Flames Going Forward

There's no shortage of pundits and armchair GM's trying to predict the inevitable roster moves facing the Calgary Flames in light of their early play-off exit.

Not that that's going to stop me from adding my voice to the uproar.

The first thing to consider is contracts. The most likely pruning to be done will no doubt involve those players at the end of their deals. Following is a list of Calgary's signed (into 2007) players:

Forwards:
Jarome Iginla - $7 mill.
Damond Langkow - 2.442 mill.
Tony Amonte - $1.85 mill.
Marcus Nilson - $1.365 mill.
Darren McCarty - $8,00 thou.
Jamie Lundmark - $575, thou.
Byron Ritchie - $450, thou.

Forward Total -------------> approx. $15 mill.

Defensemen:
Roman Hamrlik - $3.5 mill.
Rhett Warrener - $2.35 mill.
Robyn Regehr - $1.874 mill.
Jordan Leopold - $1.15 mill.
Dion Phaneuf - $785, thou.
Andrew Ference - $750, thou.

Defensemen Total -------------> approx. $11 mill.

Goaltenders:
Miika Kiprusoff - $3.33 mill.

Team Total -------------------> approx. $30 mill.

Obviously, the Flames have little to worry on the back-end. They have all 6 top guys as well as their franchise goalie spoken for. The major areas of concern, therefore, are the forwards. Currently, the Flames have 2 front line players signed (Langkow, Iginla), 5 third/forth liner types (Nilson, Amonte, McCarty, Lundmark, Ritchie). The resulting depth chart looks something like this:

? - Langkow - Iginla
Amonte - ? - ?
Nilson - Lundmark - ?
? - Ritchie - McCarty

(Between $10 - 15 mill. cap space to work with)

That leaves a lot of holes, especially in "scoring lines" category (big surprise).

The first place to look for gap fillers is, of course, the Flames own list of pending free agents, which includes:

Kristian Huselius
Chucky Kobasew
Matthew Lombardi
Shean Donovan
Chris Simon
Stephane Yelle
Cale Hulse
Bryan Marchment
Brian Boucher
Craig Macdonald
Mike Leclerc

Lets whittle that down some to make the decision process easier. Marchement will retire and Hulse will be punted (unless he signs for the league minimum). Im guessing Brian Boucher did little to endure himself to Sutter, so the back-up job behind Kipper will probably be Krahn's to run with. As for Leclerc...he can walk as far as Im concerned. He's another 3rd line winger on a team filled with 3rd line wingers (and a relatively expensive one to boot).

That leaves us with a bit of potential top-line talent (Huselius, Lombardi, Kobasew) and some grinders and checkers (Yelle, Donovan, Simon, MacDonald). According to my amateurish depth chart above, the Flames could use a 3rd line right winger, a 3rd/4th line left winger and potentially another centerman (since Ritchie is technically a 5th guy on most rosters). On the top lines, Calgary's in need of 2nd line center and right wing as well as a #1 line lefty.

The X-factor is, no doubt, Sutter's willingness to shop around for free agents during the summer. Looking at the depth chart it could be argued that Tony Amonte is no longer a top-6 forward any longer. Meaning the Flames need to sign all 3 of their top-line free agents AND coax at least one other top-tier talent out west.

My fantasy scenario?

Sutter breaks the bank and offers Patrik Elias $6 million and sticks him on the top line with Iginla. In between, he plops Lombardi, whom he re-signs this summer for a virtual song and dance thanks to his sub-standard stats from this past season. New first line:

Elias - Lombardi - Iginla

Next, Sutter fleshes out the 2nd line by re-signing two of our 20 goals scorers (Huselius and Kobasew) whom he could combine with Mr. consistent 50-odd-points-man-Langkow.

Huselius - Langkow - Kobasew

The 3rd line will probably include Nilson, Calgary's +/- leader during the regular season, and Donovan. The latter move could be argued, thanks to his lackluster season, but Dono is still a fast skater and a decent forechecker and penalty killer. Also, he'll come cheap thanks to his blah offensive production in 05/06.

