flames

Stewart is a decent player, but hasn't really shown it recently.

Also, when things were rough in Colorado, he was a huge baby about it and gave up on everyone - the coach, management, and his own teammates. He doesn't seem like a team player and we probably don't need him around here.

Avatar
#28 RexLibris
November 22 2011, 05:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Some good ideas here I think. Here is one I was thinking of:

To LA: Iginla, Karlsson To CGY: Penner ($ dump), Bernier (roster), Forbert (prospect) LA's 1st in 2012

We then (hopefully) flip Penner (or let him walk at seasons end) and Kipper.

According to an article in bleacherreport.com, Bobrovsky could possibly be had for a 2nd. Seems really low but if it's close, maybe add Bourque and take back another salary dump and pick. Let Bernier, Bob and Irving battle it out for 1 and 2 spots on the big team.

You can't flip Penner. It's unpossible. I think Lombardi will be the last GM to trade for him. He probably signs a low-ball contract at year's end and tries to undo some of the damage to his reputation. Hang on, are we talking about Dustin Penner or Sheldon Souray...

I considered LA, but I didn't want to add any more possibilities than I already had. Besides, I think every time I post VF's caffeine intake gets that much closer to "terminal".

As for the trade prospects, if Calgary got back Bernie, Forbort and a 1st would that be considered enough in the fans' eyes?

BTW, the Flames would have to acquire a 2nd to trade one for Bobrovsky. But I don't see why you would want to do that. (and for what it's worth there will only ever be one Goalie Bob: Essensa.)

Avatar
#29 RexLibris
November 22 2011, 05:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

Hey Rex. Lots of thought in this. Numbers in the player movement could be involved depending on timing. Players like Moss/Sarich/ Joker/Jackman/Kosto/Hannan all could possibly be shipped out for picks,thus freeing up contract space. Cap space is a non issue. The variant I dont think your analysis takes into account is urgency of the potential trading partners(ie injuries)/ the number of buyers at the trade deadline versus sellers(recent history shows there are very few true sellers) I think both Iggy & Kipper will bring back "A" tier prospect(s), 1st rounder & a salary dump at the trade deadline. You are right, off season, I dont think the returns are as good as many of us would like to hope for.

Cap space IS an issue for most of the teams that you would be trading Iginla to. He is a $7 million cap hit, and there aren't many teams that can take that without blinking.

As for taking urgency and demand into account for the deadline, there really is no good way to fairly predict those at this point. Obviously teams like LA and Washington are feeling pressure, but that hasn't always materialized into landing the bid trade at the deadline. Those factors are best assessed as we get closer to February.

When estimating a possible return I was putting Iginla's value as below that of Jeff Carter and Mike Richards because of age and contract term.

One thing I am pretty darn sure of: if Iginla goes at the deadline then it is almost a foregone conclusion that Kirpusoff goes the following season after his NTC is removed.

Avatar
#30 RexLibris
November 22 2011, 05:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:
I missed something there - how does waiving Stajan or Morrison buy you wiggle room in contracts? After waiving all you can really do is send them down isnt it? Im not exactly clear on how waivers work.

Ahhh I should have been more clear on that.. I'm counting on them being claimed ala Hagman-like. Probably still not the case on Stajan though.

I don't see Stajan being picked up on waivers and I really don't think you want him picked up on re-entry waivers. The length of his contract would probably scare most GMs off at this point. Were it only one year remaining then perhaps, but two more years and a NTC in addition is likely a deal-breaker for most.

Now if Horak or Byron can still clear waivers then sending them down to make room on the roster for the return and calling this season a done deal might be a way to go. That or trading some pieces like Kostopoulos or Letourneau-Leblond (if only so we don't have to spell their names) for late round picks at the deadline might be one way to go.

Avatar
#31 RexLibris
November 22 2011, 05:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:

Whoooa.. Okay umm.

Just on my way home.. Once I get a POT of coffee, I'll sit down and take a closer look! Some of the deals look good though. ie..Chicago

Really?! You mean Wanye hasn't fitted you guys out with IVs yet? That and a catheter and you could write all day. I'm surprised he hasn't researched that as an efficiency-improving strategy.

yeah, there were deals that I thought would bring back the better return (Matt Carle is an example, but San Jose has squat for prospects). The Buffalo one could be intriguing though. Taking Boyes and Hecht is neither here nor there, although flipping Hecht to another team could get another mid-to-late round pick. The real gain there could be Luke Adam. Of course, that doesn't mean that Darcy Regier is going to actually DO that deal, but it would be a good return.

