Sam Bennett

[sak22]

43 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

Al Coats, pretty underrated GM who was just hired at the wrong time for the Flames. Unfortunate timing on what could have been a good Gm but story of life in the Flames organization. 

 

thanks for posting that, because his rationale is bang on. When you have to move high end talents I think this is the better play. 

 

 

It's frustrating to think back on the end of the 2000 season and think if we just stayed the course good things would've happened, but the reality is there was no confidence from the fans (at least the paying ones) that the team was heading in the right direction.  We can sit and blame ownership for making the move then, but there was no belief in that group that there was 1 future HOFer let alone 2, plus 2 other players that would become point per game players, if there was there would be no Save the Flames campaign.  Coats made great budget moves in bringing in young talent, but at the same time drafted quite poorly.

[jjgallow]

39 minutes ago, sak22 said:

It's frustrating to think back on the end of the 2000 season and think if we just stayed the course good things would've happened, but the reality is there was no confidence from the fans (at least the paying ones) that the team was heading in the right direction.  We can sit and blame ownership for making the move then, but there was no belief in that group that there was 1 future HOFer let alone 2, plus 2 other players that would become point per game players, if there was there would be no Save the Flames campaign.  Coats made great budget moves in bringing in young talent, but at the same time drafted quite poorly.

 

Back then when we traded those players I believed the Flames and assumed it was the right move as they were experts.

 

Have not done so since lol

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, sak22 said:

What's a hockey equivalent of that trade?  Since Leonard was a former Finals MVP and 26, would that be criteria.  There are currently 0 former Conn Smythe trophy winners  26 or under and the others Hedman, O'Reilly, Crobsy, Kane, Ovechkin aren't seeking a trade like Leonard was.  McDavid, MacKinnon, Barkov, Matthews etc., aren't available now and never would've been for a Johnny Gaudreau or Sean Monahan.  A lot gets made of Leonard getting the Raptors over the hump single handedly, there was also a change at coach, added Marc Gasol at the deadline,  Lebron switched conferences, but it was still a good team proven by the fact they could sit Leonard for 30 regular season games (actually better winning% without) and still be 2nd in the regular season. It's like some talking heads are under the impression that Tom Brady could go anywhere and win a Super Bowl, reality is Tampa was a good team the year before that had a problem of a QB throwing too many balls to the other team.  Not sure how many other teams going after Brady he could have won with.  Team sports are called teams sports for a reason, if one player won championships McDavid would have 5 by now, and Lebron would have 10.

 

 

 

What are you even saying?  I'm saying if that trade in an NHL equivalent was available to us that we will never make it.  Do you agree?

 

Not saying that trade exists. I'm saying that's the type of franchise we are.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

In some ways, I think that the '04 playoffs was a curse on this team. 

 

I was calling for a scorched earth rebuild for how long now?  Meanwhile, Tampa nuked their team, rebuilt, and won a second Cup.  We still hanging onto the magic of '04.

[cross16]

24 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What are you even saying?  I'm saying if that trade in an NHL equivalent was available to us that we will never make it.  Do you agree?

 

Not saying that trade exists. I'm saying that's the type of franchise we are.

 

I don't. 

 

I think if there was a chance to get a franchise altering talent the Flames would be in on it and pull the trigger if it made sense. Think Treliving's history has shown he will. 

[The_People1]

9 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't. 

 

I think if there was a chance to get a franchise altering talent the Flames would be in on it and pull the trigger if it made sense. Think Treliving's history has shown he will. 

 

Doubtful.  He's so loyal to Giordano for example.  He has favorites.

[cross16]

16 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Doubtful.  He's so loyal to Giordano for example.  He has favorites.

 

All GMs do. 

 

Case in point that same GM that pulled off the Leonard trade didn't trade Kyle Lowry at the deadline despite the fact he was a pending FA and his team is out of the playoffs. i think it's pretty situational dependent and not easy to just label an organization as this or that. 

