The Flames situation heading into this offseason.
by CofRed on Mar 4, 2010 7:14 PM PST
48 comments
Heading into the 2010-11 NHL Season the Flames will have the second largest payroll in the NHL and that's with out including are 7 NHL free agents. The payroll is only behind the youthful and sometimes questionable Chicago Blackhawks - None the less they are in a much better situation then we are, more after the jump.
Next season the Flames will have $53,379,167 devoted to the current roster without bringing back any of our current UFA's or RFA's who have NHL contracts. I have compiled a list of players that will have paychecks heading into next season and compiled a list of our current players destined for the open market. The Cap Space for next season that I've used is the active 58.6 Million.
Offseason numbers.
Money into players right now: $53,379,167
Cap Space: $5,220,833
Needs: 1st Line Centre, Backup Goalie
Draft Picks: No 1st or 2nd Round Picks
Forwards (Cap Hit)
Jarome Iginla (7,000,000)
Daymond Langkow (4,500,000)
Matt Stajan (3,500,000)
Rene Bourque (3,333,333)
Niklas Hagman (3,000,000)
Ales Kotalik (3,000,000)
David Moss (1,300,000)
Mikael Backlund (1,270,833)
Curtis Glencross (1,200,000)
Nigel Dawes (850,000)
Forwards = $28,954,166
Defensemen
Jay Bouwmeester (6,680,000)
Robyn Regehr (4,020,000)
Cory Sarich (3,600,000)
Steve Staios (2,700,000)
Mark Giordano (891,666)
Adam Pardy (700,000)
Defense = $18,591,666
Goaltenders
Miikka Kiprusoff (5,833,333)
Goalies = $5,833,333
Total Salary = $53,379,167
UFA's/RFA's
Forwards
Chris Higgins (2,250,000) UFA
Jamal Mayers (1,333,333) UFA
Craig Conroy (1,050,000) UFA
Eric Nystrom (687,500) UFA
Brian McGrattan (547,000) UFA
Defenseman
Ian White (850,000) RFA
Goaltenders
Vesa Toskala (4,000,000) UFA
There are about four contracts that Flames would be better off without.
- Daymond Langkow still has $8,750,000 owed to him for the next two seasons. Cap hit of 4.5 over those two years.
- Cory Sarich still has $7,000,000 owed to him for the next two seasons. Cap hit of 3.6 over those two years.
- Ales Kotalik still has $6,000,000 owed to him for the next two seasons. Cap hit of 3.0 over those two years.
- Steve Staios still has $2,220,000 owed to him for next season. Cap hit of 2.7 over next year.
That totals $23,970,000 tied up into these three players. Daymond Langkow (33) and Ales Kotalik (31) are probably the most attractive players out of these three and could be moved if the right team came along, Steve Staios will not be brought back after next season so 2010-11 will probably Sarich is also 31. Langkow will be 34 and Sarich will be 32 when the 10-11 campaign begins.
All three will be very hard to dump but if all three just brought in Prospects and Draft Picks that would make everything a lot easier and calmer in Calgary with Money to rope in the big fish Patrick Marleau in particular. The main objective for the Flames this season is simple make the playoffs. This offseason you can decide whether it is right to start from scratch.
This again doesn't bring into the account of any AHLers that could make the jump next season and most of us would agree that no one down on the farm is quite ready to make the jump to the big time.
0 recs |
48 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Marleau is not leaving the Sharks. He has good teammates, it’s a good market, and he was willing to give up his captaincy to stay with the team. If that’s not confidence in the franchise, I don’t know what is.
Also, Daz should be able to re-sign Higgins for under 2 mil. Conroy is done, Mayers and McG are useless, and Nystrom’s not developing anymore. Unless Daz can get rid of Sarich or Kotalik or Staios, White isn’t hanging around. (Maybe one of them will be buried in the minors, but I’m not expecting that right now.) However, I think he will sign White, because if he doesn’t, then he traded Phaneuf, Freddie and Aulie for Stajan and Hagman. That is a fucking awful trade. That’s approaching Milbury territory. Even if Sutter has an IQ of 72, he knows that.
