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

Dreger: Savard is in play

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-05-2010, 10:25 AM
  #51
GoFlames
Registered User
 
GoFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,690
vCash: 500
Bump... as per Eklund:

Marc Savard to the Flames for Reghr is a rumor that rekindled today...

GoFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 10:52 AM
  #52
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Dust Buster
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,180
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFlames View Post
Bump... as per Eklund:

Marc Savard to the Flames for Reghr is a rumor that rekindled today...
Yaaaahhhhhoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Savvy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dam I hope this goes through! Even though it is Eklund, if he is reporting it then its probably because talks have at least started up again. Iggy's gotta get on the phone and make this happen.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 10:54 AM
  #53
GoFlames
Registered User
 
GoFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
Yaaaahhhhhoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Savvy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dam I hope this goes through! Even though it is Eklund, if he is reporting it then its probably because talks have at least started up again. Iggy's gotta get on the phone and make this happen.
Well it could be due to some sort of personal premonition after all it is Eklund the word Probably is the key.

GoFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:05 PM
  #54
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Dust Buster
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,180
vCash: 50
Take it for what its worth as well, but I was just over in the Bruins forum and asked them if Savard may of softened on coming out West, and they said yes! Apparently the only place he won't go is Edmonton lmfao!!!

Again not that it means much, but maybe there is still hope? Here's keeping the fingers crossed.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:13 PM
  #55
Areid1990
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,547
vCash: 500
I think I would cry if we got him. Like literally cry tears of joy!

Areid1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:21 PM
  #56
saillias
Registered User
 
saillias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,960
vCash: 500
This would mean Stajan, Jokinen, Backlund, Langkow, Savard. 5 top 6 centers... Obviously one of these would have to be in the package going to Boston. All of them have NTCs except Backlund. Sorry but signing Jokinen nixed any chances of getting a bigshot #1 C.

saillias is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:27 PM
  #57
AlbertaNucksFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saillias View Post
This would mean Stajan, Jokinen, Backlund, Langkow, Savard. 5 top 6 centers... Obviously one of these would have to be in the package going to Boston. All of them have NTCs except Backlund. Sorry but signing Jokinen nixed any chances of getting a bigshot #1 C.
Well I think it's safe to say if Savvy comes back Lanks is done...

but who needs him?

Savard
Jokinen
Stajan

down the middle with the possibility of Backlund and Conroy as well....

Maybe once Darryl brought Jokinen and Tanguay in Savard decided to change his mind.

I mean Tanguay only left cause of Keenan, and Savard had his beef several moons ago with Greg Gilbert....

Maybe they promised Savard, Top line minutes, 1st line PP...no PK....and offensive creativity....

PLEASE bring in Savard!

AlbertaNucksFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:31 PM
  #58
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saillias View Post
This would mean Stajan, Jokinen, Backlund, Langkow, Savard. 5 top 6 centers... Obviously one of these would have to be in the package going to Boston. All of them have NTCs except Backlund. Sorry but signing Jokinen nixed any chances of getting a bigshot #1 C.
Agreed.

How do we land Savard, when we don't have the room or cap space for him. After hearing the news about Langkow's recovery I am assuming his trade value is close to nothing.

I would never ship out Backlund for Savard. I don't want Backlund on the wing either

How does he fit in then?

Only thought is perhaps Stajan, but the B's have no need for him. Perhaps Reg can be used but then we have way to many centres on the books. Hell we already have too many.

I'm guessing Sutter is assuming Langkow is not going to be able to start the year. Or that he has a destination team in mind for him...not likely.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:32 PM
  #59
Codes
Registered User
 
Codes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saillias View Post
This would mean Stajan, Jokinen, Backlund, Langkow, Savard. 5 top 6 centers... Obviously one of these would have to be in the package going to Boston. All of them have NTCs except Backlund. Sorry but signing Jokinen nixed any chances of getting a bigshot #1 C.
Yeah, I'm not sure...

They're so deep at Centre, I'm not sure they'd want one back. Maybe a winger would go the other way?

As far as our centre situation goes, Lanks is likely LTIR, and meh, we can always try Jokinen on the wing. Also, Backlund can play wing, but as others have said, I'd rather develop him in his natural centre position.

That being said, I don't expect Savard to be coming to Calgary anyway. If that ship ever existed, it sailed a while ago.

