The Rebuild over?

[cross16]

37 minutes ago, rickross said:

 but they still aren't where they would like to be. Deny that as much as you want.

 

This is what I don't understand about the "negative" crowd because this comes up a lot. Who has ever claimed the Flames are a finished product and are exactly where they want to be?

 

If that is how you would define a rebuild so be it, but then about 90% of the NHL is rebuilding in your mind. 

 

I would also disagree the Flames don't have an identity. I think they've had one since February. 

 

[Flyerfan52]

34 minutes ago, rickross said:

The general philosophy of a rebuild is you start from the net on out. The Flames have core forward and defensive pieces but have been unable to secure a core #1 goalie since Kipper retired. IMO, you're core isn't complete without a goalie. It is the most important position on the ice. Penguins have Fleury/Murray, Kings have Quick, Hawks with Crawford, Habs with Price and so on. It is an integral piece you just can't ignore. Some of you claim a rebuild is officially over once a team qualifies for the playoffs but then you look at a team like the Avs who've qualified for the playoffs in recent years and are still in full rebuild mode, playoffs don't always signal the end of a team rebuild. Consider the fact that the Flames are protecting their core players for the expansion draft but no goalies are included on that list. Also this Flames team is still very much trying to figure out who they are, the majority of teams who've completed a rebuild have a set identity. The Flames aren't anywhere near "blow it up" mode anymore but they still aren't where they would like to be. Deny that as much as you want.

 

Also I'm not just basing this off 1 playoff series, but its apparent they are a ways from being a true cup contender. You will never get deep in the playoffs let alone win a Cup without a #1 goalie. 

We have forwards & a decent D but are severly lacking in the last line of defense. Elliott is a decent goalie & @ the right price I wouldn't mind him back as a backup. He runs too hot & cold to count on as a starter.

Thsi summer looks like another buyer's market for UFA goalies. Let Elliott & Johnson join them, let some fool overpay for Bishop & another trade the farm for MAF but sit back & grab a Darling or 1 of the 6 (or more) 'keepers LV will take for prospects/picks.

[rickross]

1 minute ago, Flyerfan52 said:

We have forwards & a decent D but are severly lacking in the last line of defense. Elliott is a decent goalie & @ the right price I wouldn't mind him back as a backup. He runs too hot & cold to count on as a starter.

Thsi summer looks like another buyer's market for UFA goalies. Let Elliott & Johnson join them, let some fool overpay for Bishop & another trade the farm for MAF but sit back & grab a Darling or 1 of the 6 (or more) 'keepers LV will take for prospects/picks.

It's true Elliot may have proven he's more a 1B goalie or backup then an actual starter. Jake Allen has outperformed him in dramatic fashion during these playoffs. I agree, Flames do need a stronger 3rd/4th line pairing, its funny how Wideman wasn't looking like such a bad option anymore after yesterday's game . I think the Flames keep one of Elliot or CJ and go after a bonafide #1, its why I'm almost thinking if the right deal is in place they could part with the #1 draft pick this year. 

[Flyerfan52]

2 minutes ago, rickross said:

It's true Elliot may have proven he's more a 1B goalie or backup then an actual starter. Jake Allen has outperformed him in dramatic fashion during these playoffs. I agree, Flames do need a stronger 3rd/4th line pairing, its funny how Wideman wasn't looking like such a bad option anymore after yesterday's game . I think the Flames keep one of Elliot or CJ and go after a bonafide #1, its why I'm almost thinking if the right deal is in place they could part with the #1 draft pick this year. 

I wouldn't be loathe to trade that 1st but why should we unless it's to LV in my scenario? They know goalies, D & C are what will get them the best return so overload on those.

Teams with good starters like Montreal, Columbus, Washington have to expose someone so likely their more than decent backup. The Pengies lose either MAF or Murray.

I figure via UFA &/or trades that cost little in assets we can get a better tandem in net & use that 1st rounder  for a 4th D to fill out that compliment.

