2022 Player Grades

[tmac70]

I think its time to pass some marks out on the season. Its been extremely sad to watch as I think most had high expectaions. Be nice to see where or how everyone else views this club.

 

Goaltender

 

Markstrom D-

Vldar D

 

Forwards

Lindholm C-

Toffoli B-

Huberdeau F

 

Kadri C+

Dube B-

Mags D-

 

Backs B

Coleman C-

Ruzicka C

 

Lewis B-

Rithcie C

Zoh B-

Lucic F

 

Phillips C-

 

Defense

 

Anderson C

Hanifin C-

Zadorov C

Tanev B

Weegar D- 

Stone D-

Mackey F

 

IMHO we have 4 players that are having acceptable years. 

[jjgallow]

11 hours ago, tmac70 said:

I think its time to pass some marks out on the season. Its been extremely sad to watch as I think most had high expectaions. Be nice to see where or how everyone else views this club.

 

Goaltender

 

Markstrom D-

Vldar D

 

Forwards

Lindholm C-

Toffoli B-

Huberdeau F

 

Kadri C+

Dube B-

Mags D-

 

Backs B

Coleman C-

Ruzicka C

 

Lewis B-

Rithcie C

Zoh B-

Lucic F

 

Phillips C-

 

Defense

 

Anderson C

Hanifin C-

Zadorov C

Tanev B

Weegar D- 

Stone D-

Mackey F

 

IMHO we have 4 players that are having acceptable years. 

 

 

 

Can we do this for the GM?  lol.    Here is mine, with that slant.  I tend to not blame, or over-rate players.   I like to look at the top.

 

 

Markstrom  B-     Everyone always likes to the blame the goalie.   But Markstrom was simply never that great, this year is closer to what he simply normally is.   One hot year does not mean that we didn't have any other needs on defence or net.
                            F to BT for the cap hit and not bringing in better younger goalies, and relying on one hot year.

Vldar      B       Our best goalie.   Picked out of nowhere.   Good job by Flames scouts.  Scoring  an F to BT here for taking development time away from prospects

 

Forwards

Lindholm B+    Another very good year actually.    Horrible trade to acquire him.  F to BT for that.  Part of the problems we have now are that trade.  But Lindholm is good.

Toffoli B-        I agree with you here, B-.    F to BT for wasting the pick on a zero-cup chance.

Huberdeau  C-     Your F is a little harsh imho for a guy who is producing.  Definitely an off-year for him though.    F to BT for the cap hit on an older player.  

                              Contract will haunt us for years.

 

Kadri C+     Agree with you on the C+.    F to BT for the cap hit and giving up the first for Monahan, cap hit and lack of future will haunt us for years.

Dube B-     Agree with you on the B-.    

Mags B     Mangiapne just being himself.  Went from under-rated to highly over-rated here.   Great story, but F to BT for the contract and not realising what this was.

                        Kill me, but...we should have traded him when he had his hot year.    Optional of course.  He brings a lot of energy.   But he's never bringing a cup home here.

 

Backs B      Agree.    Poor Backs.

Coleman B   An older forward doing what older forwards do.   F to BT for the contract, turning the team into a seniors home.

Ruzicka A+   Here we may disagree the most.   Ruzicka blowing away expectations for what he is.   One of the only players I would say keep.
                            He has a good 10 years left in him if he keeps this up.   One of the few players here who could actually live through a rebuild and hoist a cup here.

 

Lewis B-     Agree

Rithcie B   Doing what he does, just another borderline guy who is here because of BT's cap mistakes.   Doing his best.

Zoh B-     Agree.    F to BT/Sutter for calling him up ahead of other prospects though.

Lucic A     Disagree, giving him an A.    How is he even still alive?   Can't believe he can still skate in his condition and age.   F to BT for obvious and well documented reasons.

 

Phillips A   I never expected him to play a game in the NHL.  He's played 3 now.   Exceptional AHL season.   F to BT/Sutter for how the callup was handled.

 

Defense

 

Anderson B+    Picking up where he left off, with no help anywhere.    One of our few keepers.