 

If Treliving had the chance to trade Gio for Jack Eichel i think he's gone, but that isn't likely on the table. 

 

[sak22]

12 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What are you even saying?  I'm saying if that trade in an NHL equivalent was available to us that we will never make it.  Do you agree?

 

Not saying that trade exists. I'm saying that's the type of franchise we are.

I don't pretend to know what this franchise will or won't do.  The team has never gone out and traded for a franchise player, true.  But where were the opportunities?  Jagr in 2001 when the team had no money, Thornton when he was traded by surprise.  Those are the only 2 that have been traded in the past 20 years, that somewhat qualify as franchise altering, but Jagr didn't really alter his, and Thornton wasn't enough for his.  I don't get the point in using a hypothetical based off another sport, we can maybe bring it up when MacKinnon, Matthews or McDavid are in the last year of their deals and and they all want to move on.  Until that happens it is really an irrelevant comparison IMO.

[The_People1]

20 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I don't pretend to know what this franchise will or won't do.  The team has never gone out and traded for a franchise player, true.  But where were the opportunities?  Jagr in 2001 when the team had no money, Thornton when he was traded by surprise.  Those are the only 2 that have been traded in the past 20 years, that somewhat qualify as franchise altering, but Jagr didn't really alter his, and Thornton wasn't enough for his.  I don't get the point in using a hypothetical based off another sport, we can maybe bring it up when MacKinnon, Matthews or McDavid are in the last year of their deals and and they all want to move on.  Until that happens it is really an irrelevant comparison IMO.

 

22 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

All GMs do. 

 

Case in point that same GM that pulled off the Leonard trade didn't trade Kyle Lowry at the deadline despite the fact he was a pending FA and his team is out of the playoffs. i think it's pretty situational dependent and not easy to just label an organization as this or that. 

 

If Treliving had the chance to trade Gio for Jack Eichel i think he's gone, but that isn't likely on the table. 

 

 

It's all very relevant because it trickles down from there.

 

We needed RW but didn't go after Mike Hoffman.  Might've costed us a fan favorite for a hated player wife.  As an example of the philosophy (not the exact situation).

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

It's all very relevant because it trickles down from there.

 

We needed RW but didn't go after Mike Hoffman.  Might've costed us a fan favorite for a hated player wife.  As an example of the philosophy (not the exact situation).

 

Needed a goalie, a shutdown D or replacement for Brodie, and a RW.

Would we have been able to get him to sign a one year deal at $4m in October?

Trading Gio would have helped, if he would sign here.

Does his salary going out and whatever coming back get us there?

No point trading Gaudreau or Monahan if you are trying to sign a RW.

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

It's all very relevant because it trickles down from there.

 

We needed RW but didn't go after Mike Hoffman.  Might've costed us a fan favorite for a hated player wife.  As an example of the philosophy (not the exact situation).

 

To each their own, but this feels like a huge reach to me and a conclusion drawn on information we cannot possible know. FWIW, Hoffman wasn't even traded for a player or fan favorite it was picks/AHL player and a salary dump.

 

There were plenty of hockey related reasons why you didn't want to go after Mike Hoffman too so to suggest that's an organization flaw is a conclusion but a flawed one IMO. 

 

to each their own. 

[The_People1]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

To each their own, but this feels like a huge reach to me. Were drawing conclusions based on info we don't know, nevermind the fact that Hoffman wasn't dealt for roster player but rather picks/prospects. 

 

There are plenty of hockey related reasons why you didn't want to go after Mike Hoffman too so to suggest that's an organization flaw is a conclusion but a flawed one IMO. 

 

to each their own. 

 

Not even saying we "should of" in that example.  But rather saying, when the time comes, and it's the perfect fit, then we won't.

[cross16]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

Not even saying we "should of" in that example.  But rather saying, when the time comes, and it's the perfect fit, then we won't.

 

I get what you are saying but I don't see it the same way. I see no reason why it should be so definitive but agree to disagree.

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I get what you are saying but I don't see it the same way. I see no reason why it should be so definitive but agree to disagree.

