Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[phoenix66]

34 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

No, neither of these are difficult to check off the list.  Like you say, winning the cup is.  In order to do that, you have to do the above Well.  Either in microcomponents or the whole team at once.   You have to tear down right, you have to rebuild right.

 

That said, I'll throw in my own olive branch with Treliving, we can't blame just him.    

 

I watched Brian Burke shooting his mouth off the other day as an analyst.   Just super mad at the zamboni driver.  He went nuts.  Burke has a screw loose.  Always has.   It was known before he came here.    What caused it, we don't know (even though we assume it's rejection from Hazel Mae).

 

Yet

 

We hired him.

 

For all of Treliving's faults, firing  him won't fix brain-dead decisions like that.   They are coming from higher up.

 

Possibly higher than Ken King.

 

Flames will have their day but I'm not sure it will be under the same ownership structure.

In fairness to Burke, saw him on hockeycentral on Friday. And he went into more depth

His unhappiness wasn't with David Ayers ..he said it was an amazing feel good story..and he deserves all the recognition coming his way .

His dissatisfaction is the system that allowed it to happen

Take the humanity out of it , and this really is a bad system. What if there's playoff implications involved ?  What would the headlines had been if it had gone the other way, like it should have, and Totonto had lit him up?  Then it would have been about the Leafs employee that got them a win 

Not to mention the safety factors of having a 42 yr old beer league goalie facing NHL quality shooters 

 

I liked his best case solution and it made a lot of sense .

The NHL should employee one EBUG in every city ..available to either team..and they should meet certain age and experience standards 

 

[redfire11]

Why not have each team supply their own 3rd goalie (Not tied to the cap) paid through team management. Could be an assistant goalie coach or assistant equipment manager. Each team would then know what they had between the pipes if 2 went down in a game.

[rocketdoctor]

What an overreaction by Burke.

 

Something that happens once in a blue moon and suddenly the league are looking at mandating a 3rd staffer to be employed by clubs.

 

A feel good story that the league have got lots of good free press out of and they want to ensure it never happens again.

 

Okay for the playoffs, fine allow clubs to have a black ace as a 3rd back up but lets not go over the top on this.

 

Burke is a prat.

 

[cross16]

8 minutes ago, rocketdoctor said:

What an overreaction by Burke.

 

Something that happens once in a blue moon and suddenly the league are looking at mandating a 3rd staffer to be employed by clubs.

 

A feel good story that the league have got lots of good free press out of and they want to ensure it never happens again.

 

Okay for the playoffs, fine allow clubs to have a black ace as a 3rd back up but lets not go over the top on this.

 

Burke is a prat.

 

 

Agreed. Rare occurrence, Great feel good story where the good far outweighs the bad, and the press has been all positive for the league. 

 

Move on. Far bigger issues to discuss. I'm not really concerned what Burke says for the most part in his new job. I think he was hired specifically to be that "old school" guy so naturally his opinion are going to be slanted as such. Pretty much all media analysts play a "character" to a certain extent. 

[JTech780]

L.A. has anounced that they are parting ways with Mike Futa. I am not sure how or where he would fit in the Flames' organization, but he I think he is a smart hockey mind especially when it comes to the draft and if we coyld get him onboard it would be very beneficial for the organization.

 

That being said I am sure he will get better opportunities elsewhere.

[cross16]

I agree, he also has a real impressive draft record. Unfortunately unless someone in the flames hockey ops is moving on I don’t see it happening. I can’t imagine between Covid and the oil crisis the flames are going to be increasing budgets anytime soon. 

[Thebrewcrew]

Conroy did an excellent radio interview on 960 yesterday.

 

He was asked about the organizations success in the later rounds of the draft,  he said that they look for players with one or two special traits, instead of a player who is completely average across the board, he said those players are so easy to acquire that they maybe aren't worth spending a pick on. The Mangiapane pick is a perfect example of this philosophy, he has incredible work ethic and a nose for the net, but he's an undersized guy and isn't the smoothest skater. Wolf, the best goalie in the WHL but undersized and so on...

[LouCifer]

My 2cents is you get away from the idea of “the complete/200’ player” and build your team with players that specialize in specific aspects of the game. Then you pair them up with line mates that not only compliment their playing style, but also have strengths where their linemates are deficient. 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, lou44291 said:

My 2cents is you get away from the idea of “the complete/200’ player” and build your team with players that specialize in specific aspects of the game. Then you pair them up with line mates that not only compliment their playing style, but also have strengths where their linemates are deficient. 

