Reasons Not to Blow It Up

[conundrumed]

This needs it's own thread...

Re-tooling is better than rebuilding.

Who are consistently the best teams in the NHL right now along with TBay? The Boston Bruins. The NYI.

They achieved that without high picks on their current roster. We can consistently redo drafts and it's easy to see that the top 5 drafted players are not the best players from the draft. So that is my argument and I believe it's a solid one.Then, there is the Oilers and Sabres. More arguments against high picks having the impact on winning that is being promoted.

It just isn't the case.

Why kid ourselves into thinking that it's a great solution? The evidence doesn't support it.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

This needs it's own thread...

Re-tooling is better than rebuilding.

Who are consistently the best teams in the NHL right now along with TBay? The Boston Bruins. The NYI.

They achieved that without high picks on their current roster. We can consistently redo drafts and it's easy to see that the top 5 drafted players are not the best players from the draft. So that is my argument and I believe it's a solid one.Then, there is the Oilers and Sabres. More arguments against high picks having the impact on winning that is being promoted.

It just isn't the case.

Why kid ourselves into thinking that it's a great solution? The evidence doesn't support it.

Good points on both parts. Sadly there are cases where "tanking" worked, Pittsburg and Chicago are best examples. But with the changes to the lottery the modern concept of tanking is a risky venture at best. A team built with toughness (physical and mental) alongside skill is where todays teams are going to succeed.

 

 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

This needs it's own thread...

Re-tooling is better than rebuilding.

Who are consistently the best teams in the NHL right now along with TBay? The Boston Bruins. The NYI.

They achieved that without high picks on their current roster. We can consistently redo drafts and it's easy to see that the top 5 drafted players are not the best players from the draft. So that is my argument and I believe it's a solid one.Then, there is the Oilers and Sabres. More arguments against high picks having the impact on winning that is being promoted.

It just isn't the case.

Why kid ourselves into thinking that it's a great solution? The evidence doesn't support it.

couldn’t you add the Carolina Hurricanes?

 

the islanders got an elite C where the Flames could have drafted him. Albeit we got a near elite Offensive D in the process. But we didn’t keep him and moved him for two very good players… the supporting cast some have talked about in the other thread and maybe you in this one. 
 

Your model requires even better drafting and scouting and having players other teams want to trade for when we need to trade. 
 

sure we have drafted half or more of our roster, but we haven’t really drafted players that get us good return on trades and so BT is forced to use draft capital to fix things. It’s a chicken or the egg situation and for me, it all comes down to drafting. Like others said. The higher percentage is in the top of the draft in a good draft year. Sometimes you end up with Bennett, or even Yakupov. The oilers could have been better with players they drafted but didn’t get good value on Hall, probably not on Eberle either… so those arguments are mute points if you believe in your system, which clearly you do if you’re advocating that the high picks aren’t needed. It definitely helps and it just means those teams are so poorly run. Do you think Yzerman would screw it up if he was in those team’s  shoes?

 

the other side to the argument that we could be those teams. I would counter that we are nearly those teams since we are consistent in these conversations. I don’t see us as much better than the Oilers or the Sabres or a lot of these bottom feeders. Just because we are like the Minnesota Wild doesn’t make us that much better. We are a middling team with a fan base that expects more than a playoffs every other year and first round exits.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

couldn’t you add the Carolina Hurricanes?

Svechnikov is a #2oa.

[MP5029]

Here’s a counter point…

 

Tor

Edm

 

they suddenly went from bottom to legit threats with the additions of Matthews and McDavid

 

Also, Col with the addition of McKinnon…

 

going back in history we have the already mentioned Pits and Chi..but also Was when they drafted Ovie…

 

anyway the impact and point of having a generational player is huge, we had had that since Iggy, and that was just lucky. And of some of the teams mentions above, keeping in mind they also had to make a few moves to get in position, you don’t need to tank to draft high, must manage your assets properly…

 

so here in Cgy, we have the worst luck of any team, therefore move assets at the TDL for picks..bundle a few to land a generational talent…it’s cheaper in cap hit and the amount of assets needed to

trade for a injured possible one.

[sak22]

5 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

couldn’t you add the Carolina Hurricanes?

 

the islanders got an elite C where the Flames could have drafted him. Albeit we got a near elite Offensive D in the process. But we didn’t keep him and moved him for two very good players… the supporting cast some have talked about in the other thread and maybe you in this one. 
 

