FlamesNation Report Card: April 15, 2016

Since our last report card, Turner Elson, Oliver Kylington, and Patrick Sieloff made their NHL debuts. And… that’s it. The Flames played their final game of the season, cleaned out their lockers, and now we’re left waiting for the draft lottery.

So in celebration (if you want to call it that) of the season, let’s have one last report card.

Featured in this one is every single one of the 40 players who donned a Calgary Flames jersey this season, as well as key architects in the team’s performance, Bob Hartley and Brad Treliving. Players who got traded? On the list. Guys currently in Stockton? On the list. Injured fellows still rehabbing? On the list.

Feel free to grade, judge, and rank everyone below as you see fit over the course of the entire season. Have fun – and if you have any ideas for future report cards over the course of the off-season, drop a suggestion in the comments!

    • RedMan

      he who laughs last, laughs loudest. If I was in Edmonton, I’m sure I’d here Shultz, Reinhart and Ferrence laughing even louder.

      Calgary is so far ahead of both Edmonton and Vancouver already… THIS is what has the fans laughing.

  • OKG

    Treliving gets a C- from me.

    ++ acquired Dougie Hamilton

    ++ Brought in Shinkaruk

    + signed Derek Grant and Jakub Nakladal

    = Didn’t lose Ortio to waivers, but did in fact waive him

    = Jury is out on the Russell deal, gambled on Dallas making the WCF – we will see if they do.

    = Meh on the Hudler deal.

    – Failed to do ANYTHING about Raymond, Smid, Wideman, Engelland, Bollig all of whom were our worst players a season ago. Lucked out that Engelland finally developed into an NHLer under Bob Hartley as a 34 year old but that’s about it.

    – Signed Frolik to huge term who hasn’t been a difference maker in any sense

    – Created a fiasco in net with waiving Ramo and going with Hiller who fell flat on his face.

    – Failed to trade Colborne at the deadline, now stuck with a possible cluster**** arbitration case

    – Failed to get Monahan and Gaudreau extended long term before the season, now will have to pay up the ass for them both.

    – failed to tank for Laine/Matthews, which is a manager’s job when the season is lost

    — Waived Paul Byron who proceeded to score 11 goals as a fourth liner. Betcha we win more games with him instead of Brandon ****ing use****ingless Bollig and his Face-Punching Prowess.

    • Glenn

      OK then. Tell us how you really feel!

      Although I agree with your much of what you say, some I don’t.

      I give Treliving a B.

      Some points I would counter from your assessment.

      I strongly disagree with your Frolik comment. He has been everything we could have hoped for and brought out the best Backland we’ve ever seen.

      Tanking is for losers. See Edmonton.

      The deadline deals were as good we might have expected. Any potential to get a first for Russell is excellent return.

      When it comes to contract extensions for the two amigos, Treliving isn’t the one driving that bus, I’m afraid. Their agents are firmly behind the wheel wouldn’t you think?

      WWYD about the contracts of Raymond, Smid, Wideman and Engelland?

      Fully agree with you on the goaltenders and Byron fiascos though. Big fail on both of these!

      • OKG

        Frolik might be an upgrade over what we had but he’s not a true top 6 forward. He’s a third liner who will be under contract for four more years. Very risky contract that will come back to bite us in two or three years.

        Tanking is not for losers. Tanking is for everybody. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Tampa, Washington, are just a few teams that are where they are because they tanked. Edmonton is just the easy example because they did everything possible, wrong.

        Pollock and Jokipakka… that’s what, a C or B prospect and a bottom pair D. Everything rides on the pick. If it’s a steal (either in the 2nd round, or becomes a first) then the trade is a huge win. If it’s a Tyler Wotherspoon type wasted pick then it wasn’t an amazing trade. People are too conditioned to praise Treliving for mediocrity. All I said is it was okay. It wasn’t a home run so let’s not praise it like it was until we see how it turns out.

        There are plenty of contracts that get done before seasons start. Look at the Oilers / Klefbom deal and the Nugent-Hopkins deal, both signed before either player entered their contract year. Most would agree that both are sweetheart deals for the calibre of players, do you see us getting that kind of sweetheart AAV?

        If Treliving wanted to get an extension done by September, it would be done, maybe a perceived overpayment at the time but a potential long-term steal as Gaudreau was not PPG. The same for Monahan, if Treliving wanted to get Monahan done he would be done by mid-season, look at Sasha Barkov. But now Monahan got hot at the end of year and we will likely pay more for a player who’s not as good as Barkov.