In between them will most likely be Stephane Yelle - the only way I don't see Yelle returning to Calgary next year is a green-eyed agent looking for too many dollars or too-long a contract. Let's assume that doesn't happen, which would make the 3rd line a decent "shut-down" unit:

Nilson - Yelle - Donovan

The archetypal forth-line should consist of speed, energy and tenacity. The ability to pot the odd goal here and there is an added bonus. With that in mind, I'd imagine the trio of

Amonte - Lundmark - McCarty

fit the bill pretty nicely. Amonte and Lundmark have wheels, some chemistry and the ability to score 20+ goals between them. McCarty is the consumate heart-and-soul checker and a decent compliment to the other two.

Resultant Fantasy Depth Chart:

Elias - Lombardi - Iginla
Huselius - Langkow - Kobasew
Nilson- Yelle - Donovan
Amonte - Lundmark - McCarty

(MacDonald, Ritchie)

This arrangment leaves Chris Simon out in the cold. With Amonte already signed and Nilson a better checking alternative, I simply don't see any room for Simon on the Flames anymore. He's not consistent enough nor fast enough to fill a top-line roll and Calgary already has checkers to spare. I suppose one could argue keeping Simon over MacDonald - consider, however, that the latter is younger, faster and cheaper.

As for the rest of my fantasy, I think it's all pretty reasonable aside from the Elias thing. I suppose a [insert free agent here] tag would have been a little more realistic. But I can dream, can't I? Naturally, it doesn't have to Elias; there will be a number of highly desirable free agents in the FA pool this summer. Here is an unofficial list. Feel free to pick and choose according to your preferences.

Pursuing Free Agent Issues:

Can Calgary afford it?

The Flames sold out every home game this season and will no doubt do the same next season. It's probably in managements best interest to spend money in order to keep the product competitive and demand high.

Does Calgary have the cap room?

The long answer:

The Flames have about $30 million committed for next season. After signing Lombardi ($700,000), Kobasew ($1.5 million), Huselius ($1.8 million), Yelle ($1.2 million), MacDonald ($500,000), Donovan ($700,000) and Krahn ($650,000), the Flames will likely be left with a pay-roll around $37 million. Estimates are that the cap will be raised to the $45 million mark, potentially giving Calgary about $8 million in cap space to work with*.

(*Disclaimer - my estimates regarding new salaries are barely-educated guesses. It's incredibly difficult to say what players the hockey market will value or how their value will be effected by the increasing cap. Especially since we dont really know what the cap will be increasing to. Basically, I looked at each player's compensation from this season and gave it the ol' college try.)

The short answer:

probably.

Will Sutter be willing to pay for skill?

I sure hope so. The Flames have nobody on the farm who can step in and be an impact offensive player. After ranking 27th in the league in terms of goal-scoring and bowing out early in the play-offs, it's pretty clear Calgary needs (at least) another top 6 forward if they hope to be a competitive squad next year.

Will the Flames be able to convince free agents to come to Calgary?

Hard to say. While playing in a hockey mad market for a division leader probably carries some weight, the Flames have also become known as an"offensive stats neutralizer". Since a lot of players (and agents) rely on offensive stats to boost their market value, it may be a challenge for Sutter to lure a free agent or two away from other, "offense friendly" teams. Sutter scooped up Amonte and Hamrlik last summer, so I guess it remains to be seen if he can do it again.


Anyways, that's my take on things at this early juncture. If there's anything I've missed or if there are any free agents you'd prefer to see on the first line, feel free to let me know.

The Hollow Men

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Words can hardly ring truer for Calgary Flames fans today. Their season came to a bitter end at the hands of the Duck's last night - and the Flames barely put up a fight.

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion

Eliot was probably aiming at weightier subjects than hockey when he wrote this poem. However, it's so eerily appropriate, I couldn't resist applying it to Calgary's play-off efforts...