Hanifin B        Not sure he should be a defenceman in any league.    He's doing what he does.  F to BT for the trade.

Zadorov B+     Great story.   Not a great D but a great story here.   Doing the best with what he has.

Tanev A           Our best true D.    He is very alone right now.     F to BT for the fact that he's our best D

Weegar B        Weegar is just doing what Weegar does, which was never great at the NHL level.    F to BT for thinking he was a #1 D and the trade.
                           Also an  F to whoever came up with that stupid advanced stats tweet last year.

Stone B         Stone being a 32 year old.    Not too much of a drop-off.  Probably a lot more drop-off to come.

Mackey A   We disagree greatly here.  Mackey made the NHL.    For what he is, that's an A to me.      F to BT, for the fact that Mackey made the Flames.

[flames for life]

22 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

 

Can we do this for the GM?  lol.    Here is mine, with that slant.  I tend to not blame, or over-rate players.   I like to look at the top.

 

 

Markstrom  B-     Everyone always likes to the blame the goalie.   But Markstrom was simply never that great, this year is closer to what he simply normally is.   One hot year does not mean that we didn't have any other needs on defence or net.
                            F to BT for the cap hit and not bringing in better younger goalies, and relying on one hot year.

Vldar      B       Our best goalie.   Picked out of nowhere.   Good job by Flames scouts.  Scoring  an F to BT here for taking development time away from prospects

 

Forwards

Lindholm B+    Another very good year actually.    Horrible trade to acquire him.  F to BT for that.  Part of the problems we have now are that trade.  But Lindholm is good.

Toffoli B-        I agree with you here, B-.    F to BT for wasting the pick on a zero-cup chance.

Huberdeau  C-     Your F is a little harsh imho for a guy who is producing.  Definitely an off-year for him though.    F to BT for the cap hit on an older player.  

                              Contract will haunt us for years.

 

Kadri C+     Agree with you on the C+.    F to BT for the cap hit and giving up the first for Monahan, cap hit and lack of future will haunt us for years.

Dube B-     Agree with you on the B-.    

Mags B     Mangiapne just being himself.  Went from under-rated to highly over-rated here.   Great story, but F to BT for the contract and not realising what this was.

                        Kill me, but...we should have traded him when he had his hot year.    Optional of course.  He brings a lot of energy.   But he's never bringing a cup home here.

 

Backs B      Agree.    Poor Backs.

Coleman B   An older forward doing what older forwards do.   F to BT for the contract, turning the team into a seniors home.

Ruzicka A+   Here we may disagree the most.   Ruzicka blowing away expectations for what he is.   One of the only players I would say keep.
                            He has a good 10 years left in him if he keeps this up.   One of the few players here who could actually live through a rebuild and hoist a cup here.

 

Lewis B-     Agree

Rithcie B   Doing what he does, just another borderline guy who is here because of BT's cap mistakes.   Doing his best.

Zoh B-     Agree.    F to BT/Sutter for calling him up ahead of other prospects though.

Lucic A     Disagree, giving him an A.    How is he even still alive?   Can't believe he can still skate in his condition and age.   F to BT for obvious and well documented reasons.

 

Phillips A   I never expected him to play a game in the NHL.  He's played 3 now.   Exceptional AHL season.   F to BT/Sutter for how the callup was handled.

 

Defense

 

Anderson B+    Picking up where he left off, with no help anywhere.    One of our few keepers.

Hanifin B        Not sure he should be a defenceman in any league.    He's doing what he does.  F to BT for the trade.

Zadorov B+     Great story.   Not a great D but a great story here.   Doing the best with what he has.

Tanev A           Our best true D.    He is very alone right now.     F to BT for the fact that he's our best D

Weegar B        Weegar is just doing what Weegar does, which was never great at the NHL level.    F to BT for thinking he was a #1 D and the trade.
                           Also an  F to whoever came up with that stupid advanced stats tweet last year.

Stone B         Stone being a 32 year old.    Not too much of a drop-off.  Probably a lot more drop-off to come.

