Darryl Sutter new head coach

[robrob74]

34 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

it sounds like I'm against firing Treliving but that's not really the case I just don't think it's going to do any good. Hiring Conroy is an upgrade Why? What's Conroy going to do differently and better than Treliving?

 

For years now the organization has had to take a hard look at itself and decide what it wants to accomplish here and until they do that I just don't think the coach/GM are the issue or the point. I think if they are serious about winning a cup then they need a president of hockey ops and they should go outside the org for that. Fresh set of eyes, someone who doesn't have ties to the owners (Burke did through Bettman) so I would not be in favor of Maloney.  They need a new/progressive thinker and then allow that person to set the tone and decide on Treliving. If they are fine with this direction (making the playoffs more often than not but not really reaching contending status) that I personally don't see the point in firing Treliving as I think the odds are the replacement is worse and not better. 

 

If they choose the playoffs route then I just don't see how Sutter can coach the team next year. I am in agreement that the primary reason they are going to miss is goaltending but at the end of the day by now you should see some progress. You should see things clicking, you should see the coach understanding his players etc etc and you are seeing the opposite. I don't see how an off season can correct that. 

 

I'd also probably just hire Mitch Love if I were the Flames. 

not to say that Toronto is a model franchise and that they don't have problems. Winning the lotto also helps. But they changed once Shanahan took the POHO position. They mostly seem to have a vision and not saying go TO route, just saying that having a unified plan seemed to work.
 

They are not without problems though, just saying the team is in a good position because they took steps at a specific point and without that they may be Buffalo or Arizona or even more like edmonton... but dangling not knowing where to go. 

[cross16]

28 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

what do you see as the best direction?

 

new owners?   let BT make more decisions?

 

I know I bash BT a lot but I'm not close enough to it to know better.  Just curious.

 

The best direction is owners take a step back because I think they are too hands on and they've created an environment that encourages short term decision making. My belief is that the standard here is playoffs every year. We'll tolerate 1 year out if we need to, but you better get yourself back in the playoffs the next year.  I've also led to believe they are they are very involved in the decision making process and will directly challenge the GM on certain player trades/acquisitions (ie Zucker trade falling apart because they required ownership approval). IMO, that is why you see picks constantly traded because if the standard is playoffs every year and little tolerance for missing a year then you need to fill holes and you can't wait for those picks. I also strongly suspect that when it came to trading Tkachuk I don't believe Treliving would have been permitted to look for futures, owners would want to be back in the playoffs this season. Maybe i'm wrong about all of this but i've just heard too many stories to believe differently. I should acknowledge that there does exist a possibility that Treliving is right there with them and he personally believes that they can get back in the playoffs. Perhaps he was the one that told Edwards I can move Tkachuk and get help now, I can't say definitively either way. 

 

So it's a bit of a chicken vs the egg debate but at the same time this has been the way the Flames have operated for 20 years now.

 

All this being said, to answer your question directly the new direction should be we need to do what its going to take to win a cup.  That means changing our operating model to match the system you are in. Flames are a small market club so they should not be allowing assets like Gio, Brodie, Gaudreau walk for nothing. They should be stockpiling picks every year to find assets and become an asset rich organization. They shouldn't be big players in the UFA market like they are so they can pivot easier. They need to have excellent pro scouting so they can identify undervalued assets. And above all of that, they need to be prepared to pick in the lottery if that's what it takes to rebuild a core. 

 

so that is my direction. How do you get there, I think that's open to debate. I'd hire a President of Hockey ops but perhaps there is a GM out there that could convince the owners differently. I'm very, very skeptical of that though because it doesn't match the previous hiring behavior of this org. 

 

Sorry for the long post.. tough question to answer directly which makes the new few years are going to be interesting to track for this organization. 

[Heartbreaker]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

...

I've also led to believe they are they are very involved in the decision making process and will directly challenge the GM on certain player trades/acquisitions (ie Zucker trade falling apart because they required ownership approval).

...

 

Good post.

 

I'd like to add a couple of names to this portion, though... Bishop, and Seguin.

 

I also think that the POHO point is a good one, but I always felt like Ken King was too much a part of the club. The Shanahan example from one of the other posts up there is a good one, but I don't think there's a guy like that out there that wants to come to this market, and that sucks.