Paralysed force, indeed.

Billed as a relentlessly hard working team that tended to will itself to victory, despite their lack of scoring talent, the Flames instead looked like an apprehensive collection of rookies and weaklings for the most part. All during the most critical game of the season to boot. It was the way they began the season, and unfortuantely, the way they ended it as well.

Yup, even with all the "experience", the superior goaltending and the solid blueline corps, the Flames couldn't find a way to escape themselves. In the end, Flames(a), the Mr. Hyde version that tended to haunt the club all season long, was the squad that showed up in the pinch. It was the squad that couldn't muster a single decent scoring chance on back-up goaltenders or win a puck battle in the corner. And it's the squad that may linger in the memories of the hockey-world, despite the Flames rather successful regular season.

The hope only
Of empty men.

The third period of empty men, it seemed. Calgary never looked like they had the stuff to comeback. It appeared to me like a bunch of guys going through the motions with the knowledge that their actions would have no real impact.

Between the idea
And the reality[...]
Falls the Shadow

The idea, of course, was that Calgary would out hit and out work the Ducks in this series. The reality is they were beaten at their own game. The shadow of doubt cast between theory and execution was Calgary's own inconsistency (underscored by a lack of scoring talent) and the Duck's willingness and ability to adapt to Calgary's game plan and improve upon it. In the end, the Flames either didn't have the heart or the horses to accomplish their post-season goals, and now they are left lamenting their weaknesses.

This is the dead land...

And so the Flames end up in play-off purgatory: the land of "unfullfilled promise". Littered by other disappointments ("ahoy, Nashville!") choke-artists ("Greetings, Dallas!") and underachievers ("Afternoon, Detroit!"), and haunted by all the might've could-have-beens ("We would have won if Bertuzzi hadn't been suspended"). The skulls of past losers and the fresh corpses of recent victims litter this land. And it stinks...

Positives:

- None that I can think of.

Negatives:

- Zero Offense. The Power play was useless and the forecheck was laughable. Any rare opportunity that cropped up was squandered.

- Average defense. The Ducks gained the zone with relative ease most of the evening. Kipper was screened on both shots by his own players. The 2nd goal was caused by a horrible clearing attempt by Hamrlik.

- Effort. The Flames seemed to be stuck in neutral all night. They almost never won a puck battle or a puck race. They couldn't make it past the Duck's blueline half the time and couldn't string 2 passes together in sequence.

- Roman Hamrlik, Tony Amonte, Chuck Kobasew, Lombardi, Simon...all basically useless last night.

- Pre-mature end to the season.

Next up - A year in review.

Flames vs. Ducks - Game Six Review: Whip or Leash?

Leave it to the Flames to follow up their best game of the series with their worst (let's try to ignore the fact that the officiating pretty much turned the game into a farce for now).

Ugh.

Which reminds me of a something I noticed during the regular season...as I pointed out in this post back in March, there seems to be 2 distinct Calgary Flames teams this year:

Flames(a) first appeared in October. They tend to be slower, more passive, less apt to win puck battles, less able to hold onto leads and just plain bad on special teams. Flames(a) typically appeared on the road this year, see: first roadtrip, last roadtrip, eastern swing in January.

Flames(b) are the November Flames. They tend to be faster, tougher on the boards and killer on special teams. Flames(b) typically appeared at home this year, see: November extended home-stand, April home-stand.

During this series, Calgary has alternated between it's two identities - game 3 and 5 were Flames(b) while games 2,4 and 6 were Flames(a) (game 1 was a wash). They seem consistently stuck in this cycle of inconsistency:

from dictating to passive.

Dominating to submissive. And for the love of God I wish they'd choose one and stick with it. Wield the whip or wear the leash. Be Zed or be the gimp, but please just pick one and go with it.

As for last night, I don't think there's any question that it was the Flames(a) squad that took to the ice. Almost zero offensive pressure generated after the first period, including a powerplay so pensive and inept that they almost universally failed to penetrate the offensive zone when they had the man advantage.