Mackey A   We disagree greatly here.  Mackey made the NHL.    For what he is, that's an A to me.      F to BT, for the fact that Mackey made the Flames.

Wow!!!  Did we re-title this “How much I hate BT?!?”

[Heartbreaker]

14 hours ago, tmac70 said:

Phillips C-

 

3 hours ago, jjgallow said:

Can we do this for the GM?  lol.    Here is mine, with that slant.  I tend to not blame, or over-rate players.   I like to look at the top.

 

This whole thread is hilarious, and I am sincerely hopeful that more regulars will contribute. Especially JJ.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to add to that hot mess, but I do want to ask you, @tmac70, what's with the C- for Phillips? I don't mean this in any sort of sarcastic way, but I'm genuinely curious how you can give him that grade given the sample size of approximately 18 minutes of ice time. He is the leading scorer in the AHL, so he obviously puts in the work, but I'm wondering how you came to a C-.

 

I suppose that asking the question opens up a whole new can of worms:

 

• What is an appropriate sample size?
• If two games in a limited role is enough, what is the baseline?
• Why was Phillips given a C- after two games, but players like Nick DeSimone, Dennis Gilbert, and Kevin Rooney were not rated at all?

 

Honestly, just curious.

 

Love.

[travel_dude]

My player grades are F.  I suck at the ice hockey.

[jjgallow]

24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

My player grades are F.  I suck at the ice hockey.

 

I blame BT

[redfire11]

I think if the Flames had a coach "like" Jon Cooper

All the Grades would be dramatically higher.

[tmac70]

2 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

 

This whole thread is hilarious, and I am sincerely hopeful that more regulars will contribute. Especially JJ.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to add to that hot mess, but I do want to ask you, @tmac70, what's with the C- for Phillips? I don't mean this in any sort of sarcastic way, but I'm genuinely curious how you can give him that grade given the sample size of approximately 18 minutes of ice time. He is the leading scorer in the AHL, so he obviously puts in the work, but I'm wondering how you came to a C-.

 

I suppose that asking the question opens up a whole new can of worms:

 

• What is an appropriate sample size?
• If two games in a limited role is enough, what is the baseline?
• Why was Phillips given a C- after two games, but players like Nick DeSimone, Dennis Gilbert, and Kevin Rooney were not rated at all?

 

Honestly, just curious.

 

Love.

The fact your quesioning is a good thing. The one thing about this forum I have great respect for is the individuals on it and the passion desire we all share as Flames fans. 

Am I offended your asking or questioning my grades, nope. I  have one feeling left, good luck getting deep enough to bruise it.  

 

• What is an appropriate sample size?
• If two games in a limited role is enough, what is the baseline?
• Why was Phillips given a C- after two games, but players like Nick DeSimone, Dennis Gilbert, and Kevin Rooney were not rated at all?
•  

SImply Desimone, Gilbert and Rooney are not on the current roster, Grades for them would be D-, D and F. Although I would waive Mackey and bring in Gilbert. 

Without going down another rabbit hole, the baseline for Phillips was his 2 game stint, as was it similar to Desimone and Zoh. Is there an actual baseline of say 8-10 games no. Is this not how this club got into trouble before, to long of a leash for players. SImple fact once your in make an impact or your out simple prospect rules as they should be. Zoh out of the 3 games he has played has been noticable and effective in 2 of the 3 games hes palyed. Phillips has neither made an impact or was even noticable, but he should be allowed a longer leash, think not.  If your adding to the roster to improve it than it should improve or at least be noticable.  Making latteral moves because its a feel good story doesn't make the team better. 

 

Is Phillips the AHL leader is points yes, thats awesome for the AHL, this club plays in the NHL. I truely do hope he makes an impact if he gets in again. However, based on what he showed he was no better than what we currently ice but smaller (sorry) which is a C- . Which is kind of where the whole roster averages out. 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, tmac70 said:

The fact your quesioning is a good thing. The one thing about this forum I have great respect for is the individuals on it and the passion desire we all share as Flames fans. 