So let’s assume that Daz signs Higgins for 1.75, and loses White. The Flames then have 4 million to spend on a backup and 2 forwards. This situation cannot happen, and if it does, next season will bring along another fringe playoff season, perhaps even lower.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
White isn’t hanging around. (Maybe one of them will be buried in the minors, but I’m not expecting that right now.) However, I think he will sign White, because if he doesn’t, then he traded Phaneuf, Freddie and Aulie for Stajan and Hagman.
White is an RFA. Even if Sutter doesn’t sign him he’ll still get compensation for him.
Even if we get a first rounder for him in comp, it’s still a bad trade.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 5, 2010 7:17 AM PST up reply actions
Well, that would depend on your opinion of Dion Phaneaf. Personally, I don’t think that’s a bad trade at all. Is it the ideal trade? I’d say no, But certainly not bad. Then again I’ve always thought people greatly over-valued Phaneaf.
Then again I’ve always thought people greatly over-valued Phaneaf.
Exactly. To you, a critical fan of Dion, that deal is fair. To 29 GM’s in the league, that is a crap deal. Dion has a ton of sought-after qualities. Realistically, how many other players in the league are as offensively gifted as he is? What about the “big hit” ablility? I’ve always been a defender of Dion, warranted or not, and he has game-changing abilities. People want that. Add in Aulie, one of the best D prospects in the AHL, and Freddie, who works his ass off, and that trade is complete and utter bullshit.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 5, 2010 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
To 29 GM’s in the league, that is a crap deal.
To 29 GM’s in the League that is a fair deal… see I can claim impossible knowledge too. as to your questions:
How many other players in the league are as offensively gifted as he is?
Answer: Based on current point production, a lot.
What about the "big hit" ablility?
Answer: Which he greatly dialed back on this year, which I didn’t mind because in years prior he’d frequantly throw himself out of position to do it.
Sjostrom was a bottom line guy who was frequantly a healthy scratch at the time, those are a dime a dozan. I’ll miss Aulie I grant but he was a real long term prospect.
Frankly, considering how much cap he ate up, I’m not in the locker room so I can’t speak to the truth of the “locker room cancer/sleeps with teammates wife” rumors but there was an awful lot of smoke if there wasn’t some kind of fire, the fact that he looked more like Ed Jovanovski then Scott Stevens, how unbalanced the cap allocation was towards the blueline. I think two legit (albeit unexceptional) top 6 forwards forwards and a first rounder is a fine deal.
While it is impossible knowledge, the amount of criticism leveled on Daz by many members of the mainstream media and us bloggers tends to suggest that the point of view I’m taking is a lot more likley then the one you are taking.
Points are not everything. In the past, (pre-Keenan) Dion was able to drive the play, make great first passes, and quarterback the powerplay. Yeah, a bunch of other d-men could do that too, you say, but not as many with the effectiveness that Dion did it with.
Dion was still able to be physical. While it may have looked like he took himself out of the play every time he did so, that’s just more over-analsyis then anything. I may refer you to the game Vs. Minni last January. He and Clutterbuck had been going all game, and Dion just destroyed him. The end result of the play was almost 90 seconds of sustained pressure in the Wild’s zone. That is the kind of physicality he brings to the table.
And that same Freddie Sjostrom that was a scratch in Calgary? He now averages almost 11 minutes a night in TO.
And the cap space made available is null and void at this point. Daz brought in a 2.7 million dollar contract, a 3 million dollar contract, and gave ~3 million in raises. Personally, I would rather have Dion and his 6.5 then Staios and Kotalik and their 5.7 million, and I would hope I wouldn’t have to explain why.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 5, 2010 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
Personally, I would rather have Dion and his 6.5 then Staios and Kotalik and their 5.7 million, and I would hope I wouldn’t have to explain why.
Sure, I would too. But Sutter didn’t trade Phaneaf for Staios and Kotalik so it’s irrelivant as to whether the Phaneaf move was a good trade or not. I would rather have Hagman, Stajan and a 1st rounder (hopefully not picked by Sutter since he’d just blow it).
In the past, (pre-Keenan) Dion was able to drive the play, make great first passes, and quarterback the powerplay. Yeah, a bunch of other d-men could do that too, you say, but not as many with the effectiveness that Dion did it with.
Yes, In the past, he could do that (albeit against middling competition to my eye). It’s been a good two/three years since then.
