The Rebuild over?

[CheersMan]

4 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Which teams are those?

 

Outside of Chicago who rebuilt "better" or differently than the Flames?

 

Did you get drawn into that hopeless argument again where common sense clashes with absurdity?

[cross16]

9 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

 

Did you get drawn into that hopeless argument again where common sense clashes with absurdity?

 

Glutton for punishment 

 

I am interested though because I don't see any teams ahead of the Flames right now who did a better job in their rebuild but always open to hearing an opposiing argument. 

[Carty]

23 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

Did you get drawn into that hopeless argument again where common sense clashes with absurdity?

 

    

[The_People1]

21 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

On one hand, the Flames have goaltended their way to me thinking about eating my words by end of season.

 

On the other hand, at 15th overall in the NHL, this is, imho, a Worst Case scenario and the ultimate problem with band-aids.

 

With nearly zero chance of winning the cup,

With not exceptionally good odds of making the playoffs,

With nearly zero chance of a top 5 draft pick,

With the bad-aid relying on 30-something goalies, and our next top goaltending prospect (Gillies) not a clear AHL starter.

With Edmonton and Columbus clearly ahead of us in the standings in what appears to be a long term trend

With zero chance of acquiring prospects at the trade deadline

 

Essentially, more of the same drift we've seen over the last 10 years.

 

We've watched other teams take it on the chin in their rebuilds, and actually take their rebuilds seriously.   We did the "right thing" by never really committing to any one thing.  And floated through our rebuild with mediocrity, and no solid plan to advance from there.

 

But yes, our 30-something goaltenders have allowed us to be in the middle of the league.  A definite "improvement".

 

I definitely advocated tanking for a higher pick during the early years of our rebuild including trading Giordano the same year we traded JBo and Iginla. A complete rebuild.  But alas, we are where we are and even in hindsight, it's not entirely fair to say we would've gotten MacKinnon, Ekblad, McDavid, and/or Matthews because we would never know.  Plus, lotto odds could've altered our draft position.

 

Would be nice to have all 4 yes.

 

Might be a better argument to say we should've targeted D early on.  For example, draft Ristolainen over Monahan in '13.  Draft Hadyn Fleury in '14 (and definitely Demko over McDonald in round 2). Trade for Hamilton in '15.  And then draft Sergachev in '16.  In all cases, we could've traded down to gain additional assets.  

 

Because after all, I do believe in building from the back out.  We would be nowhere near the playoff picture this year but we would be looking very good for Nolan Patrick and 4 stud bluechip D to go along with Gillies and Demko.  

 

[jjgallow]

32 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I definitely advocated tanking for a higher pick during the early years of our rebuild including trading Giordano the same year we traded JBo and Iginla. A complete rebuild.  But alas, we are where we are and even in hindsight, it's not entirely fair to say we would've gotten MacKinnon, Ekblad, McDavid, and/or Matthews because we would never know.  Plus, lotto odds could've altered our draft position.

 

Would be nice to have all 4 yes.

 

Might be a better argument to say we should've targeted D early on.  For example, draft Ristolainen over Monahan in '13.  Draft Hadyn Fleury in '14 (and definitely Demko over McDonald in round 2). Trade for Hamilton in '15.  And then draft Sergachev in '16.  In all cases, we could've traded down to gain additional assets.  

 

Because after all, I do believe in building from the back out.  We would be nowhere near the playoff picture this year but we would be looking very good for Nolan Patrick and 4 stud bluechip D to go along with Gillies and Demko.  

 

 

Completely agree

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

I definitely advocated tanking for a higher pick during the early years of our rebuild including trading Giordano the same year we traded JBo and Iginla. A complete rebuild.  But alas, we are where we are and even in hindsight, it's not entirely fair to say we would've gotten MacKinnon, Ekblad, McDavid, and/or Matthews because we would never know.  Plus, lotto odds could've altered our draft position.

 

Would be nice to have all 4 yes.