Am I offended your asking or questioning my grades, nope. I  have one feeling left, good luck getting deep enough to bruise it.  

 

• What is an appropriate sample size?
• If two games in a limited role is enough, what is the baseline?
• Why was Phillips given a C- after two games, but players like Nick DeSimone, Dennis Gilbert, and Kevin Rooney were not rated at all?
•  

SImply Desimone, Gilbert and Rooney are not on the current roster, Grades for them would be D-, D and F. Although I would waive Mackey and bring in Gilbert. 

Without going down another rabbit hole, the baseline for Phillips was his 2 game stint, as was it similar to Desimone and Zoh. Is there an actual baseline of say 8-10 games no. Is this not how this club got into trouble before, to long of a leash for players. SImple fact once your in make an impact or your out simple prospect rules as they should be. Zoh out of the 3 games he has played has been noticable and effective in 2 of the 3 games hes palyed. Phillips has neither made an impact or was even noticable, but he should be allowed a longer leash, think not.  If your adding to the roster to improve it than it should improve or at least be noticable.  Making latteral moves because its a feel good story doesn't make the team better. 

 

Is Phillips the AHL leader is points yes, thats awesome for the AHL, this club plays in the NHL. I truely do hope he makes an impact if he gets in again. However, based on what he showed he was no better than what we currently ice but smaller (sorry) which is a C- . Which is kind of where the whole roster averages out. 

 

Yeah it's just perspective.   I also disagreed with you on that rating but wasn't Really a disagreement.

 

Phllips is just your typical 5'7 AHL star.   For every Gaudreau there are 12 who are that at the AHL level and can't translate.

 

So it's expectations.

 

I give him an A because I never expected him to become an AHL start, I thought he would tap out in junior.

 

I give him one in a million chances in the NHL and I don't hold it against him if he fails at that level, I have zero expectations there.

 

 

To fans who Are disappointed.... this is what happens when you trade away all your first rounders and prospects year after year.

[taz89]

16 hours ago, redfire11 said:

I think if the Flames had a coach "like" Jon Cooper

All the Grades would be dramatically higher.

Agree with this 100%

[robrob74]

Something Robert on Flames' postgame said is this organization is ok with mediocrity and that they don't have a hate for losing. The team overall hasn't had a hate to lose in the last 20-30 years and ownership has done nothing to fix that. 
 

I'd settle for not making the playoffs. If players are injured, sit them, and not tank, but if it's an injury season it is bound to happen. We could use some youth infusion and getting a higher draft pick could help. 

[LouCifer]

On 12/15/2022 at 1:35 AM, tmac70 said:

I think its time to pass some marks out on the season. Its been extremely sad to watch as I think most had high expectaions. Be nice to see where or how everyone else views this club.

 

Goaltender

 

Markstrom D-

Vldar D

 

Forwards

Lindholm C-

Toffoli B-

Huberdeau F

 

Kadri C+

Dube B-

Mags D-

 

Backs B

Coleman C-

Ruzicka C

 

Lewis B-

Rithcie C

Zoh B-

Lucic F

 

Phillips C-

 

Defense

 

Anderson C

Hanifin C-

Zadorov C

Tanev B

Weegar D- 

Stone D-

Mackey F

 

IMHO we have 4 players that are having acceptable years. 

I’m aligned with most of your grades here (give or take a half in either direction), but the one glaring difference for me would be vladar. I’d give him a B, maybe a B+. The guy has been solid for us, saving our bacon countless times, and aside from maybe 1 or two goals this season he’d want a do-over for, I’d say the other team earned the ones that got by him. He’s been one of the unsung heroes of this early season in my eyes. Toffoli’s season would also be completely different if even only half of those shots that have hit iron went in - he’s got a magnet for the posts and crossbar! 

[cross16]

18 hours ago, robrob74 said:

Something Robert on Flames' postgame said is this organization is ok with mediocrity and that they don't have a hate for losing. The team overall hasn't had a hate to lose in the last 20-30 years and ownership has done nothing to fix that. 
 