But trading Dion allowed both of those to happen. Staios wouldn’t be a Flame, just based on salary alone.
Pre-Keenan. I’ve maintained that Keenan hurt his development to the point where it may take the full two years to be where he should be at, and while I realize you always plan to win now, you cannot trade away your future because you are impatient.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 5, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Pre-Keenan. I’ve maintained that Keenan hurt his development to the point where it may take the full two years to be where he should be at
I’m of the opposite opinion, Keenan in his first year tried to ease Phaneuf into playing against real players.
I think history is ultimately to blame. Young defensemen will struggle against real competition, that’s a verifiable fact. Phaneuf was starting to have a real workload this season and looked okay doing it, at 24 that is an accomplishment. I didn’t like the odds of him becoming a player who could fulfill his $6.5M obligations to the team and I like having more real forwards on this team but I liked Phaneuf as a player just fine.
Also I see where you’re going earlier with how Sutter should have parlayed the perception of Dion into an impact player and I agree with you, I was really surprised that Sutter couldn’t get more. That said, Dion had a really terrible season last year and so he may have hurt his image.
But trading Dion allowed both of those to happen. Staios wouldn’t be a Flame, just based on salary alone.
That’s silly. With the Stajan re-up we’ve invested the exact same dollars in the Phaneaf return as Phaneaf made. We’ve invested nearly the same Dollars in Staois and Kotalik as we did in Jokinen… if you insist on blaming a prior trade for the presence of Staois/Kotalik it’s the Jokinen deal.
So the salary in the Flames-Leafs trade was about 6.5 to 6, correct? We only saved about 500k. The Flames-Rangers trade was 6.25 for 5.25. By my count, we are only saving 1.5 million, coupled with the Cap room we had at the time of 1.8, we would have less then 3.5 million in roster space. Add in a 2.7 million dollar salary and 4.5 million worth of raises, you are 5 million dollars over the cap. If the Phaneuf trade hadn’t gone down, the Flames would have had even less cap space-by about 600k. That cannot work, for this year or next.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 5, 2010 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
Before Stajan was extended Flames-Leafs was 7+ (Phaneuf at 6.5+Shoestring @ whatever he made) to 5-6.
Stajan and Hagman will be 6.5 combined next year, and then White, assuming he’s resigned, would be another 2.5-3.5 depending what goes down.
Still, as much as everyone, including myself, is bitching about cap space, going into the off-season a lot can change. Staios seems destined for the minors at the very least, and a couple of the chunkier contracts will likely be swapped out. I can’t see Sutter specifically getting White in a trade and then letting him walk due to lack of cap space.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 5, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions
I feel confident some of that cap space could be shed if need be (either via trade, waiver, demotion). Realistically, looking at what’s on the board the Flames can complete their roster with 3 fourth liners a #7 d-man and a backup goalie. Knowing the Sutters proclivities that likely means Nystrom, generic goon, and an agitator/checker. You can fit that in without having to shed salary.
Marleau is a pipe dream. He has no reason to sign here over another place unless he’s offered insane $ and significant term… and considering he’s thirty I don’t know if I’d fancy either.
Damn forgot to add Steve Staios to the bad contracts still getting new to this fan post stuff whoops. Langkow I think could fit well on a team that wants to win now and could be used as a 3rd Line center on a good team if he was a UFA this season I’m sure Daz could have done something sending Lanks out for a Pick and prospects.
Marleau will command 7 Million + so he’s out of the picture.
So Players to look at:
Colby Armstrong
Alex Frolov
Alex Tanguay
Tomas Plekanec
What you see is, What you get.
GO FLAMES GO!!!
I wouldn’t say that Langkow’s contract is bad in and of itself, but with Stajan as the new 2nd line centre for 1 mil less cap hit, that circumstance makes it an undesirable contract (of course, as mentioned many times previously, the only way Langks should be moved is if he’s replaced by someone better).
Honestly, if Sarich and Kotalik could each be moved for anything at all, that would be awesome. 4th round picks? Sure. Obviously more return is better, but any return to get rid of their contracts is a good thing.
Hold up, what? Why would we be better off without Langkow’s contract?