        It’s clear he challenged both kids to prove they could “do it again” and they did. It was a willing risk and he came out on the wrong side.

        I think Treliving could have moved one or two bad contracts, maybe giving up something meaningless like a 4th round pick along with it. If the Blackhawks can drop Versteeg I think the Flames could have dropped 23-in-57 Raymond or 56 point Wideman last season.

        This season though? No their value is all-time low because Treliving hedge his bets poorly. That doesn’t mean I give him a fail grade but I don’t give him As for hedging his bets poorly.

    • Christian Roatis

      Kind of sounds like you wanted Treliving to be managing the Flames in NHL 16, not the National Hockey League. You’ve got some pretty unreasonable quips with him. How does one purposely tank for Matthews with Johnny Gaudreau, Sean Monahan, Mark Giordano, etc on the roster? This team is too good for that.

      No one will touch Raymond, Smid or Wideman with a ten-foot pole, and if you saw the returns other forwards garnered on the trade deadline, the haul for Hudler is really quite good.

      He’s not stuck with anything on Joe Colborne, if Colborne demands a ton of money he can just walk away from it. Plain and simple. You would a lot more pissed if he had dealt Colborne for a 6th which – judging by the Brandon Pirri deal – is probably what he would’ve gotten for him.

      I agree he created a problem in the crease but not because he took a stupid gamble on Hiller. No one could’ve known Hiller would drop from league average to league worst over the course of a summer.

      Neither Monahan nor Gaudreau’s agents would’ve let them sign extensions before the season began. These are two budding superstars trending up, it’s Money 101 that you let your asset appreciate as much as possible before cashing in on it, and it was a very good gamble by both agents to leave their clients to further up their value before negotiating.

      And finally, good Lord man, how could you possibly have a problem with the Russell deal??!!

      • wot96

        So maybe this isn’t the place to discuss it but raising the issue of a Colborne deal is quite a bit more complicated than it might seem.

        I’m not a big Joe fan. I don’t hate him but I am drinking the “he hasn’t been used appropriately” koolaid. He has had a very good year for him and someone will pay for that. Maybe it should be the Flames (and btw, I have previously said I don’t think it should be).

        If the Flames have to expose a significant chunk of their roster, by value, and cannot expose guys with NT or NM clauses, it is guys like Joe and Bouma that are going to be exposed and have to be exposed to make the Flames compliant with the expansion rules. None of the God Awful contracts on D are going to help us out in this regard because they aren’t on the books for long enough.

        So to avoid losing a player that really is critical, if Joe gets paid too much for a year or so, fine by me. And btw, I think BT has that figured out and has a plan and as such, maybe he deserves a little higher than a C- (looking at you here OKG).

    • cjc

      Re. The Russell deal – the jury submitted its verdict about 30 seconds after the trade. It is a win even if Dallas fails to make the conference final, Pollock and Jokipakka fail to stick around and the second rounder is a bust.

      Why? Russell, if he was re-signed, was going to be expensive, limiting Calgary’s flexibility and struggling on the second or third pairing. There was literally nothing to lose by trading him. A second rounder was most people’s expectation, but to get a potential first, a prospect and a younger roster defenceman was an early Christmas present from Jim Nill.

      Treliving wasn’t perfect – see three-headed goalie monster, waiving Byron and not re-signing Schlemko (though Nakladal looks pretty good – hopefully he can be re-signed). Next year is gonna be rough too, but the future does look a lot brighter.

    • jakethesnail

      You gave meh for Hudler deal, but don’t forget Hudler had a Meh season.

      He did do something with Raymond – banished him to the minors. Raymond was signed by Acting GM Burkie and I don’t know why – Canuck fans when Raymond was in Vancouver were saying Raymond plays the perimeter. Not a Tre acquisition.

      The makeup of this team is NOT to tank. Sorry, this one not on Tre.

      Not being able to trade high priced, useless players not his fault. Would you trade for anyone of them?

      Agree on the Byron miscue, the three-headed goalie fiasco.

  • RealMcHockeyReturns

    I think the Russell deal was actually EXCELLENT as is, even with the 2nd rounder. Pollock is top prospect, Jokipakaa is good 4-5D at reasonable price for another year, 2nd rounder or 1st is BIG bonus.

    • jakethesnail

      In my books, the Russell deal got us an excellent return….did everyone forget that Russell was a UFA at end of season? and Flames wouldn’t be able to meet his asking price for next season?