 

The Islanders got a very good centre (I struggle with elite status on Barzal as there is still a group of centres I put ahead of him) by trading a #4 overall pick. 

 

The Islanders picked top 5, 5 times in a 6 year span.  Tavares (lost for nothing), Niederetter (traded for average player, and less productive than Nelson who they drafted #30), Strome (traded for Eberle who was lost for nothing), Reinhart (traded for Barzal), Dal Colle (lost for nothing).  There actual rebuild, which can be considered their 3rd or 4th since their dynasty.  I think the Islanders would be another middling team if they continued with rookie head coaches, Trotz is the difference maker there, with a full season and actual training camp we can see if Sutter can do the same here

 

I think Pittsburgh, Chicago and LA models stick out for wrong reasons.  Pittsburgh couldn't afford to ice a decent team, but its hard to find comparable in recent years for getting Crosby-Malkin in consecutive years, best I can think of would be Eichel-Matthews and even then they aren't the same calibre, Chicago didn't want to pay any of their stars and came into the cap world as a team that spent a lot on mediocre players, plus fluked out completely with winning the '07 lottery and the overrating of Erik Johnson and Jordan Staal.  LA hit a jackpot before they went into full rebuild mode with Kopitar falling to them.  But those teams should be offset by the other teams during that period that also committed to rebuilds that produced nothing, or even teams like St. Louis and Washington who started the same time, but tinkered with their rosters after failures and drafted well with later 1sts.  Recent trends are showing this "short term pain, long term gain" isn't exactly a guarantee.  Edmonton with 4 #1's and 2 other top 5's since 2009 have won 1 playoff round, Colorado with 4 top 5's since 2009 haven't made it to the 3rd round, Florida with 4 top 5's haven't won a round, Buffalo with 3 top 5's (excluding 2021) haven't made the playoffs, Toronto with 3 top 5's no series wins.  But  if we got one of Shane Wright or Conor Bedard we will be like Pittsburgh guaranteed, with zero chances of being just like Edmonton.  

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

This needs it's own thread...

Re-tooling is better than rebuilding.

Who are consistently the best teams in the NHL right now along with TBay? The Boston Bruins. The NYI.

They achieved that without high picks on their current roster. We can consistently redo drafts and it's easy to see that the top 5 drafted players are not the best players from the draft. So that is my argument and I believe it's a solid one.Then, there is the Oilers and Sabres. More arguments against high picks having the impact on winning that is being promoted.

It just isn't the case.

Why kid ourselves into thinking that it's a great solution? The evidence doesn't support it.

 

Neither of the teams you listed are inside the top 10 NHL teams (Boston at #10), both NYI and Boston had rebuilds within last 12 years, and nearly all of the NHL teams within the top 10 right now have had rebuilds within the last 10 years.

 

I don't know that it's fair to compare us with some of the best locales and budgets in the world who can attract any free agent they want and buy out anyone they choose.

 

BUT

 

What I will concede to, is it takes more than a rebuild.   You need to be that team that drafts well, signs well, trades well.   The only reason I don't bring this up is because I don't want to be even more negative than I already am.   Definitely our locale is a disadavantage although personally if I were a player I'd rather be up here.     But we have improvements to make that are admittedly further reaching than a rebuild.     

 

A rebuild is an opportunity to make other adjustments in the organisation.   On its own, it is not enough.

 

The reality for a small market Canadian team like us is that we have One advantage, we should typically have better drafting and smarter fans.   We don't constantly need to draw in big names, we can bring in lesser known more talented players.    A smart small market Canadian team should have, imho, a team younger than average with a very deep pipeline, and it should sell off their biggest stars shortly after passing their prime for absolute Top return, in return for picks.    The first few years you do this it hurts, but once you have one of the deepest pipelines in the league, it hurts a lot less.   It can win cups.

 

Edmonton attempted this and did an absolutely horrible job at it.  It doesn't means it's the wrong model it's just the Oilers entirely mucked it up.

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, conundrumed said:

This needs it's own thread...

Re-tooling is better than rebuilding.

Who are consistently the best teams in the NHL right now along with TBay? The Boston Bruins. The NYI.

They achieved that without high picks on their current roster. We can consistently redo drafts and it's easy to see that the top 5 drafted players are not the best players from the draft. So that is my argument and I believe it's a solid one.Then, there is the Oilers and Sabres. More arguments against high picks having the impact on winning that is being promoted.