PS - I thought HOME was for programming and web browsers.

Avatar
#32 schevvy
November 22 2011, 08:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great article VF. I agree with you on yhe majority of your points. The thing that just really, really pisses me off about this team is that they are so inconsistent. How hard is it to play 2, just 2 (!) good games in a row? I don't think they've done that once this year! At least in cities such as Edmonton and Ottawa they have hope for the future. Here, even with improving prospects, we're still a long way off. What I hope at the very least, and I made this point in the chat last night, I hope the team is absolutely pissed off with their game. If they aren't, then there are major question marks surrounding the leadership (i.e. Iginla) of this team.

I love Iggy, I really do, he's my favorite Flame of all time, but he can no longer be who you build around. He's 34 years old! I know 34 sounds young, but in hockey years that's old! Do I necessarily think you have to trade him? No, but it might/should at least be considered. I really like what Ottawa did last year at the deadline and essentially get rid of all their UFA's and get prospects/picks back for them. That is probably what the Flames should do. Iggy can't be the best player on the team. He would flourish in a Selanne-esque role, 2nd line, lots of PP time. That being said, it will ultimately be up to him whether or not he leaves Calgary. He controls his fate.

That's it for my rant. Here's hoping we get a consistent effort, good or bad, for a stretch of time.

Avatar
#33 snappingpaco
November 22 2011, 08:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Just heard that Berglund has been put on waivers, will the flames have any potential interest in picking him up? he is a low cap hit and is still relatively young, wouldn't be such a bad pick up if your out of the kyle turris sweepstakes!

Avatar
#34 kevin r
November 22 2011, 09:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
snappingpaco wrote:

Just heard that Berglund has been put on waivers, will the flames have any potential interest in picking him up? he is a low cap hit and is still relatively young, wouldn't be such a bad pick up if your out of the kyle turris sweepstakes!

Berglund played tonight, sources for this one? If its true, if I were Feaster, I would be all over this one like a rash on an Oiler cheerleader.

Avatar
#35 icedawg_42
November 22 2011, 09:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
schevvy wrote:

Great article VF. I agree with you on yhe majority of your points. The thing that just really, really pisses me off about this team is that they are so inconsistent. How hard is it to play 2, just 2 (!) good games in a row? I don't think they've done that once this year! At least in cities such as Edmonton and Ottawa they have hope for the future. Here, even with improving prospects, we're still a long way off. What I hope at the very least, and I made this point in the chat last night, I hope the team is absolutely pissed off with their game. If they aren't, then there are major question marks surrounding the leadership (i.e. Iginla) of this team.

I love Iggy, I really do, he's my favorite Flame of all time, but he can no longer be who you build around. He's 34 years old! I know 34 sounds young, but in hockey years that's old! Do I necessarily think you have to trade him? No, but it might/should at least be considered. I really like what Ottawa did last year at the deadline and essentially get rid of all their UFA's and get prospects/picks back for them. That is probably what the Flames should do. Iggy can't be the best player on the team. He would flourish in a Selanne-esque role, 2nd line, lots of PP time. That being said, it will ultimately be up to him whether or not he leaves Calgary. He controls his fate.

That's it for my rant. Here's hoping we get a consistent effort, good or bad, for a stretch of time.

Iggy is my all time favorite Flame too...but I honestly believe he does NOT want to be here any more. I think he wants to win, and he's not stupid, it's not going to happen here..he just doesnt seem to have that fire on the ice any more.

Avatar
#36 SmellOfVictory
November 22 2011, 09:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
snappingpaco wrote:

Just heard that Berglund has been put on waivers, will the flames have any potential interest in picking him up? he is a low cap hit and is still relatively young, wouldn't be such a bad pick up if your out of the kyle turris sweepstakes!

Bergfors, not Berglund. ;) Not quite as good (Berglund is in no danger of waivers whatsoever).

Avatar
#38 Chris
November 22 2011, 10:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I remember when the Flames were built to beat the Oilers. Now that's a novel concept. Flames are my fav but I watch other games, not involving them. Hopefully, I'm not alone here but Edmonton is going to be deadly. Chop-Chop, Mr. Feaster, let's establish some more direction here and pay attention to what's going on up north.

Avatar
#39 icedawg_42
November 22 2011, 10:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:

I must say the deal that intrigues me the most is the Chicago scenario. I am a big fan of Michael Frolik and McNeil is the guy I was hoping Calgary was going to get in the draft.

