cross16

I’m with conundrumed on this. A full scale rebuild back to an actual contender would take closer to 7 than 5. I think it would take 2 years(maybe 3) to unwind this team because in order to do so your either eating money(long term cap pain) or your attaching assets to deals (makes it tougher). Just not a lot of attractive long term assets here right now. Then your looking at a 2-3 period to collecting enough assets to get there and that assumes you get some luck on your side in the lottery. Then 2-3 years for those assets to get the to level you want. 5 years is too optimistic imo. Unless they luck themselves into a franchise player. There not likely getting Bedard and I don’t think there is a player like thatavailable in the next few drafts. im not saying a rebuild should be off the table but it be a very painful one if they did it.

Not in the slightest. I totally get where you are coming from.Can debate whether or not he would have been successful, was it the right place for him, would they have made the playoffs etc. I'm not sure but I think fair points to be had on both sides. But at the end of the day he's a top prospect, what he is doing in the AHL is incredible, and he's a great story. In the midst of what is going to go on record as probably the most disappointing/disengaging season for this franchise in over a decade I completely get the idea of wanting to see some hope. Good or bad I think Wolf would have provided that just like Pelletier did.

100% I'm to the point where I'm not going to bother and try and explain or find reasons for what happened this season. There are so many anomalies and just straight up weird situations happening before our eyes. Trying to find a singular cause or someone to blame seems pointless to me. Total black swan event IMO.

Concern level should be pretty low I think. I think the Flames are going to give him whatever he wants to get him signed because they can't take the PR hit. For him not to sign would just be illogical at this point and I can't fathom who would convince him other wise. He'd be saying no to a few hundred grand in a signing bonus, no to a salary for the next 2 years, agreeing to delay UFA for 2 years all so he can play 2 more years of college hockey in the hopes he becomes a UFA and goes where he wants? His only other card is to try and force a trade of his rights and i'm not sure he's got the prestige to pull that off.

I don't think anyone is disputing the need for the players to play better, I'm certainly not. There are a long list of things to be concerned about with this club and organization in the past 12 months and the coach is only one of them, and he's not even at the top of it IMO. I don't think the players have quit that's my point. Are some done playing for the coach probably, but I'm not sure that means they've quit. I still see a team that is working out there. Quite frankly I still see a team trying to do too much

Not really. The statistical performance of both goalies was almost identical so what grounds are there to believe that if Vladar had played more they would have won more? I'm not speculating i'm looking at the results and the performance. I made the same point at the time, Vladar didn't play well enough to warrant a big run of games. Agree to disagree I jsut don't understand blaming a coach when there is information right in front of us that suggests he made the right call. I'm far from Sutter's biggest fan and he's very open to criticism this year I just don't think the management of goalies is one of them. "way" is a stretch. From the start of the season until end of November Markstrom played 70% of the games. Markstrom had a 0.899 Save % and a 3.03 GAA Vladar 0.913 and a 2.69 GAA. Better but that's not a large difference especially when you factor competition. From end of Nov to start of Feb they basically split the game 17 to 13. Markstrom 0.898 and a 2.170 GAA. Vladar .903 and a 2.74 Vladar's play dropped off when he received more games, not after.

There is a massive leap being made here if the conclusions from this is the guys don't want to play anymore. also doesn't match with what we're seeing on the ice.

I'm aware and it doesn't change my answer. If you look at that stretch they were basically identical in terms of play. I've said this all year, Vladar hasn't' been that great. Sutter tired to give him a run and he didn't take advantage so he went back to the guy who was a Vezina finalist last year. Perfectly logical IMO and no reason for me to believe the results would have been any different had he played Vladar. Can speculate and second guess for sure but I see no reason to think the Flames win more games if Vladar played more.

Source? because nowhere have I heard this at all.

I don't agree with this, Vladar was never really rolling. He could have a good game or 2 but he would always follow it up with a stinker. Funny enough Markstrom has been the better goalie than Vladar in almost every statistically category this season. According to Moneypuck Vladar is one of the worst goalies in the league this year. He has not been near as good as fans make him out to be. I completely understand why Sutter kept trying to go back to Markstrom.