 

We need that RW to play with Gaudreau & Monahan & I'm hearing TB would love to get out of Callahan's contract so they can re-up their RFAs. He's 32, tough as nails but carries a 5.8 x 3 hit. @ something like 1.8-2.0 retained & a return of a later pick & a minor leaguer (to balance the roster maximum) TB gets that valuable cap space while we get a guy much better than his #s suggest.

[AlbertaBoy12]

7 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I wouldn't be loathe to trade that 1st but why should we unless it's to LV in my scenario? They know goalies, D & C are what will get them the best return so overload on those.

Teams with good starters like Montreal, Columbus, Washington have to expose someone so likely their more than decent backup. The Pengies lose either MAF or Murray.

I figure via UFA &/or trades that cost little in assets we can get a better tandem in net & use that 1st rounder  for a 4th D to fill out that compliment.

 

We need that RW to play with Gaudreau & Monahan & I'm hearing TB would love to get out of Callahan's contract so they can re-up their RFAs. He's 32, tough as nails but carries a 5.8 x 3 hit. @ something like 1.8-2.0 retained & a return of a later pick & a minor leaguer (to balance the roster maximum) TB gets that valuable cap space while we get a guy much better than his #s suggest.

This isent necessarily directed at you.

 

Teams with good starters ie columbus(losing their playoff series), washington(also down in their series), chicago(down in their series)are having plenty of trouble in the playoffs. Having a good #1 goalie doesnt gurantee anything in the playoffs and certainly doesnt mean we are bad in net. I wouldnt say elliott has been stellar, but you do not need a core goaltending piece to go far in the playoffs, it defiantly helps but its not necessary. Most teams that have won the cup over the past 10 years or so have had a core goaltending piece, but at the same time I dont think the penguins could have fathomed that murray would have gone on the tear he did last season and taken them to the cup final. 

 

But I agree we might be able to snag a goalie from one of those teams, I dont think for sure the flames go that route though.

 

I dont think we need callahan , why are we making that trade? I agree that hes a valuable player but I dont think we need to replace ferland with a 32 year old very expensive callahan.

[rickross]

3 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

This isent necessarily directed at you.

 

Teams with good starters ie columbus(losing their playoff series), washington(also down in their series), chicago(down in their series)are having plenty of trouble in the playoffs. Having a good #1 goalie doesnt gurantee anything in the playoffs and certainly doesnt mean we are bad in net. I wouldnt say elliott has been stellar, but you do not need a core goaltending piece to go far in the playoffs, it defiantly helps but its not necessary. Most teams that have won the cup over the past 10 years or so have had a core goaltending piece, but at the same time I dont think the penguins could have fathomed that murray would have gone on the tear he did last season and taken them to the cup final. 

 

But I agree we might be able to snag a goalie from one of those teams, I dont think for sure the flames go that route though.

 

I dont think we need callahan , why are we making that trade? I agree that hes a valuable player but I dont think we need to replace ferland with a 32 year old very expensive callahan.

You're contradicting yourself. Bottom line you need solid goaltending in the playoffs and a reliable starter... like you denied only to confirm, more often than not it proves to be the difference.

[AlbertaBoy12]

27 minutes ago, rickross said:

You're contradicting yourself. Bottom line you need solid goaltending in the playoffs and a reliable starter... like you denied only to confirm, more often than not it proves to be the difference.

no im not. I said that must cup winners have had solid goaltending but I also pointed out that those same teams ie chicago are also struggling this year with the same goaltender. You cherry picked two lines from my entire statement.

[rickross]

12 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

no im not. I said that must cup winners have had solid goaltending but I also pointed out that those same teams ie chicago are also struggling this year with the same goaltender. You cherry picked two lines from my entire statement.

Again, you're missing the point. Columbus (Bobrovsky), Chicago(Crawford) Washington(Holtby) amongst others all have a vetted #1 goalie as part of their core. Look at the Edmonton Oilers, Talbot is a major reason for their turn around and playoff success this year. You keep ignoring the importance of having a core goalie as if it doesn't matter when you clearly stated "Most teams that have won the cup over the past 10 years or so have had a core goaltending piece". Not to mention you're devaluing the importance of the goalie by judging it off of 1 playoff series...which is awfully shortsighted. 