It just isn't the case.

Why kid ourselves into thinking that it's a great solution? The evidence doesn't support it.

 

You have presented a false dichotomy.

 

Retool without tanking

Vs

Tank for #1 pick and then throw hands in the air and win the Cup

 

Absolutely no one is saying to tank for a high pick and live happily ever after.  Bro, only one team wins the Cup every year.  Tanking for a top pick alone is not enough.  It's just the first step.  You must do everything else right afterwards.  Ie.  Draft and develop well, sign value contacts, have good coaching, etc.  

 

But go ahead and try to forego a top 2 overall pick.  The Blues won the Cup without one.  Good on them.  Boston never won again after Seguin.  CHI, LAK, TBL, PIT, and WAS all picked in top 2.  Some multiple times.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

You have presented a false dichotomy.

 

Retool without tanking

Vs

Tank for #1 pick and then throw hands in the air and win the Cup

 

Absolutely no one is saying to tank for a high pick and live happily ever after.  Bro, only one team wins the Cup every year.  Tanking for a top pick alone is not enough.  It's just the first step.  You must do everything else right afterwards.  Ie.  Draft and develop well, sign value contacts, have good coaching, etc.  

 

But go ahead and try to forego a top 2 overall pick.  The Blues won the Cup without one.  Good on them.  Boston never won again after Seguin.  CHI, LAK, TBL, PIT, and WAS all picked in top 2.  Some multiple times.

 

This.

 

This is being over simplified and being presented in a binary argument and that's what bothers me about this debate. I don't think it as simple as saying this way or that way is the right way because it ignores way too many factors. 

 

Boston is a good example to hold up of a team built for long term success without a high pick, but that ignores that fact they got a likely Hall of fame center in the 2nd round. How often does that happen (spoiler alert.... it doesn't). It's easy to say "well then draft better" but that ignores that it's not like these opportunities are available in every draft. You don't get players the level of of Bergeron or Kucherov outside the top 10 as frequently anymore. 

New York Islanders, as already pointed out used a #4 pick to gain Barzal but also got Barzal because he had an injury his draft year. How often does a top 5 talent drop due to injuries (it happens but not every draft). They've also got a perfect match of GM, coach and roster that isn't always easy to do.  People will say "sure it is" but what's interesting in including the Islanders in this category is several years ago (before Trotz) the Islanders would have been a case to hold up to say tanking doesn't work. They bottomed out and weren't any good. 

Yes you have teams like the Oilers, Leafs and Sabres who did it and it hasn't worked out yet but that's because, as Peeps points out here, it's only one step. I happen to believe the Leafs core is good enough to win but what they haven't gotten right yet is the mix around that core. You have to do both, which is what worked so well for LA, Chicago, Tampa and Pittsburgh. A high end core through the top of the draft, but also a good supporting cast too. 

 

for me it comes down to less of a this pathway or that pathway and more a consideration of where is your club, what are the current strengths/weaknesses of your club, and what are the up coming drafts like. I think you need to weight all of those when deciding whether or not this course make sense because even though a team may not be a cup contender or may not have a top 2 pick doesn't mean they have to rebuild. 

 

I am pro Flames rebuild because I think they have a strong prospect pool with depth, some good supporting characters in the right age range on their big league team but they lack the high end talent to be able to compete for cups, particularly down the middle. When you look at the strength of the next few drafts and the amount of high end talent available, combine it with what is already a solid base, I think you have the makings of a really exciting product in 3-4 years. That wouldn't' have been my answer in 2019 or 2020.

 

Lots should factor into the analysis IMO and it shouldn't be as simple as either get a top 2 pick or you'll never win. 

 

[sak22]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

You have presented a false dichotomy.

 

Retool without tanking

Vs

Tank for #1 pick and then throw hands in the air and win the Cup

 

Absolutely no one is saying to tank for a high pick and live happily ever after.  Bro, only one team wins the Cup every year.  Tanking for a top pick alone is not enough.  It's just the first step.  You must do everything else right afterwards.  Ie.  Draft and develop well, sign value contacts, have good coaching, etc.  

 

But go ahead and try to forego a top 2 overall pick.  The Blues won the Cup without one.  Good on them.  Boston never won again after Seguin.  CHI, LAK, TBL, PIT, and WAS all picked in top 2.  Some multiple times.

