HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Flames will stick with Iginla and Sutter. Assistant GM to come?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-02-2010, 10:33 AM
  #101
StreakingRed
#unsustainable
 
StreakingRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 11,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
Oh and I forgot about Langkow. I am sure he'll be here next year, so I hope he rebounds. I have not been impressed with him the last 2 years mostly because of his defensive play and leadership. If you get the money, play like you earned it. I know everyone sucked last year, but he needs to be more of a catalyst and leader.

Please, do explain.

Langkow had a bad year last year, like you said he wasn't the only one. There was a reason he got that money to begin with, and that's because he had earned it - by being consistent and a great 2-way player. He got probably $500K more than I would have given him, but I didn't have a problem with his contract when he was signed to it, and I don't recall many people did either at the time. This is a guy that will play with two broken hands and you'll never hear him complain, so I'm really left to wonder how you could possibly question his leadership. Langkow has always been a quiet dude, and one that leads by example. He had a bad year, and when you have a bad year, you always look overpaid.

Getting rid of Langkow's contract would help us, given how tight against the cap we are. But you know what would have helped us even more? Had Sutter not f-cked sh-t up by taking on bad contracts last year and making two incredibly stupid deals (w/ Rangers and Oilers).

Much like you, I too hope to see him rebound next season.

StreakingRed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2010, 11:28 AM
  #102
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreakingRed View Post
Please, do explain.

Langkow had a bad year last year, like you said he wasn't the only one. There was a reason he got that money to begin with, and that's because he had earned it - by being consistent and a great 2-way player. He got probably $500K more than I would have given him, but I didn't have a problem with his contract when he was signed to it, and I don't recall many people did either at the time. This is a guy that will play with two broken hands and you'll never hear him complain, so I'm really left to wonder how you could possibly question his leadership. Langkow has always been a quiet dude, and one that leads by example. He had a bad year, and when you have a bad year, you always look overpaid.

Getting rid of Langkow's contract would help us, given how tight against the cap we are. But you know what would have helped us even more? Had Sutter not f-cked sh-t up by taking on bad contracts last year and making two incredibly stupid deals (w/ Rangers and Oilers).

Much like you, I too hope to see him rebound next season.
The team just has not got it done with this core. When you identify core players and pay them accordingly then you expect results in the following years. The flames only got worse after that identification stage. IMO we now have a good coach, and last year the players stunk it up. I don't question Langkow's toughness or attitude. I just don't see him being a leader on the ice, leading by example. Again this is only from the point of a viewer, i'm not in the dressing room everynight. I also don't find him good enough on the backend. He's weak in the defensive corners and does a poor job of picking up late crease entrances.

Now that we have Stajan, it fuels my desire even more to see him move on.

I agree, with both of the poor trades. But I want to wait and see what these players do next year before I make full judgement. To be honest I was very impressed by Staios, he seemed to be teaching everyone how to block shots with their nose.

And if Langkow rebounds with sixty points and cleans up his defensive play, then thats just going to make us all happy.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2010, 12:35 PM
  #103
StreakingRed
#unsustainable
 
StreakingRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 11,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
To be honest I was very impressed by Staios, he seemed to be teaching everyone how to block shots with their nose

Oh I have no problem with Staios the player. The guy brings it every night, and does provide leadership. I just don't like the fact that we gave up a 3rd for him. We gave up a 3rd (in a draft where we don't have picks in the first two rounds) to take on a not so great contract (although a good player for what he is). Johnson alone should have been plenty as is, considering that was a salary dump for Edmonton. If anything, we should have gotten a 3rd back for taking on Staios' contract. That's my problem with that deal.

StreakingRed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2010, 01:12 PM
  #104
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreakingRed View Post
Oh I have no problem with Staios the player. The guy brings it every night, and does provide leadership. I just don't like the fact that we gave up a 3rd for him. We gave up a 3rd (in a draft where we don't have picks in the first two rounds) to take on a not so great contract (although a good player for what he is). Johnson alone should have been plenty as is, considering that was a salary dump for Edmonton. If anything, we should have gotten a 3rd back for taking on Staios' contract. That's my problem with that deal.
can't argue that...I remember when I saw the ticker and I honestly thought the 3rd was coming our way.

They should make trade deadline a national holiday so I'm not using vacation time.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2010, 02:21 PM
  #105
RipThisJoint
 
RipThisJoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flames123 View Post
What is wrong with you? Are you being sarcastic? I sure hope so because if you're not you really need to find a new sport to actually FOLLOW. Watch some games every once in a while and then come talk.

I am just so happy to have you and that RipHisJoint guy on here...
By all means, feel free to respond to anything you disagree with me on. I have well-thought out posts. Give solid reasons to back up what I'm saying and respond kindly even when others feel the need to insult me.

But I will say - and please to this kindly - you don't seem to add much to the discussion. Unlike, say Lunatik, who while feeling the need to insult; gives well thought out posts. I respect that even if I don't agree.

RipThisJoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2010, 02:25 PM
  #106
RipThisJoint
 
RipThisJoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreakingRed View Post
Please, do explain.

Langkow had a bad year last year, like you said he wasn't the only one. There was a reason he got that money to begin with, and that's because he had earned it - by being consistent and a great 2-way player. He got probably $500K more than I would have given him, but I didn't have a problem with his contract when he was signed to it, and I don't recall many people did either at the time. This is a guy that will play with two broken hands and you'll never hear him complain, so I'm really left to wonder how you could possibly question his leadership. Langkow has always been a quiet dude, and one that leads by example. He had a bad year, and when you have a bad year, you always look overpaid.

Getting rid of Langkow's contract would help us, given how tight against the cap we are. But you know what would have helped us even more? Had Sutter not f-cked sh-t up by taking on bad contracts last year and making two incredibly stupid deals (w/ Rangers and Oilers).

Much like you, I too hope to see him rebound next season.
Very good post. I will never talk down Langkow's heart. I respect his quiet intesity and honourable play. However, he is going to be 34 on opening day and still has another two years. That contract is a noose and untradeable. I'm not impressed with anyone saying he lacks heart or leadership either.

You pay your second line centre what the Flames are paying Stajan. No more.

RipThisJoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2010, 02:28 PM
  #107
Feel The Heat
Flames in 6
 
Feel The Heat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,853
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreakingRed View Post
Oh I have no problem with Staios the player. The guy brings it every night, and does provide leadership. I just don't like the fact that we gave up a 3rd for him. We gave up a 3rd (in a draft where we don't have picks in the first two rounds) to take on a not so great contract (although a good player for what he is). Johnson alone should have been plenty as is, considering that was a salary dump for Edmonton. If anything, we should have gotten a 3rd back for taking on Staios' contract. That's my problem with that deal.
I agree with this post word for word.

Feel The Heat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2010, 04:28 PM
  #108
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=RipThisJoint;26101530]Very good post. I will never talk down Langkow's heart. I respect his quiet intesity and honourable play. However, he is going to be 34 on opening day and still has another two years. That contract is a noose and untradeable. I'm not impressed with anyone saying he lacks heart or leadership either.

You pay your second line centre what the Flames are paying Stajan. No more.[/QUOTE]

Exactly...I'm not saying Langkow doesn't have heart and has little work ethic. I don't like his defensive play and I don't see him being a visible leader on the ice. Even when he first got signed I still did not think he deserved what he got. Stajan's contract is far more appropriate...and now that we have him it is time for Langkow to go. Which probably isn't a possibility.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2010, 06:49 PM
  #109
flames123
Registered User
 
flames123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,496
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=The Gnome;26103533]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RipThisJoint View Post
Very good post. I will never talk down Langkow's heart. I respect his quiet intesity and honourable play. However, he is going to be 34 on opening day and still has another two years. That contract is a noose and untradeable. I'm not impressed with anyone saying he lacks heart or leadership either.

You pay your second line centre what the Flames are paying Stajan. No more.[/QUOTE]

Exactly...I'm not saying Langkow doesn't have heart and has little work ethic. I don't like his defensive play and I don't see him being a visible leader on the ice. Even when he first got signed I still did not think he deserved what he got. Stajan's contract is far more appropriate...and now that we have him it is time for Langkow to go. Which probably isn't a possibility.
What exactly do you mean by that? Are you saying you don't like good defense? ?Because that is what Langkow brings. Who on our team do you think is better defensively than Langkow? Well whoever they are, he still spends more time PKing than them. He is on the ice for more PK time than anyone else on our team. Like it or not he is one of our best penalty killers, if not the best. PKers are typically good defensively, or so I should hope. Also, Lanks usually played against the top line, meaning Sutter has good faith in his overall checking ability.

flames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2010, 07:30 PM
  #110
Lunatik*
 
Lunatik*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreakingRed View Post
Oh I have no problem with Staios the player. The guy brings it every night, and does provide leadership. I just don't like the fact that we gave up a 3rd for him. We gave up a 3rd (in a draft where we don't have picks in the first two rounds) to take on a not so great contract (although a good player for what he is). Johnson alone should have been plenty as is, considering that was a salary dump for Edmonton. If anything, we should have gotten a 3rd back for taking on Staios' contract. That's my problem with that deal.
SR the pick in the Staios deal will likely be in the 2011 draft... we have the choice between 2010 and 2011 3rds to give them... and well from teh sounds of it a 3rd in 2010 will be more like a 5th in 2011... I think you can bank on the Flames keeping their 3rd... and if they move either 3rd it will be at the draft to move up (say both 3rds which are 64 & 73 and try to acquire a pick in the late 2nd round)

Lunatik* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2010, 11:05 AM
  #111
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flames123 View Post