[AlbertaBoy12]

29 minutes ago, rickross said:

Again, you're missing the point. Columbus (Bobrovsky), Chicago(Crawford) Washington(Holtby) amongst others all have a vetted #1 goalie as part of their core. Look at the Edmonton Oilers, Talbot is a major reason for their turn around and playoff success this year. You keep ignoring the importance of having a core goalie as if it doesn't matter when you clearly stated "Most teams that have won the cup over the past 10 years or so have had a core goaltending piece". Not to mention you're devaluing the importance of the goalie by judging it off of 1 playoff series...which is awfully shortsighted. 

Youre doing the same thing with this series currently. Elliott and CJ did a good job getting us into the playoffs, im not devaluing the importance, im saying youre overstating the importance of having a core goalie. 

 

One playoff series is what youre talking about, and just to further prove how anything can happen in the playoffs the oilers had to pull talbot tonight after san jose put up a 5 spot, now 6-0. 

 

The point is a good team doesnt necessarily need a core #1 goalie, pittsbugh brought in a untested rookie to their team during the playoffs and won the cup. Any team can win in the playoffs and while you need good goaltending, you dont need a big name core #1 goalie to win a playoff series. I would argue jones in san jose is a good example of that, hes a solid goalie but I wouldnt put him in the same category of the goalies from columbus or washington. If we are looking at this objectively the difference between crawford and elliott isent that great either, statiscally speaking they both have been good in the playoffs/ reg season, but they arent exactly elite goaltenders. They do enough for their teams to win and its obvious elliott didnt have a great season. If elliott had been playing average we could have won 2 games so far lets say, further proving how little you need an elliott core goaltender( same as crawford).

[jjgallow]

this thread can wait until after the playoffs..no?   It can for me, anyway

[DirtyDeeds]

On 4/18/2017 at 10:33 AM, travel_dude said:

 

Absolutely.

 

First year in implementing a dramatic change to possession systems.  Flames improved by leaps and bounds over the BH years.

Starting the year in a huge hole and managing to make the playoffs.

Finally replacing a stay-in-bed defenseman with a player that could skate.  Still need to fill that hole if we don't sign Stone.

Development of three good lines.

 

Were we outclassed by the Ducks?  No way.

Would we have had different results against any of the other West teams?  Most likely.

We need to replace some players whose contracts are ending or they don't offer enough value for results.

The goalie search may continue or like Dougie's first year, we need to provide them with the chance to fit.

 

On 4/18/2017 at 11:09 AM, AlbertaBoy12 said:

This is a very important piece in the whole equation as much as people dont like to admit it, obviously playing better doesnt always win you hockey games. But its important considering when we played the ducks 2 years ago we got dominated in most senses of the word and only just barely snuck out the 1 win. I dont think whether we get sweeped or come back to win a couple games it changes how excited I am for the future of this team considering they are only going to get better. The goalie thing is obviously still an issue, but theres not much BT can do theres not loads of guys on the market who can fill the true #1 role. The hawks might get swept by the preds, that doesnt make the blackhawks a bad hockey club, and I would look at it the same with the flames. The playoffs can go either way and theres no way anyone can say the flames didnt deserve to win 2 of the 3 games. 

 

The negative nancys will come in and say well deserving to win and actually winning are two totally different things. I agree, but deserving to win usually leads to better results over time, or you end up getting jack adams winner BH, and the flames of two years ago.

I guess you guys forgot the Ducks were missing 2 & 3 of their top 4 D most nights?

 

Imagine how good we would be without Gio, Hamilton and Brodie on D and tell me we played as good as them? We only got decent results because their D was pretty much decimated.

[AlbertaBoy12]

3 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

 

I guess you guys forgot the Ducks were missing 2 & 3 of their top 4 D most nights?

 

Imagine how good we would be without Gio, Hamilton and Brodie on D and tell me we played as good as them? We only got decent results because their D was pretty much decimated.