 

Love.

[cross16]

37 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

not to say that Toronto is a model franchise and that they don't have problems. Winning the lotto also helps. But they changed once Shanahan took the POHO position. They mostly seem to have a vision and not saying go TO route, just saying that having a unified plan seemed to work.
 

They are not without problems though, just saying the team is in a good position because they took steps at a specific point and without that they may be Buffalo or Arizona or even more like edmonton... but dangling not knowing where to go. 

 

Agreed. I actually don't think Dubus is doing a good job overall but this point is a good one and it's what I would point to to show how an org can pivot. The Leafs hit that turning point where they realized their old model wasn't working. Their old model was to take risks, push for the playoffs every year and if they faield there was always FA to dip into. The old system favored them because they had excess cash and could buy a FA every year. Took them a while but they finally realized that cap system prevents that. 

 

Shanahan has done a good job of helping them pivot to a model that I think works better for the current climate. More investment in amateur scouting, more draft picks, more analytics/resources, and looking into player development etc. Now Flames can't be the Leafs (Leafs can spend more in these other areas) but I think they are at a similar decision point in terms of he direction of the organization. 

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Good post.

 

I'd like to add a couple of names to this portion, though... Bishop, and Seguin.

 

I also think that the POHO point is a good one, but I always felt like Ken King was too much a part of the club. The Shanahan example from one of the other posts up there is a good one, but I don't think there's a guy like that out there that wants to come to this market, and that sucks.

 

Love.

 

Good point.

 

although a tricky in there too as the owners perhaps saved them on the Seguin one. Think there is a lot of potential confirmation bias going on with these owners. 2004 kind of proved to them that anything can happen if you get in, proved to them Sutter is their guy, and them vetoing the Seguin deal (according to rumors) saved them Gaudreau so probably has them believing they know what they are doing. 

[jjgallow]

15 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

The best direction is owners take a step back because I think they are too hands on and they've created an environment that encourages short term decision making. My belief is that the standard here is playoffs every year. We'll tolerate 1 year out if we need to, but you better get yourself back in the playoffs the next year.  I've also led to believe they are they are very involved in the decision making process and will directly challenge the GM on certain player trades/acquisitions (ie Zucker trade falling apart because they required ownership approval). IMO, that is why you see picks constantly traded because if the standard is playoffs every year and little tolerance for missing a year then you need to fill holes and you can't wait for those picks. I also strongly suspect that when it came to trading Tkachuk I don't believe Treliving would have been permitted to look for futures, owners would want to be back in the playoffs this season. Maybe i'm wrong about all of this but i've just heard too many stories to believe differently. I should acknowledge that there does exist a possibility that Treliving is right there with them and he personally believes that they can get back in the playoffs. Perhaps he was the one that told Edwards I can move Tkachuk and get help now, I can't say definitively either way. 

 

So it's a bit of a chicken vs the egg debate but at the same time this has been the way the Flames have operated for 20 years now.

 

All this being said, to answer your question directly the new direction should be we need to do what its going to take to win a cup.  That means changing our operating model to match the system you are in. Flames are a small market club so they should not be allowing assets like Gio, Brodie, Gaudreau walk for nothing. They should be stockpiling picks every year to find assets and become an asset rich organization. They shouldn't be big players in the UFA market like they are so they can pivot easier. They need to have excellent pro scouting so they can identify undervalued assets. And above all of that, they need to be prepared to pick in the lottery if that's what it takes to rebuild a core. 

 

so that is my direction. How do you get there, I think that's open to debate. I'd hire a President of Hockey ops but perhaps there is a GM out there that could convince the owners differently. I'm very, very skeptical of that though because it doesn't match the previous hiring behavior of this org. 

 

Sorry for the long post.. tough question to answer directly which makes the new few years are going to be interesting to track for this organization. 

 

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote.

 

Who knew.

 

The only reason I bash BT so much (besides me being an a-hole) is because I feel like the owners won't do what you're suggesting.    And I am worried that BT, while very likely not making these decisions, is perhaps a bit of a yes man.

So Craig Conroy, who I absolutely love as a player and a spokesman, also has this problem x10.

Which makes me think it is highly likely he gets the promotion.  Unfortunately.