I'd settle for not making the playoffs. If players are injured, sit them, and not tank, but if it's an injury season it is bound to happen. We could use some youth infusion and getting a higher draft pick could help. 

 

This is starting to really bother me. Do we really think an organization that is ok with mediocrity would authorize the buyouts they did/do? Would an organization ok with mediocrity have up to 3 head coaches on the payroll at one time? Would an organization that is ok with mediocrity authorize 3 of the largest deals in their franchise history last offseason, 2 of which to players that had never played a game for them?

 

You can disagree with how they go about doing their business, and I have issues myself, but I don't think it's fair at all to say this franchise is ok with mediocrity. That's crap to me. 

[robrob74]

15 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This is starting to really bother me. Do we really think an organization that is ok with mediocrity would authorize the buyouts they did/do? Would an organization ok with mediocrity have up to 3 head coaches on the payroll at one time? Would an organization that is ok with mediocrity authorize 3 of the largest deals in their franchise history last offseason, 2 of which to players that had never played a game for them?

 

You can disagree with how they go about doing their business, and I have issues myself, but I don't think it's fair at all to say this franchise is ok with mediocrity. That's crap to me. 

you have your opinion, I have mine. It's fine. The reasons they're ok with it is because they don't do the things  to push things forward. They don't build a certain way. They're ok with being in the middle. Sure, they demand playoffs and playoff revenue. But they sure as hell don't do the work to draft well enough, to lose long enough to grab a decent player, and to think we were as good as we were last year is pure BS, as shown by being knocked out by Edm. If losing Tanev is the biggest reason for that then we sure a hell aren't a deep enough team... we also got to first in the pacific on the backs of other teams failures, or injuries... 

 

the other thing is this team is in and barely making it or are out the next year. We piss on Edm but we aren't much better than they are. We say we draft better, but do we really? 
 

this team has sucked for 30 years. We demand playoffs and end up like Minnesota in and out. We won a few divisions, but I'd say the climate had to be just right to do it, had guys on expiring contracts and they played to get their last big ones. 
 

it is mediocrity and sure, owners don't want it, but they sure as hell aren't helping in getting it beyond that.
 

 

[jjgallow]

16 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This is starting to really bother me. Do we really think an organization that is ok with mediocrity would authorize the buyouts they did/do?

 

yes.  You mean the Lucic buyout or the Monahan buyout?

 

16 hours ago, cross16 said:

Would an organization ok with mediocrity have up to 3 head coaches on the payroll at one time?

 

100%.  Way, way cheaper than dealing with the real issues that the organisation created.   rotating coaches is classic.

 

16 hours ago, cross16 said:

Would an organization that is ok with mediocrity authorize 3 of the largest deals in their franchise history last offseason, 2 of which to players that had never played a game for them?

 

Yes.   Losing 3 consecutive deals in a row and getting much older, and cap-heavy on each one is par for the course.

 

16 hours ago, cross16 said:

You can disagree with how they go about doing their business, and I have issues myself, but I don't think it's fair at all to say this franchise is ok with mediocrity. That's crap to me. 

 

Nobody's saying it's crap (yet) but any organisation that consistently sacrifices its future and kicks the can forward on most trades, is in fact okay with mediocrity or worse, to the point that they have knowingly made it inevitable.

[sak22]

7 hours ago, robrob74 said:

you have your opinion, I have mine. It's fine. The reasons they're ok with it is because they don't do the things  to push things forward. They don't build a certain way. They're ok with being in the middle. Sure, they demand playoffs and playoff revenue. But they sure as hell don't do the work to draft well enough, to lose long enough to grab a decent player, and to think we were as good as we were last year is pure BS, as shown by being knocked out by Edm. If losing Tanev is the biggest reason for that then we sure a hell aren't a deep enough team... we also got to first in the pacific on the backs of other teams failures, or injuries... 

