Flames & Losing For Higher Draft Order.

[The_People1]

It's a lottery. Every ticket has a chance. So the more tickets the better your odds.

We could probably get a high pick for Monahan (possibly even the #1 overall from Buffalo) & lower picks for others so if we trade everyone of value we have dang good odds of drafting 1 or 2 of those you like. Anaheim would probably give the Sens pick (9th right now) & their own for Gio.

You kill 2 birds as it gives you a dang good shot @ MacDavid (jj's dreamboat) next year.

 

To hit the floor you just pay scrubs big $s on 1 year contracts until the good UFAs are calling & other great players are demanding trades with Calgary as the only destination.

 

Great plan. Works every time. Right?

 

What does this have anything to do with my post?

 

 

So why not take the moral high road and continue to play like you intend to win every game?  Not only does it avoid saying "let's tank for better odds at #1 overall in the draft", but it goes a long way to establishing the kind of atmosphere and sense of team and pride that the "uber UFAs" of the future look for.

 

Tanking for better 1/1 odds

Short term: better 1/1 odds

Long term: perception (right or wrong, but duly earned) of poor team attitude among future UFA stars, causing them to want to avoid Calgary at all costs

 

Play like you mean it, every game, regardless of standings

Short term: decreased 1/1 odds

Long term: perception (right or wrong, but duly earned) of positive team attitude among future UFA stars, potentially leading to them wanting to be a Calgary Flame

 

 

 

For the sake of the survivability of a franchise (any franchise, any sport), which would be the smarter course of action to take (and you can only take one)?

 

You're asking the wrong question.  Something more accurate would be, "Why don't we fans continue to cheer for every win after we are officially eliminated from the playoffs?" 

 

Your following rhetorical questions have been done and done in recent seasons by Nashville, Phoenix, and Winnipeg, for example.  Are UFA's flocking there?  No because UFAs prefer Toronto, New York, Chicago, Boston, California, etc.  The Flames had Iginla, Kiprusoff, and Regehr in their primes and were not able to attract another superstar of that calibre to join them.  They were only able to attract the mid-range guys.  Bottom line is, if the Flames don't draft their own Stamkos, Kane, Tavares, etc, then they ain't coming here via UFA.  We would have to trade for them and give up the farm.

[travel_dude]

So why not take the moral high road and continue to play like you intend to win every game?  Not only does it avoid saying "let's tank for better odds at #1 overall in the draft", but it goes a long way to establishing the kind of atmosphere and sense of team and pride that the "uber UFAs" of the future look for.

 

Tanking for better 1/1 odds

Short term: better 1/1 odds

Long term: perception (right or wrong, but duly earned) of poor team attitude among future UFA stars, causing them to want to avoid Calgary at all costs

 

Play like you mean it, every game, regardless of standings

Short term: decreased 1/1 odds

Long term: perception (right or wrong, but duly earned) of positive team attitude among future UFA stars, potentially leading to them wanting to be a Calgary Flame

 

 

 

For the sake of the survivability of a franchise (any franchise, any sport), which would be the smarter course of action to take (and you can only take one)?

I have to believe that the Flames players will opt for #2.  They have pride beyond the standings or number of wins. 

 

The coach or the GM can make a play to potentially tank a game by sitting goalie A or player B.  That said, it doesn't look like Hartley nor Burke subscribes to that.

[Kulstad]

You're asking the wrong question.  Something more accurate would be, "Why don't we fans continue to cheer for every win after we are officially eliminated from the playoffs?"

 

I'm only asking the wrong question because it doesn't line up with your narrow point-of-view.  I think most of us have given up arguing with you over "abuse the system as it stands, it's not *our* fault the system is the way it is" because you're correct....if you want your best shot at first overall, then absolutely stink out the joint every time you step onto the ice.  Shove the flaws of the system the NHL's created right into their stinkin' face.

 

However, the argument still stands: which would you rather have as a public perception in the long run: a team that will sell out everything a team sport is about in order to get the oh-so-boner-worthy first overall pick, or a team that guts it out, night in and night out, regardless if the games mean anything or not?  The Flames have fought hard and tough all season to establish their current identity of "we're not going away.  We may not win, but dammit we're going to show that we belong in every game we play".  To take your suggested course of action, while short-term beneficial, would be absolutely destructive to the morale of the team, the pride Flames fans have had resurge in them because of the scrappy never-say-die team we now have, and to any potential seeds of thought regarding Calgary as a place to play as a UFA.

