YUP!!! Why wouldn't they. He signed johnny turnover ( in top ten in league every yr for turnovers) for big bucks, failed at providing goaltending, fired a good coach and Brouwer??
Looks like job well done. Lol

Well, you will never see those deals from any GM, and I am sure he and Burke would have talked about any significant offseason acquisitions like Lucic, so unless BT somehow talked BB out of that signing, I can't see anything but a consensus decision.

Looking at that series, I didn't see a major issue with the Flames and physicality, but rather than a Lucic, as I went on and on about around the deadline, I would rather have seen (and would still like to see) the Flames pursue a cheaper contract and more effective player in Simmonds. Cost for a player like that is high, but we are not walking into a free agency period where quality power forward RW right hand shots are available.

The Flames got out-depthed vs Anaheim, and Kesler's unit did a great job of shutting the Flames down 5 on 5.
- rmull905

Actually, he didn't. He was assigned the Monahan/Gaudreau line and they out-corsied Kesler's line.
Also, what would you be willing to part with to acquire Simmonds? Because it would be a painful price for sure.

Actually, he didn't. He was assigned the Monahan/Gaudreau line and they out-corsied Kesler's line.
Also, what would you be willing to part with to acquire Simmonds? Because it would be a painful price for sure.
- TandA4Flames

I agree with both your points

Simmonds would be nice to have

YUP!!! Why wouldn't they. He signed johnny turnover ( in top ten in league every yr for turnovers) for big bucks, failed at providing goaltending, fired a good coach and Brouwer??
Looks like job well done. Lol
- hockey_talk079

While I agree johnny turns the puck over a lot, he also has the puck more than most do so there's more chance of him turning it over

I agree with both your points

Simmonds would be nice to have
- Redmile247

Yes he would. But likely so would be the players we'd have to give up to get him.

This Offseason

1) Re-Sign Treliving. I honestly don't see what this is a point of debate. It should be a given.
2) Trade for MAF. With only 2 years left it is a good place holder for now If trust in Elliott is cone then this is probably the best fit. Cap hit and term are better than Bishop will require and Bishop faltered some after going to the Kings. Pittsburgh may want the world for him but they aren't going to get it because everybody knows they HAVE to move him or the will lose Matt Murray for nothing. Offer a 2nd, an upper mid prospect ( I would consider Kulak or T-Spoon and Poirier). Maybe convince them to take Bouma too.
3) Trade a draft pick to Vegas on the condition that they pick Brouwer. Maybe a mid level prospect too. It will be worth it to free up the money tied into Brouwer.
4) Draft is shaping for Cal Foote to be at the spot where the Flames pick. A very good solid pick to get. Some talk that Owen Tippett may fall down the picks but that is hopeful.
5) 2 year Bridge deal for Bennett. 2.5 mil (3 as an absolute max). He simply did not earn a bigger contract yet, but played much better at the end of the season and in the playoffs.
6) 3 mil, 4 years for Ferland. He proved he can go on the top line once he realized he needed to just play his own game. He was productive, skating better than he ever has and added the needed physical presence that line needed.
7) Resign Stone. 3 mil at the most. 3 or 4 years.
8) Resign Versteeg. 2.5 mil 3 years. He earned it.
9) If you can't move him, Buy out Bouma. He doesn't bring anything extra to the team and his cap space is needed elsewhere.
10) Take a very, very serious run at Karl Alzner. I think it would be 5.5 mil 5 years (it is UFA season). He becomes the partner with Brodie and a true stay at home that this team is missing. Strong Calgary connection.
11) Pick one of Gilles or Rittich to be the back up. I prefer Gilles and give him a third the games as he transitions over 2 years until the MAF contract ends.
12) Plan on having Jankowski Centre the third line with Bennett switched back to left wing. They are better positions and roles for both of them . Give it serious time to see if it works. Put Versteeg on their right side.
13) Give Lazar a 1 year prove it contract (like Versteeg just had).
14) Sign a player like Dwight King (1.25 mil max). Solid 4th line winger, experiences but not old, and will add a physical presence with Engelland now gone.
15) Best prospect Defenceman takes the 6th spot. Shaping to be Andersson. Maybe Kylington.

All that is more than do-able under the Cap. It will be tight to the cap but it fits. Backlund can still be resigned as the Stajan contract will become available then it is needed. Oshie would be great, but the money is more needed on Defence and goal.

That's my plan, but in the end what do I know and I trust Treliving.
- dal_johnson

I'm good with everything here except for Fleury. I wouldn't be overly upset with this move, but I think going after a guy like Scott Darling is a better move. If I were GM (and to be clear, we should all be very happy I am not), Darling and Alzner would be my primary targets this offseason.