 

I agree! I feel like the “200 ft” player is code for safe. I like the idea of what Conroy said in the quote earlier today, that they look for a few things the player does really well. 

[jjgallow]

 

"Give Treliving a Chance", they say.

 

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/flames-sign-goaltender-jacob-markstrom-six-year-contract/

 

$36m later....

[Thebrewcrew]

 

[robrob74]

On 10/10/2020 at 7:52 AM, jjgallow said:

 

"Give Treliving a Chance", they say.

 

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/flames-sign-goaltender-jacob-markstrom-six-year-contract/

 

$36m later....

 

the thing is, I think Markstrom is good enough to mask the Flames’ problems, much like Kipper did. This team kind of compares to the best on paper the Flames had in the Iggy days. I think the Flames will be a 5-8 in the conference team but first round exits every time with this team. 
 

I know I get pushback on my thoughts on the 2nd overall team a few years ago. But I just don’t think that was a good team, but snuck into that spot. Good teams don’t sleep to start games as much as they did that year and it showed in the playoffs that that kind of hockey doesn’t work when it matters. There are too many players that play that way that are still on the team. Playing from behind isn’t a recipe for success. 
 

Maybe Markstrom keeps it even until the team starts to skate. But I fear the team doesn’t skate until they’re behind a lot of the time so they’ll depend on Markstrom to get shutouts. 
 

we need a killer instinct. We play like cats who slowly stalk their prey instead of something that goes right for the jugular. 
 

14 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

 

 

 

I still think the Fox trade needed to be a separate deal on its own, and not part of this trade. Even if we got that 2nd rounder from the Rangers. Hamilton is a Norris nominee level RSD. The Devils got more for Adam Larson. 
 

I think Treliving is a B- level GM. Probably a C+. He does some good things and then has some failed attempts and failed signings. Maybe it’s his Pro NHL Scouts. 
 

I think the team has been missing worker bees so hopefully the signings for the bottom 6 push guys up the lineup to haul Hash Rate.
 

I don’t see Markstrom as a Brouwer or Neal. But it could look bad in the last year or two, but the hope is a young goalie is ready by then to transition in. 

[sak22]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I think Treliving is a B- level GM. Probably a C+. He does some good things and then has some failed attempts and failed signings. Maybe it’s his Pro NHL Scouts. 
 

 

Out of curiosity, who are the "A"s and high "B"s  out there that have been on the job as long as he has in your mind? 

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

the thing is, I think Markstrom is good enough to mask the Flames’ problems, much like Kipper did. This team kind of compares to the best on paper the Flames had in the Iggy days. I think the Flames will be a 5-8 in the conference team but first round exits every time with this team. 
 

I know I get pushback on my thoughts on the 2nd overall team a few years ago. But I just don’t think that was a good team, but snuck into that spot. Good teams don’t sleep to start games as much as they did that year and it showed in the playoffs that that kind of hockey doesn’t work when it matters. There are too many players that play that way that are still on the team. Playing from behind isn’t a recipe for success. 

 

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

don’t see Markstrom as a Brouwer or Neal. But it could look bad in the last year or two, but the hope is a young goalie is ready by then to transition in. 

 

I find it difficult to find any version of the Flames where they were better than what we have seen the last two years.

Kipper had one really good season where he won 45 games (08-09) but was only .903 SAA.

That was also when Iggy and Cami were at their best with 1.0 p/gp, yet no one else was above 49 points.

Our best year featured 5 players at 74 points or above.

That with Smith below 900.

 

I get your concern that we are a worse team in front of a good goalie, but we have been in front of a good goalie in years.

We cycled out some players that I would call liabilities at times; Janko, Gus, Forbort, Stone, Hamonic.

Even Frolik and Rieder had issues staying on the right side of the score.

But we have arguably a better defense (less liabilities) but lost some offense there.  Perhaps.

We added some depth with middle 6 capable players.

 

Marky Mark will be good for 4 years.  That is about what you get from a 30's goalie at the top of their game.

If we don't have a starter elsehwere by then, we have bigger issues than an aging goalie.

 

[robrob74]

9 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Out of curiosity, who are the "A"s and high "B"s  out there that have been on the job as long as he has in your mind? 