I don't blame Sutter either. The Flames are going to miss the playoffs due to goaltending, that's just a simple fact at this point. Making the playoffs with bottom 5 goaltending in the league is incredibly challenging, even bottom 10. The only other 2 teams in that scenario are LA (who should be noted have one of the best teams save % in the league since the deadline) and Seattle (who are only 6 points ahead of the Flames). I also think it's rarely so binary as blame the coach. The coach is really just one of the factors and while sure the Flames go through coaches a little more than avg it's not really due to blame. Sutter - stepped down on his own accord Playfair - Always thought this one was curious. Came as a surprise to many. Keenan - his firing was actually a surprise. I think most thought that was a team let down by injuries' not coaching. Brent - I mean bad coach but I think we all saw the roster at the time and knew it was bad. He also chose to step away. Hartley - Similar to Sutter. Wasn't fired because he was at fault, fired because they knew (and IMO this was obvious) he wasn't going to take that team forward. Again, was pretty obvious the roster needed to be upgraded. Gulutzan - Blamed but probably deserved it. Think he was just not suited to a head coach role Peters - Fired for racist comments Ward - just a bad hire and one that I personally believe had a lot to due to COVID and the fact that Sutter turned them down initially. This doesn't have to be a question of blame, IMO It's a question of what are you trying to accomplish with this team. If the goal is to just keep the bottom from failing out then sure keep Sutter. I think your at risk of losing Lindholm and probably Trelving so need to have a plan to navigate that. If the goal is to try and maximize what you have here then IMO Sutter isn't the guy. As with hiring any coach (because predicting coaching success if a complete fools errand) that comes with the risk that you hire the wrong guy and you do take a step backwards. I'm ready to roll that dice, especially given it's looking like the Flames might have someone in Mitch Love so give him a chance before someone else does. If the bottom falls out so be it. I should add, there is an option here where Sutter stays and they do maximize the talent but he'd have to change quite a bit. Listen to the players, challenge his own philosphical beliefs on how his team plays, dump the high volume approach, ride his top guys etc. If he is willing to do that he could stay and this group could have success with him. It's an option. Jon Cooper did this after the Lightning got swept by Columbus, other (even famous) coaches have too. Can Sutter? Does he want to?

I personally think this debate about how players should just "shut up and play" or "they get paid" is missing the point. Like it or not in pro sports today players have a ton of pull. I mean you can laugh about Huberdeau signing up for 8 years to play with Sutter but he also knows damn well that Sutter, even if he was doing a good job, ain't gonna be there through his contract. It's a players game and has been for quite a while. Good coaches adapt to the environment they are in, the game/changes to the game and to their players. They don't force players into their way and this is a message Sutter clearly hasn't' learned and it's costing him.

He did but pissed the whole league off? Huge stretch there. There's been offer sheets since and Gillis seemed to have no problem making deals after that for the 6 plus years he had the role. Timelines is off here. Gillis was hired in 08 and Carter played for the Canucks in 05-06. Yes he did inherit the Core but he also made a lot of big, and at the time controversial, changes. He didn't re sign Naslund or Morrison, and pivoted to the Sedins as his core (Seems obvious now but at the time there were a ton of doubts that the Sedins were franchise players). Yes it was mostly finishing touches but he did make some key strategic decisions and did also convince many players to take less to keep that team strong. This doesn't matter because your right I don't think Gillis would want to be here, nor do I think the owners would hire him, but I don't think a President of Hockey ops is the same as the GM. I don't need someone who was a good drafter, that's why they have a GM, director of scouting etc. A President of Hockey ops isn't going to pull the stings they are going to make strategic and investment decisions that dictate the direction the franchise, not decide who to pick in the first round. I think the Flames should be pursuing someone based on their ideas and direction, not their past resume as a GM. They are 2 different roles.

I'd be surprised. They are proactive in all other markets so not sure why this woudln't be one. Tough market to be effective in. There ae only a few that are worth pursing usually and I think harsh reality is why are they choosing Calgary?

This concept that someone players who don't/can't play well under Sutter are therefore complainers and babies is utterly and absolutely ridiculous. What a stupid and out of touch discussion that is.

Guess it's how granular do we want to be. I would count Gawdin in there, Luke Phillip is another one but he did play university hockey after CHL before he got his contract.