 

The last time they had a GM in here without that issue was of course Sutter.   But he only got in because his views were a mirror image of the owners.

 

So my bashing of BT is really a hope that somehow a GM sneaks in who can handle the owners. 

I realize neither my solution or yours has a clear path.  But one day something will give.

 

I got a glimmer....just a glimmer of hope when I found out BT declined a contract renewal.   Made me think there is a small small chance he doesn't want to be a yes man anymore, and maybe something comes of that.   But this hope is just a glimmer.

[travel_dude]

47 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Were they though? Weren't the flames at the top of the league in possession all those years and everyone felt they only needed Goaltending?

 

I think it has been the full roster. We had holes and where we didn't, the players that were good enough had holes between their ears in some ways. I always felt we didn't finish retooling or building. The vision is off. Are they just guys with skillets thrown into a Roster blender? I dunno if there is enough there to ever have put us over the edge. Playoffs, maybe. A round, maybe. Never a cup.

 

So, each year we see a change in the coaching.

BH - had success by letting the kids take the car out, wreck it or return it safely.  Next year, it was all about proving he was a great coach and changed the mindset to hold players accountable and yell at them when they made mistakes.

Gully - let the team decide how to play until he starts throwing sticks.  The team takes it upon themselves to hold player only meeting to change their approach.  squeaked in and lost in round 1.  Dropped next year,

BP - hard-nosed coach that got results until the playoff.  Lost in round 1.  2nd year was a bad start after adjusting to the playoff loss.  Wardo got them back into it enough to qualify the play-in series.  Lost dreadfully to the Stars.

Wardo - followed up a bad year with a year that we would not make the playoffs.  

Sutter - okay finish to the takeover year.  Full year was a good run and the playoffs a letdown.  Overplayed Markstrom to the point where he had little left in the tank for the playoffs.  Questionable decisions in round 2.  Use of 4th line against a fast team, when he had last change.  This year a repeat of the Markstrom starts, more questionable use of players.

 

My point is that each coach here had a life of one year at most.  Year two of a coach should not end up being much worse results.  Build in the success not downgrade the play.  Clean up the areas that haunted us.  Not make the rest of it worse.  The players are accountable, but how much can you blame top players playing with 4th liners.  Or being forced to play with guys that don't match.

 

The latest change was to play your (former) top offensive star with your shutdown pair (Backs/Coleman).  That's after most of the year playing on the wrong wing.  Put Pelletier up with the top line and expect him to help carry it.  Run a goalie for 10 games that was clearly showing some bad things for come of those games.  The Dallas game should have been a wakeup.  Even the ANA game was a team badly outshot scoring on 18 shots.  

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote.

 

Who knew.

 

The only reason I bash BT so much (besides me being an a-hole) is because I feel like the owners won't do what you're suggesting.    And I am worried that BT, while very likely not making these decisions, is perhaps a bit of a yes man.

So Craig Conroy, who I absolutely love as a player and a spokesman, also has this problem x10.

Which makes me think it is highly likely he gets the promotion.  Unfortunately.

 

The last time they had a GM in here without that issue was of course Sutter.   But he only got in because his views were a mirror image of the owners.

 

So my bashing of BT is really a hope that somehow a GM sneaks in who can handle the owners. 

I realize neither my solution or yours has a clear path.  But one day something will give.

 

i'm not so sure Sutter was given more freedom. There were rumors he was told to fire Keenan, he didn't' want to, and of course there was the very awkward period of time where the organization got pretty fractured and kind of pitted Sutter vs Feaster/Brent. Rumors of course but where there is smoke.....

 

But you could be right and perhaps he is a Yes man. Unfortunately a "yes man" is who these owners traditionally have always hired. 

[Heartbreaker]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Good point.

 

although a tricky in there too as the owners perhaps saved them on the Seguin one. Think there is a lot of potential confirmation bias going on with these owners. 2004 kind of proved to them that anything can happen if you get in, proved to them Sutter is their guy, and them vetoing the Seguin deal (according to rumors) saved them Gaudreau so probably has them believing they know what they are doing. 

 

re: 2004 -

 

In some ways, I think that 2004 is a curse for this hockey club for exactly the reason that you said - it proved that anything can happen. The second problem is that Darryl Sutter's LA Kings won as the eighth seed.

