GDT: Golden Knights @ Flames, 7:00 MT SNET-W

Status
Not open for further replies.

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,390
11,074
I don't think blowing our load on Hamonic at that price was good, the D was not the problem, when Michael Stone came over from the Coyotes, he had stabilized the D. The assets that were used on Hamonic, should have been used to acquire a top 6 Forward(preferably a RW) and a way to keep Deryk Engelland should have been made because I don't think the Hamonic trade has made us any better defensively, we are at 0 in the goal +/- category.

IF you can't see how much better this team is with Hammer/Stone/Kulak in instead of Engelland/Bartkowski/Stone there's not much anyone can do to help you.
I also don't think at the cost of a first Hammer was a good value move, but, he's been ridiculously solid for us and has been one of our best defensive Dmen all season. I personally would have been fine keeping the first, promoting Rasmus, and getting Stone.

I don't like trading picks when we're still a ways away from being a legitimate contender. I honestly don't see a way Calgary can easily turn over too easy at this point either outside of landing a Tavares on the offseason. We're still one big piece up front away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Hoxville

DFF

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
22,275
6,525
How dare people try to be realistic and non-emotional regarding a team that is a win away from being 2nd in the division! Disgrace!

If I was a real fan, I'd trash the team in every GDT at every opportunity unless they are leading the entire NHL. Because that helps me sleep at night and gives me a sense of importance that I can carry around with me everywhere I go.


I guess blowing the leads and losing 5 straight games is not enough

Real fans need to suck it up :naughty:
 
  • Like
Reactions: tmurfin

viper0220

Registered User
Oct 10, 2008
8,473
3,436
IF you can't see how much better this team is with Hammer/Stone/Kulak in instead of Engelland/Bartkowski/Stone there's not much anyone can do to help you.
I also don't think at the cost of a first Hammer was a good value move, but, he's been ridiculously solid for us and has been one of our best defensive Dmen all season. I personally would have been fine keeping the first, promoting Rasmus, and getting Stone.

I don't like trading picks when we're still a ways away from being a legitimate contender. I honestly don't see a way Calgary can easily turn over too easy at this point either outside of landing a Tavares on the offseason. We're still one big piece up front away.

Is this a better team with Hammer/Stone/Kulak instead Engelland/Bartkowski/Stone, yes it is a better but how better, it is debatable, we are at 0 in the +/- category, we should be at least +20 in goal differential with the D we have and the way Smith is playing(the coaching probably has to do something with this, with a solid coaching staff running a good PP, we should have had another 6-8 more points.)

Could we have a landed not a big name defencemen like Hamonic, which would have costed less and used the assets used on Hamonic to get a top 6 forward(preferably a top 6 RW) and be a better team? Yes I think so. With the all the D prospects we had, there was little point in trading for a big name defencemen like Hamonic, we traded 3rd round pick and 5th round for Michael Stone, we probably could have landed a similar defencemen to Michael Stone(someone who can play top 4 if needed) at a fraction of the cost and thrown the package we threw at the Islanders for Hamonic at another team for a top 6 forward.

We need a big piece upfront for this team to really take that next step, will it be Tavares? No, I think he stays on the Island or wherever the hell they are going to play. I think fans and management thought that Sam Bennett would be that but so far he has not turned into one. We are also lucky that Matthew Tkachuk fell into our lap. On D we are pretty much, if we can get lucky again and land another big name up front, than this team will become a contender.
 

lightstorm

Registered User
Oct 17, 2016
2,239
1,191
I agree with this to an extent, but Gulutzen not calling a timeout after a play like that is shocking. That ONE decision alone makes me doubt his ability to be our coach long term, then you throw in the PP struggling and it begins to be cause for worry.

He asked the players if they want a timeout and they said no.
 

tmurfin

That’s the joke
May 8, 2010
11,242
1,279
He asked the players if they want a timeout and they said no.

kermit-the-frog-facepalm.jpg


Who's the coach here? In that situation there's no ask, you take the damn timeout.. Enough is enough, Gully is too damn soft.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
kermit-the-frog-facepalm.jpg


Who's the coach here? In that situation there's no ask, you take the damn timeout.. Enough is enough, Gully is too damn soft.

I believe this was a tongue-in-cheek remark related to when he said after the Kings game that he asked Brouwer if he needed a line change and Brouwer said no.

I could be wrong, though, as I didn't watch Gulutzan's post-game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->