 

 

It is a tough call. I dont really know. Some have gotten lucky and really won the lotto by drafting Crosby, and possibly McD.

 

I think I would look to some of the teams that have been consistently competitive. I think perhaps Poile, but the Preds have started to drop. Even he has made a mistake with the likes of Turris. But I like some of his drafting philosophy. They always have had a starting goalie and some of the best D in the league. They've also been fairly consistent. I look at the CBJ since their GM took over. they're probably on par with the Flames, but they've done good at drafting a bit. Carolina is anther team...  I look at the Blues as having a decent draft record and gaining quality NHLers and able to use them in trades that helped build a cup winner. Even though they were bad before they won the cup, they've been as close to consistent as Detroit used to be, always competitve.

There probably aren't many. I'd probably look to Yzerman and the Tampa Bay organization in general. Sakic seems to be slowly proving himself as more savvy than we once thought. Of course he inherited some good players. 

 

GMs probably get too much credit for what happens. I think a lot is scouting as well. I am still mixed on BT trade record. He's in on everything, which you want, but some deals were good and some were bad. I feel like he's paid a steep price for nothing to show for in around 3-4 deals. That happens. Every GM wins or loses deals. But those could be on pro scouts as well. I like that we are drafting better, but there still isnt the right mix. 

 

I'd say Tre is still a fairly young GM. I think my biggest concerns are that this team seems to lack competitive spirit and identity. Perhaps Brad has addressed that this offseason with some of the signings. I sometimes feel that the Flames are too small to compete in a longer series. The changes Tampa has made has allowed their smaller guys to withstand the rigors of a long playoff. Which perhaps adding Nordstrom could be a big help. For me, smaller players work for so long. Dube and Mangiapane started to go quiet against Dallas. A part of that could be that Tkachuk didn't play, but I havent seen that steal a game consistent enough from Tkachuk to say he is that guy yet. Granted he is still young and I still love him on our team.

 

So i am being harsh on my evaluation of BT. Of course I am not grading on a specific Ruberic and he probably deserves a B. Although, he has brought stability to the organization so he probably deserves a B+.

 

 

[robrob74]

24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

 

I find it difficult to find any version of the Flames where they were better than what we have seen the last two years.

Kipper had one really good season where he won 45 games (08-09) but was only .903 SAA.

That was also when Iggy and Cami were at their best with 1.0 p/gp, yet no one else was above 49 points.

Our best year featured 5 players at 74 points or above.

That with Smith below 900.

 

I get your concern that we are a worse team in front of a good goalie, but we have been in front of a good goalie in years.

We cycled out some players that I would call liabilities at times; Janko, Gus, Forbort, Stone, Hamonic.

Even Frolik and Rieder had issues staying on the right side of the score.

But we have arguably a better defense (less liabilities) but lost some offense there.  Perhaps.

We added some depth with middle 6 capable players.

 

Marky Mark will be good for 4 years.  That is about what you get from a 30's goalie at the top of their game.

If we don't have a starter elsehwere by then, we have bigger issues than an aging goalie.

 

 

We had a decent team with Langkow as the 2nd line C. Huselius was a good 2nd liner too. There wasn't a lot of growth within though. That was probably the year with a touch more talent, but they traded away the heart and soul players that got them to the Finals.

 

This team has been ok. I feel the 2nd overall team isn't the team we are talking about. I think that team took the NHL by surprise for half a season, but eventually pulled off the 2nd season on the backs of Ryan's line. You know how I feel about that year already. I think depending on comebacks and 3rd period heroics is great, but not a recipe for success. It showed in all of their playoffs but 1 series.

 

I think I like the turnover so far this offseason. It sounds like a deeper bottom 6 than we have had. Albeit, having Hathoway really rounded out that 4th line. But you're right, I don't mind Jankowski, but he's not a 4th liner. He will probably score a bit in Pittsburgh because he has the hands. He wasn't getting that opportunity in Calgary. He's too soft for the 4th line and like you said, a defensive liabilty unless playing PK. 

Forbort reminds me of Buddy Robinson. Able to play in the NHL but looks extremely awkward doing it. Robinson not as much. He's here for Gaudreau. 