 

You can call yourself a Flames fan all you like, but your statements and comments regarding tanking scream "the Oilers plan is the best plan EVAR!!!!!11111!!!oneoneone  They just don't have the proper people in charge to make it work properly!!!!!"

 

I know you're smarter than this, Peeps.  There is no WAY you can be this narrow-minded and short-sighted over this topic, even if your name was ConnerFutureGM.  It's almost getting to the point where you're coming off as trolling for the sake of seeing who's gonna jump all over you this time, and frankly, it's getting old.

[The_People1]

I'm only asking the wrong question because it doesn't line up with your narrow point-of-view.  I think most of us have given up arguing with you over "abuse the system as it stands, it's not *our* fault the system is the way it is" because you're correct....if you want your best shot at first overall, then absolutely stink out the joint every time you step onto the ice.  Shove the flaws of the system the NHL's created right into their stinkin' face.

 

However, the argument still stands: which would you rather have as a public perception in the long run: a team that will sell out everything a team sport is about in order to get the oh-so-boner-worthy first overall pick, or a team that guts it out, night in and night out, regardless if the games mean anything or not?  The Flames have fought hard and tough all season to establish their current identity of "we're not going away.  We may not win, but dammit we're going to show that we belong in every game we play".  To take your suggested course of action, while short-term beneficial, would be absolutely destructive to the morale of the team, the pride Flames fans have had resurge in them because of the scrappy never-say-die team we now have, and to any potential seeds of thought regarding Calgary as a place to play as a UFA.

 

You can call yourself a Flames fan all you like, but your statements and comments regarding tanking scream "the Oilers plan is the best plan EVAR!!!!!11111!!!oneoneone  They just don't have the proper people in charge to make it work properly!!!!!"

 

I know you're smarter than this, Peeps.  There is no WAY you can be this narrow-minded and short-sighted over this topic, even if your name was ConnerFutureGM.  It's almost getting to the point where you're coming off as trolling for the sake of seeing who's gonna jump all over you this time, and frankly, it's getting old.

 

You tried to make a point that winning attracts UFAs and I provided a counter example using Nashville, Phoenix, and Winnipeg.  Then that is your response?  Sounds like you just lost control and got frustrated when presented with facts.

 

Fact is, no matter how some teams win and display a winning attitude, they won't attract UFAs.  Why is it narrow minded to acknowledge this truth?  Your argument does not stand in all cases.  Edmonton, win or lose, is not going to attract UFAs.  Calgary is not far behind. We tried to throw money at Brad Richards and he wouldn't come here and that's with a winning attitude too.  I'm not sure why you can't see that if the Flames don't draft their own superstar, then the Flames won't have one.

 

Let's go back to pre-2004.  Flames had low morale.  In comes Darryl Sutter and BAM, morales went 180 the other way overnight.  One guy can change the locker room whether it's a coach or player.  Crosby changed the Penguins for example.  Roy changed the Avs.  A Mike Babcock in Edmonton can change the Oilers morale overnight.  That's all it takes.  So to end, you put WAY too much stock in morale carrying from one season to another.

[travel_dude]

You tried to make a point that winning attracts UFAs and I provided a counter example using Nashville, Phoenix, and Winnipeg.  Then that is your response?  Sounds like you just lost control and got frustrated when presented with facts.

 

Fact is, no matter how some teams win and display a winning attitude, they won't attract UFAs.  Why is it narrow minded to acknowledge this truth?  Your argument does not stand in all cases.  Edmonton, win or lose, is not going to attract UFAs.  Calgary is not far behind. We tried to throw money at Brad Richards and he wouldn't come here and that's with a winning attitude too.  I'm not sure why you can't see that if the Flames don't draft their own superstar, then the Flames won't have one.

 

Let's go back to pre-2004.  Flames had low morale.  In comes Darryl Sutter and BAM, morales went 180 the other way overnight.  One guy can change the locker room whether it's a coach or player.  Crosby changed the Penguins for example.  Roy changed the Avs.  A Mike Babcock in Edmonton can change the Oilers morale overnight.  That's all it takes.  So to end, you put WAY too much stock in morale carrying from one season to another.

Ignoring the other parts of your agrument for a minute, Richard said he wanted to stay in the East, close to his family.  And I would say at the time that we didn't have a winning attitude as much as a country club atmosphere.