I'm good with everything here except for Fleury. I wouldn't be overly upset with this move, but I think going after a guy like Scott Darling is a better move. If I were GM (and to be clear, we should all be very happy I am not), Darling and Alzner would be my primary targets this offseason.
- salumba

You actually believe we should risk a whole season on the back of Scott Darling? Sorry, but no thanks. If he's poop the whole team is poop, IMO that would be a horrible solution.

People hate on Fleury but he's pretty damn consistent and doesn't have the mental issues Elliott seems to have been having. Sucks to have to give up a little something but it shouldn't me much. He would be a great guy to mentor whoever the chosen one comes to be out of Gillies, Rittich, Parsons.

I have a real hard time with Bishop considering what he wants in a deal. It's more the term that scares me. Would he do a 3 x 7? If so that could be palatable. I would hate any deal from him more than 3 years long, and it scares the bejesus out of me that it's what the flames are gonna do. That being said...our team would rock

Is there a site where you can mess around with the team and the salaries to try and figure out the cap for next year?

You actually believe we should risk a whole season on the back of Scott Darling? Sorry, but no thanks. If he's poop the whole team is poop, IMO that would be a horrible solution.

People hate on Fleury but he's pretty damn consistent and doesn't have the mental issues Elliott seems to have been having. Sucks to have to give up a little something but it shouldn't me much. He would be a great guy to mentor whoever the chosen one comes to be out of Gillies, Rittich, Parsons.

I have a real hard time with Bishop considering what he wants in a deal. It's more the term that scares me. Would he do a 3 x 7? If so that could be palatable. I would hate any deal from him more than 3 years long, and it scares the bejesus out of me that it's what the flames are gonna do. That being said...our team would rock

Is there a site where you can mess around with the team and the salaries to try and figure out the cap for next year?
- The-O-G

I do. He's shown he can play. Consistent numbers in Chicago with a decent amount of starts. Young enough to potentially be more than a stopgap, but likely cheap enough that the Flames could get him. Pair him with Gillies or Johnson next season. I can see Darling being similar to Talbot or Jones.

Again, though, I'm not against Fleury, I just don't think he's the first move to go after. I would stay far away from Bishop, though. I've always thought he was somewhat overrated. Big guy, so he bloacks a lot of net, but always seems to get caught out of position due to relying on that size advantage to make up for it. Caught up with him last year with the injury and reduced mobility.

Yes he would. But likely so would be the players we'd have to give up to get him.
- TandA4Flames

I see offers for him on here from time to time ...it's usually a trade I can't see why the flyers would make

You actually believe we should risk a whole season on the back of Scott Darling? Sorry, but no thanks. If he's poop the whole team is poop, IMO that would be a horrible solution.

People hate on Fleury but he's pretty damn consistent and doesn't have the mental issues Elliott seems to have been having. Sucks to have to give up a little something but it shouldn't me much. He would be a great guy to mentor whoever the chosen one comes to be out of Gillies, Rittich, Parsons.

I have a real hard time with Bishop considering what he wants in a deal. It's more the term that scares me. Would he do a 3 x 7? If so that could be palatable. I would hate any deal from him more than 3 years long, and it scares the bejesus out of me that it's what the flames are gonna do. That being said...our team would rock

Is there a site where you can mess around with the team and the salaries to try and figure out the cap for next year?
- The-O-G

Fleury is the best option for the flames right now ...decent cap and is off the books soon if one of our prospects turns out ....

I do. He's shown he can play. Consistent numbers in Chicago with a decent amount of starts. Young enough to potentially be more than a stopgap, but likely cheap enough that the Flames could get him. Pair him with Gillies or Johnson next season. I can see Darling being similar to Talbot or Jones.

Again, though, I'm not against Fleury, I just don't think he's the first move to go after. I would stay far away from Bishop, though. I've always thought he was somewhat overrated. Big guy, so he bloacks a lot of net, but always seems to get caught out of position due to relying on that size advantage to make up for it. Caught up with him last year with the injury and reduced mobility.
- salumba

I can see a scenario where the hawks keep darling and trade Crawford ...I would look at that as a possibility as well

I can see a scenario where the hawks keep darling and trade Crawford ...I would look at that as a possibility as well
- Redmile247

I can see that scenario playing out as well. I admit to being leery of going the established vet in his 30s route, even as a stopgap. I'm far more inclined to find someone with perhaps a smaller sample size but with good numbers and at an age where he can potentially be more than just a stopgap. Darling, and maybe Raanta, fit that bill.

You actually believe we should risk a whole season on the back of Scott Darling? Sorry, but no thanks. If he's poop the whole team is poop, IMO that would be a horrible solution.