Never won because of him.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

You have presented a false dichotomy.

 

Retool without tanking

Vs

Tank for #1 pick and then throw hands in the air and win the Cup

 

Absolutely no one is saying to tank for a high pick and live happily ever after.  Bro, only one team wins the Cup every year.  Tanking for a top pick alone is not enough.  It's just the first step.  You must do everything else right afterwards.  Ie.  Draft and develop well, sign value contacts, have good coaching, etc.  

 

But go ahead and try to forego a top 2 overall pick.  The Blues won the Cup without one.  Good on them.  Boston never won again after Seguin.  CHI, LAK, TBL, PIT, and WAS all picked in top 2.  Some multiple times.

 

Agreed, with full respect to @conundrumed.

 

Rebuild has become a dirty word, and then there is the ugly tanking word.     

 

Also, I think it is ridiculous that only one team can win the Stanley Cup per year.   We need to get the millenials on this.

[tmac70]

6 hours ago, robrob74 said:

couldn’t you add the Carolina Hurricanes?

 

the islanders got an elite C where the Flames could have drafted him. Albeit we got a near elite Offensive D in the process. But we didn’t keep him and moved him for two very good players… the supporting cast some have talked about in the other thread and maybe you in this one. 
 

Your model requires even better drafting and scouting and having players other teams want to trade for when we need to trade. 
 

sure we have drafted half or more of our roster, but we haven’t really drafted players that get us good return on trades and so BT is forced to use draft capital to fix things. It’s a chicken or the egg situation and for me, it all comes down to drafting. Like others said. The higher percentage is in the top of the draft in a good draft year. Sometimes you end up with Bennett, or even Yakupov. The oilers could have been better with players they drafted but didn’t get good value on Hall, probably not on Eberle either… so those arguments are mute points if you believe in your system, which clearly you do if you’re advocating that the high picks aren’t needed. It definitely helps and it just means those teams are so poorly run. Do you think Yzerman would screw it up if he was in those team’s  shoes?

 

the other side to the argument that we could be those teams. I would counter that we are nearly those teams since we are consistent in these conversations. I don’t see us as much better than the Oilers or the Sabres or a lot of these bottom feeders. Just because we are like the Minnesota Wild doesn’t make us that much better. We are a middling team with a fan base that expects more than a playoffs every other year and first round exits.

The Flames can not be compared to the Oilers as we have not had a #1 draft chocie EVER. There is not guarnatee in either system of retool or rebuild. However, there is a commom ground. You have to have a GM that actually has a clue and a coach that can lead the way. We have the coach and he is decorated with 2 cups for it, Queniville, Trots, Cooper have won cups, These coaches can make teams better.  However you can only go so far with a good coach, crap roster and meat head for GM. Edmontons issue have always been, Crap coaches, Worst GM's and top draft picks. What has worked is Tampa and CHI did was good draft picks, good coach and GM. LA won the cups with an #1 center, #1 Dman and a rock solid goaltending complimented by a coach that got players to buy in and a GM that understood this. 

[conundrumed]

12 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This.

 

This is being over simplified and being presented in a binary argument and that's what bothers me about this debate. I don't think it as simple as saying this way or that way is the right way because it ignores way too many factors. 

 

Boston is a good example to hold up of a team built for long term success without a high pick, but that ignores that fact they got a likely Hall of fame center in the 2nd round. How often does that happen (spoiler alert.... it doesn't). It's easy to say "well then draft better" but that ignores that it's not like these opportunities are available in every draft. You don't get players the level of of Bergeron or Kucherov outside the top 10 as frequently anymore. 

New York Islanders, as already pointed out used a #4 pick to gain Barzal but also got Barzal because he had an injury his draft year. How often does a top 5 talent drop due to injuries (it happens but not every draft). They've also got a perfect match of GM, coach and roster that isn't always easy to do.  People will say "sure it is" but what's interesting in including the Islanders in this category is several years ago (before Trotz) the Islanders would have been a case to hold up to say tanking doesn't work. They bottomed out and weren't any good. 

Yes you have teams like the Oilers, Leafs and Sabres who did it and it hasn't worked out yet but that's because, as Peeps points out here, it's only one step. I happen to believe the Leafs core is good enough to win but what they haven't gotten right yet is the mix around that core. You have to do both, which is what worked so well for LA, Chicago, Tampa and Pittsburgh. A high end core through the top of the draft, but also a good supporting cast too. 