The guy’s an impact player with no history or indication of fall-off other than age. He’s no “second line centre”. No significant recurring-injury history, no sub-par seasons, in fact this season may be his best as far as how he has separated himself from the pack vis-a-vis helping the team win.
Have we not learned from the Jokinen mess? Have we not learned that pigeonholing players based on point totals or media-driven player types leads to nothing but trouble when it comes to playing the game on the ice? Have we not learned to value of players that help us win?
Langkow is ten times the player Stajan is, and his contract ten times as good. $4.5M for a player of his calibre is a steal, and the remaining term is manageable. Let’s not talk ourselves into falsehoods here.
I realize your appreciation of Langkow is high, but when you’re paying somebody on a 23 man roster 1/12 of the team max, points absolutely matter. I’ve learned to value players who get points because the Flames have had tons of players who “help us win” without the counting stats to go alongside it, and where exactly has that gotten the team? First round playoff exits every year.
SOMEBODY has to score goals and set people up for goals in order for the team to win, and it had god damned well better be the higher-paid players doing it. 0.5 ppg is not great – even with Langkow’s upside – when you’re talking 4.5m. That said, I would take no issue with Calgary going to a Pittsburg-style setup with a (less) high-priced middle ( – Langkow – Stajan – Backlund) if there was a way to dump Kotalik/Staios/Sarich and retool to that effect. Langkow is good, but there are guys who can do what he does AND score significant points. Just as it’s folly to get caught up in the MSM fixation on points/player types, it is equally folly to fixate solely on underlying stats.
That said, I’m not arguing that the Flames would be better off without Langkow’s contract, but I do think that, underrated as he may be by certain groups, he is more of a 1.5th-to-2nd line centre than a legitimate 1st line centre on a competitive team.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 4, 2010 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
I really like this post. Its a pretty good post.
I think its like how baseball is/used to be. ‘Grit’ and ‘Defence’ costs less than ‘Scoring’ or ‘Point Production’. Therefore, its insane to spend too much money on someone who is primarily on the roster for underlying stats, or ‘manness’.
That said, how soft would the big bad Flames be if we lost the guy? I talk about trading him all the time on my site but unless you can replace him with someone who is legit better, I think you keep him. I dont think you want Stajan as the best centre on the team.
by Domebeers.com on Mar 5, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, because Scoring and Point Production really do a good job of reflecting reality on the ice.
I take it you want Olli Jokinen back right? He scored 90 points once!
I thought you spoke the language of scoring chances, I guess not so much.
R O, I fear you’re on a bit of a crusade, here. Domebeers was merely stating facts (GMs don’t pay as much for underlying stats), and that the Flames would be much worse off if Langkow was gone without a better replacement.
I’d say that most of the people who partake in this particular blog put a lot of stock in underlying stats, and for the most part they agree with you. I personally happen to think there’s such thing as too much of a focus on them, but aside from me and the couple of guys talking about trading Langks for a draft pick (which I assume was what really got you riled up), you’re preaching to the choir.
Furthermore, Peter so on and so forth.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 6, 2010 1:56 AM PST up reply actions
Langkow would be the last of the four I’d part with but he’s easily the most attractive player of the four to other teams wanting that gritty, leadership type Center and would be perfect on a younger team wanting to make that next step.
Los Angeles is on it’s way good fit for Langkow.
A Phoenix return could work.
Carolina has set themselves up to be good down the road shedding the money they have.
Toronto (But wouldn’t part with Draft Picks or Prospects)
I’m not saying we’d get a first for him but maybe a second with roster player or prospect.
What you see is, What you get.
GO FLAMES GO!!!
Yeah, that sounds like it’d be about the right rate of return 2nd + Quality Prospect. I like Lanks though I think I’d rather we kept him. Sarich, Kotalik, & Staois outta go thou.
Sarich and Staios will be a thorn in the side of this team I’m afraid. I’ll be fine with Staios as he only has one year left but Cory Sarich if he can somehow find his old form he could be expendable.
Kotalik is on the fringe with me. Can he find his Buffalo form or will he continue to fail, Here he has shown what he can do and I don’t think he’s been that nuisance like he was in the Big Apple. Time will tell if he’s earned this deal and the Flames made the right decision on Kotalik.
What you see is, What you get.
GO FLAMES GO!!!