 

the other thing is this team is in and barely making it or are out the next year. We piss on Edm but we aren't much better than they are. We say we draft better, but do we really? 
 

this team has sucked for 30 years. We demand playoffs and end up like Minnesota in and out. We won a few divisions, but I'd say the climate had to be just right to do it, had guys on expiring contracts and they played to get their last big ones. 
 

it is mediocrity and sure, owners don't want it, but they sure as hell aren't helping in getting it beyond that.
 

 

Okay, now do Edmonton, Vancouver, New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Philadelphia Flyers, Buffalo Sabres, Toronto Maple Leafs, Arizona Coyotes, Winnipeg Jets, Nashville Predators, Columbus Blue Jackets, Florida Panthers and Montreal Canadiens.  Then look at how long it took for LA, St. Louis, Washington took to win one championship, and then how long of droughts Detroit, Chicago and Boston.  You make this sound like a Flames specific problem, its a hard league to win and hard to build a good team and getting extremely annoying reading how easy it is.

[cross16]

7 hours ago, robrob74 said:

you have your opinion, I have mine. It's fine. The reasons they're ok with it is because they don't do the things  to push things forward. They don't build a certain way. They're ok with being in the middle. Sure, they demand playoffs and playoff revenue. But they sure as hell don't do the work to draft well enough, to lose long enough to grab a decent player, and to think we were as good as we were last year is pure BS, as shown by being knocked out by Edm. If losing Tanev is the biggest reason for that then we sure a hell aren't a deep enough team... we also got to first in the pacific on the backs of other teams failures, or injuries... 

 

the other thing is this team is in and barely making it or are out the next year. We piss on Edm but we aren't much better than they are. We say we draft better, but do we really? 
 

this team has sucked for 30 years. We demand playoffs and end up like Minnesota in and out. We won a few divisions, but I'd say the climate had to be just right to do it, had guys on expiring contracts and they played to get their last big ones. 
 

it is mediocrity and sure, owners don't want it, but they sure as hell aren't helping in getting it beyond that.
 

 

 

The Oilers embraced what you are talking about and where did it get them? Where has it gotten Florida? New York Islanders? Those teams, by your definition, would not be ok with mediocrity (they all rebuilt) yet none of those 3 franchises are substantially better than Calgary or really have had anymore success. The Flames also draft substantially better than Edm and quite frankly it isn't close. 

 

Since 2013 (and outside of McDavid/Draisitl) the Oilers have drafted exactly 1 top 6 forward. (and you could even argue that Yamamotto isn't a top 6 forward)

They've drafted 1 top 4 dman in Evan Bouchard. 

From 2013 to 2019 (excluding players that played less than 30 games) players the Flames have drafted have played 3,114 games in the NHL. The Oilers 2,985. 

Total amount of picks: Oilers 49 vs Flames 43

Avg position of first selection: Oilers 7.75 Flames 30

Like I said, it isn't close. 

 

Do I wish the Flames would embrace more of what you are talking about, yes I do. As i've said many times before with Tkachuk/Gaudreau left I would have torn this down (actually I would have torn it down 2 years ago) because I was ready. However, what I don't like is tying that decision in with mediocrity. So the Flames are ok with mediocrity because they don't want to tank? That's silly IMO because tanking does not guarantee success and there are countless examples in the league of that. 

 

The Flames don't build the way some want and I think it's ok to acknowledge that we can disagree with how they run their team without have to accuse them of being ok with mediocrity. Those 2 situations are not mutually inclusive of each other. The owners just differ and have a different philosophy on how they want their team and even though I wish they would embrace it more I think there are reasons why it's also sound logic. Ok to disagree with them. 

[jjgallow]

never make decisions based off the Oilers.  Look up there long enough you'll end up thinking hockey shouldn't exist.

 

Most people in favour of rebuilds are simply looking at past Stanley cup winners.   Not such a bad thing to do.

 

Most people in favour of simply not giving away our draft picks, for the most part same thing.   Only time I think you can justify it is when you're a clear top contender and need that edge.   Any other time is knowingly inviting mediocrity down the road.