 

for me it comes down to less of a this pathway or that pathway and more a consideration of where is your club, what are the current strengths/weaknesses of your club, and what are the up coming drafts like. I think you need to weight all of those when deciding whether or not this course make sense because even though a team may not be a cup contender or may not have a top 2 pick doesn't mean they have to rebuild. 

 

I am pro Flames rebuild because I think they have a strong prospect pool with depth, some good supporting characters in the right age range on their big league team but they lack the high end talent to be able to compete for cups, particularly down the middle. When you look at the strength of the next few drafts and the amount of high end talent available, combine it with what is already a solid base, I think you have the makings of a really exciting product in 3-4 years. That wouldn't' have been my answer in 2019 or 2020.

 

Lots should factor into the analysis IMO and it shouldn't be as simple as either get a top 2 pick or you'll never win. 

 

That's precisely what I am doing. Flipping the script. The other side is presenting, "we have to tank for a high pick". I'm saying no we don't. Particularly with a ridiculous lottery system that doesn't guarantee a top 3 pick. Datsyuk was a 6th rder. Lidstrom a 3rd. Benn, Kucherov, Point et.al., we can call them outliers, but there are plenty of outliers if that's what we're calling it.

Now we can pretend scouting is world's better now, unfortunately that's not the case.

I know 2 scouts, 1 for the Wings, 1 for the Pens. Here's why there's always a consensus. It's an old boys club. They all gather together in 1 section of the arena to watch the same player(s), spill drinks and laugh it up like it's a family reunion. I've had this conversation with both. Their primary interest seems to be respect amongst their peers. Just like high school.

So finding the hidden future NHLers is as easy as telling your scouts to sit elsewhere and not to follow the consensus. 1 scout I know actually took my advice and is stalwart.

They all piggy-back off of each other. If I'm a GM, that's not what I'm paying for. This is how the Moritz Seider's go 6thoa when consensus is 6th best International player.

Kid will be a monster NHLer.

Building a solid foundation and adding to it smartly, I get that part.

What I'm saying is you don't have to sell off every asset for picks and tank to accomplish that. Even Aho was a 2nd rder. It happens. A lot.

Pelletier has the toolbox to be a Voracek-type, Zary a Couture.

Our pipeline is looking the best it has in years. D is on the weak side, but we just graduated Andersson, Valimaki, potentially Mackey.

But most are short on patience and out of time due to our old pipeline of Poirier's, Bouma's etc.

My mission is to pull everyone back from the ledge. We aren't in as bad of shape as is being spewed all over. Both Pell and Zary are more than capable of transitioning to the next level.

And yes, we do have a good GM. Too many want him fired. Impassioned, but misguided. We're only getting better.

Now I just wait to prove my point. Talking heads are like scouts, they thrive on consensus as a group. One piles on, the rest follow suit. Let's all think for ourselves. We aren't as bad as a lot of people seem to be cheering for.

Typical.

 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

That's precisely what I am doing. Flipping the script. The other side is presenting, "we have to tank for a high pick". I'm saying no we don't. Particularly with a ridiculous lottery system that doesn't guarantee a top 3 pick. Datsyuk was a 6th rder. Lidstrom a 3rd. Benn, Kucherov, Point et.al., we can call them outliers, but there are plenty of outliers if that's what we're calling it.

Now we can pretend scouting is world's better now, unfortunately that's not the case.

I know 2 scouts, 1 for the Wings, 1 for the Pens. Here's why there's always a consensus. It's an old boys club. They all gather together in 1 section of the arena to watch the same player(s), spill drinks and laugh it up like it's a family reunion. I've had this conversation with both. Their primary interest seems to be respect amongst their peers. Just like high school.

So finding the hidden future NHLers is as easy as telling your scouts to sit elsewhere and not to follow the consensus. 1 scout I know actually took my advice and is stalwart.

They all piggy-back off of each other. If I'm a GM, that's not what I'm paying for. This is how the Moritz Seider's go 6thoa when consensus is 6th best International player.

Kid will be a monster NHLer.

Building a solid foundation and adding to it smartly, I get that part.

What I'm saying is you don't have to sell off every asset for picks and tank to accomplish that. Even Aho was a 2nd rder. It happens. A lot.

Pelletier has the toolbox to be a Voracek-type, Zary a Couture.