 

I  think the only player I will miss is Brodie. He will be great for Toronto. Can Valamaki be a good trade off for what Brodie brought? I think that's the biggest question. He has looked good so far. My worry is that we don't have a succession plan for Giordano. Maybe you go:

 

Giordano, Valamaki  (I hear he's been playing RSD in Finland and maybe Giordano would be a good mentor for him)

Hanifin, Andersson

Nesterov, Tanev

[LouCifer]

I like BT. I’m a big supporter. Sure, he’s signed some players that didn’t pan out, but I take that with a grain of salt because I believe those players had to want to come to Calgary in the first place - or - they had to be paid enough to come to Calgary. Said it before and I’ll say it again, I have faith BT is in on everything - the issue is not every player is in on us. Sometimes my wife asks me to go buy her a warm, $10 cinnamon bun at a local shop. Sometimes there’s none left. But they have $5 muffins. So, I go home empty handed or with a muffin. The moral of the story? Either way my wife isn’t going to be happy. It’s not due to lack of effort or try either... what I wanted was simply unavailable to me. Also, that muffin starts looking a hell of a lot better when there aren’t any cinnamon buns available. I imagine BT goes through a similar process when trying to acquire players. 

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, lou44291 said:

I like BT. I’m a big supporter. Sure, he’s signed some players that didn’t pan out, but I take that with a grain of salt because I believe those players had to want to come to Calgary in the first place - or - they had to be paid enough to come to Calgary. Said it before and I’ll say it again, I have faith BT is in on everything - the issue is not every player is in on us. Sometimes my wife asks me to go buy her a warm, $10 cinnamon bun at a local shop. Sometimes there’s none left. But they have $5 muffins. So, I go home empty handed or with a muffin. The moral of the story? Either way my wife isn’t going to be happy. It’s not due to lack of effort or try either... what I wanted was simply unavailable to me. Also, that muffin starts looking a hell of a lot better when there aren’t any cinnamon buns available. 

I like your analogy. 
 

I do have to say I feel a lot better since losing Fletcher. I think BT is still getting going. Like TD has said, could be cross, that he really only has about 4 years of experience as a the main GM. 
 

Drafting has improved.

Trades have improved.

Signings are mixed and like you say, maybe there are only muffins left. Or they looked like cinnamon buns but ended up muffins? 

[LouCifer]

14 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I like your analogy. 
 

I do have to say I feel a lot better since losing Fletcher. I think BT is still getting going. Like TD has said, could be cross, that he really only has about 4 years of experience as a the main GM. 
 

Drafting has improved.

Trades have improved.

Signings are mixed and like you say, maybe there are only muffins left. Or they looked like cinnamon buns but ended up muffins? 

Sure. Like I said, those muffins start looking better when your original target doesn’t pan out - otherwise you go home empty handed. And there’s no shortage of people interested in those muffins as well, that you’re competing with. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

But, if my analogy is correct, for Calgary to build a perennially contending team, they’d likely have to do so through the draft AND by acquiring players with term on their contracts. That’s why I was hung up on Eichel (he had term and would have to play out his contract if traded here). We have to target players who don’t have NTCs / NMCs but have term on their contract. I believe I mentioned in a past post about trading Mony for Barzal in some capacity, and I know Barzal is an RFA and there’s risk of an offer sheet, but with the flat cap and most teams handcuffed by their cap space, I see an opportunity to lockup a great player for a long time because he doesn’t have many options. These are the kinds of opportunities I think BT should be targeting, and from what we hear, he’s one of the most active GMs out there communicating so I think it’s only a matter of time before those relationships he’s building start benefiting us in trades. My 2 cents. 

[jjgallow]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

the thing is, I think Markstrom is good enough to mask the Flames’ problems, much like Kipper did. This team kind of compares to the best on paper the Flames had in the Iggy days. I think the Flames will be a 5-8 in the conference team but first round exits every time with this team. 
 

I know I get pushback on my thoughts on the 2nd overall team a few years ago. But I just don’t think that was a good team, but snuck into that spot. Good teams don’t sleep to start games as much as they did that year and it showed in the playoffs that that kind of hockey doesn’t work when it matters. There are too many players that play that way that are still on the team. Playing from behind isn’t a recipe for success. 
 

Maybe Markstrom keeps it even until the team starts to skate. But I fear the team doesn’t skate until they’re behind a lot of the time so they’ll depend on Markstrom to get shutouts. 
 

we need a killer instinct. We play like cats who slowly stalk their prey instead of something that goes right for the jugular. 
 