 

In my opinion, very difficult decisions should have been made about this team weeks ago, and it could be argued even longer than that, but certainly before the trade deadline. I believe it's the two factors cited above that keep the wheels perpetually spinning.

 

Such a frustrating season, Man.

 

Love.

[JTech780]

12 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Agreed. I actually don't think Dubus is doing a good job overall but this point is a good one and it's what I would point to to show how an org can pivot. The Leafs hit that turning point where they realized their old model wasn't working. Their old model was to take risks, push for the playoffs every year and if they faield there was always FA to dip into. The old system favored them because they had excess cash and could buy a FA every year. Took them a while but they finally realized that cap system prevents that. 

 

Shanahan has done a good job of helping them pivot to a model that I think works better for the current climate. More investment in amateur scouting, more draft picks, more analytics/resources, and looking into player development etc. Now Flames can't be the Leafs (Leafs can spend more in these other areas) but I think they are at a similar decision point in terms of he direction of the organization. 

 

So who is the Shanahan, Yzerman, Sakic equivalent that can be hired here that can have that same level of results? Someone who brings enough respect and clout that they can drive their vision home with the owners and help build the Flames into anual contenders? 

 

I mean guys like Nieuwnedyk and MacInnis bring an instant level of credibilty both within NHL circles and the fanbase, but I believe that neither tenure ended on great terms with the ownership and the franchise. Iginla is maybe a guy if he wanted to go that route that could bring that level of respect and could easily sell the vision to the fanbase and ownership. 

[travel_dude]

20 minutes ago, cross16 said:

All this being said, to answer your question directly the new direction should be we need to do what its going to take to win a cup.  That means changing our operating model to match the system you are in. Flames are a small market club so they should not be allowing assets like Gio, Brodie, Gaudreau walk for nothing. They should be stockpiling picks every year to find assets and become an asset rich organization. They shouldn't be big players in the UFA market like they are so they can pivot easier. They need to have excellent pro scouting so they can identify undervalued assets. And above all of that, they need to be prepared to pick in the lottery if that's what it takes to rebuild a core. 

 

One of the biggest problems I have is the duration of the UFA signings.  

Neal and Brouwer and Kadri and Coleman stand out.

I get that the market dictates that we go in with the extra years to make it look better.

But there are other things to consider.

Players sign for one year deals all the time.

It sets up a disposable asset, which smart teams fall back on.

Being willing to make that deal is also part of it, in a good position or not to make the playoffs.

 

Pro scouting has been something that has bothered me for years.  

In some cases they completely missed the boat.

In others, they have not figured how a guy would play or fit in here.

Jarnkrok and Rooney being examples of players that didn't fit.

Not that I thought Rooney was a star, but he really didn't fit our 4th line.

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

So who is the Shanahan, Yzerman, Sakic equivalent that can be hired here that can have that same level of results? Someone who brings enough respect and clout that they can drive their vision home with the owners and help build the Flames into anual contenders? 

 

I mean guys like Nieuwnedyk and MacInnis bring an instant level of credibilty both within NHL circles and the fanbase, but I believe that neither tenure ended on great terms with the ownership and the franchise. Iginla is maybe a guy if he wanted to go that route that could bring that level of respect and could easily sell the vision to the fanbase and ownership. 

 

Iggy or Newy are the only names that really come to mind.  Big Al is so much ingrained in the Blues.

Newy probably is too.  Since the number of guys available from the Flames family is small, it may have to be someone from another team.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

Were they though? Weren't the flames at the top of the league in possession all those years and everyone felt they only needed Goaltending?

 

I think it has been the full roster. We had holes and where we didn't, the players that were good enough had holes between their ears in some ways. I always felt we didn't finish retooling or building. The vision is off. Are they just guys with skillets thrown into a Roster blender? I dunno if there is enough there to ever have put us over the edge. Playoffs, maybe. A round, maybe. Never a cup.

 

This is a good point. 

 

Hartley - think it's pretty obvious he had to go

Gulutzan - Good first season and short lived but how else was out there. Think we forget that hiring coaches is a bit of a cycle and there are not always good coaches available. The only 2 names that weren't hired in the NHL at this point and became success are Jim Montgomery and Jared Bednar. I thought Bednar would have been great but at the same time he was employed by the Avs and it's very possible they saw him as their next head coach. Outside of that, not much there. 