 

This year we have put on a display to all potential UFA's what Calgary is like to play for.  That will scare off slackers that just want to play on others' coattails.  We don't want 'em anyway.  Some players will buy into the set of beliefs and want to sign here.  Some will look at the rag-tag bunch of players and think that they are on the way up, and might be a place to come for the future.

[Kulstad]

You tried to make a point that winning attracts UFAs and I provided a counter example using Nashville, Phoenix, and Winnipeg.  Then that is your response?  Sounds like you just lost control and got frustrated when presented with facts.

 

Fact is, no matter how some teams win and display a winning attitude, they won't attract UFAs.  Why is it narrow minded to acknowledge this truth?  Your argument does not stand in all cases.  Edmonton, win or lose, is not going to attract UFAs.  Calgary is not far behind. We tried to throw money at Brad Richards and he wouldn't come here and that's with a winning attitude too.  I'm not sure why you can't see that if the Flames don't draft their own superstar, then the Flames won't have one.

 

Let's go back to pre-2004.  Flames had low morale.  In comes Darryl Sutter and BAM, morales went 180 the other way overnight.  One guy can change the locker room whether it's a coach or player.  Crosby changed the Penguins for example.  Roy changed the Avs.  A Mike Babcock in Edmonton can change the Oilers morale overnight.  That's all it takes.  So to end, you put WAY too much stock in morale carrying from one season to another.

 

Perhaps I did get frustrated with my response, but it doesn't make it any less correct.  Places like Nashville, Phoenix, and Winnipeg are fine examples of what you are supporting, but....

 

What does Nashville have to offer?  They're ever-so-slowly shedding the wet-blanket feel when they get a lead, and haven't produced anything of significance since their inception.

 

Phoenix is still unstable.  Sure, they've got new ownership,but for how long?  Short-term history doesn't lend well to a positive outlook (although I truly hope the new ownership gets that franchise stable for a long time).

 

Winnipeg still has that new-car smell, but with the underlying stench of Thraser (admittedly, it's quickly dissipating).  At least one more season like this one (hopefully better) will start to change perceptions around the league.

 

Edmonton has done itself no favours with the the front-office turnover, head-coaching turmoil, and public spats and feuds with players.  Until that climate calms down, it will still be a no-man's-land.  Mike Babcock, if given the proper leeway, could absolutely make Edmonton a place to be once again, but it will take at least 3 seasons to do so (if he lasted that long).

 

We have Bob Hartly, who's demonstrated what he can do with a bunch of kids.  We (finally) have a kick-checking from behind-and-take-names GM in Burke, and like him or not, he brings a certain measure of respectibility to the team.  We have the observable response of the players to the coach, and the rest of the league (and media) have taken notice.

 

There's nobody who could have predicted at the start of the season that we'd have accomplished what we have (respect in the league) in just the first season of a rebuild.

 

And to suggest that the Flames should tank the rest of the season would instantly negate all of that.  We'd be better off if we iced the entire Abbotsford team from the start of the season if that's what you'd want to accomplish.

 

We've (the team) earned everything we've received this year: wins, losses, etc.  Wins and losses, though, are a day-to-day thing.  Respect and positive attention are longer-lasting and have much deeper meaning.

 

On the subject of "way too much stock in morale carrying over", how long did we on these boards scream about the country-club mentality of this team, and how it was getting us nowhere, and how it had to change before our fortunes would change?  Well, we've got that change now, and damn it feels good. Good vibes create good things, and this team has finally got the good vibes flowing for them once again.

Ignoring the other parts of your agrument for a minute, Richard said he wanted to stay in the East, close to his family.  And I would say at the time that we didn't have a winning attitude as much as a country club atmosphere.

 

This year we have put on a display to all potential UFA's what Calgary is like to play for.  That will scare off slackers that just want to play on others' coattails.  We don't want 'em anyway.  Some players will buy into the set of beliefs and want to sign here.  Some will look at the rag-tag bunch of players and think that they are on the way up, and might be a place to come for the future.

 

This is another thing that irks me, and not just about this topic.  People (not The_People1) tend to ignore or conveniently forget some of the minor details of why certain things happen.  Your statement about Richards wanting to stay in the East gets ignored/forgotten either because it doesn't suit the argument, or it is honestly forgotten.  The fact that BB didn't move Cammy this trade deadline is another example.  Forgotten facts (conveniently or unintentional) tend to change the complexion of the conversation completely.