[travel_dude]

12 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

never make decisions based off the Oilers.  Look up there long enough you'll end up thinking hockey shouldn't exist.

 

Most people in favour of rebuilds are simply looking at past Stanley cup winners.   Not such a bad thing to do.

 

Most people in favour of simply not giving away our draft picks, for the most part same thing.   Only time I think you can justify it is when you're a clear top contender and need that edge.   Any other time is knowingly inviting mediocrity down the road.

 

Two of the last 5 teams were not ever in rebuids as such.

WAS and STL.

COL was in a cycle of rebuild over the years and got it timed right for player costs.

TBL is a study in cap loopholes that aided in them winning.

Winning in two short seasons.

 

DO you need to flush some players and make smart trades and picks?  Of course.

The sad fact is we look fondly too long on players with former glories.

Lucic is past done.

Lewis is a journeyman type that you can use, but not what a winner does.

We aren't that far off from having a really good team.

And possibly a winner.

Just can't continue to ice bad players just because they did something once.

And if your starter is not playing as good as the backup, simple answer.

PLay the hot hand and get both up to the right level.

If some of the play makes it look worse, then mitigate that type of play.

[robrob74]

On 12/20/2022 at 8:08 AM, cross16 said:

 

The Oilers embraced what you are talking about and where did it get them? Where has it gotten Florida? New York Islanders? Those teams, by your definition, would not be ok with mediocrity (they all rebuilt) yet none of those 3 franchises are substantially better than Calgary or really have had anymore success. The Flames also draft substantially better than Edm and quite frankly it isn't close. 

 

Since 2013 (and outside of McDavid/Draisitl) the Oilers have drafted exactly 1 top 6 forward. (and you could even argue that Yamamotto isn't a top 6 forward)

They've drafted 1 top 4 dman in Evan Bouchard. 

From 2013 to 2019 (excluding players that played less than 30 games) players the Flames have drafted have played 3,114 games in the NHL. The Oilers 2,985. 

Total amount of picks: Oilers 49 vs Flames 43

Avg position of first selection: Oilers 7.75 Flames 30

Like I said, it isn't close. 

 

Do I wish the Flames would embrace more of what you are talking about, yes I do. As i've said many times before with Tkachuk/Gaudreau left I would have torn this down (actually I would have torn it down 2 years ago) because I was ready. However, what I don't like is tying that decision in with mediocrity. So the Flames are ok with mediocrity because they don't want to tank? That's silly IMO because tanking does not guarantee success and there are countless examples in the league of that. 

 

The Flames don't build the way some want and I think it's ok to acknowledge that we can disagree with how they run their team without have to accuse them of being ok with mediocrity. Those 2 situations are not mutually inclusive of each other. The owners just differ and have a different philosophy on how they want their team and even though I wish they would embrace it more I think there are reasons why it's also sound logic. Ok to disagree with them. 

 

If anyone is ok with our drafting record, picking higher in the draft should be a god send. Everyone says look at these teams who languish in rebuild hell, but we aren't them. We draft our way and if we are happy with the depth picks we've been drafting, we shouldn't end up like those teams. Their problems have been getting picks to work outside the first round...

[sak22]

13 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

If anyone is ok with our drafting record, picking higher in the draft should be a god send. Everyone says look at these teams who languish in rebuild hell, but we aren't them. We draft our way and if we are happy with the depth picks we've been drafting, we shouldn't end up like those teams. Their problems have been getting picks to work outside the first round...

Well its funny because when someone like Nail Yakupov fails it screams failure on the Oilers, but how many scouts, other gm's and fans had him #1?  It really is a crapshoot with a lot of high picks too outside of the prodigy's (Crosby, McDavid), much like there is always a star in every top 5, there is always a bust too, but very few people can pinpoint them on draft day, they are just a bunch of 18 year olds I was a wreck at 18 I couldn't imagine how I'd be if I was good at hockey and given a lot of money at 18.  Saying we are okay with drafting is also a comparison to the '90's and 2000's which were awful.  I don't think its a science, Dallas look like geniuses for getting Heiskenen, Oettinger and J-Rob in 2017, could be the best draft any teams had, but its also a team that took Riley Tufte before Tage Thompson the year before, and Denis Gurianov ahead of Connor or Barzal in 2015.  There isn't a point per game player in the 4th round or later in every draft, or 30 goal scorers in the 6th every year, also getting a top pairing d man in the late 2nd doesn't happen all the time either.  Is it perfect?  no, will it ever be? no, but it could be a lot worse.  