 

Agreed to disagree.

 

IMO, we got here in some parts due to that so I think we need a shift in organizational philosophy.

[The_People1]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I get what you are saying but I don't see it the same way. I see no reason why it should be so definitive but agree to disagree.

 

It's this fear of "what if it doesn't work? Then we have to blow it up and rebuild for another 5 years"?

 

Yes.  Go for it.  If it doesn't work then rebuild.  We will never go take that level of risk and yet that's the level of risk we need to be willing to take.  We are so scared to rebuild.

[The_People1]

For me, I never laughed at one second of the Oilers tanking for a higher pick for their 9 year playoff draught.  I only laughed at the Canucks for not being good enough to make the playoffs and not bad enough to draft a franchise altering talent.

 

Every year the Oilers tanked for a higher pick, i was worried they were one step closer to eventually contending.

 

So I get it.  I don't want us to become the next Canucks because I laughed at them for where they ended up.  I get why nobody wants to become the next Oilers because they laughed at the Oilers.  I feel ownership is part of the second group.

[sak22]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's this fear of "what if it doesn't work? Then we have to blow it up and rebuild for another 5 years"?

 

Yes.  Go for it.  If it doesn't work then rebuild.  We will never go take that level of risk and yet that's the level of risk we need to be willing to take.  We are so scared to rebuild.

Trading for Travis Hamonic and signing James Neal were moves that signaled going for it.  Wrong targets, but they were moves and costly moves.  

[sak22]

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

For me, I never laughed at one second of the Oilers tanking for a higher pick for their 9 year playoff draught.  I only laughed at the Canucks for not being good enough to make the playoffs and not bad enough to draft a franchise altering talent.

 

Every year the Oilers tanked for a higher pick, i was worried they were one step closer to eventually contending.

 

So I get it.  I don't want us to become the next Canucks because I laughed at them for where they ended up.  I get why nobody wants to become the next Oilers because they laughed at the Oilers.  I feel ownership is part of the second group.

The Canucks dropped 2 spots in 2016, 3 spots in 2017 (still got a better player than 1 or 2), and 1 spot in 2018.  They didn't get the lottery luck, but all things considering I'd argue they came out with better players than the Oilers did from 2010-2012.  Only twice in the last 10 years has the last place team won the draft lottery, Toronto and Buffalo.  

[cross16]

14 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's this fear of "what if it doesn't work? Then we have to blow it up and rebuild for another 5 years"?

 

Yes.  Go for it.  If it doesn't work then rebuild.  We will never go take that level of risk and yet that's the level of risk we need to be willing to take.  We are so scared to rebuild.

 

This I can understand. I don't know if "scared" is fair but I don't think the organization wants to rebuild that's been proven. 

 

I still think they'd make a trade if it meant giving them that level of a talent because i do think this org wants a cup. 

 

 

[robrob74]

8 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

There is some truth to this I would say but some doesn't make sense. The Flames have let players go, mostly recently Brodie who spent his whole career here, but i'm also not sure what the angle is here? The Panthers moved Trochek in what is looking to be a pretty awful trade so the Flames should make an awful trade just so they can say they did? I think you can always make bad trades but good trades are hard to come by. I guess we've come to that point in the fan base what people just want change for the sake of change and I can understand that but for me you still need to make good deals. I think the Flames could have moved Gaudreau at the deadline if they wanted but I suspect most would hate the deal. 

 

At the same time, I think this is a pretty conservative ownership group who still has their hands on the wheels too much. Maybe i'm wrong and blame management but for me this has franchise has been operated the same way through the last 4-5 different GMs so i'm looking higher. I think the mandate here is stil playoffs every single year and that takes a certain amount of transactions off the table for the GM. The smarter move would be to move assets like Gaudreau/Monahan etc for futures and not win now moves but my suspicion is that avenue is not available to the GM. 