[DKim]

You tried to make a point that winning attracts UFAs and I provided a counter example using Nashville, Phoenix, and Winnipeg.  Then that is your response?  Sounds like you just lost control and got frustrated when presented with facts.

 

Fact is, no matter how some teams win and display a winning attitude, they won't attract UFAs.  Why is it narrow minded to acknowledge this truth?  Your argument does not stand in all cases.  Edmonton, win or lose, is not going to attract UFAs.  Calgary is not far behind. We tried to throw money at Brad Richards and he wouldn't come here and that's with a winning attitude too.  I'm not sure why you can't see that if the Flames don't draft their own superstar, then the Flames won't have one.

 

Let's go back to pre-2004.  Flames had low morale.  In comes Darryl Sutter and BAM, morales went 180 the other way overnight.  One guy can change the locker room whether it's a coach or player.  Crosby changed the Penguins for example.  Roy changed the Avs.  A Mike Babcock in Edmonton can change the Oilers morale overnight.  That's all it takes.  So to end, you put WAY too much stock in morale carrying from one season to another.

 

 

While I can understand your reasoning, I would say that the reason why big name UFAs do not go to Phoenix, Winnipeg and Nashville is because they are budget teams that can't afford to pay the UFA premium.  We were able to get McCarty, Amonte, Bertuzzi, Boumeester, Wideman, Hudler etc because we were a winning team.  Meanwhile, up north, the loser stench is so bad that they had to make a city of Edmonton propaganda video to try and attract UFAs. Nylander and Pronger are two examples of players getting the heck out of dodge.

 

While I agree with you that things can turn around quite quickly if you have the right guy come in, there are just as many examples of perennial bottom feeders like Florida, the Islanders, Edmonton, Buffalo, and Atlanta who can't ever seem to right the ship even with star talent. (Luongo, Boumeester Horton / Tavares, Okposo, Moulson / Gagner, Hall, RNH, Yak, Schultz / Miller, Myers, Vanek, / Heatley, Kovelchuk, Hossa)

 

There is no magic formula, but the stink to win mentality can be cancerous and devastating in the long term.  Just as damaging is the the Leaf and Ranger (and Flames) way to bandaid their way into the playoffs with overpaid UFAs and no rebuild. 

[robrob1974]

What does this have anything to do with my post?

 

 

 

You're asking the wrong question.  Something more accurate would be, "Why don't we fans continue to cheer for every win after we are officially eliminated from the playoffs?" 

 

Your following rhetorical questions have been done and done in recent seasons by Nashville, Phoenix, and Winnipeg, for example.  Are UFA's flocking there?  No because UFAs prefer Toronto, New York, Chicago, Boston, California, etc.  The Flames had Iginla, Kiprusoff, and Regehr in their primes and were not able to attract another superstar of that calibre to join them.  They were only able to attract the mid-range guys.  Bottom line is, if the Flames don't draft their own Stamkos, Kane, Tavares, etc, then they ain't coming here via UFA.  We would have to trade for them and give up the farm.

 

Exactly. Some of the posters on here seem to think you can just up and sign anyone who is a free agent, aside from offering them about 20,000,00/year, it's not going to happen. Even when offered higher contracts they still chose the Rangers over us (Richards). The only way the Flames will luck out is if an Alberta boy because the next big thing and plays out his RFA status and decided he wants to go back home to play for an Alberta team, much like, but not exactly like Glencross who wants to stay in Alberta. 

[kehatch]

Boston

• Key Players: Krejci (63), Iginla (UFA), Bergeron (45), Lucic (50), Chara (UFA), Hamilton (9), Rask (trade)

St Louis

• Key Players: Steen (trade), Oshi (24), Backes (62), Schwartz (14), Pietrangelo (4), Shattenkirk (trade - including former 1st overall pick), Tarasenko (16), Bouwmeester (trade), Berglund (25), Jackman (17), Miller (trade)

Anaheim

• Key Players: Getzlaf (19), Perry (28), Fowler (12), Beauchemin (trade, including 7 overall pick), Lindholm (6), Hiller (UFA)

That is a look at the current top 3 teams in the NHL.  Only St Louis has a top 3 pick, and they traded the selected player away.  So clearly you can build a contending team without top 3 picks.  I am not making the case that a top 3 pick doesn't help.  Because it does.  But it isn't essential to finding success.  