LA only has one person for whom we could trade Langks without losing, and that’s Kopitar. I don’t think LA would be willing to trade away their franchise player for an old fart. Phoenix has absolutely no one who would work in that sort of trade.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 5, 2010 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
I’d be happy with Frolov and a prospect.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 5, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
The rate we’re going we might outpace the Oil in the quest to hit rock bottom.
Trading Langkow for what amounts to flotsam, jetsam and detritus. Give your heads a shake.
by R O on Mar 5, 2010 10:38 AM PST via mobile reply actions
You know what trade we need to make? Langkow for Jokinen. Because we need a First Line Centre who can score points on a Competitive Team. Screw all that noise about helping us win games.
by R O on Mar 5, 2010 10:40 AM PST via mobile reply actions 2 recs
lol. rec’d
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 5, 2010 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
Helping Us Win Games by Moving The Puck North is really the way to go. Who needs points? It’s not like the league decides who wins a game based on goal differential.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 5, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
How exactly does a team generate a positive goal differential if it is always starting in its own end against the other team’s best?
Let’s keep some semblance of how the game is played here, when we talk about players. It’s been nary three weeks since we rid ourselves of our prototypical first line centre who can’t actually play first line minutes, and already we’re looking to get rid of our real first line centre who can play first line minutes for an opportunity to go whale hunting.
Jokinen was not a prototypical first line centre. A prototypical first line centre is Getzlaf, Backstrom, Kopitar, Stamkos, Crosby, etc.
I never disagreed with you that getting the puck going in the right direction and possession wasn’t important – I merely stated that, in conjunction with that, you need guys who can put up points. Both are necessary, not just one. I don’t want to get rid of Langkow for a mere whale hunting opportunity, but if someone said that Calgary had traded Langkow and a pick or something for one of the aforementioned players in my comment or their ilk, I would be happy with the trade.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 5, 2010 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah. If Langkow gets traded for, say, Brad Richards, then the Flames kill that deal. Historically speaking though, trading really good players for even better players doesn’t happen often in this league.
I really dislike the suggestions others (not you) have made regarding Langkow for returns like a 2nd and a prospect. That’s like selling a precious stone for Canadian Tire money.
And I still don’t think Langkow is a second line centre. He can outchance and outscore quality. I’d rather pump and dump Stajan to be honest, sell other s on his Youth, Hands and Potential.
I think we need both of them at this point. Neither of the two is replaceable unless with an equivalent/better centre. Langkow is more important to the Flames right now that Stajan, but although Stajan’s contract isn’t any better than market value I do want to give him a chance for at least a season. I like the little gaffer, and he provides a good bridge between old and in eventual need of replacement (Langks), and young and inexperienced (Backlund).
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 5, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
The draft is a crapshoot. The best example is the draft record of our very own Darryl Sutter. Of all the players he has drafted, a total of 1 (Pardy) are still playing regularly for the Flames. I hesitate to count Backlund because he hasn’t had a full season yet, but go ahead and count him if you want. He has had 53 picks since he has been the GM of the Flames. That’s a staggering percentage of 1.9% effectiveness. Yes, other GM’s have done better, but those GM’s are not employed by the Calgary Flames.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
If the Flames don’t make the playoffs. Sutter is gone.
If the Flames make the playoffs and are one and done. Sutter is gone.
If the Flames advance past the first round. Sutter continues is reign atop Mt. Saddledome.
Either way if Sutter is around at the Draft I fully expect him to do anything in his power to get a first or second in Los Angeles.
What you see is, What you get.
GO FLAMES GO!!!
Oh yeah, we can agree on that… Sutter is absolutely terrible at drafting. Prust, Boyd, Phaneaf, Pardy… that’s it for NHL talent out of his tenure (I’ll count Backlund when he hits 20 games).
The 2003 Draft was arguably the greatest ever. Only one player picked in the first round has yet to play on an NHL team………….. Hugh Jessiman at 12th picked by the Rangers I think we can agree Sather made the biggest F up that day not Sutter.