 

Might be a better argument to say we should've targeted D early on.  For example, draft Ristolainen over Monahan in '13.  Draft Hadyn Fleury in '14 (and definitely Demko over McDonald in round 2). Trade for Hamilton in '15.  And then draft Sergachev in '16.  In all cases, we could've traded down to gain additional assets.  

 

Because after all, I do believe in building from the back out.  We would be nowhere near the playoff picture this year but we would be looking very good for Nolan Patrick and 4 stud bluechip D to go along with Gillies and Demko.  

 

That's a tough 1. I really like Monahan but am starting to think Ristolanen might be the best player in that draft.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

So you guys would prefer to build a team based on hopes, dreams, wishes and lottery odds? Sound about right?  Edmonton did that and is anyone actually going to suggest that Edmonton chances at winning a cup in the next 5-7 years are really better than Calgarys?

 

Makes zero sense to me to me why we are complaining about a team that could make the playoffs twice in 4 years during a rebuild and only be in year 4 of that rebuild. Why is it we assuming the Flames aren't going to continue to get better or have maxed out with this current version? I think this team is only going to get better. 

 

Also makes  no sense why we are writing off Jon Gilles, Mason McDonald and assuming they have nothing in David rittich. Seems to me a lot of people would prefer to make bold predictions and have a team built their own way instead of how teams are realistically built. 

 

I would have preferred a team built from the back out.  So that means, inherently, longer and slower rebuild because D take longer to develop.  It would certainly mean no playoffs for 4 to 5 years but I do feel from a philosophical point of view, that would have been the better way to rebuild.   

 

Sometimes it's the luck of the draw, of course.  If Laine was there, do i pass and take Joulevi?  No way.

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, flyerfans52 said:

That's a tough 1. I really like Monahan but am starting to think Ristolanen might be the best player in that draft.

 

Ya tough one man.  Ristolainen over Seth Jones and Nurse easily.  I would still take MacKinnon #1 though.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, CheersMan said:

Wow!  Just WOW! 

Johnson stops 3 straight breakaways in the 3^rd to preserve the win and not one comment here from the peanut gallery.  He has a 0.923 SA% while playing mostly contenders yet some still want the other guy.  Others would sooner talk about how poorly we drafted down center recently, our weakest position at the time and would rather seen some far fetched dmen choices instead.  The Benny Hill show was funny but this stuff here above………

 

I'm okay actually.  I've reconciled and i'm ready to move on... which appears to be different from JJ's stance on the issue (sorry JJ).  I'm okay to just take what we have and look ahead rather than dwell on what could have been.  I discuss the past only for the lulz knowing what's done is done. We have some good pieces that even though we didn't tank it hardcore and rebuild the team "my way", we have these valuable pieces that if we choose to, we can trade them for equally good assets (not suggesting we should, just saying we could.)

 

And regardless of whether we tanked it hardcore or not, it's not and never was about the 1st rounder or the high pick.  It's is, and always has been, drafting well in all rounds.  We need to continue to draft the Gaudreaus and Brodies in the 4th rounds.  We need to continue to find gems like Ferland and Bouma to round out the support structure.  And yes, we need to keep turning other people's trash into gold in players like Chad Johnson.

 

I think Johnson is a keeper.

[CheersMan]

26 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I'm okay actually.  I've reconciled and i'm ready to move on... which appears to be different from JJ's stance on the issue (sorry JJ).  I'm okay to just take what we have and look ahead rather than dwell on what could have been.  I discuss the past only for the lulz knowing what's done is done. We have some good pieces that even though we didn't tank it hardcore and rebuild the team "my way", we have these valuable pieces that if we choose to, we can trade them for equally good assets (not suggesting we should, just saying we could.)

 

And regardless of whether we tanked it hardcore or not, it's not and never was about the 1st rounder or the high pick.  It's is, and always has been, drafting well in all rounds.  We need to continue to draft the Gaudreaus and Brodies in the 4th rounds.  We need to continue to find gems like Ferland and Bouma to round out the support structure.  And yes, we need to keep turning other people's trash into gold in players like Chad Johnson.

 

I think Johnson is a keeper.