Peters - obviously this isn't a great look on Treliving from a vetting process but at the same time I think the problem speaks to the industry and not really BT specifically. 

Ward - made total sense as an interim. as a permanent he didn't but i'm also not sure freedom was given to hire whomever he wanted. 

Sutter - see above. As much as i'm not a fan this was not a bad hire and i'm also not sure it was his. 

 

I don't' think his hires are bad honesty. And if you are going to make the case he can't pick coaches well look at the AHL:

Ryan Huska - his first hire. Pretty good AHL coach, great assistant coach and receiving NHL interest. 

Cail Maclean - Again good AHL coach and now a good assistant coach

Mitch Love - could be a back to back AHL coach of the year. Already receiving NHL buzz. 

[jjgallow]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't' think his hires are bad honesty. And if you are going to make the case he can't pick coaches well look at the AHL:

Ryan Huska - his first hire. Pretty good AHL coach, great assistant coach and receiving NHL interest. 

Cail Maclean - Again good AHL coach and now a good assistant coach

Mitch Love - could be a back to back AHL coach of the year. Already receiving NHL buzz. 

 

I must admit that particular category shows a stellar track record.   Hopefully those guys move up in the organisation.

 

[cross16]

13 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

So who is the Shanahan, Yzerman, Sakic equivalent that can be hired here that can have that same level of results? Someone who brings enough respect and clout that they can drive their vision home with the owners and help build the Flames into anual contenders? 

 

I mean guys like Nieuwnedyk and MacInnis bring an instant level of credibilty both within NHL circles and the fanbase, but I believe that neither tenure ended on great terms with the ownership and the franchise. Iginla is maybe a guy if he wanted to go that route that could bring that level of respect and could easily sell the vision to the fanbase and ownership. 

 

I'm not sure it's a question of who. Before they hired Burke would you not assume he would have been the guy? Now my understanding is he did wrestle away a fair bit, just not all the way.  I'm skeptical there is a name because would the owners look at someone who is going to challenge them? That's the question I have. 

 

I'm still very interested in Mike Gillis. 

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, each year we see a change in the coaching.

BH - had success by letting the kids take the car out, wreck it or return it safely.  Next year, it was all about proving he was a great coach and changed the mindset to hold players accountable and yell at them when they made mistakes.

Gully - let the team decide how to play until he starts throwing sticks.  The team takes it upon themselves to hold player only meeting to change their approach.  squeaked in and lost in round 1.  Dropped next year,

BP - hard-nosed coach that got results until the playoff.  Lost in round 1.  2nd year was a bad start after adjusting to the playoff loss.  Wardo got them back into it enough to qualify the play-in series.  Lost dreadfully to the Stars.

Wardo - followed up a bad year with a year that we would not make the playoffs.  

Sutter - okay finish to the takeover year.  Full year was a good run and the playoffs a letdown.  Overplayed Markstrom to the point where he had little left in the tank for the playoffs.  Questionable decisions in round 2.  Use of 4th line against a fast team, when he had last change.  This year a repeat of the Markstrom starts, more questionable use of players.

 

My point is that each coach here had a life of one year at most.  Year two of a coach should not end up being much worse results.  Build in the success not downgrade the play.  Clean up the areas that haunted us.  Not make the rest of it worse.  The players are accountable, but how much can you blame top players playing with 4th liners.  Or being forced to play with guys that don't match.

 

The latest change was to play your (former) top offensive star with your shutdown pair (Backs/Coleman).  That's after most of the year playing on the wrong wing.  Put Pelletier up with the top line and expect him to help carry it.  Run a goalie for 10 games that was clearly showing some bad things for come of those games.  The Dallas game should have been a wakeup.  Even the ANA game was a team badly outshot scoring on 18 shots.  

 

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

So who is the Shanahan, Yzerman, Sakic equivalent that can be hired here that can have that same level of results? Someone who brings enough respect and clout that they can drive their vision home with the owners and help build the Flames into anual contenders? 

 

I mean guys like Nieuwnedyk and MacInnis bring an instant level of credibilty both within NHL circles and the fanbase, but I believe that neither tenure ended on great terms with the ownership and the franchise. Iginla is maybe a guy if he wanted to go that route that could bring that level of respect and could easily sell the vision to the fanbase and ownership. 