 

This debate isn't really about losing intentionally.  Not one person voted that the Flames should lose intentionally.  We all know they shouldn't lose intentionally.  What it boils down to is this, is the current success going to help us or hinder us long term.  

 

Personally, I am encouraged by performances of players like Backlund, Brodie, Monahan, etc.  I think the fact we are finding success on the back of the current kids speaks volumes and it gives me MUCH more hope than a top 3 pick would.  Who cares if winning does or does not attract more free agents.  Who cares if this winning culture will or will not carry over into the future.  What I care about is that we have future Flames finding success and doing well TODAY and I don't have to wait for this summers draft.  

 

Why anyone could possibly complain about the success our kids are having is beyond me.  

[robrob1974]

While I can understand your reasoning, I would say that the reason why big name UFAs do not go to Phoenix, Winnipeg and Nashville is because they are budget teams that can't afford to pay the UFA premium.  We were able to get McCarty, Amonte, Bertuzzi, Boumeester, Wideman, Hudler etc because we were a winning team.  Meanwhile, up north, the loser stench is so bad that they had to make a city of Edmonton propaganda video to try and attract UFAs. Nylander and Pronger are two examples of players getting the heck out of dodge.

 

While I agree with you that things can turn around quite quickly if you have the right guy come in, there are just as many examples of perennial bottom feeders like Florida, the Islanders, Edmonton, Buffalo, and Atlanta who can't ever seem to right the ship even with star talent. (Luongo, Boumeester Horton / Tavares, Okposo, Moulson / Gagner, Hall, RNH, Yak, Schultz / Miller, Myers, Vanek, / Heatley, Kovelchuk, Hossa)

 

There is no magic formula, but the stink to win mentality can be cancerous and devastating in the long term.  Just as damaging is the the Leaf and Ranger (and Flames) way to bandaid their way into the playoffs with overpaid UFAs and no rebuild. 

 

 

Umm, Hudler is good, but he's not an "it" player. The fans of the rest of the league laughed at us for signing him and believed we over paid. Wideman, same thing, laughed because we overpaid; Bouwmeester, overpaid; McCarty, end of career; Bertuzzi, past his prime; Amonte, well past his prime; Morrison, needed somewhere to play and wasn't signing anywhere else.

Buffalo is a bad example. They just started a rebuild. They were pretty good at making the playoffs up until about a year or so ago. Maybe 3 years tops. The other teams, yes, they're horrible at drafting and surrounding players around them.

 

This is the reason why it's good to have a high pick, you have a better chance at getting that "it" player top 3… Now if you're drafting is already horrible, then drafting out of the top3 is going to be even worse for your team. Imaging those teams you've mentioned if they didn't draft high all the time. They're obviously doing a poor job drafting in the later rounds. 

 

That was our record up until recently and if we do our homework, plus draft higher, then it should make for a greater return. 

[kehatch]

Umm, Hudler is good, but he's not an "it" player. The fans of the rest of the league laughed at us for signing him and believed we over paid. Wideman, same thing, laughed because we overpaid; Bouwmeester, overpaid; McCarty, end of career; Bertuzzi, past his prime; Amonte, well past his prime; Morrison, needed somewhere to play and wasn't signing anywhere else.

Buffalo is a bad example. They just started a rebuild. They were pretty good at making the playoffs up until about a year or so ago. Maybe 3 years tops. The other teams, yes, they're horrible at drafting and surrounding players around them.

 

This is the reason why it's good to have a high pick, you have a better chance at getting that "it" player top 3… Now if you're drafting is already horrible, then drafting out of the top3 is going to be even worse for your team. Imaging those teams you've mentioned if they didn't draft high all the time. They're obviously doing a poor job drafting in the later rounds. 

 

That was our record up until recently and if we do our homework, plus draft higher, then it should make for a greater return. 

 

Every team overpays for free agents.  Its the price you pay to acquire a player for nothing.  The Flames didn't overpay those guys anymore than another team would have.  I don't disagree that the draft is a critical part of team building.  You can't build a cup contending team on free agents.  It is even more true when you are a Western based team in a smaller city like Calgary without the appeal of Toronto or New York.  But losing doesn't help you attract free agents.  So I am really not sure why this argument is even being had here.  