Codes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 01:36 PM
  #60
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Dust Buster
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,180
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by saillias View Post
This would mean Stajan, Jokinen, Backlund, Langkow, Savard. 5 top 6 centers... Obviously one of these would have to be in the package going to Boston. All of them have NTCs except Backlund. Sorry but signing Jokinen nixed any chances of getting a bigshot #1 C.
I really think that has nothing to do with it at all. To me, Jokinen is like a insurance policy. In the press conference, Sutter said to be honest with Langkow's status being up in the air that factor was huge in deciding to bring back Olli. Jokinen truly is a #2 centre at this point in his career and I think he is a very good one at that. He makes a 1.5 million less than Langkow. If Calgary and Boston can make the trade, Langkow will be the odd man out. I think depending on how his rehab goes, the choices will vary on what is going to be done with him. One option is trading him, the other is LTIR. I think if Savard is now willing to come here, he is still very much in play. If we can get him all of sudden our centre position is looking pretty dam good.

Savard
Jokinen
Stajan
Sutter/Conroy

Looks great to me! Backlund will be moved to the wing. Ideally it would be best to let Backlund develop playing centre, but I think playing top 6 at centre or wing is the most important part of his development. He is a creative player and that is something a player either has or they don't. He could easily move back to centre when he is ready, the biggest thing with Backlund is he needs minutes.


Last edited by Johnny Hoxville: 07-05-2010 at 01:42 PM.
Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 04:32 PM
  #61
GoFlames
Registered User
 
GoFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,690
vCash: 500
I would be over joyed if Sutter could land Savard. Langkow might be at the end of his career, well at least on the LTIR. Too bad... not sure what his real status is longer term. If we get Savard, our top centres would be real solid for a change: Savard - Jokinen - Backlund... I like!

GoFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 04:44 PM
  #62
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFlames View Post
I would be over joyed if Sutter could land Savard. Langkow might be at the end of his career, well at least on the LTIR. Too bad... not sure what his real status is longer term. If we get Savard, our top centres would be real solid for a change: Savard - Jokinen - Backlund... I like!
I just don't understand how we could get Savard unless another centre is on the move. Where is Stajan in your list? Backlund needs to play with some of the little offensive talent our team has. Hopefully our lineup does not look the way it is right now come fall.

1. Backlund gets screwed into the 4th line with a couple of plugs
2. Langkow is completly up in the air at this point.
3. Eventhough Tanguay could help Jokinen there is still the risk that they provide as much offense as last year's dissapointment.
4. If Savard comes in a C has to leave this team somehow.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 05:38 PM
  #63
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Dust Buster
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,180
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
I just don't understand how we could get Savard unless another centre is on the move. Where is Stajan in your list? Backlund needs to play with some of the little offensive talent our team has. Hopefully our lineup does not look the way it is right now come fall.

1. Backlund gets screwed into the 4th line with a couple of plugs
2. Langkow is completly up in the air at this point.
3. Eventhough Tanguay could help Jokinen there is still the risk that they provide as much offense as last year's dissapointment.
4. If Savard comes in a C has to leave this team somehow.
I think the priority should be to aquire Savard first, we have the option to go over the cap by 5% up until the start of the season. You can worry about tinkering with your roster once you get him. BTW, some of the B's fans would be tickled to get Regehr for Savard straight up. Having him and Chara on the same blueline would scary as hell for opposing teams.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 06:25 PM
  #64
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
I think the priority should be to aquire Savard first, we have the option to go over the cap by 5% up until the start of the season. You can worry about tinkering with your roster once you get him. BTW, some of the B's fans would be tickled to get Regehr for Savard straight up. Having him and Chara on the same blueline would scary as hell for opposing teams.
I thought it was 10%...but anyway. Who would you get rid of then? Langkow, if so how does that get done?

Lots of questions before Sutter can pull the trigger. Hopefully he knows exaclty what he's doing.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 06:42 PM
  #65
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Dust Buster
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,180
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
I thought it was 10%...but anyway. Who would you get rid of then? Langkow, if so how does that get done?

Lots of questions before Sutter can pull the trigger. Hopefully he knows exaclty what he's doing.
Sorry you are right, I think it is 10% it'll be close 6 million of extra cap they have this offseason to work with. I just really think you need to see how the whole Langkow situation plays out. I do not think it is entirely possible that he may have to retire, of course that is all speculation on my part. I really wish him the best, he's all heart and warrior type of player and a good guy. If he gets a clean bill of health, then you trade him for conditional draft picks based on how many games he plays to a team like the Isle. He may go on LTIR as well, you just won't know until the season nears closer. But there is flexibility there. Langkow is still a valuable player if healthy, if he is not healthy then won't play.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 06:45 PM
  #66
HarrySPlinkett
Not a film critic
 
HarrySPlinkett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
I just don't understand how we could get Savard unless another centre is on the move. Where is Stajan in your list? Backlund needs to play with some of the little offensive talent our team has. Hopefully our lineup does not look the way it is right now come fall.