 

I like this one Peeps!

[cross16]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I would have preferred a team built from the back out.  So that means, inherently, longer and slower rebuild because D take longer to develop.  It would certainly mean no playoffs for 4 to 5 years but I do feel from a philosophical point of view, that would have been the better way to rebuild.   

 

Sometimes it's the luck of the draw, of course.  If Laine was there, do i pass and take Joulevi?  No way.

 

 

I agree Peeps but this is also my point. there is so set blueprint that you can use to build a team or some blueprint that says if you build like this you will win a cup. If they would have taken all D where does the number one center come from? Have to take the best player and I think they did that in every occasion they had a lottery pick in. 

 

Not liked they ignored the D either and still wound up with a top 3 that is as good as any in the league IMO. won't be that difficult to fill out 4-6. 

 

I also don't agree with the build from the net out. I think you build down the middle because i think in today's game being good and deep at C is just as important as being good on the blueline and they are just as tough to find. 

[The_People1]

10 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree Peeps but this is also my point. there is so set blueprint that you can use to build a team or some blueprint that says if you build like this you will win a cup. If they would have taken all D where does the number one center come from? Have to take the best player and I think they did that in every occasion they had a lottery pick in. 

 

Not liked they ignored the D either and still wound up with a top 3 that is as good as any in the league IMO. won't be that difficult to fill out 4-6. 

 

I also don't agree with the build from the net out. I think you build down the middle because i think in today's game being good and deep at C is just as important as being good on the blueline and they are just as tough to find. 

 

If we drafted all D then where does the #1 Center come from?  They would come now.  Near the end of a 5 year rebuild.  Ya we would suck.  Hardcore.  It would be lotto odds for Nolan Patrick this year most definitely.

 

Theoretically speaking, high end D hit prime around 23-years-old.  High end forwards hit prime around 20-years-old.  By drafting D the first 3 to 4 years and then drafting forwards afterward, you pave the way for all your high end prospects to push towards a peak simultaneously in year 6 or so.  Ya long rebuild I know but you will never have to look back afterwards for a decade or longer.  

 

I understand this is just theoretical but the theory is sound and can yield high success.  I do believe this is a winning blueprint.

 

I'm also a BPA guy myself so that means if it's our turn to draft and the best player available doesn't play the position we'd like him to, then that makes following the theory to a T rather difficult.  Still, we can, for example, offer to trade Monahan for Ristolainen simply because we drafted BPA.  Likewise, BPA allows us to offer Bennett for Hadyn Fleury if we chose to and they would likely say yes.

 

Anyways, I do believe in building form the net out but it's not always available because there are so many variables you cannot control and so many options you cannot foresee ahead of time.

 

[jjgallow]

10 hours ago, cross16 said:

I also don't agree with the build from the net out. I think you build down the middle because i think in today's game being good and deep at C is just as important as being good on the blueline and they are just as tough to find. 

 

I just personally think this is irrelevant, because the truth is you need it all.  You need great goaltending, great defence, a great middle, and quite honestly, you need great wingers if you want to win the cup.  There's very little point in arguing about our favorite positions (hope that didn't come out wrong).

 

Nobody's interested in a discussion about how to build PART of a team, and which parts we would build.

 

A rebuild means a Rebuild.   Of a team.  A whole team.    At least, I feel it should.

 

So it comes down to development time.   That's why you build from the net out.

 

The downside, is you don't get instant results, if you address your long term issues first.

 

The debate is:  Do you build for the long run, or address short term needs?   Which, at that time, was Center?    

 

p.s....It still dissapoints me when fans on here call it "tanking" if you address your long term needs first.   The equivalent would be, if you have a family and you have a choice between buying a Brand New Minivan, or throwing $30K into the kid's RESP.

 

So ...the parents who don't buy the minivan, by the same logic, would be failing their kids.

[MAC331]

10 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I just personally think this is irrelevant, because the truth is you need it all.  You need great goaltending, great defence, a great middle, and quite honestly, you need great wingers if you want to win the cup.  There's very little point in arguing about our favorite positions (hope that didn't come out wrong).