Our pipeline is looking the best it has in years. D is on the weak side, but we just graduated Andersson, Valimaki, potentially Mackey.

But most are short on patience and out of time due to our old pipeline of Poirier's, Bouma's etc.

My mission is to pull everyone back from the ledge. We aren't in as bad of shape as is being spewed all over. Both Pell and Zary are more than capable of transitioning to the next level.

And yes, we do have a good GM. Too many want him fired. Impassioned, but misguided. We're only getting better.

Now I just wait to prove my point. Talking heads are like scouts, they thrive on consensus as a group. One piles on, the rest follow suit. Let's all think for ourselves. We aren't as bad as a lot of people seem to be cheering for.

Typical.

 

 

No one is saying we tank for a high pick and then don't draft Datsyuk in the 6th round.  We are saying let's do both.  Why you have to limit the conversation into a binary?  No one is even having that conversation.

 

Let's get a high pick AND draft Aho in the second round.  Let's do that.

[sak22]

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

No one is saying we tank for a high pick and then don't draft Datsyuk in the 6th round.  We are saying let's do both.  Why you have to limit the conversation into a binary?  No one is even having that conversation.

 

Let's get a high pick AND draft Aho in the second round.  Let's do that.

But the team isn't doing that, so why not have belief that the team can still do it without tanking?  There is still so much to lose from tanking from this point. 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

No one is saying we tank for a high pick and then don't draft Datsyuk in the 6th round.  We are saying let's do both.  Why you have to limit the conversation into a binary?  No one is even having that conversation.

 

Let's get a high pick AND draft Aho in the second round.  Let's do that.

 

Yup.  

 

I totally get where @conundrumed is coming from because I am equally infuriated by "stay the course" lol.

 

We doing a little bit of this:   https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-social-media-is-so-good-at-polarizing-us-11603105204

 

 

Not our fault really, it's the internet's fault lol.

 

I want it all.  I want good drafting, good acquisitions, good ptos, good trades, great coaches.

 

The reality is that if we do all this without any high picks, we're looking at about 10 years to get where we need to be.  to become a contender.

 

With rebuilding, it's 4-5 years.

 

 

** It is True that the other day I was looking at how many cup winners have first overalls, and was a little jealous.   And to be honest, a first overall wouldn't hurt us especially in these next two drafts.     But I don't actually see this as the goal, or necessary to rebuild.   You made a good point that the last few years of first overall picks have had poor cup showings.  In these next two drafts, most of the players in the top 10 have franchise-player ceilings.

 

[cross16]

5 hours ago, conundrumed said:

That's precisely what I am doing. Flipping the script. The other side is presenting, "we have to tank for a high pick". I'm saying no we don't. Particularly with a ridiculous lottery system that doesn't guarantee a top 3 pick. Datsyuk was a 6th rder. Lidstrom a 3rd. Benn, Kucherov, Point et.al., we can call them outliers, but there are plenty of outliers if that's what we're calling it.

Now we can pretend scouting is world's better now, unfortunately that's not the case.

I know 2 scouts, 1 for the Wings, 1 for the Pens. Here's why there's always a consensus. It's an old boys club. They all gather together in 1 section of the arena to watch the same player(s), spill drinks and laugh it up like it's a family reunion. I've had this conversation with both. Their primary interest seems to be respect amongst their peers. Just like high school.

So finding the hidden future NHLers is as easy as telling your scouts to sit elsewhere and not to follow the consensus. 1 scout I know actually took my advice and is stalwart.

They all piggy-back off of each other. If I'm a GM, that's not what I'm paying for. This is how the Moritz Seider's go 6thoa when consensus is 6th best International player.

Kid will be a monster NHLer.

Building a solid foundation and adding to it smartly, I get that part.

What I'm saying is you don't have to sell off every asset for picks and tank to accomplish that. Even Aho was a 2nd rder. It happens. A lot.

Pelletier has the toolbox to be a Voracek-type, Zary a Couture.

Our pipeline is looking the best it has in years. D is on the weak side, but we just graduated Andersson, Valimaki, potentially Mackey.

But most are short on patience and out of time due to our old pipeline of Poirier's, Bouma's etc.

My mission is to pull everyone back from the ledge. We aren't in as bad of shape as is being spewed all over. Both Pell and Zary are more than capable of transitioning to the next level.

And yes, we do have a good GM. Too many want him fired. Impassioned, but misguided. We're only getting better.

