Blow It Up?

[jjgallow]

4 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I am kind of in the Tampa section these days. Sure they have hiccups but they drafted high for awhile then built through the draft and traded smartly, developed their players. 
 

studs all around! And they got lucky deep in the draft. Sure they’ve tripped a few times but when they trip, they trip big. Last year was a collapse but my bet is the president trophy winners won’t trip every year. They’re generally perennial contenders. 
 

Bennett didn’t turn out so that’s a big one. But we’d still need a top stud Dman. 

 

They develop smartly too.  We didn't.   Monahan and Bennett and even Baertschi were all rushed in for short-term objectives.

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

They develop smartly too.  We didn't.   Monahan and Bennett and even Baertschi were all rushed in for short-term objectives.

 

oops, and a goalie.

 

would Demko have been a starter by now for us? Maybe he’d be a reason to let Markstrom walk. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

They develop smartly too.  We didn't.   Monahan and Bennett and even Baertschi were all rushed in for short-term objectives.

 

What exactly are you expecting Monahan would have developed into by letting him play more junior hockey and perhaps some AHL hockey?

Bennett is a different story, but also a cautionary tale when you have a dickwad of a coach.

Had Bennett been given a similar path as Tkachuk or Monahan, then the development may have been different.

 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

oops, and a goalie.

 

would Demko have been a starter by now for us? Maybe he’d be a reason to let Markstrom walk. 

 

We had the choice of Demko and MacDonald.

It was a poor choice.

No sense to it at all, save for maybe the thought that he was an average goalie behind a great team.

MacDonald was an average (at best) goalie behind a poor team.

TBH, how often does a goalie come out of the Q league?

I hated the pick then and more so now.

 

Demko at least looks like he could be a good goalie.

[robrob74]

28 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We had the choice of Demko and MacDonald.

It was a poor choice.

No sense to it at all, save for maybe the thought that he was an average goalie behind a great team.

MacDonald was an average (at best) goalie behind a poor team.

TBH, how often does a goalie come out of the Q league?

I hated the pick then and more so now.

 

Demko at least looks like he could be a good goalie.

 

and that’s kind of what I was thinking in asking. I fear the Flames organization doesn’t assess goalies very well or make it a priority when scouting(?). Goalies are voodoo but also needs to be some scouting or development involved. Some organizations are better at it than most.

 

i guess that is just it. Some are good at D, some good at goalies, some good at C and others good at other things. 
 

what would the Flames be considered good at when it comes to drafting? I think middle 6 nhl forwards. Not necessarily the best, but ones that play NHL. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

and that’s kind of what I was thinking in asking. I fear the Flames organization doesn’t assess goalies very well or make it a priority when scouting(?). Goalies are voodoo but also needs to be some scouting or development involved. Some organizations are better at it than most.

 

i guess that is just it. Some are good at D, some good at goalies, some good at C and others good at other things. 
 

what would the Flames be considered good at when it comes to drafting? I think middle 6 nhl forwards. Not necessarily the best, but ones that play NHL. 

 

Other than MacDonald, I think they have made good picks.

I mean since the days of Ortio and Irving.

That's another story.

Gillies should have developed to be as good or better than Demko.

He hit some kind of wall.

The injury in his most important development year.

The poor coaching he got after that.

He should have spent a ton of time working on the mechanics.

Catching hand.

Angles.

No excuse for him turning into what he is now.

 

I think the drafting has been good.

Valimaki was one of the few 1st rounders we have had.

That was a very good choice.

Ras and Dube were really good finds, and I think they had an idea they woulf be that good.

Kylington is really just a development issue.

The later round guys like Zav, Ruzicka, Phillips etc are guys that some teams slept on.

 

I will say this.  The GM sometimes has more say than the scouts.

Sutter seemed to have a big say.

Feaster and Weisbrod made the decisions.

Burke had a big input in Y1 of BT.

It's been more a group call since then.

Some things become a coin flip and it comes down to making the case for a guy.

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

We had the choice of Demko and MacDonald.

It was a poor choice.

No sense to it at all, save for maybe the thought that he was an average goalie behind a great team.

MacDonald was an average (at best) goalie behind a poor team.

TBH, how often does a goalie come out of the Q league?

I hated the pick then and more so now.

 

Demko at least looks like he could be a good goalie.

 

 

that's well said.

 

It's like they decided:  We're not sure if Demko is the real thing, so we'll pick a goalie who's absolutely proven he's not the real thing.  That way, you know, we won't be dissapointed.

 

[The_People1]

I just watched some highlights of Tim Stutzle and i'm pretty impressed to say the least.  I want us to trade Tkachuk+ to Ottawa for the 3rd overall pick.  I'm confortable with either Byfield or Stutzle and may even favour Stutzle at this point.  This is a "blow it up" situation obviously.