 

Nobody's interested in a discussion about how to build PART of a team, and which parts we would build.

 

A rebuild means a Rebuild.   Of a team.  A whole team.    At least, I feel it should.

 

So it comes down to development time.   That's why you build from the net out.

 

The downside, is you don't get instant results, if you address your long term issues first.

 

The debate is:  Do you build for the long run, or address short term needs?   Which, at that time, was Center?    

 

p.s....It still dissapoints me when fans on here call it "tanking" if you address your long term needs first.   The equivalent would be, if you have a family and you have a choice between buying a Brand New Minivan, or throwing $30K into the kid's RESP.

 

So ...the parents who don't buy the minivan, by the same logic, would be failing their kids.

There is no perfect way to address a rebuild really. You try to keep what is good and working while getting rid of what isn't. the process gets handicapped by poor or bad decision by the GMs.

I don't mind how the Flames have gone about it but have to say I am more encouraged since BT has come on board. I think this next offseason will allow a number of bad situations within the current roster to get corrected and we have a quality pipeline building some quality prospects. Both current goaltenders expire at the end of this season so who they keep or go it should prove interesting.

[The_People1]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

And what if you don't get Nolan Patrick? Statistically speaking you are more likely to not get him then you will so what's the plan B? continue to suck until the next big center prospect comes along?

 

What if we don't get MacKinnon? Well then we get Barkov or Monahan.

 

What if we don't get Reinhart? Well then we get Draisaitl or Bennett.

 

What if we don't get Nolan Patrick? Well then the next Center on the list...

[cross16]

9 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What if we don't get MacKinnon? Well then we get Barkov or Monahan.

 

What if we don't get Reinhart? Well then we get Draisaitl or Bennett.

 

What if we don't get Nolan Patrick? Well then the next Center on the list...

 

Problem though is there is a huge step down from Nolan Patrick to the next center in the draft this year. I think Patrick is really the only one who realistically could wind up being a number one center. That is the problem I have with the theory. Sure in a perfect world and in perfect settings it could work but I don't think its practical in the real world but I also understand you are taking theory. I just don't think its a practical theory that's all, relies on too many variables outside your control and would rely on an insane amount of factors going your way. A

 

The last few years have been a little insane actually how talented the drafts were. I don't think its reasonable to expect the next few years to be the same. Likely in for a little bit of a talent "correction" . 

[MAC331]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

And what if you don't get Nolan Patrick? Statistically speaking you are more likely to not get him then you will so what's the plan B? continue to suck until the next big center prospect comes along?

 

 

Center is never a short term need it is always a long term need because you always need good centers and you need to keep a pipeline of good centers around because the cap will prevent you from hoarding center talent. They just simply are starting to get paid way too much. The Flames drafting centers was never about a short term need it was a long term need. 

I think in today's NHL everyone will be addressing revolving needs created by the cap environment. It has become almost impossible to build and keep all the pieces one would like to keep in order to maintain a level of competiveness. I look at where the Flames are with their current core and pipeline and see us in a good place. Add in a few years of experience for this core to develop further together and we have a very good team.

[Flyerfan52]

23 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What if we don't get MacKinnon? Well then we get Barkov or Monahan.

 

What if we don't get Reinhart? Well then we get Draisaitl or Bennett.

 

What if we don't get Nolan Patrick? Well then the next Center on the list...

It depends on the draft year as the 2 you mention were top heavy in centers.

Last year Matthews was far & away the best center with the next 1s taken being Keller (7), Jost (10) & Brown (11). I'm sure the Jets prefer Laine & we prefer Tkachuk to those 3 (& maybe even Matthews in the Jets case).

************************************************************************************************

I believe Johnson has earned an extention but still worry about using a career backup as starter @ 30. It re-signed I hope we find him a good guy to tandem with over the summer. We'll have the cap space to fill the last line of defense.

*******************************************************************************************************

As you can see my regular account is back. Kudos to Kulstad for all that work.