Now I just wait to prove my point. Talking heads are like scouts, they thrive on consensus as a group. One piles on, the rest follow suit. Let's all think for ourselves. We aren't as bad as a lot of people seem to be cheering for.

Typical.

 

 

 

I agree with lots of this, in particular that the club is in better shape now and moving forward than many others think. However, to build on that I think it depends on what the end goal of this is. If the end game is to have a team that is competitive, able to make the playoffs more often than not, and maybe get lucky and go on a run  than I agree things are on the right path. However, if the end goal is to win a cup than I am very much in the camp that I don't see that happening with the path they are on because I don't see where the impact talent is going to come from. As much as we can say ok well go find a Point or a Bergeron (and without question they should be doing that anyway and I believe they are) I would suggest personally it is very unlikely to happen. 

 

But yes if it's being framed that the Flames are doomed so they might as well tank then I hear you and agree with that. I've said in other threads I think this team is built to be competitive for several more years but there is a big leap between being competitive and winning a cup. I don't see the path they are on closing that gap personally, but happy to be wrong there. 

[conundrumed]

49 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yup.  

 

I totally get where @conundrumed is coming from because I am equally infuriated by "stay the course" lol.

 

We doing a little bit of this:   https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-social-media-is-so-good-at-polarizing-us-11603105204

 

 

Not our fault really, it's the internet's fault lol.

 

I want it all.  I want good drafting, good acquisitions, good ptos, good trades, great coaches.

 

The reality is that if we do all this without any high picks, we're looking at about 10 years to get where we need to be.  to become a contender.

 

With rebuilding, it's 4-5 years.

 

 

** It is True that the other day I was looking at how many cup winners have first overalls, and was a little jealous.   And to be honest, a first overall wouldn't hurt us especially in these next two drafts.     But I don't actually see this as the goal, or necessary to rebuild.   You made a good point that the last few years of first overall picks have had poor cup showings.  In these next two drafts, most of the players in the top 10 have franchise-player ceilings.

 

So the question remains. Why do you hang around? You're so negative about everything surrounding the team that it makes you blind with rage.

Nobody actually needs that. Between you and peeps, you'd think we have nothing positive at all.

This is where the false dichotomy lives. Pretending that we're horrible at everything. Nothing is right, nothing is good enough.

Grab a straw, maybe it'll be the long one. Stop telling us how bad we are at everything for not being TBag. False dichotomy. Bad translation.

If you can't see some positives, why hang around?

[jjgallow]

2 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

So the question remains. Why do you hang around? You're so negative about everything surrounding the team that it makes you blind with rage.

Nobody actually needs that. Between you and peeps, you'd think we have nothing positive at all.

This is where the false dichotomy lives. Pretending that we're horrible at everything. Nothing is right, nothing is good enough.

Grab a straw, maybe it'll be the long one. Stop telling us how bad we are at everything for not being TBag. False dichotomy. Bad translation.

If you can't see some positives, why hang around?

 

Well, technically speaking, I'm being realistic, we finished 20th overall which is brutal, and any Flames fan I speak to is disgusted right now.

 

Just spoke to one a few minutes ago, asked them their thoughts....

 

long pause...

 

sigh...

 

"terrible"

 

walked away for a second

 

came back

 

"sorry"

 

 

This is Reallity, it is not blindness.

 

 

I will be here as long as it takes to win another cup and I'll be on the red mile beer in hand.   Whether it's in the Saddledome or the Event Center or whatever they build after that.  

 

Here's the interesting thing.  When we rebuild, and we will, a whole bunch of "fans" will head for the exits.   I'm that guy who will be there cheering the Flames on when they just have a couple of 20 year olds in the lineup and they're losing like crazy but they have a stacked prospect system.    

 

I'll be there, and I'll be the most positive guy around.

 

I think you will be too.    But most won't.     You don't need to ask me why I stick around when things are bad.   You need to ask yourself why you're so afraid of it.

[conundrumed]

15 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

I agree with lots of this, in particular that the club is in better shape now and moving forward than many others think. However, to build on that I think it depends on what the end goal of this is. If the end game is to have a team that is competitive, able to make the playoffs more often than not, and maybe get lucky and go on a run  than I agree things are on the right path. However, if the end goal is to win a cup than I am very much in the camp that I don't see that happening with the path they are on because I don't see where the impact talent is going to come from. As much as we can say ok well go find a Point or a Bergeron (and without question they should be doing that anyway and I believe they are) I would suggest personally it is very unlikely to happen. 