Pittsburgh doesnt exactly have a world beater defence and are missing letang, didnt stop them from running rough shot over Columbus in 5 games. Obviously they arent missing 2 or 3 guys, but they are missing their best guy and the rest of their D isent really high quality guys. Im not saying Pittsburgh and Anaheim are the same team, but to say we only got decent results because they didnt have fowler, vatanen etc is kind of the same thing as saying we only lost because of bad bounces. All of the things came together to equal a loss, maybe things would have been different if they had fowler, vatanen etc. Maybe things would be different if we got better luck and didnt shoot 2% at 5 on 5. We will never know, doesnt take away from the fact the team played better then they did two years ago.

[DirtyDeeds]

26 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Pittsburgh doesnt exactly have a world beater defence and are missing letang, didnt stop them from running rough shot over Columbus in 5 games. Obviously they arent missing 2 or 3 guys, but they are missing their best guy and the rest of their D isent really high quality guys. Im not saying Pittsburgh and Anaheim are the same team, but to say we only got decent results because they didnt have fowler, vatanen etc is kind of the same thing as saying we only lost because of bad bounces. All of the things came together to equal a loss, maybe things would have been different if they had fowler, vatanen etc. Maybe things would be different if we got better luck and didnt shoot 2% at 5 on 5. We will never know, doesnt take away from the fact the team played better then they did two years ago.

This was my point.. Did we really play better? or was the Duck team just a lot worse for wear?

 

We obviously are a better team on paper and should have had much better results than we did. At least BH managed 1 win against a stronger(healthier team) with a lesser team(us on paper)

[AlbertaBoy12]

11 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

This was my point.. Did we really play better? or was the Duck team just a lot worse for wear?

 

We obviously are a better team on paper and should have had much better results than we did. At least BH managed 1 win against a stronger(healthier team) with a lesser team(us on paper)

I agree completely. Im just saying their D didnt seem as important to their system as say our D are, as they basically are worried about puck retrievals and then getting the puck up to their forwards. We also dont really know if we had got better bounces how things would have turned out.

 

I think the playoffs this year are just one of the things we dont really know, you are right. But at the same time we were one of the top 5 teams in the league since febuary and considering a bunch of our top 6 guys were playing with injuries, ie backlund, frolik,mony etc. Im more then happy with this team and looking forward to next season.

[jaybooitt19]

11 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

This was my point.. Did we really play better? or was the Duck team just a lot worse for wear?

 

We obviously are a better team on paper and should have had much better results than we did. At least BH managed 1 win against a stronger(healthier team) with a lesser team(us on paper)

Hartley isn't the coach anymore, I think it's time to get over it. 

[cross16]

Flames lost the first two games of that 2015 series 9-1 and the one game they did win required a lucky delay of game penalty in the last two 2 minutes of the game for them to score with under a minute left to go to OT. 

 

No question they were much better this go around than last. Anaheim dominated that series in 2015 and the flames were never really in it. Better goaltending and a couple bounces going their way won them a game. 

[phoenix66]

13 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

This was my point.. Did we really play better? or was the Duck team just a lot worse for wear?

 

We obviously are a better team on paper and should have had much better results than we did. At least BH managed 1 win against a stronger(healthier team) with a lesser team(us on paper)

 

want to get really picky . in that series Ramo made it closer than it should have been. .. we basically had goaltending and not much else that season .. this year we outplayed them but didn't get the goaltending 

[DirtyDeeds]

2 hours ago, jaybooitt19 said:

Hartley isn't the coach anymore, I think it's time to get over it. 

Getting over it isn't a problem. Using him for comparison is a natural and best example. Just because we parted ways with him(GM's choice) doesn't mean we can't talk about him anymore or talk about his his record. If you don't want to acknowledge him or his accomplishments then don't reply.

 

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

Flames lost the first two games of that 2015 series 9-1 and the one game they did win required a lucky delay of game penalty in the last two 2 minutes of the game for them to score with under a minute left to go to OT. 