 

In addition I would target Buffalo's 8th overall pick with Monahan as a bait... if not, then i think Winnipeg would love a 2nd line Center behind Schiefele for the 10th... this is where we should target Askarov.

 

I would also move Gaudreau to Montreal for the 16th if the Habs are really interested... take a RHS RW here... Mercer, Gunler, or Jarvis.

 

After this, it would be easy to convince Giordano, Backlund, and Lucic to waive NTC so we can move them too.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I just watched some highlights of Tim Stutzle and i'm pretty impressed to say the least.  I want us to trade Tkachuk+ to Ottawa for the 3rd overall pick.  I'm confortable with either Byfield or Stutzle and may even favour Stutzle at this point.  This is a "blow it up" situation obviously.

 

In addition I would target Buffalo's 8th overall pick with Monahan as a bait... if not, then i think Winnipeg would love a 2nd line Center behind Schiefele for the 10th... this is where we should target Askarov.

 

I would also move Gaudreau to Montreal for the 16th if the Habs are really interested... take a RHS RW here... Mercer, Gunler, or Jarvis.

 

After this, it would be easy to convince Giordano, Backlund, and Lucic to waive NTC so we can move them too.

 

 

 

I generally support this concept.  Yup.

 

Some comments, 

 

Firstly:  I still believe in BPA, even in a rebuild.    Now if you're trading to hit specific ranks for specific players, I guess that's a grey area, so I'll add to that:

We need Goalies and Defencemen if we want to do a rebuild properly.     I am not sure that this draft has any true first-line centers in it anyway, outside of the top pick.  But even if it did, you ideally want to draft your top C and top RW After you've stocked up on goalies and D.

 

On that note, I agree with you on targeting Askarov.  He could actually be the best rebuild target since McDavid simply because of his position and how much he stands out in that position.

 

In terms of the rest, I would actually vote for trading for 2021 and 2022 picks.   I don't actually see any first-round defencemen that impress enough to target, not even Drysdale.  Either that or pick up existing prospects from the 2018-2019 drafts, but there isn't a ton there either.  Dahlin, maybe, if Buffalo has 2nd thoughts which I don't think they have.

 

The way I see it there's an extra year of pain in there but that's just what's available right now.   The good thing about this strategy is we're liable to get higher picks by sacrificing time premium.

[rickross]

On 8/28/2020 at 3:51 PM, travel_dude said:

 

We had the choice of Demko and MacDonald.

It was a poor choice.

No sense to it at all, save for maybe the thought that he was an average goalie behind a great team.

MacDonald was an average (at best) goalie behind a poor team.

TBH, how often does a goalie come out of the Q league?

I hated the pick then and more so now.

 

Demko at least looks like he could be a good goalie.

Pretty sure we owe this one to Brad Pascall. He was fresh out of Hockey Canada at the time and they were high on Macdonald at that point. Some very poor draft choices that year , Hunter Smith to name another. Demko was the obvious choice, I know the Nucks were probably dumbfounded we let Demko fall to them 

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, rickross said:

Pretty sure we owe this one to Brad Pascall. He was fresh out of Hockey Canada at the time and they were high on Macdonald at that point. Some very poor draft choices that year , Hunter Smith to name another. Demko was the obvious choice, I know the Nucks were probably dumbfounded we let Demko fall to them 

 

Well, in a democratic system, each scout gets a vote.

But Burke was running the show.

He had good things to say about Mac, so I think he was the deciding factor.

Smith was a Burkie call for sure.

[The_People1]

7 hours ago, jjgallow said:

Firstly:  I still believe in BPA, even in a rebuild. 

 

I used to think so too and don't generally disagree but reality is, BPA almost always is a LHS LW/LD.  If you go strict BPA, then you will end up where the Flames have ended up.  There's a line of LHS LW/LD in the pipeline and a serious lack of RHS everywhere.

 

RHS has high trade value as recently showcased by Kapanen.  You have to pay a premium.

 

When it comes to Mercer, Jarvis, Gunler, etc, the separation between these guys and Holloway, Zary etc is so small that you should take the RHS 10 times out of 10.

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

We need Goalies and Defencemen if we want to do a rebuild properly.

 

On that note, I agree with you on targeting Askarov.  He could actually be the best rebuild target since McDavid simply because of his position and how much he stands out in that position.

 

Very true.  The reason with starting with G and D is that they take longer to develop.  So you want to incubate them longer.  Meaning four years or so.

 

Pick them first.

 

Then in year there and four, go for forwards.  This way we can have all the prospects hit prime at the same time.

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

In terms of the rest, I would actually vote for trading for 2021 and 2022 picks.   I don't actually see any first-round defencemen that impress enough to target, not even Drysdale.  Either that or pick up existing prospects from the 2018-2019 drafts, but there isn't a ton there either.  Dahlin, maybe, if Buffalo has 2nd thoughts which I don't think they have.