I kind of think Iginla would bring a yes man attitude as he's such a "nice" guy. It's hard to see him taking a stance. 

[cross16]

Guys on Barnburner were on fire today. For sure stocking the fuel around players aren't happy here but they, in particular Rhett, also offered some really good insight. 

 

should go and listen after this clip. Rhett goes into how he figured that Sutter winning the Adams was a bad thing and how he felt he was going to overdo it this year. Also talked about Darryl wants teams to be player led and this one clearly isn't. 

 

the changes are obvious but it's just really interesting to hear the insight from someone who played for him (and speaks highly of him usually). 

 

Disclaimer: it's not an uplifting chat for a fan of the Flames. 

 

 

[travel_dude]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Guys on Barnburner were on fire today. For sure stocking the fuel around players aren't happy here but they, in particular Rhett, also offered some really good insight. 

 

should listen after this slip. Rhett goes into how he figured that Sutter winning the Adams was a bad thing and how he felt he was going to overdo it this. Also talked about Darryl wants teams to be player led and this one clearly isn't. 

 

the changes are obvious but it's just really interesting to hear the insight from someone who played for him (and speaks highly of him usually). 

 

Disclaimer: it's not an uplifting chat for a fan of the Flames. 

 

 

Unfortunately, the video ends before Rhett opens his mouth, so I didn't hear much more than Boomer.

[travel_dude]

I'm not sure where he was getting the info that some players do not want to come back with Sutter behind the bench.  I can see some of the guys that regularly got sat.  Or the ones called out that have short terms remaining.  But if Kadri is talking like that or Huberdeau, the team will implode.

[robrob74]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

I'm not sure where he was getting the info that some players do not want to come back with Sutter behind the bench.  I can see some of the guys that regularly got sat.  Or the ones called out that have short terms remaining.  But if Kadri is talking like that or Huberdeau, the team will implode.

I dunno. There's so much toxic dialogue happening while in media scrums and constant calling out players affects the whole team and not just singled out players. Coaches expect teammates to have each other's backs and so when coaches call them out consistently, teammates don't like when their buddies are treated like that. 
 

Huberdeau must be fuming when Pelletier is treated like crap as he's a player he took under his wing as both quebecois players. Disrespecting others tends to make others lose respect for you (Sutter).

[cross16]

21 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Unfortunately, the video ends before Rhett opens his mouth, so I didn't hear much more than Boomer.

 

You can Youtube the entire show. 

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I dunno. There's so much toxic dialogue happening while in media scrums and constant calling out players affects the whole team and not just singled out players. Coaches expect teammates to have each other's backs and so when coaches call them out consistently, teammates don't like when their buddies are treated like that. 
 

Huberdeau must be fuming when Pelletier is treated like crap as he's a player he took under his wing as both quebecois players. Disrespecting others tends to make others lose respect for you (Sutter).

 

I can think of a few that have been dissed:

Huberdeau

Pelletier

Kadri

Vladar

Dube

Phillips

Backlund (subtle)

Zadorov

 

 

Not dissed when pulled out:

Lucic - needed to re-charge

Duehr - get fresh bodies in

 

Doesn't leave a lot of guys, but there have been indirect disses against all the top players on given nights.

 

[conundrumed]

35 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

You can Youtube the entire show. 

Just put it on, weird 5 minute sponsor break cuts in. But maybe the start was just a highlight.

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Just put it on, weird 5 minute sponsor break cuts in. But maybe the start was just a highlight.

I've been listening on their podcast and Rhett gives some great insight early in the show. 
 

they go on about LA's team and how short their retool was.

I wonder if we are

going to have to do a few more years of this, as we just won't be able to fill the roster with contracts. 
 

rhett also talked about chemistry and building a team where guys grow together creating relationships. The old guys coming in on UFA's aren't in that mindset.
 

for

me, I think It works when the team is further along and a real contender. 
 

but they also talk about how we hardly insert the youth in the lineup. Right now we have 5 homegrown players. 
 

I really hope we can start to build a team that allows natural turnovers. I'm more than willing to go through a build that takes about 3 years and focus on the draft.