People hate on Fleury but he's pretty damn consistent and doesn't have the mental issues Elliott seems to have been having. Sucks to have to give up a little something but it shouldn't me much. He would be a great guy to mentor whoever the chosen one comes to be out of Gillies, Rittich, Parsons.

I have a real hard time with Bishop considering what he wants in a deal. It's more the term that scares me. Would he do a 3 x 7? If so that could be palatable. I would hate any deal from him more than 3 years long, and it scares the bejesus out of me that it's what the flames are gonna do. That being said...our team would rock

Is there a site where you can mess around with the team and the salaries to try and figure out the cap for next year?
- The-O-G

http://capfriendly.com

I can see that scenario playing out as well. I admit to being leery of going the established vet in his 30s route, even as a stopgap. I'm far more inclined to find someone with perhaps a smaller sample size but with good numbers and at an age where he can potentially be more than just a stopgap. Darling, and maybe Raanta, fit that bill.
- salumba

The only reason i consider Fleuy is because of his term remaining. His 2 years could line up well with our G prospects.
As for Darling, I haven't watched him play much but the reviews are decent enough. I'd consider giving him a shot.
To me it depends on what the plan is. If we aegoing with a rookie backup like Gillies or Rittich, getting a vet like Fleury makes more sense. If we want to resign a strong backup like Johnson and give Gillies etc moe time to develop, then Darling makes more sense.

The only reason i consider Fleuy is because of his term remaining. His 2 years could line up well with our G prospects.
As for Darling, I haven't watched him play much but the reviews are decent enough. I'd consider giving him a shot.
To me it depends on what the plan is. If we aegoing with a rookie backup like Gillies or Rittich, getting a vet like Fleury makes more sense. If we want to resign a strong backup like Johnson and give Gillies etc moe time to develop, then Darling makes more sense.
- TandA4Flames

I can get behind that. I might be more of a risk taker in that I think a Darling/Gillies tandem would be worth trying out. This is essentially based on my belief that the team is still a good year away from true contender status. the bottom half of the lineup needs a good overhaul but I see lots of promise in Stockton that just needs a little more time and a good chunk of that time should be spent learning how to play in the NHL rather than the AHL. I don't want to fill those holes with expensive veterans out of a mistaken belief that the team is ready now. Cup contenders from 2019 on is the goal in my perspective.

YUP!!! Why wouldn't they. He signed johnny turnover ( in top ten in league every yr for turnovers) for big bucks, failed at providing goaltending, fired a good coach and Brouwer??
Looks like job well done. Lol
- hockey_talk079

Top 10 in turnovers? He must be garbage. I mean, just look at all the other trash players leading the league in turnovers. Burns, Karlsson, Marchand, Pavelski, Tavares. (frank)ing garbage, all of them!

Anyone that thinks Hartley's a better coach than GG is an idiot, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would cherry pick one of the most useless stats in the NHL to try and make your point

You actually believe we should risk a whole season on the back of Scott Darling? Sorry, but no thanks. If he's poop the whole team is poop, IMO that would be a horrible solution.

People hate on Fleury but he's pretty damn consistent and doesn't have the mental issues Elliott seems to have been having. Sucks to have to give up a little something but it shouldn't me much. He would be a great guy to mentor whoever the chosen one comes to be out of Gillies, Rittich, Parsons.

I have a real hard time with Bishop considering what he wants in a deal. It's more the term that scares me. Would he do a 3 x 7? If so that could be palatable. I would hate any deal from him more than 3 years long, and it scares the bejesus out of me that it's what the flames are gonna do. That being said...our team would rock

Is there a site where you can mess around with the team and the salaries to try and figure out the cap for next year?
- The-O-G

Hasn't mental issues been the defining characteristic of MAF's career since he was in junior? Not completely against bringing him in, but he absolutely has the same issues that seems to plague Elliott from time to time (remember that embarrassing series against Philly a few years ago? ).

I can get behind that. I might be more of a risk taker in that I think a Darling/Gillies tandem would be worth trying out. This is essentially based on my belief that the team is still a good year away from true contender status. the bottom half of the lineup needs a good overhaul but I see lots of promise in Stockton that just needs a little more time and a good chunk of that time should be spent learning how to play in the NHL rather than the AHL. I don't want to fill those holes with expensive veterans out of a mistaken belief that the team is ready now. Cup contenders from 2019 on is the goal in my perspective.
- salumba

I think if we go for a guy like Darling, then we need to have a vet with him. Don't think BT would risk his job going with two inexperienced goalies.

What about a Elliott-Darling duo? I think Johnson is going to go to the team that offers him the best chance to be a starter. He said that he isn't satisfied being the 1B anymore.

I think I'd rather bring back Elliott for another year or two than give up good assets for MAF or over pay for an oft-injured Bishop.