 

Don't worry, we will be a lottery team and can sell at the TDL for picks.

 

And ya, D is weak in this year's draft so don't force it.  Take Askarov this year and then target D next year.

[rickross]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Well, in a democratic system, each scout gets a vote.

But Burke was running the show.

He had good things to say about Mac, so I think he was the deciding factor.

Smith was a Burkie call for sure.

Hunter Smith was 100% Burke’s call. That was literally weeks after he uttered his “truculence” philosophy. That approach made us overlook some current NHLers unfortunately. Think we drafted Brandon Hickey that year as well, wonder where he ended up?

[The_People1]

In a perfect rebuild, we get Askarov this year.  We get our stud D next year 2021.  We get Shane Wright 2022.  We win the Cup 2025.

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I used to think so too and don't generally disagree but reality is, BPA almost always is a LHS LW/LD.  If you go strict BPA, then you will end up where the Flames have ended up.  There's a line of LHS LW/LD in the pipeline and a serious lack of RHS everywhere.

 

RHS has high trade value as recently showcased by Kapanen.  You have to pay a premium.

 

When it comes to Mercer, Jarvis, Gunler, etc, the separation between these guys and Holloway, Zary etc is so small that you should take the RHS 10 times out of 10.

 

Oh...yes I do agree with this, to me I consider BPA to factor in RHS and size.

 

RHS does increase your value.    Size does increase your value.   Simply because they have an advantage in the game.    It doesn't move you up an entire round though, just maybe a few spots.

 

When I think of BPA I think more along the lines of drafting whatever player is the most valuable regardless of current team needs.

 

So, it means ruling out current team needs.  But it doesn't in my mind rule out position and size entirely.

 

Maybe we should call it "MVPA" 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

In a perfect rebuild, we get Askarov this year.  We get our stud D next year 2021.  We get Shane Wright 2022.  We win the Cup 2025.

 

Agreed    and 2026 as well

[ABC923]

So Dallas has the Avs on the ropes. Just curious, if Dallas wins in 5, or makes it to the finals this year, does that change anyone’s opinion on whether our team needs major changes?

[robrob74]

21 minutes ago, ABC923 said:

So Dallas has the Avs on the ropes. Just curious, if Dallas wins in 5, or makes it to the finals this year, does that change anyone’s opinion on whether our team needs major changes?

 

not me. We had our chance to put a team out while it was down and failed to have the killer instinct to do it. They collapsed, choked when it mattered. They weren’t able to skate with them and Dallas didn’t even look that great the whole time. 
 

albeit, they did pounce on the Flames at will. When Dallas decided to play, the Flames had no answer. I still see a lot of deficiencies. 
 

We definitely need to get a D that can actually handle tough situations, and if that’s the case, maybe Talbot is enough, but could need better Goaltending, or the team failed to play while our goalies were hot, and possibly just not hot enough. 
 

plus, if the Avs can’t play with them then we are worse off. The first game was kind of a gimme game. 
 

but also I feel the flames acted as a team to get Dallas going, like a warmup to playoff hockey.

[travel_dude]

7 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

not me. We had our chance to put a team out while it was down and failed to have the killer instinct to do it. They collapsed, choked when it mattered. They weren’t able to skate with them and Dallas didn’t even look that great the whole time. 
 

albeit, they did pounce on the Flames at will. When Dallas decided to play, the Flames had no answer. I still see a lot of deficiencies. 
 

We definitely need to get a D that can actually handle tough situations, and if that’s the case, maybe Talbot is enough, but could need better Goaltending, or the team failed to play while our goalies were hot, and possibly just not hot enough. 
 

plus, if the Avs can’t play with them then we are worse off. The first game was kind of a gimme game. 
 

but also I feel the flames acted as a team to get Dallas going, like a warmup to playoff hockey.

 

Pretty harsh.

Part of winning is being able to steal a game, and stay in the other games.

We did.

Yeah, there was a meltdown when we brought in Rittich.

2 goals should never have gone in.

Good team lose.

Bad teams don't belong.

Not saying we would be beating VGK, as they are a superior team in the West.

Then again, it's hard to get a sense of what the team is capable of.

I don't buy into the line that Dallas was just getting rolling.

They had a better defense for jumping into the play.

Ours had trouble exiting the zone.

There's your difference.

Fix the defense and this team could easily be considered a contender.

 

 

 

[The_People1]

11 hours ago, ABC923 said:

So Dallas has the Avs on the ropes. Just curious, if Dallas wins in 5, or makes it to the finals this year, does that change anyone’s opinion on whether our team needs major changes?

 

Doesn't change much for me because we didn't get beat by the Dallas Stars.  We got beat by the Calgary Flames, ourselves.  I know that's philosophical but if we don't fix ourselves first, then we not beating anybody.