1. Backlund gets screwed into the 4th line with a couple of plugs
2. Langkow is completly up in the air at this point.
3. Eventhough Tanguay could help Jokinen there is still the risk that they provide as much offense as last year's dissapointment.
4. If Savard comes in a C has to leave this team somehow.
If we land Savard, then we make Langkow disappear somehow; take almost nothing in return for him, a 7th or something. Some salary floor team will give up that much for him I'm sure.

So in theory then, we could have

Bourque-Savard-Iginla
Tanguay-Jokinen-Hagman
Backlund-Stajan-Moss
Glencross-Sutter-Jackman (Preferably not Ivanins. What a waste of space that plug is)


Last edited by HarrySPlinkett: 07-05-2010 at 07:32 PM.
HarrySPlinkett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 01:03 AM
  #67
GoFlames
Registered User
 
GoFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
I just don't understand how we could get Savard unless another centre is on the move. Where is Stajan in your list? Backlund needs to play with some of the little offensive talent our team has. Hopefully our lineup does not look the way it is right now come fall.

1. Backlund gets screwed into the 4th line with a couple of plugs
2. Langkow is completly up in the air at this point.
3. Eventhough Tanguay could help Jokinen there is still the risk that they provide as much offense as last year's dissapointment.
4. If Savard comes in a C has to leave this team somehow.
Bostn has centres oozing out of the woodwork, add Seguin (who the Oilers should have taken 1st imo) and they need to dump centres and add D to replace Wideman. Perfect match and equal salary cap hits. All that needs to be waited on is will Savard waive the NTC.

GoFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 01:04 AM
  #68
GoFlames
Registered User
 
GoFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OptimusPrime View Post
If we land Savard, then we make Langkow disappear somehow; take almost nothing in return for him, a 7th or something. Some salary floor team will give up that much for him I'm sure.

So in theory then, we could have

Bourque-Savard-Iginla
Tanguay-Jokinen-Hagman
Backlund-Stajan-Moss
Glencross-Sutter-Jackman (Preferably not Ivanins. What a waste of space that plug is)
Ivananis is the goon, will play 20ish games or so. That team looks MUCH better than the one last season pre and post mid season blow up.

GoFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 12:42 PM
  #69
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OptimusPrime View Post
If we land Savard, then we make Langkow disappear somehow; take almost nothing in return for him, a 7th or something. Some salary floor team will give up that much for him I'm sure.

So in theory then, we could have

Bourque-Savard-Iginla
Tanguay-Jokinen-Hagman
Backlund-Stajan-Moss
Glencross-Sutter-Jackman (Preferably not Ivanins. What a waste of space that plug is)
I would much rather have Backlund on centre. When he is this young I would rather develop a centre than a winger. Yes many players are flexible at positions, but his development would be a top priority of mine (if I was Coach). I also agree with Tfong that Jokinen would be great on the wing with his speed and size. Assuming we get Savard...

Jokinen-Savard-Iginla
Tanguay-Backlund-Bourque
Hagman-Stajan-Moss
Glencross-Sutter-Jackman

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 01:32 PM
  #70
GoFlames
Registered User
 
GoFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
I would much rather have Backlund on centre. When he is this young I would rather develop a centre than a winger. Yes many players are flexible at positions, but his development would be a top priority of mine (if I was Coach). I also agree with Tfong that Jokinen would be great on the wing with his speed and size. Assuming we get Savard...

Jokinen-Savard-Iginla
Tanguay-Backlund-Bourque
Hagman-Stajan-Moss
Glencross-Sutter-Jackman
Assumptions aside I like that. I would not see Stajan being on the third line though. I would foresee Backlund and Stajan being interchangeable ideally.

GoFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 03:20 PM
  #71
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFlames View Post
Assumptions aside I like that. I would not see Stajan being on the third line though. I would foresee Backlund and Stajan being interchangeable ideally.
I agree. Regardless of Savard making his way here or not. One thing I like about our lineup is that we have a lot of depth and dynamic in terms of who plays where, and with what linemates.

We may not have a top line that really pops, but at least this team has lots of options fo Sutter to fool around with.

At the end of the day...Unless these same players can improve and gel under Sutter we won't see a much better team next year. Too many young developing teams in the west that are creeping into the playoff picture.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 03:32 PM
  #72
Noori
Registered User
 
Noori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,724
vCash: 100
It is Backlund who should be playing wing, not Jokinen. The reason being is that Backlund has a lot of hockey sense and is a very intelligent player who will have an easier time switching and playing the position.

Noori 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 05:56 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.