 

i get what you’re saying about the Trochek deal. But  what you’re saying means you don’t have faith in Treliving to get what the players are worth. I thin Conundrum is saying that it would have been good to get something for A player like Brodie, considering it didn’t seem like he or they werent part of the plan moving forward. Plus, players like Gaudreau, Monahan, or now even Tkachuk’s value are dropping due to nearly two seasons of poor play. But what we always seem to do is ride them out of their contract while grasping at playoff straws. 
 

if you have faith in your GM you’re ok to make those moves, same with tanking or getting a 1st overall. We can say we can be an Oilers or Sabres team but that just means you have no trust in the GM and scouting staff. But we all know we need some elite players in some key positions. 

[cross16]

9 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

i get what you’re saying about the Trochek deal. But  what you’re saying means you don’t have faith in Treliving to get what the players are worth. I thin Conundrum is saying that it would have been good to get something for A player like Brodie, considering it didn’t seem like he or they werent part of the plan moving forward. Plus, players like Gaudreau, Monahan, or now even Tkachuk’s value are dropping due to nearly two seasons of poor play. But what we always seem to do is ride them out of their contract while grasping at playoff straws. 
 

if you have faith in your GM you’re ok to make those moves, same with tanking or getting a 1st overall. We can say we can be an Oilers or Sabres team but that just means you have no trust in the GM and scouting staff. But we all know we need some elite players in some key positions. 

 

That's not at all what i'm saying. 

 

There is a reason you don't see many hockey deals in the league, they are hard to come back especially when your dealing high end guys like Gaudreau/Monahan etc. Let's take Gaudreau for example. If you want to trade him and want to do a hockey deal then you are trading him for a similar talent, well what team is going to do that? How many teams can take the cap hit? How many teams have a player of his talent level and if they do then why do they want to move that player? Teams generally don't want to move their core players so your options of moving Gaudreau and getting an equal talent shrink. 

Can move Gaudreau for multiple pieces but then the question is are you getting better? Did the Phaneuf trade make the Flames better, did the Hamilton trade? In this scenario your giving up the best player in the deal. 

I think the last option is you deal him in a package for futures and get a future core piece. That however means your run the risk of taking an immediate step back. I am okay with this option but I have my suspicions that the organization is not. 

 

So no it is not a lack of faith in the GM it's that the circumstance his is in does not tend to produce positive results. 

[jjgallow]

 

I for one have been very critical of our last few GMs and I have to admit that I don't know if they are the true problem or if it's higher up. 

 

That said, our earlier GMs were aweful at drafting (improved in recent years, took a slide again last year).

And, our recent GMs have completely failed at development

Completely failed at dealing with college and free agent contracts

 

 

For this reason, I look at it this way.   If a player underforms, everyone (often unfairly) says that's the player's responsibilty to perform.

 

It should be no different with a GM.   I've just brought up three concerning points that are Not coming from higher.  They're coming from bad GMs.  Or inexperienced, etc.

 

So, is the True problem higher up?    We can conclude yes, based on the fact that we've had  a string of not great GMs, and that ownership was somewhat involved in their hire.

 

But the GM can't get off scott free.  Them being bad is still them being bad.   They get a little bit of understanding for sacrificing our future if that's their direction.  But even then, they did take the job.

 

No clear answers from me on this.  but I know we'll get there somehow.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, sak22 said:

Trading for Travis Hamonic and signing James Neal were moves that signaled going for it.  Wrong targets, but they were moves and costly moves.  

 

I agree, but I think Peeps would think that it wasn’t quite the time yet. Or there were a few steps botch in the process, not all on BT, but Hamonic was a fail, as was Neal and even earlier, Brouwer. But I am almost willing to give the pass on Hamilton now, but the Hamonic one is one botched deal. I wish we kept those picks. 

[GDyAllen]

2 assists for Sam so far in Florida's game vs tampa.

 

 

[conundrumed]

57 minutes ago, GDyAllen said:

2 assists for Sam so far in Florida's game vs tampa.

 

 

+3/5 hits.

Not a bad start Fla 5 TB 3.