 

No question they were much better this go around than last. Anaheim dominated that series in 2015 and the flames were never really in it. Better goaltending and a couple bounces going their way won them a game. 

 

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

 

want to get really picky . in that series Ramo made it closer than it should have been. .. we basically had goaltending and not much else that season .. this year we outplayed them but didn't get the goaltending 

That team also had a healthy D. There is no reason to believe the Flames would have done as well this go around if all of the Ducks top D were healthy.

 

Some have said when healthy they have the deepest D in the league.

 

I have no doubt that we would not have looked nearly as good had all the Ducks D been healthy enough to play.

[MAC331]

21 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Getting over it isn't a problem. Using him for comparison is a natural and best example. Just because we parted ways with him(GM's choice) doesn't mean we can't talk about him anymore or talk about his his record. If you don't want to acknowledge him or his accomplishments then don't reply.

 

 

That team also had a healthy D. There is no reason to believe the Flames would have done as well this go around if all of the Ducks top D were healthy.

 

Some have said when healthy they have the deepest D in the league.

 

I have no doubt that we would not have looked nearly as good had all the Ducks D been healthy enough to play.

Weaknesses will always show up some more dramatic than others. ANA does have a crop of good young defensemen and a mature system which is why they can perform when a defenseman such as Fowler is out. Flames have been learning their system and nurturing a young core in order to become better. All this series showed IMO is we are not quite where we need to be as a team yet.

[travel_dude]

31 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Getting over it isn't a problem. Using him for comparison is a natural and best example. Just because we parted ways with him(GM's choice) doesn't mean we can't talk about him anymore or talk about his his record. If you don't want to acknowledge him or his accomplishments then don't reply.

 

 

That team also had a healthy D. There is no reason to believe the Flames would have done as well this go around if all of the Ducks top D were healthy.

 

Some have said when healthy they have the deepest D in the league.

 

I have no doubt that we would not have looked nearly as good had all the Ducks D been healthy enough to play.

 

The guys that subbed in were better than our bottom 3D.  I don't think they play that much better against us with Fowler or Vatanen in the lineup.  In the regular season, those two accounted for exactly 1 point against us.  Defensively, they may have had more of an impact but then again, our goaltending made it worse for us.

 

We were bad even strength, but a lot better on the PP and PK.

 

 

[DirtyDeeds]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The guys that subbed in were better than our bottom 3D.  I don't think they play that much better against us with Fowler or Vatanen in the lineup.  In the regular season, those two accounted for exactly 1 point against us.  Defensively, they may have had more of an impact but then again, our goaltending made it worse for us.

 

We were bad even strength, but a lot better on the PP and PK.

 

 

Special teams are important but only about 1/3rd of most games. Maybe a touch more considering the Ducks and Flames don't get along very well together.

[phoenix66]

9 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

That team also had a healthy D. There is no reason to believe the Flames would have done as well this go around if all of the Ducks top D were healthy.

 

Some have said when healthy they have the deepest D in the league.

 

I have no doubt that we would not have looked nearly as good had all the Ducks D been healthy enough to play.

and we were misisng Gio...they do pretty much have the deepest D.. we might have done even better if Fowler had played, Theodore was a major player in this series, they didnt even miss Fowler 

We didnt look good.. we looked badly overmatched..there was never a shred of hope in that series, it was just a question of how far we could stretch it 

[travel_dude]

9 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Special teams are important but only about 1/3rd of most games. Maybe a touch more considering the Ducks and Flames don't get along very well together.

 

The point was that we improved special teams but failed to be good even strength.

[jjgallow]

 

So, reading through this, I think it's fair to say that we're not happy with the results.

 

Whether you spin that in a positive or negative way, I think it's fair to say that most on here want more from the team than first round 4-0 exits.  At least, I hope.

 

 

So....from that perspective, we're not done the rebuild.

 

But, from a prospect pipeline perspective, we are done.   We're not getting top picks this year (which is also a weak year), we don't have enough in the pipeline to see the kind of improvements we want, and the 2018/2019 draft is a far away land.

 

We are in the twilight zone.

 

And I don't like it.