The one problem I have with all the scenarios is that Calgary, while getting a first round pick in the deal, would be getting late round picks. I know beggars can't be choosers, but if the Flames are going to literally sell the farm then I'd like to see them acquire a top 10 pick.

Now in order to do this, the only trade partner is basically Washington, since they have Colorado's 1st rounder from the Varlamov deal.

I think the best fit for Iginla is a deal to Pittsburgh. Unfortunately, if we deal Iggy to Pitt.. We may get a first rounder in the deal, but it will be the 30th pick.

Watched McNeil the other night when PA played the Hitmen - looked pretty good..big, strong forward. Didn't have the 'dominant' highlight-reel type skill that Baertschi seems to have though. As far as Pittsburgh goes - maybe they'll let that.. Crosbo? Crosbet? Cros-something..anyway, maybe they'll let that kid go..he'd sure look good in a Flames jersey.

Avatar
#40 T&A4Flames
November 22 2011, 10:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:

I must say the deal that intrigues me the most is the Chicago scenario. I am a big fan of Michael Frolik and McNeil is the guy I was hoping Calgary was going to get in the draft.

The one problem I have with all the scenarios is that Calgary, while getting a first round pick in the deal, would be getting late round picks. I know beggars can't be choosers, but if the Flames are going to literally sell the farm then I'd like to see them acquire a top 10 pick.

Now in order to do this, the only trade partner is basically Washington, since they have Colorado's 1st rounder from the Varlamov deal.

I think the best fit for Iginla is a deal to Pittsburgh. Unfortunately, if we deal Iggy to Pitt.. We may get a first rounder in the deal, but it will be the 30th pick.

What would for see the Flames getting in return?

Avatar
#41 RexLibris
November 22 2011, 10:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:

I must say the deal that intrigues me the most is the Chicago scenario. I am a big fan of Michael Frolik and McNeil is the guy I was hoping Calgary was going to get in the draft.

The one problem I have with all the scenarios is that Calgary, while getting a first round pick in the deal, would be getting late round picks. I know beggars can't be choosers, but if the Flames are going to literally sell the farm then I'd like to see them acquire a top 10 pick.

Now in order to do this, the only trade partner is basically Washington, since they have Colorado's 1st rounder from the Varlamov deal.

I think the best fit for Iginla is a deal to Pittsburgh. Unfortunately, if we deal Iggy to Pitt.. We may get a first rounder in the deal, but it will be the 30th pick.

I get why Flames fans want a top 10 pick for Iginla, I really do. But when I hear fans on any site say that a pick in that range OUGHT to be the minimum required payment for Iginla I want to scream at the computer. The conditions for that to happen are so infrequent that it really isn't even a rational demand.

If you really want a top 10 pick for what is a borderline rental player to a contender team then that team either has to A.) own a bottom-feeder's pick, as you said with Washington, and the only team to have done that in the last 10 years (or probably 20 if I were to check) is Boston with Toronto's picks or B.) gamble and ask for a 1st round pick a year or two away in the hopes the targeted team crashes.

The Washington scenario has Flames' fans scheming, and I get that. You should be trying to think of how to get that pick. It might only be in the 7-10 range, but it's still a good slot to have. Oiler fans tried like heck to suggest ways that Chiarelli would part with the Toronto pick in 2010 from about December on. It wasn't going to happen, but it sure kept things interesting. The thing is, I don't see Washington having the appropriate bodies available to move in order to make it happen. Maybe a Semin for Iginla swap with that pick in there, but that's a very high price to pay, and George McPhee is a cagey GM. He'd be more likely to offer their own pick, like Chiarelli did, and realize that Semin was likely going to the highest bidder before he got off the phone with Feaster.

I'm not picking on what you said, I just get frustrated when people on rumour websites (you can probably guess the ones I'm thinking of) say that player X should be worth a top 5 pick. If a team is drafting top 5, they aren't thinking "win now" by trading for a 30-something veteran. If they do, then they are either Bat-MikeMilbury-crap Crazy or the draft is really, really bad. I guess if I could suggest anything to Flames fans when they start theorizing on Iginla's return it would be: don't become what Leafs fans were with Tomas Kaberle. Remember how Kaberle was worth two blue-chip prospects, a 1st round pick, and a top-6 forward? Yeah, well turns out he's worth something closer to a 2nd round pick and a signed picture of Jiri Tlusty.