[robrob1974]

Boston

• Key Players: Krejci (63), Iginla (UFA), Bergeron (45), Lucic (50), Chara (UFA), Hamilton (9), Rask (trade)

St Louis

• Key Players: Steen (trade), Oshi (24), Backes (62), Schwartz (14), Pietrangelo (4), Shattenkirk (trade - including former 1st overall pick), Tarasenko (16), Bouwmeester (trade), Berglund (25), Jackman (17), Miller (trade)

Anaheim

• Key Players: Getzlaf (19), Perry (28), Fowler (12), Beauchemin (trade, including 7 overall pick), Lindholm (6), Hiller (UFA)

That is a look at the current top 3 teams in the NHL.  Only St Louis has a top 3 pick, and they traded the selected player away.  So clearly you can build a contending team without top 3 picks.  I am not making the case that a top 3 pick doesn't help.  Because it does.  But it isn't essential to finding success.  

 

This debate isn't really about losing intentionally.  Not one person voted that the Flames should lose intentionally.  We all know they shouldn't lose intentionally.  What it boils down to is this, is the current success going to help us or hinder us long term.  

 

Personally, I am encouraged by performances of players like Backlund, Brodie, Monahan, etc.  I think the fact we are finding success on the back of the current kids speaks volumes and it gives me MUCH more hope than a top 3 pick would.  Who cares if winning does or does not attract more free agents.  Who cares if this winning culture will or will not carry over into the future.  What I care about is that we have future Flames finding success and doing well TODAY and I don't have to wait for this summers draft.  

 

Why anyone could possibly complain about the success our kids are having is beyond me.  

 

 

I agree, and we have a few examples of the possibility of drafting well in the later rounds. The Flames have only seen success in the draft recently. So I can see why there are a bunch of us posters who do want the higher pick. Those teams who find gems in later rounds have to do a good job of scouting. 

 

Teams like Detroit, Boston, San Jose, Philadelphia, LA, Chicago, etc all have done well at the draft and develop their players. The teams who are listed as drafting high and not going anywhere obviously don't put enough stock in scouting and development of their players. Sutter finally put a bit into it while Feaster continued what Sutter had started. We've only started seeing a change in drafting. I want a superstar for a change. 

Every team overpays for free agents.  Its the price you pay to acquire a player for nothing.  The Flames didn't overpay those guys anymore than another team would have.  I don't disagree that the draft is a critical part of team building.  You can't build a cup contending team on free agents.  It is even more true when you are a Western based team in a smaller city like Calgary without the appeal of Toronto or New York.  But losing doesn't help you attract free agents.  So I am really not sure why this argument is even being had here.  

 

Even in Toronto, you don't see FA signing there that often. Nonis grossly overpaid for Clarkson, so much so that it is going to handcuff the team for the length of the contract. Something that was talked about on the Fan over the last year was that Toronto attracted them because they didn't have a cap and could afford them. They'd trade with all of the Canadian teams and take the players teams like the Flames, Oilers couldn't afford. Now that they can't do it, they've struggled to make the playoffs.

But I agree, it's the New Yorks, Chicago's and other big cities that are the romantic places to play.

[Flyerfan52]

What does this have anything to do with my post?

Maybe the line "First off, the "percieved gain" is not a perception. There is an undeniable advantage to drafting higher."

 

Supposedly having more tickets on a draw give you that same edge.

[robrob1974]

Maybe the line "First off, the "percieved gain" is not a perception. There is an undeniable advantage to drafting higher."

 

Supposedly having more tickets on a draw give you that same edge.

 

...but this lottery doesn't work that way. 

 

If we got say, the Islanders first rounder and the next team's draft pick, then sure, I'd be happy and like the chance of winning it by getting the first overall pick… 

 

I like the idea of giving the top possible 5 picks the same chance of winning the lottery. They all have their balls weighted the same and no edge either way… Who wins and what ever order happens. Then teams drafting from 6-10 get their balls picked for order and then the 11-14. 

[kehatch]

I have contended all along that the Flames are starting over due to a crummy history of drafting. In that scenario the higher the pick the better chance of a star.

But I don't see us winning as a bad thing because of a lower draft pick. I see it as the Flames proving us wrong. Success is showing that Backlund, Brodie, Giordano, Monahan, etc might be a decent start.

Cheering for losses is cheering for a lengthy rebuild. I would rather cheer for the kids and hope for the best.