But here are some players I would have taken ahead of Phaneuf. (Bold are players that Sutter gambled on and failed)
9th. Dion Phaneuf
11th. Jeff Carter
13th. Dustin Brown
14th. Brent Seabrook
17th. Zach Parise
19th. Ryan Getzlaf
23rd. Ryan Kesler
24th. Mike Richards
28th. Corey Perry
33rd. Loui Eriksson
39th. TIM RAMHOLT
45th. Patrice Bergeron
49th. Shea Weber
-———————————————— Players Sutter Drafted that failed before Pavelski, Byfiglien and even Halak
97th. Ryan Donally
112th. Jamie Tardiff
143rd. Greg Moore
173rd. Tyler Johnson
-————————————————
205th. Joe Pavelski
245th. Dustin Byfuglien
271st. Jaroslav Halak
But the Oilers also made a fateful mistake that day.
The Edmonton Oilers trade the 17th pick (Zach Parise) to the New Jersey Devils for the 22nd pick (Marc-Antoine Pouliot) and the 68th pick (Jean-Francois Jacques).
Wasn’t the first time the Devils screwed an Alberta team. hmmmmmmmmmmmm Martin Brodeur.
What you see is, What you get.
GO FLAMES GO!!!
I don’t think we can just put down a list of players who, 7 years down the line, have been successful and just say “see Sutter should have picked these players”. That’s non-sensical.
I tell you what Sutter should have done though. He should have had a philosophy of picking forwards in the first round. Historically, they develop into real players faster and more predictably than defenseman and especially more than goalies. And they have a bigger impact on the game than Dmen and a more predictable one than goalies.
Even if Sutter had picked, say, Bernier or Kostitsyn, that would have been a better pick from a draft philosophy standpoint. Because then he wouldn’t have blown his wad on Pelech or Irving or Erixon-over-Schroeder (I initially disliked Schroeder for his purported attitude problems but have since changed my mind, he’s 18 and there’s time to change his attitude, but his skills are his skills).
NB: I think the Ducks got really lucky that Getzlaf dropped to them, I didn’t follow the draft then but I’ve since read that he was ranked 5th among NA skaters (or forwards? I don’t quite remember) at the time. There’s no point crying over Seabrook (who appears to be carried by Keith) or Weber (who is basically Phaneuf 2.0 as far as role and usefulness) though.
Getting a Phaneuf with a 2nd round pick as opposed to a 1st round pick would have been quite the victory, though. I know it’s all hindsight, but that does make Weber more attractive.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 5, 2010 12:33 PM PST up reply actions
Well, actually you can put down a list of players that Sutter should have picked instead, simply because the topic was about the results of Sutter’s drafting.
I agree with your philosophy of picking forwards in the first round, though. Realistically you can get more value out of young forwards compared to young d-men, which makes sense when you consider that consistency is a much more important value for a defenseman than a forward.
I think this is a bad road to go down, man. Half a decade plus out and its crystal clear. Its silly. Who drafted 12th? They missed, that GM is stupid. Who drafted 15th? They missed, that GM is stupid. Who Drafted 16th? They missed, that GM is stupid. Who drafted 18th? Who drafted 20th? They missed. Who can’t see where Im going with this? They missed, too.
If you go back and look at any draft 10 years out for any team Im sure you’ll find a lot of mistakes made by a lot of smart people.
by Domebeers.com on Mar 5, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah. Plus the road from prospect to player is so unpaved that it’s pretty likely that even the GM who is best able to identify talent at 18 will miss purely due to injuries, mismanaged development, or just plain dumb luck.
by R O on Mar 5, 2010 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
Some guys are better at drafting than others. Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty in a draft, but that doesn’t mean it’s completely random, either. And honestly, although I do wish one of the elite forwards had been drafted in the fish-in-a-barrel draft of 03, Phaneuf was a good draft pick. I think we have the organization to blame for fucking up Phaneuf’s development as well as Sutter for giving him an excessive contract as opposed to thinking he was a bad draft pick in and of himself.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 5, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Tampa Bay
|
Sat 09/25 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
Phoenix
|
Tue 09/28 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
New York Islanders
|
Wed 09/29 | 5:00 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/10 | L 3 - 7 |
|
Minnesota
|
Thu 04/08 | SO - L 1 - 2 |
|
San Jose
|
Tue 04/06 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Sun 04/04 | L 1 - 4 |
|
@
Colorado
|
Fri 04/02 | W 2 - 1 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