[JTech780]

When it comes to rebuilding through the draft you take the best talent you can get regardless of position.  Preferably you prioritize centers and defense in the 1st round, which is what Calgary has done for the most part.

 

When you look at Chicago and Pittsburgh, probably the two most famous examples of bottoming out rebuilds, I think they got a bit lucky with their star players. Crosby fell in Pittsburgh's lap through a league wide lottery, they didn't bottom out to get him. Chicago got Toews 3rd overall, mostly because Pittsburgh blew their pick on Jordan Staal. With both players it's not just their talent that makes them successful it's their dedication to winning and doing what it takes to win.

 

I don't think bottoming out for a MacKinnon or McDavid or Matthews or Patrick guarantees anything, because I really don't see that same dedication to winning with any of those guys. McDavid or Matthews might get there, but they might not. I really like MacKinnon but he doesn't have that ability and I don't see that from Patrick either.

 

As far as building from the net out, that is much easier said than done. First goalies are a crap shoot, even Gillies our supposed blue chip goalie prospect is a long shot to be a star goalie, and that has nothing to do with our development IMO, even while at college he was prone to mental lapses but the fact that he was playing in front of a great defensive system helped make his stats look really good.

 

If you look at Chicago the goalie was the last thing that came in their rebuild.

 

 

[MAC331]

42 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

When it comes to rebuilding through the draft you take the best talent you can get regardless of position.  Preferably you prioritize centers and defense in the 1st round, which is what Calgary has done for the most part.

 

When you look at Chicago and Pittsburgh, probably the two most famous examples of bottoming out rebuilds, I think they got a bit lucky with their star players. Crosby fell in Pittsburgh's lap through a league wide lottery, they didn't bottom out to get him. Chicago got Toews 3rd overall, mostly because Pittsburgh blew their pick on Jordan Staal. With both players it's not just their talent that makes them successful it's their dedication to winning and doing what it takes to win.

 

I don't think bottoming out for a MacKinnon or McDavid or Matthews or Patrick guarantees anything, because I really don't see that same dedication to winning with any of those guys. McDavid or Matthews might get there, but they might not. I really like MacKinnon but he doesn't have that ability and I don't see that from Patrick either.

 

As far as building from the net out, that is much easier said than done. First goalies are a crap shoot, even Gillies our supposed blue chip goalie prospect is a long shot to be a star goalie, and that has nothing to do with our development IMO, even while at college he was prone to mental lapses but the fact that he was playing in front of a great defensive system helped make his stats look really good.

 

If you look at Chicago the goalie was the last thing that came in their rebuild.

 

 

I have always agreed with the BPA approach with a draft, you can always trade later down the line for a more pressing need. Most prospects are unpredictable for what they may turn out like in the NHL because they are so young. As they mature mentally and physically within the league is when you find out what you truly have in a player. As an example look how we question both Monahan and Bennett while we watch Tkachuk have some immediate success.

I watched DuBois at the WJC and thought he was terrible and look at Puljujarvi touted to be an immediate NHL talent struggled and sent down. You just never know.

[conundrumed]

47 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I have always agreed with the BPA approach with a draft, you can always trade later down the line for a more pressing need. Most prospects are unpredictable for what they may turn out like in the NHL because they are so young. As they mature mentally and physically within the league is when you find out what you truly have in a player. As an example look how we question both Monahan and Bennett while we watch Tkachuk have some immediate success.

I watched DuBois at the WJC and thought he was terrible and look at Puljujarvi touted to be an immediate NHL talent struggled and sent down. You just never know.

There is so much rhetoric regarding the kids it's impossible to wade through it all. I found Puljijarvi's hype surprising when matched with a Finnish GM being pretty outspoken in not being high on him, and most of his scoring last year was on the PP.

I think in a lot of instances the rankings coming into their draft season are likely more accurate before the hype machine gets in gear. It's amazing how size is so over-played, such as Dubois and the Ritchie's etc.

Unfortunately, I had the pleasure of seeing what they did to Chychrun, a player I saw a lot of in our community and hanging out with the kids' practices during the week.