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you saying you don't like good defense? ?Because that is what Langkow brings. Who on our team do you think is better defensively than Langkow? Well whoever they are, he still spends more time PKing than them. He is on the ice for more PK time than anyone else on our team. Like it or not he is one of our best penalty killers, if not the best. PKers are typically good defensively, or so I should hope. Also, Lanks usually played against the top line, meaning Sutter has good faith in his overall checking ability.
Yeah and look how awesome the team is.
I have already provided specifics in other posts. I find him weak in the defensive corners and he is bad a picking up late men into the crease. These qualities are not horrendous, but with his pay he should be better in these areas. A centreman on your team that makes 4mil+ needs to be very good in those areas. IMO he's not good enough, I don't think anyone could change my mind about that.

I think B. Sutter is a great coach (though I disagree with his use of langkow) and he feels Langkow should be the go to guy for the situations you listed above, based on his age, pay, ranking on the team, etc...But its not good enough and Langkow is a large part of the problems that have recently developed.

Just because a player is put in certain situations by the coach doesn't mean that he is a "defensive specialist" by any streatch, nor is the coach always right. It could also be an indicator of the poor quality of forwards this team has.

Higgins, Nystrom, Boyd, Conroy, Bourque and Iggy IMO all kill penalties better than him.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2010, 02:47 PM
  #112
GoFlames
Registered User
 
GoFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
Yeah and look how awesome the team is.
I have already provided specifics in other posts. I find him weak in the defensive corners and he is bad a picking up late men into the crease. These qualities are not horrendous, but with his pay he should be better in these areas. A centreman on your team that makes 4mil+ needs to be very good in those areas. IMO he's not good enough, I don't think anyone could change my mind about that.

I think B. Sutter is a great coach (though I disagree with his use of langkow) and he feels Langkow should be the go to guy for the situations you listed above, based on his age, pay, ranking on the team, etc...But its not good enough and Langkow is a large part of the problems that have recently developed.

Just because a player is put in certain situations by the coach doesn't mean that he is a "defensive specialist" by any streatch, nor is the coach always right. It could also be an indicator of the poor quality of forwards this team has.

Higgins, Nystrom, Boyd, Conroy, Bourque and Iggy IMO all kill penalties better than him.
Langkow weak in his own end.... you are joking right?

GoFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2010, 02:52 PM
  #113
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFlames View Post
Langkow weak in his own end.... you are joking right?
He's not the weakest on the team. I just don't see his worth compared to the money he gets paid. Your first or second line centre has to be better than langkow in his own end.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2010, 10:52 AM
  #114
Sandwiches1123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 271
vCash: 500
I'm very glad to hear that Iginla will be staying. I don't think trading him really makes enough sense right now. His value was higher two years ago and Calgary fans would need an overpayment to justify their suffering.

I think Sutter has 1 to 2 seasons to fix this. I think there will be a reevaluation at the end of 2010/11 and he will have one more year to make Calgary a viable playoff team by the 2011/12 playoffs.

This may be too long of a leash but I also see this as a Kevin Lowe scenario, which was stolen from the mind of Elaine Benis from Seinfeld. In order to remove the crazy Vietnam war veteran and because she was scared to fire him, she promoted him so he wouldn't bother her anymore.

Sutter really tied the hands of the organization by picking up guys like Kotalik, Stajan (and then signing him to that deal that should have been max $2.5 million per season), Hagman, and Staios. Aside from Staios, each is signed until the end of 2011/12 at least. This is also the reason why Sutter is given the leash. I'm guessing and hoping that he values the RFA's he has will garner him some picks for 2011. If not, the Flames are going to be in a desperately long drought for some time. Think Los Angeles Kings.

Sandwiches1123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2010, 10:54 AM
  #115
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwiches1123 View Post
I'm very glad to hear that Iginla will be staying. I don't think trading him really makes enough sense right now. His value was higher two years ago and Calgary fans would need an overpayment to justify their suffering.

I think Sutter has 1 to 2 seasons to fix this. I think there will be a reevaluation at the end of 2010/11 and he will have one more year to make Calgary a viable playoff team by the 2011/12 playoffs.

This may be too long of a leash but I also see this as a Kevin Lowe scenario, which was stolen from the mind of Elaine Benis from Seinfeld. In order to remove the crazy Vietnam war veteran and because she was scared to fire him, she promoted him so he wouldn't bother her anymore.
Sutter really tied the hands of the organization by picking up guys like Kotalik, Stajan (and then signing him to that deal that should have been max $2.5 million per season), Hagman, and Staios. Aside from Staios, each is signed until the end of 2011/12 at least. This is also the reason why Sutter is given the leash. I'm guessing and hoping that he values the RFA's he has will garner him some picks for 2011. If not, the Flames are going to be in a desperately long drought for some time. Think Los Angeles Kings.
Love the reference

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.