In contrast to Flames(b) in game 5, Flames(a) were limp on the forecheck and flacid on the back-check. Passes were frequently too far ahead or too far behind. Poor decision making also seemed to sweep through the team like wild fire - for example, Robyn Regehr lugs the puck into the neutral zone and then fails to shoot it deep into the Duck's end (for no good reason). The Ducks counter-attack, Regehr can't recover, and Selanne pots a top-shelf back-hander (that is subsequently waved off by the galatically moronic officials). All caused by a brain-malfunction on what is an elementary play - repeat after me, peewee players: DON'T GIVE THE PUCK AWAY AT THE OPPOSITION'S BLUELINE. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A PINCHING DEFENSEMAN. Duh!

And that's how it goes for Flames(a). The forecheck slows down, the confidence wanes and then little, simple plays start going wrong all over the ice. For an eloquent example, just picture Warrener sliding, face-first, towards Niedermayer as the puck deflects off his skate for the game-losing goal.

Sigh.

I suppose the good news is that we are back on the positive side of the cycle for game 7. Wednesday should feature Flames(b), according to the pattern established in this current series. And, should they manage to appear, I eanestly hope the dominating Flames stick around for the remainder of the post-season...because teasing the fans with this on-again, off-again performance is probably the most sadistic part of all.

Positives:

- Phaneuf's pasting of Fedoruk in the 3rd.

Negatives:

- Discipline, forechecking, powerplay, offense, defense. You name it. All ranged from bland to bad.

- Officiating. So terrible it makes my face twitch just thinking about it. Deserves a whole other post.

Just One More...

Just one more win will do a lot for the Calgary Flames...

Finally, they'd be able to shake off that cloying "cinderella/One-hit-wonder" aura that has surrounded them since their cup run last season.

One more win would help cement all the positives of their division-leading season, 103 point season and simultaneously blur and subdue all of it's disappointments. Iginla wallowing amongst the league's medicore forwards on the scoring charts will mean about as much as a Vancouver fan's opinion during the play-offs...with another win.

Another lone victory would also extend and augment my shameless obsession. More stats! More blogs! More messageboards! More gut-wrenching overtimes! Think "Requiem for a Dream":



without all the interpersonal pathos of course.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, one more victory would move Calgary ever closer to a potential 2nd round Battle of Alberta (and the Stanely Cup, I guess)! I think even Patton would salivate at the mere thought of that all-out war.

So, for the sake of all the above, please win one more, Calgary. I don't think I can face rehabilitation just yet.

Flames vs. Ducks - Game Five Review (brief)

Despite falling two goals short (of their series high 5 goals in a game), I felt that the Flame's victory on Saturday night was probably their strongest game of the series. While the final score was 3-2, the Ducks were never seemed like much of a threat through most of the contest.

In fact, I find it challenging to remember even a single decent mallard scoring chance outside of the final 5 minutes of the 3rd period.

Not much else needs to be said methinks. Iginla's playing like he was two years ago at this time, everyone's healthy and the series if up for the taking...good news all around.

Positives:

- Jarome Iginla. Four goals in 2 games. It's nice to have you back, Iggy.

- Matthew Lombardi. There's little chance he reads this blog - nevertheless, Lombardi seemed to respond to being tossed into last game's "negative" category with his best performance thus far.

- Andrew Ference. Who is this and what has he done with the real Ference? Not that we want the old Ference back or anything.

- Damond Langkow. A quiet and solid all around contributor.

- Robyn Regehr. Seems to get meaner every game.

Negatives:

- Allowed the Ducks back in the game near the end of the 3rd by sitting back and taking penalties.

- Officiating. Only partially negative because there were only 10 power plays all night. However, at least half the penalties called were EXTREMELY nominal (or not penalties at all). It was amusing listening to Andy Murray trying to be polite about the referees during CBC's broadcast.

Next up - Game 6!