 

But yes if it's being framed that the Flames are doomed so they might as well tank then I hear you and agree with that. I've said in other threads I think this team is built to be competitive for several more years but there is a big leap between being competitive and winning a cup. I don't see the path they are on closing that gap personally, but happy to be wrong there. 

And let's not forget Fox took the, "I'm a pos" route either. We took him in the 2nd. He's a pos. Let's just direct every slapshot at him.

See how much he likes NY.

If I'm Sutter. "Forwards, let him run. Zady, Guddy, take a suspension".

I hope we remind Fox every time, hurtfully, that he's a pos.

That's team building.

[tmac70]

12 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Well, technically speaking, I'm being realistic, we finished 20th overall which is brutal, and any Flames fan I speak to is disgusted right now.

 

Just spoke to one a few minutes ago, asked them their thoughts....

 

long pause...

 

sigh...

 

"terrible"

 

walked away for a second

 

came back

 

"sorry"

 

 

This is Reallity, it is not blindness.

 

 

I will be here as long as it takes to win another cup and I'll be on the red mile beer in hand.   Whether it's in the Saddledome or the Event Center or whatever they build after that.  

 

Here's the interesting thing.  When we rebuild, and we will, a whole bunch of "fans" will head for the exits.   I'm that guy who will be there cheering the Flames on when they just have a couple of 20 year olds in the lineup and they're losing like crazy but they have a stacked prospect system.    

 

I'll be there, and I'll be the most positive guy around.

 

I think you will be too.    But most won't.     You don't need to ask me why I stick around when things are bad.   You need to ask yourself why you're so afraid of it.

For the most part I agree with this, I also can see where the others are trying to stay optimistic with the direction.  I, as well as others may come across as negative to the club but really its just an honest assesment. We live in a society where the truth is something no one wishes to hear.  If being average is the highest standard we can obtain than they have accomplished the goal.  Now has Tre's whole tender been a flop, no, but its much like this clubs success rate has been average to below average.  There are many here that have a subjective opinion and others that base theirs on objective opinion, to each their own. However the objective is to WIN a championship that should be what ever  athlete strives to do. IMHO when things got derailed is when Hartley took us to the 2nd round, that is when blind optimism took over instead of continuing on the rebuild, that 100% falls on Tre. Hindsight is 20/20 but just consider for a few seconds if we didn't trade those 2 -1st rounders and 4 - 2nd Rounders inthe Hamilton/ Hamonic trades away to try and win now, where would we be? 2015 we would have had Barzal, 2018 Dobson or Farabee where would our club be than!

[rocketdoctor]

Ah but putting the blame on Tre is where imho I think you and JJ are wrong.

 

The blame lies higher up!!

[conundrumed]

18 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

For the most part I agree with this, I also can see where the others are trying to stay optimistic with the direction.  I, as well as others may come across as negative to the club but really its just an honest assesment. We live in a society where the truth is something no one wishes to hear.  If being average is the highest standard we can obtain than they have accomplished the goal.  Now has Tre's whole tender been a flop, no, but its much like this clubs success rate has been average to below average.  There are many here that have a subjective opinion and others that base theirs on objective opinion, to each their own. However the objective is to WIN a championship that should be what ever  athlete strives to do. IMHO when things got derailed is when Hartley took us to the 2nd round, that is when blind optimism took over instead of continuing on the rebuild, that 100% falls on Tre. Hindsight is 20/20 but just consider for a few seconds if we didn't trade those 2 -1st rounders and 4 - 2nd Rounders inthe Hamilton/ Hamonic trades away to try and win now, where would we be? 2015 we would have had Barzal, 2018 Dobson or Farabee where would our club be than!

What I think needs to happen is a new thread like, "The Hive of Doom", that you folks could hang out in.

There are enough of you. Come tell us that you told us so occasionally.

We'd love that.

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

What I think needs to happen is a new thread like, "The Hive of Doom", that you folks could hang out in.

There are enough of you. Come tell us that you told us so occasionally.

We'd love that.

 

Kinda like a time out room.

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, rocketdoctor said:

Ah but putting the blame on Tre is where imho I think you and JJ are wrong.

 

The blame lies higher up!!

 

You are probably right