I was pretty sure he'd make the NHL this year, and the constant attacks were based on him constantly playing all of the tough minutes ahead of everyone else in jr and tourneys. It never flattered his stats, but it was completely overlooked by far too many.

I was pretty much welling up for the guy until ARI took him. There isn't a player alive you can't pull 6 minutes of mistakes from, I don't know why Chychrun's were sensationalized to the point you rank Juolevi as a better dman, glad Van did though. I'd take Fabbro over Juolevi, personally.

 

Back to goaltending, I haven't watched him (just got Android) but Rittich sure is putting up numbers that suggest maybe he's above the AHL??

[Flyerfan52]

33 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

There is so much rhetoric regarding the kids it's impossible to wade through it all. I found Puljijarvi's hype surprising when matched with a Finnish GM being pretty outspoken in not being high on him, and most of his scoring last year was on the PP.

I think in a lot of instances the rankings coming into their draft season are likely more accurate before the hype machine gets in gear. It's amazing how size is so over-played, such as Dubois and the Ritchie's etc.

Unfortunately, I had the pleasure of seeing what they did to Chychrun, a player I saw a lot of in our community and hanging out with the kids' practices during the week.

I was pretty sure he'd make the NHL this year, and the constant attacks were based on him constantly playing all of the tough minutes ahead of everyone else in jr and tourneys. It never flattered his stats, but it was completely overlooked by far too many.

I was pretty much welling up for the guy until ARI took him. There isn't a player alive you can't pull 6 minutes of mistakes from, I don't know why Chychrun's were sensationalized to the point you rank Juolevi as a better dman, glad Van did though. I'd take Fabbro over Juolevi, personally.

 

Back to goaltending, I haven't watched him (just got Android) but Rittich sure is putting up numbers that suggest maybe he's above the AHL??

I was hoping we'd somehow be able to get a 2nd 1st rounder to snag Chychrun too. But after taking Tkachuk & trading #35 for Elliot we didn't have the picks to move up.

[conundrumed]

4 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I was hoping we'd somehow be able to get a 2nd 1st rounder to snag Chychrun too. But after taking Tkachuk & trading #35 for Elliot we didn't have the picks to move up.

It's kind of mind-blowing retribution that ARI took on Datsyuk's $7.5 to get Chychrun though.

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Problem though is there is a huge step down from Nolan Patrick to the next center in the draft this year.

 

I do not think the discussion is exclusive to this draft year (although I may have started off with that).  I think most are talking about the last 4-5 years and the cumulative effect of band-aiding your way through a "rebuild", and missing out on All of the superstars available over the last 4-5 years (not just Nolan).

 

There's a million ways to do it, but at the end of the day there is no getting around the fact that we missed out on a Lot of the top talent by band-aiding our way through this.  It has added up cumulatively, every single draft position we missed out on by front-loading our "rebuild".   That is the math, and we can debate the severity of the effect, but not the effect itself.  Especially in a lottery based system.   Our odds of getting any one of those superstars may never have been great, even finishing last.  But the odds of missing all of them?   Pretty unlikely in a true rebuild.  None of the other rebuilding teams missed out.

[AlbertaBoy12]

32 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I do not think the discussion is exclusive to this draft year (although I may have started off with that).  I think most are talking about the last 4-5 years and the cumulative effect of band-aiding your way through a "rebuild", and missing out on All of the superstars available over the last 4-5 years (not just Nolan).

 

There's a million ways to do it, but at the end of the day there is no getting around the fact that we missed out on a Lot of the top talent by band-aiding our way through this.  It has added up cumulatively, every single draft position we missed out on by front-loading our "rebuild".   That is the math, and we can debate the severity of the effect, but not the effect itself.  Especially in a lottery based system.   Our odds of getting any one of those superstars may never have been great, even finishing last.  But the odds of missing all of them?   Pretty unlikely in a true rebuild.  None of the other rebuilding teams missed out.

This is the most ridiculous thing ive ever seen you post, its almost laughable.