[Flyerfan52]

I know you're smarter than this, Peeps.  There is no WAY you can be this narrow-minded and short-sighted over this topic, even if your name was ConnerFutureGM.  It's almost getting to the point where you're coming off as trolling for the sake of seeing who's gonna jump all over you this time, and frankly, it's getting old.

What a concept. An admin trolling his own board. It sure does keep others posting.

 

They shut chat on our Flyers board for a few games to get people posting more but the only 1s that did were the chat regulars. 1 of them sent up an off site chat room as we liked the immediacy (& hated hitting refresh) so chat came back. We run a parallel GDT (started by chat regulars) but again it's more for after game discussion.

[robrob1974]

I have contended all along that the Flames are starting over due to a crummy history of drafting. In that scenario the higher the pick the better chance of a star.

But I don't see us winning as a bad thing because of a lower draft pick. I see it as the Flames proving us wrong. Success is showing that Backlund, Brodie, Giordano, Monahan, etc might be a decent start.

Cheering for losses is cheering for a lengthy rebuild. I would rather cheer for the kids and hope for the best.

 

That's the thing, I was the same way as you in the first rebuild from 97-04 and all the Flames did was try really hard while only ever drafting as high as 6 and only picking one pretty good NHLer (Stillman) in those years. Sure those teams tried really hard and I loved their work ethic. But it never really got us anywhere. Albeit, we got to within a game of winning to Cup in 04. This is the only reason I am in this boat. It seems we're repeating history, although, without the 2nd Cup...

 

We were hit pretty hard during that time and we didn't care about where we drafted and believed in trying their hardest and thinking it would mean more in the long run. It wasn't really the case. The team only worked hard until 06 and maybe 07. That winning/hard work ethic didn't last past the rebuild. 

[Flyerfan52]

...but this lottery doesn't work that way. 

 

If we got say, the Islanders first rounder and the next team's draft pick, then sure, I'd be happy and like the chance of winning it by getting the first overall pick… 

 

I like the idea of giving the top possible 5 picks the same chance of winning the lottery. They all have their balls weighted the same and no edge either way… Who wins and what ever order happens. Then teams drafting from 6-10 get their balls picked for order and then the 11-14. 

With 14 picks having a chance (decreased odds the closer to play-offs you finish) #s 5, 9 & 13 give you 3 tickets.

 

Personally I'd still like weight given to the best winning record after being officially eliminated. Reward effort. If you are out of the running with 10 left it's incentive to win as many of the other games rather then hope to lose to draft high. If eliminated with 3 games to play you want to win those.

[robrob1974]

With 14 picks having a chance (decreased odds the closer to play-offs you finish) #s 5, 9 & 13 give you 3 tickets.

 

Personally I'd still like weight given to the best winning record after being officially eliminated. Reward effort. If you are out of the running with 10 left it's incentive to win as many of the other games rather then hope to lose to draft high. If eliminated with 3 games to play you want to win those.

 

Ya, but those really crappy teams like the Islanders who are built horrible have no chance of getting out of the basement if they can't draft high. So I see why they have to have the teams who are at the bottom the best chances at drafting 1st. I agree efforts should be rewarded, but teams that are really bad should have a chance at more. 

 

Apparently it's rumoured the league has asked the Islander's ownership sell their team. They've been superbly mismanaged and need a fresh start. Other than Tavares, and a few other players, there's not much to look forward to for them. 

[Lucid_Flame91]

Only thing that matters is were in the #4 spot now, and we have 1 less game to play then the Islanders.

 

[flames-fan-911]

So far so good. The Flames play so hard. Are easily the best lottery team in a while. A lot to look forward to and a team that could really make waves with another good prospect from this draft in the near future.

 

I'd rather be in our situation, because our work ethic and team play means another talented young prospect (a la Monahan) can push us in the right direction. It's better than being hopeless bottom feeders that can't win or even work hard to save their lives.

 

Drafting 4 gives us an option between whoever is left among the top 5 -- probably a choice between Dal Colle, Reinhart, Bennett, or Draisaitl depending on who is left, but Ekblad won't be available for us. Personally I'd be happy with anyone who isn't Draisaitl, not that I wouldn't take him; just like what the others provide more.

[robrob1974]

It looks like the Islanders have a harder schedule though...

[tmac70]

The point that the league now has to come in an micro mange clubs has been an issue with me all along. If the NYI are being asked to find new owners than the Oilers should be in the same conversation. Having high draft choices will not solve the problems of poor management of the aforementioned clubs.

