Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Signing] Flames sign Matt Bartkowski


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I was surprised by the pto but last night Treliving was speaking pretty highly of Bart and said they have been watching him for a while. He also noted the familiarity with GG.

I just struggle to see the 2 year deal as it is with their prospect depth and knowing how hard he was lambasted here just how loud the cries will be if him and hamilton find that chemistry again..  It's not just a lol because he signed there, it's more a combination of lols, a lol trio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Beary Sweet said:

lol if you sign Bart, you're going to have a long season. though if he doesn't become a defensive liability, then it could prove to be worthy signing

So what you're saying is that this is a bad signing unless of course it turns out to be a good signing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, nzan said:

Remember when we were being told that signing Bartkowski was a real positive step in building the team?

 

And then look at our D now. 

 

If Benning can do for our forwards what he's done for our D, we're going to be in good shape.

It was we have Juolevi now. Great signing JB. That pic will be huge for our team for a long time. Glad Bart is gone now though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

*giggle*

 

Except for the Hamilton factor this is a lol

Not really though because even if he never plays for them he can be exposed to expansion as he meets the requirements of the one D that has to be left unprotected. That allows Treleving the flexibility to let his other depth dman go in the offseason if he chooses rather than having to sign one of them to get them under contract for 17/18 just to be able to expose them and meet the gp requirement. If they don't get selected he is then stuck with them.

 

Plus Bart is not exactly old and has some skill. No matter what he does it doesn't do as a Flame, this is shrewd GM'ing ahead of the expansion draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I just struggle to see the 2 year deal as it is with their prospect depth and knowing how hard he was lambasted here just how loud the cries will be if him and hamilton find that chemistry again..  It's not just a lol because he signed there, it's more a combination of lols, a lol trio

He has to be signed for next year to qualify for the ED, like we did with Biega.

 

Would be happy to see him in the lineup against the Canucks -- another smallish guy our fourth-liners can get in on and rough up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Not really though because even if he never plays for them he can be exposed to expansion as he meets the requirements of the one D that has to be left unprotected. That allows Treleving the flexibility to let his other depth dman go in the offseason if he chooses rather than having to sign one of them to get them under contract for 17/18. If they don't get selected he is then stuck with them.

 

Plus Bart is not exactly old and has some skill. No matter what he does it doesn't do as a Flame, this is shrewd GM'ing ahead of the expansion draft.

Flames will protect Giordano, Hamilton and Brodie. They would then have Wideman, Engellland and Jokipakka and they are all UFA (Engellend and Wideman) or RFA (Jokipakka). Gotta agree with you that it is a good move by the GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

Flames will protect Giordano, Hamilton and Brodie. They would then have Wideman, Engellland and Jokipakka and they are all UFA (Engellend and Wideman) or RFA (Jokipakka). Gotta agree with you that it is a good move by the GM.

Exactly. This way they don't have to commit to any of those guys or get handcuffed if Engelland or Wideman get crazy on what they want to re-sign. Great move by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...