That is not what I understand happened, nor have I ever heard that. Canucks fell apart at the end because Acquillin got more hands on, told Gillis to hire Torts and it all fell apart because Torts didn't really want to be there. He pissed off Luongo and then the rest is history. As a GM he ran a really good franchise IMO. He's brash so he does rubs some the wrong way but I think he's got a really innovative mindset to running a hockey team. When he was the GM he was ahead of salary cap changes, managed the cap well, created an environment that encouraged players to take less and he invested in sports science. When he was the GM the Canucks really dove into the analytics, the mental side of the game and had even sleep doctors that would monitor how the team performed and in what conditions they performed best. It all sounds hokey but IMO that is the future of sports and if you are a small market club I think you need to be innovative, Gilils is. As I said before I don't think the question is can he (or anyone) control the owners the question is would the owners hire someone who would challenge them. Gillis has already said publicly he would only be interested in working in the NHL again if there is total alignment from top to bottom, so basically he won't even take a job unless the owners gave him the flexibility to do it his way. But again, question is are these owners interested in hiring someone like that?

Recently or like all time? There was that Giordano guy a while back....

You can Youtube the entire show.

Guys on Barnburner were on fire today. For sure stocking the fuel around players aren't happy here but they, in particular Rhett, also offered some really good insight. should go and listen after this clip. Rhett goes into how he figured that Sutter winning the Adams was a bad thing and how he felt he was going to overdo it this year. Also talked about Darryl wants teams to be player led and this one clearly isn't. the changes are obvious but it's just really interesting to hear the insight from someone who played for him (and speaks highly of him usually). Disclaimer: it's not an uplifting chat for a fan of the Flames.

I'm not sure it's a question of who. Before they hired Burke would you not assume he would have been the guy? Now my understanding is he did wrestle away a fair bit, just not all the way. I'm skeptical there is a name because would the owners look at someone who is going to challenge them? That's the question I have. I'm still very interested in Mike Gillis.

This is a good point. Hartley - think it's pretty obvious he had to go Gulutzan - Good first season and short lived but how else was out there. Think we forget that hiring coaches is a bit of a cycle and there are not always good coaches available. The only 2 names that weren't hired in the NHL at this point and became success are Jim Montgomery and Jared Bednar. I thought Bednar would have been great but at the same time he was employed by the Avs and it's very possible they saw him as their next head coach. Outside of that, not much there. Peters - obviously this isn't a great look on Treliving from a vetting process but at the same time I think the problem speaks to the industry and not really BT specifically. Ward - made total sense as an interim. as a permanent he didn't but i'm also not sure freedom was given to hire whomever he wanted. Sutter - see above. As much as i'm not a fan this was not a bad hire and i'm also not sure it was his. I don't' think his hires are bad honesty. And if you are going to make the case he can't pick coaches well look at the AHL: Ryan Huska - his first hire. Pretty good AHL coach, great assistant coach and receiving NHL interest. Cail Maclean - Again good AHL coach and now a good assistant coach Mitch Love - could be a back to back AHL coach of the year. Already receiving NHL buzz.

i'm not so sure Sutter was given more freedom. There were rumors he was told to fire Keenan, he didn't' want to, and of course there was the very awkward period of time where the organization got pretty fractured and kind of pitted Sutter vs Feaster/Brent. Rumors of course but where there is smoke..... But you could be right and perhaps he is a Yes man. Unfortunately a "yes man" is who these owners traditionally have always hired.

Good point. although a tricky in there too as the owners perhaps saved them on the Seguin one. Think there is a lot of potential confirmation bias going on with these owners. 2004 kind of proved to them that anything can happen if you get in, proved to them Sutter is their guy, and them vetoing the Seguin deal (according to rumors) saved them Gaudreau so probably has them believing they know what they are doing.

Agreed. I actually don't think Dubus is doing a good job overall but this point is a good one and it's what I would point to to show how an org can pivot. The Leafs hit that turning point where they realized their old model wasn't working. Their old model was to take risks, push for the playoffs every year and if they faield there was always FA to dip into. The old system favored them because they had excess cash and could buy a FA every year. Took them a while but they finally realized that cap system prevents that. Shanahan has done a good job of helping them pivot to a model that I think works better for the current climate. More investment in amateur scouting, more draft picks, more analytics/resources, and looking into player development etc. Now Flames can't be the Leafs (Leafs can spend more in these other areas) but I think they are at a similar decision point in terms of he direction of the organization.