The deals I would favour are the Chicago, Pittsburgh (nothing wrong with a 30th overall pick, seeing as the Flames don't have a 2nd rounder this year anyways) and Dallas deals. They give the best return for the future, in my opinion, and offer the most by way of immediate roster help. But as I have said many times before, I'd much rather see Iginla stay and Flame and retire a Flame.

Avatar
#42 RexLibris
November 22 2011, 10:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Chris wrote:

I remember when the Flames were built to beat the Oilers. Now that's a novel concept. Flames are my fav but I watch other games, not involving them. Hopefully, I'm not alone here but Edmonton is going to be deadly. Chop-Chop, Mr. Feaster, let's establish some more direction here and pay attention to what's going on up north.

Thanks for the compliment to my home team. But the Oilers still have a long way to go. Things could go sideways like Colorado or LA pretty easily still.

If Feaster suddenly changes course to start a rebuild can I ask that the first reporter to publicly call him on his pre-season comments about rebuilds gets a free steak dinner?!

Avatar
#44 Kevin R
November 23 2011, 12:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:
But when I hear fans on any site say that a pick in that range OUGHT to be the minimum required payment for Iginla I want to scream at the computer.

Whoa, I never said they OUGHT to get a top 10 pick.. I said I'd like to see it.

It's far too early to theorize right now as to how the standings look, but as we get closer to trade deadline, I'm sure there will be some takers that find Iginla worthy of a top 5-10 pick if they had one. It has nothing to do with Tomas Kaberle either.. That's just cruel man ;)

Consider this though... What is the position of the Philadelphia Flyers now that Crosby is back with Pitt.? They were not as good as the Penguins without Sid, so how do they fair now head-to-head. These are the opportunities the Flames should be evaluating.

What is Iginla's value to the Flyers to keep him from the Pens? Brayden Schenn, their first and who?

I have had lots of dialogue(& good dialogue) with Rex, & its a funny game, Oilers want a top 4 dman but only want to give up Gagner. They dont want to part with Parjarvi because they feel he has way too much talent. Tonight, Parjarvi played on the 4th line & did nothing. If we take evaluations of players of what have you done for me in the last 10-15 games, Parjarvi's stock is sinking fast. The type of trades we are talking here just dont seem to work at this time of year. Colorado was so desperate for a goalie look what they coughed up for Varlamov. What has Varlamov really done?? You just never know what could be at play if the time is right. What pisses me off is, like anything, when the times right , you have to pounce. So this childish "If the team thinks they are better off trading me then I would accept a trade"(Iginla quoted in April of 2010) versus "Owners & Management have no intention of trading Jerome unless he wants out" mentality has to be sorted out. If the right deal is there, you gotta pull the trigger. Otherwise, all this speculation is pointless.

Avatar
#45 Kevin R
November 23 2011, 12:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

I have had lots of dialogue(& good dialogue) with Rex, & its a funny game, Oilers want a top 4 dman but only want to give up Gagner. They dont want to part with Parjarvi because they feel he has way too much talent. Tonight, Parjarvi played on the 4th line & did nothing. If we take evaluations of players of what have you done for me in the last 10-15 games, Parjarvi's stock is sinking fast. The type of trades we are talking here just dont seem to work at this time of year. Colorado was so desperate for a goalie look what they coughed up for Varlamov. What has Varlamov really done?? You just never know what could be at play if the time is right. What pisses me off is, like anything, when the times right , you have to pounce. So this childish "If the team thinks they are better off trading me then I would accept a trade"(Iginla quoted in April of 2010) versus "Owners & Management have no intention of trading Jerome unless he wants out" mentality has to be sorted out. If the right deal is there, you gotta pull the trigger. Otherwise, all this speculation is pointless.

Rex my point to you on Parjarvi is that value can really drop a top but unproven talent in the NHL but someone like Jerome, a proven 40 goal scorer & consistent PPG at 34 has more value than some of the above scenarios & there are others I think will develop as we get closer to the trade deadline. I still think Parjarvi is a great talent but is starting to fall in the shadows of the big 3 & this may stunt his development by 2-4 years, where a team like Calgary & I think he can blossom. So my offer still stands Gagner & Parjarvi for JBO. I'll have my assistant Jay fax the paperwork over to Tambo in the morning:):)

Avatar
#46 FrankTheTank
November 23 2011, 12:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I just saw the interview on the flames site with B.Sutter...man is that guy frustrated, you can totally tell how bad he wants to win..he brought up great points on the team. Its obvious that the "leaders" aren't buying in, and he gave one hell of a pitch to them in the interview. I have never thought he was the problem, he knows that this team lacks in many areas. I believe that he knows the style they should play to succeed, yet they're not buying. So in my opinion I would slowly over the next three month trade away (if possible) Iggy, Tangs, Bork, Stajan, and later at the draft since his NMC ends Kipper. I strongly believe a younger team would buy in and be more succussful then this team. As far as return goes i would guess for all of them we should get 2x 1stRD 2012, 2x 2ndRD 2012 , 3 prospects and whatever we can get for Stajan. Again this is only what i would do, and i know its highly unlikely to happen (like no chance)...For some reason I really have confidence in the coaching staff and feaster, and none in the on ice "leadership". I believe youth is the way to go..