[cross16]

On 8/22/2020 at 3:03 PM, The_People1 said:

 

My biggest criticism of BT is that early on, he spoke about patience and that he's all about the future.  Basically that he's committed to rebuilding properly and not rushing it.

 

Then his actions showed us something different.

 

Maybe the playoff win against the Canucks convinced him we were done the rebuild.  He started to traded away picks for Hamilton and Hamonic... Who trades away picks during a rebuild?  BT very quickly went from a guy who preached the future to a guy who was all about the shortcut-win-now trade (which I grant him, he was good at). BT also began signing some UFAs like Brouwer and Neal... Just thinking we were just a RW away.

 

I'm late on this, on holidays, but this is been something I have been thinking about in the context of firing Treliving. 

 

I'll start by saying there are merits to both and I won't take an aggressive "keep Treliving" stance. I like him and would keep him, and with 2 years on his deal I doubt he's going anywhere, but I also understand that some of those who do want him gone have fair points. However, my big question there is how are you going to get better? As you mentioned, and what I would agree is the more fair critique of Treliving, is too many high picks have been dealt. In particular the trades of Hamonic, Elliott and Lazar stand out as all moves that were not great at the time and turned out even worse. Because this club has been very good at drafting under Treliving I think it's fair to expect those picks would right now be adding to the young talent wave of Dube, mang, Andersson, Bennett, Lindholm, Valimaki, and giving the Flames options to improve their team. Instead they are stuck with a core that can't seem to get it done, and limited options for getting better. 

 

That being said, I'm to the point where I don't put that all on Treliving. I think what has been made pretty clear by now is the Flames ownership group has a mandate of chasing the cup and being "good" every year. They've never really preached patience and there have been countless times where Flames employees, from Sutter to Feaster to Burke to Treliving, have made public comments about being good every year. When Treliving became the GM he took over a poor roster and a even poorer farm system so really the only way he had to make his team better in short order was to deal picks or sign UFAs.

 

Long story short, if you want to fire Treliving you can but i'm not sure you are going to get a different experience from the next guy. So for me you only fire Treliving for 1 of 2 reasons, 1 - you want someone more respects in league circles or 2 - you want a better talent evaluator. I think the odds of improving over Treliving in those categories is very small. 

[The_People1]

22 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm late on this, on holidays, but this is been something I have been thinking about in the context of firing Treliving. 

 

I'll start by saying there are merits to both and I won't take an aggressive "keep Treliving" stance. I like him and would keep him, and with 2 years on his deal I doubt he's going anywhere, but I also understand that some of those who do want him gone have fair points. However, my big question there is how are you going to get better? As you mentioned, and what I would agree is the more fair critique of Treliving, is too many high picks have been dealt. In particular the trades of Hamonic, Elliott and Lazar stand out as all moves that were not great at the time and turned out even worse. Because this club has been very good at drafting under Treliving I think it's fair to expect those picks would right now be adding to the young talent wave of Dube, mang, Andersson, Bennett, Lindholm, Valimaki, and giving the Flames options to improve their team. Instead they are stuck with a core that can't seem to get it done, and limited options for getting better. 

 

That being said, I'm to the point where I don't put that all on Treliving. I think what has been made pretty clear by now is the Flames ownership group has a mandate of chasing the cup and being "good" every year. They've never really preached patience and there have been countless times where Flames employees, from Sutter to Feaster to Burke to Treliving, have made public comments about being good every year. When Treliving became the GM he took over a poor roster and a even poorer farm system so really the only way he had to make his team better in short order was to deal picks or sign UFAs.

 

Long story short, if you want to fire Treliving you can but i'm not sure you are going to get a different experience from the next guy. So for me you only fire Treliving for 1 of 2 reasons, 1 - you want someone more respects in league circles or 2 - you want a better talent evaluator. I think the odds of improving over Treliving in those categories is very small. 

 

True enough.  Perhaps my frustrations are more targeted towards an ownership group that's either impatient or satisfied with mere mediocrity (simply getting into the playoffs to make a $mil or two).

 

BT has just been taking orders from up top and the next guy will also do the same.

[travel_dude]

12 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

True enough.  Perhaps my frustrations are more targeted towards an ownership group that's either impatient or satisfied with mere mediocrity (simply getting into the playoffs to make a $mil or two).

 

BT has just been taking orders from up top and the next guy will also do the same.

 

I don't think they are "satisfied".

They are willing to write big cheques to get FA's.

And buy out blunders.

But again, how do you improve enough to be a contender?

Need a solid #1D.

Not easy to get unless you trade a top player or sign in FA.

A decent goalie.

Well, you could say we had 2.

Not quite at the Lehner level, but good.

An impact forward.

Again, what do you have to give to get?

 

A rebuild is fine, but you need to keep some players that are young enough to become the vets.

Trading away Monahan and Guadreau only compounds the problem.