 

Ya, but those really crappy teams like the Islanders who are built horrible have no chance of getting out of the basement if they can't draft high. So I see why they have to have the teams who are at the bottom the best chances at drafting 1st. I agree efforts should be rewarded, but teams that are really bad should have a chance at more. 

 

Apparently it's rumoured the league has asked the Islander's ownership sell their team. They've been superbly mismanaged and need a fresh start. Other than Tavares, and a few other players, there's not much to look forward to for them. 

[iamcdn34]

Boston

• Key Players: Krejci (63), Iginla (UFA), Bergeron (45), Lucic (50), Chara (UFA), Hamilton (9), Rask (trade)

St Louis

• Key Players: Steen (trade), Oshi (24), Backes (62), Schwartz (14), Pietrangelo (4), Shattenkirk (trade - including former 1st overall pick), Tarasenko (16), Bouwmeester (trade), Berglund (25), Jackman (17), Miller (trade)

Anaheim

• Key Players: Getzlaf (19), Perry (28), Fowler (12), Beauchemin (trade, including 7 overall pick), Lindholm (6), Hiller (UFA)

That is a look at the current top 3 teams in the NHL.  Only St Louis has a top 3 pick, and they traded the selected player away.  So clearly you can build a contending team without top 3 picks.  I am not making the case that a top 3 pick doesn't help.  Because it does.  But it isn't essential to finding success.  

 

This debate isn't really about losing intentionally.  Not one person voted that the Flames should lose intentionally.  We all know they shouldn't lose intentionally.  What it boils down to is this, is the current success going to help us or hinder us long term.  

 

Personally, I am encouraged by performances of players like Backlund, Brodie, Monahan, etc.  I think the fact we are finding success on the back of the current kids speaks volumes and it gives me MUCH more hope than a top 3 pick would.  Who cares if winning does or does not attract more free agents.  Who cares if this winning culture will or will not carry over into the future.  What I care about is that we have future Flames finding success and doing well TODAY and I don't have to wait for this summers draft.  

 

Why anyone could possibly complain about the success our kids are having is beyond me.  

 

 

+1 to that!

 

   I honestly believe that a lot of people over rate the draft, is it important to draft well.....yes. As impatient as a lot of posters are, drafting a quality team takes what 3-5 years before you see/reap the benfits.........maybe if everything works out? We had a lot of draft picks last year in the first round and got lucky and Monohan made the team, but realistically how often does first rounders make the big club and do well when they are 19 years old? I am sorry for using this phrase, but it takes a "special' player to do so IMO?

 

   You know the one thing that has been a constant the last four years..............personell turnover. With the pool of kids we have now, Ramo stepping up to the plate, the D core looking pretty good and a lot of surprises up front , the likes of Byron, Colborne, Mono and Backs all progressing really well, I see chemistry more important than superstardome! We lead the league in shorties( when was the last time the Flames have done that?), the Flames fight to the end and, keep you on your seat and can tie the game late or win it late(when was the last time you could actually hope for that?)

 

   Ramo is proving to be a starter, we have a swift skating D core, not big but fast and can move the puck and the majority of our forwards are getting better and better, what more could you ask for? The Flames are a small market team, so really what is the likelyhood  of the Flames aquiring the crucial pieces everyone talks about and at what price? The way I see it the price is too great, sure you may fill that need, but then you create more needs because of what you gave up!

 

   It is interesting, they use the term lottery............either way their is a 50/50 chance you loose!

 

P.S. Don't forget the incredible progression of #44 and Russell has proved to be an excellent pick up IMO.

[FeyWest]

As long as we don't trade away draft picks (Especially 2nd rounders) left, right and center and have consistent drafting we should be fine for years to come.  We can't have the mentality of trying to "accelerate" the rebuild, that will just lead us on a repeat path of mediocrity.

 

"Rome wasn't built in a day" as they say.... even though it collapsed later on....

 

What good is 1 great superstar if you don't have the players to properly support, whoever it is, on the team. (See Iginla, Jarome; Oilers, Edmonton)  I think it's much easier and better for a team to have all the ground work laid out before the Pièce de résistance.  That way we aren't fooled into thinking we are better off than we truly are. (See Kipprusoff, Miika)

 

That's really why I like what I'm starting to see this year.  Keep bringing in high potential draft picks and maintaining a never say die attitude please and thank you.