Cheers!!

Avatar
#47 CitizenFlame
November 23 2011, 01:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
icedawg_42 wrote:

I heartily agree with you Vintage- this team has given up on 4 coaches in 5 years now. They should be freakin ashamed and embarassed - i did NOT watch the game last night, opted to have a pregame nap, and boy am I glad I did. But from what I'm hearing the team looked like they could give a f*ck that they were even there. Sad. I'm now 100% in favor of "blow it up at all costs"

What coaches has this team given up on? 4 coaches for sure, but did the team really give up on them? D. Sutter moved up because he didn't feel he could do both, GM & coach. Playfair. You might be able to make that claim, but there was a fair bit of meddling by Sutter during that time as well. Which explains the next coach... Iron Mike. Did the team really quit on him? He set this franchise back a half decade and yet they were still moderately successful under his guidance but again, D. Sutter messed up the cap situation and the team limped into the playoffs. Finally B. Sutter. Your strongest case for the players quitting on a coach.

Avatar
#48 negrilcowboy
November 23 2011, 06:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

was listening to a toronta based sports talk radio show, its apparent that iggie is on the market. they posed a question, would you feel less about iggie if he publicly stated he would take a trade. interesting. hers a trade for the masses. kipper to the leafs, it appears reimers injury may be more serious than first thought. inreturn you get reimer, brents alum from the rebels, colby armstrong another rebel alum, colbourne local kid, and get aulie back. maybe burke will show some catholic guilt about fleecing dutter and take stajan off feasters hands.

Avatar
#49 icedawg_42
November 23 2011, 07:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
negrilcowboy wrote:

was listening to a toronta based sports talk radio show, its apparent that iggie is on the market. they posed a question, would you feel less about iggie if he publicly stated he would take a trade. interesting. hers a trade for the masses. kipper to the leafs, it appears reimers injury may be more serious than first thought. inreturn you get reimer, brents alum from the rebels, colby armstrong another rebel alum, colbourne local kid, and get aulie back. maybe burke will show some catholic guilt about fleecing dutter and take stajan off feasters hands.

History has shown repeatedly that NO good can come to the Flames if they make a trade with the Leafs.

Avatar
#50 RexLibris
November 23 2011, 09:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Vintage Flame

I know, I'm sorry for sounding a little belligerent there. And like I said I totally understand the Flames fans would want a top 10 pick. They ought to want a top 10 pick and frankly the franchise needs two picks in the top 15 this year.

Iginla's value may indeed rise as you get closer to the deadline, but unless more picks trade hands and contenders and bubble teams end up with lottery picks from other teams I have a really hard time seeing how that will come about.

My comment about Tomas Kaberle and Flames fans is along the same lines as what I have been saying to my fellow Oiler fans: don't be idiots. The Oilers are getting better and the team has promise, but I don't want to have to go into hiding because a bunch of mouth-breathers come out of the woodwork and start acting like Canuckleheads on fan forums. Same for Flames fans, please don't begin to demand an impossible return for Iginla out of sentiment or homerism. I have seen it way too often from all sides and all it does is frustrate and offend fans from other cities.

I agree that the Flames should be evaluating the status of other teams and scouting just about everyone in the league. But the one idea that I always keep foremost in my mind when looking at possible trade partners is: what would it take for both teams to feel they won the trade?

On that note, if the Flames could get Schenn then the more power to them, but Philadelphia just traded Carter and Richards and got back two pieces to what could be an astounding lineup down the middle in two years time. Schenn, Giroux, and Couturier would be a centre lineup that 28 other teams in the league (exemption to their arch-rivals, Pittsburgh) would envy. To move him at this stage, and with such an affordable entry-level contract for a year and change of Iginla doesn't seem like a very wise idea. Then again, they signed Bryzgalov to an end-of-time deal, so maybe "wisdom" isn't part of the equation here.

Comments are closed for this article.