 

 

I still think the Fox trade needed to be a separate deal on its own, and not part of this trade. Even if we got that 2nd rounder from the Rangers. Hamilton is a Norris nominee level RSD. The Devils got more for Adam Larson. 
 

I think Treliving is a B- level GM. Probably a C+. He does some good things and then has some failed attempts and failed signings. Maybe it’s his Pro NHL Scouts. 
 

I think the team has been missing worker bees so hopefully the signings for the bottom 6 push guys up the lineup to haul Hash Rate.
 

I don’t see Markstrom as a Brouwer or Neal. But it could look bad in the last year or two, but the hope is a young goalie is ready by then to transition in. 

 

When I think of what to measure up to, I think of the 1989 Flames.   A guy like Markstrom was our comparative backup goalies back then.    

 

Guys like Hamilton were regularly benched because we simply had too much depth and it didn't make sense to have everyone burnt out.

 

Since the 1989 Flames nothing has come close to impressing me enough to use as a measuring stick, although the 2004 Flames were admittedly pretty great.

 

I have a much more pessimistic evaluation of our team on paper and especially our team on the ice, but I do know that one day we will see the Stanley Cup back here.

 

I don't think we come anywhere close to comparing to the 2004 Flames right now and even if we did I think we would need a small miracle to go that deep in the playoffs (and an entirely different team makeup).    

 

Our rating of BT isn't that different, I might give him a C or C-.    But I don't see much point in keeping anything less than B+.

[robrob74]

47 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

When I think of what to measure up to, I think of the 1989 Flames.   A guy like Markstrom was our comparative backup goalies back then.    

 

Guys like Hamilton were regularly benched because we simply had too much depth and it didn't make sense to have everyone burnt out.

 

Since the 1989 Flames nothing has come close to impressing me enough to use as a measuring stick, although the 2004 Flames were admittedly pretty great.

 

I have a much more pessimistic evaluation of our team on paper and especially our team on the ice, but I do know that one day we will see the Stanley Cup back here.

 

I don't think we come anywhere close to comparing to the 2004 Flames right now and even if we did I think we would need a small miracle to go that deep in the playoffs (and an entirely different team makeup).    

 

Our rating of BT isn't that different, I might give him a C or C-.    But I don't see much point in keeping anything less than B+.

 

the problem is that there aren’t GMs that will get more than the B+ you’re looking for. They are not going to Calgary. 
 

Bowman took 2 Cups to Chicago but I guess he inherited a great team but the guy who set the foundation has been failing in Florida. For awhile I’d have loved Talon. 
 

the thing about the 89 Flames us that there were only 21 teams. Even though the skill is better now, back then you still got the best players make the NHL. Comparatively the skill is different, but the fact there were less teams meant teams could build deeper teams. Fletcher also had a near all star team to compete with up north so he was forced to build the best team he could. 

 

Right now there are ten more teams than back then. If you went 3 F lines and 6 D, that’s 210 players to spread around the NHL. 
It’s also 60 Top6 players to spread around 21 teams. Of course they wouldn’t spread fully around the league so teams like Calgary and Edmonton at the time had a few more better players than some teams. 
 

Edited in: 

Also in terms of Top pair D, at that time there would have been 20 more top pairs available across 21 teams, or 40 Top4’s. 

i agree with you in a lot of ways, I am not all that thrilled with the makeup of the team. I think it’s a real Satoshi Nakamoto mix. Hoping it gets better. 
I see some improvements in how the team has been run compared to the 2000s and early 2010s. 
 

is it better? I think yes. Is it Cliff Fletcher days good? No. 

 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, lou44291 said:

Sure. Like I said, those muffins start looking better when your original target doesn’t pan out - otherwise you go home empty handed. And there’s no shortage of people interested in those muffins as well, that you’re competing with. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

But, if my analogy is correct, for Calgary to build a perennially contending team, they’d likely have to do so through the draft AND by acquiring players with term on their contracts. That’s why I was hung up on Eichel (he had term and would have to play out his contract if traded here). We have to target players who don’t have NTCs / NMCs but have term on their contract. I believe I mentioned in a past post about trading Mony for Barzal in some capacity, and I know Barzal is an RFA and there’s risk of an offer sheet, but with the flat cap and most teams handcuffed by their cap space, I see an opportunity to lockup a great player for a long time because he doesn’t have many options. These are the kinds of opportunities I think BT should be targeting, and from what we hear, he’s one of the most active GMs out there communicating so I think it’s only a matter of time before those relationships he’s building start benefiting us in trades. My 2 cents. 

 

would you do Monahan and a first or a second for Barzal? 
 

Barzal doesn’t score as many goals but it looks like he’s more of a true C where offence goes through him. He seems like a playmaker. 
 

 

[jjgallow]

32 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

the problem is that there aren’t GMs that will get more than the B+ you’re looking for. They are not going to Calgary. 

 

 

I would disagree, I would say that the best GMs of 2022 for instance, likely aren't NHL GMs right now and may not even be working in the NHL.  they just need to be given a chance and our organization needs to know what to look for.  And they would likely answer the call of any NHL team.

 

As well, our organization needs to Want the best.  Rather than just want to insure mediocrity for steady ticket sales.

[travel_dude]

17 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

When I think of what to measure up to, I think of the 1989 Flames.   A guy like Markstrom was our comparative backup goalies back then.    

 

Guys like Hamilton were regularly benched because we simply had too much depth and it didn't make sense to have everyone burnt out.

 

Since the 1989 Flames nothing has come close to impressing me enough to use as a measuring stick, although the 2004 Flames were admittedly pretty great.

 

I have a much more pessimistic evaluation of our team on paper and especially our team on the ice, but I do know that one day we will see the Stanley Cup back here.

 

I don't think we come anywhere close to comparing to the 2004 Flames right now and even if we did I think we would need a small miracle to go that deep in the playoffs (and an entirely different team makeup).    

 

Our rating of BT isn't that different, I might give him a C or C-.    But I don't see much point in keeping anything less than B+.

 

The Flames in 2004 were a workhorse team with enough raw skill to take it to the SCF.

That was the hardhat team if I recall.

The 1989 team was a completely different beast from what the NHL is today.

Even the 2004 teams were built on a lot of clutch and grab hockey.

In either of those years there was no cap.

 

There is no formula to being a contender unless you are fortunate to draft that perfect player at the right time.

Then you manage to have the right players at the right time, in their careers or salary progression.

And your goalie happens to peak at that right time.

Tampa was able to add a bunch by giving up picks.

They have to trim this year to get to the cap.

Perfect combo for all of one year.

PITTS and CHI managed a couple each.

 

If you are going to critiquw the team, you need to look at what they are relative to the league this year.

Teams like the 89 Flames and the 88 Oilers don't exist.

The 19/20 TBL won't even be the same.

A lot of teams stripped down, while others went full UFA craziness.

Or traded for questionable players (Josh?) and went big term.. 

Some never replaced all that they lost.

Others decided that their biggest problem was not a problem.

[jjgallow]

8 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

The Flames in 2004 were a workhorse team with enough raw skill to take it to the SCF.

That was the hardhat team if I recall.

The 1989 team was a completely different beast from what the NHL is today.

Even the 2004 teams were built on a lot of clutch and grab hockey.

In either of those years there was no cap.

 

There is no formula to being a contender unless you are fortunate to draft that perfect player at the right time.

Then you manage to have the right players at the right time, in their careers or salary progression.

And your goalie happens to peak at that right time.

Tampa was able to add a bunch by giving up picks.

They have to trim this year to get to the cap.

Perfect combo for all of one year.

PITTS and CHI managed a couple each.

 

If you are going to critiquw the team, you need to look at what they are relative to the league this year.

Teams like the 89 Flames and the 88 Oilers don't exist.

The 19/20 TBL won't even be the same.

A lot of teams stripped down, while others went full UFA craziness.

Or traded for questionable players (Josh?) and went big term.. 

Some never replaced all that they lost.

Others decided that their biggest problem was not a problem.

 

Therein lies the problem, it has been so long since the Flames were dominant that the rules have changed and one can rationalize that it is no longer something to strive for.   Being the best team in the NHL wasn't any easier then.  It may have even been harder.    But sure it can be rationalized to oblivion. 

 

I think there is a universal rule in effect that any of us can, if we choose,  rationalize mediocrity at any given time.    If you factor in all he variables and  all the current factors, at any given time you should  be able to rationalize why being average is ok.   After all, average is the sum of all factors.    Millennials have mastered this.

 

The reality is that we all make a choice.  To strive for the best or to rationalize that away and justify average.

 

Every person and every organization has to make this choice.   I look forward to when the Flames handle this choice differently.