[cross16]

50 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

If anyone is ok with our drafting record, picking higher in the draft should be a god send. Everyone says look at these teams who languish in rebuild hell, but we aren't them. We draft our way and if we are happy with the depth picks we've been drafting, we shouldn't end up like those teams. Their problems have been getting picks to work outside the first round...

 

I don't think it's that simple as there is a luck/timing element to it as well. Most rebuilding teams don't actually finally reach their success by design it tends to be by accident. 

Colorado was supposed to be done rebuilding after they got Mackinnon/Rantannen etc. They were building/pushing forward until they had Roy leave them right before the season, had a terrible year and there was Makar sitting there for him. If Roy stays there's a good chance there is no Makar and maybe even no Byram (Duchene asked for a trade because of this season).

Same thing with the Lightning. Had their core go the Eastern Conference Semis then crash out, finish 3rd, get Drouin, flip him for Sergachev and then voila. 

Oilers got their number 1s in what was a pretty weak cycle of drafts (McDavid excluded of course). Bit of a similar story to the Flames as 2013 and 14 were not strong drafts. So Flames bottomed out but didn't really get the caliber of player you'd normally expect. There is luck (and to some extent planning) involved. 

 

I think at the end of the day we make it seem like rebuilding is easy. You lose, you get good players you see success, it's such an easy equation. Yet there are so many variables that go into it that I don't think get enough attention. Regardless of my personal opinion (disappointed to say I am not currently a Calgary Flames owner) I can just understand that if i'm an owner getting pitched a rebuild idea it's not exactly illogical to not want to go ahead with it as there are plenty of uncontrolled variables that make it risky to a certain extent. Just don't think it means that mediocrity is ok. 

 

As i've said I would have been fine if they did it and 2 summers ago I was ready then too because last year's draft and this one are so good that the timing made sense. I think they'd have success with it but the owners felt differently and I just don't think it's fair or right to say it's because they are ok with mediocrity. 

 

 

 

[jjgallow]

On 12/20/2022 at 10:10 AM, travel_dude said:

 

Two of the last 5 teams were not ever in rebuids as such.

WAS and STL.

 

k.

 

Washington literally won the cup on the back of a #1 overall draft pick and generational player, which is literally the epitomy of a rebuild.   We must have a dramatically, dramatically different definition of rebuild if that is not a rebuild to you.   I can only guess you're alluding to the time that passed.

 

Rebuilds take time.

 

So, that's 1/5 teams.

 

 

Another way of saying this is 4 out of the last 5 cup winners were rebuilds.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

k.

 

Washington literally won the cup on the back of a #1 overall draft pick and generational player, which is literally the epitomy of a rebuild.   We must have a dramatically, dramatically different definition of rebuild if that is not a rebuild to you.   I can only guess you're alluding to the time that passed.

 

Rebuilds take time.

 

So, that's 1/5 teams.

 

 

Another way of saying this is 4 out of the last 5 cup winners were rebuilds.

9 out of the last 10 cup champions went through rebuilds. 
 

can you argue that 14 out of the last 15 did too? Some cups were won by same teams of course, but that cup had a team going through a build of some sort.

[travel_dude]

8 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

k.

 

Washington literally won the cup on the back of a #1 overall draft pick and generational player, which is literally the epitomy of a rebuild.   We must have a dramatically, dramatically different definition of rebuild if that is not a rebuild to you.   I can only guess you're alluding to the time that passed.

 

Rebuilds take time.

 

So, that's 1/5 teams.

 

 

Another way of saying this is 4 out of the last 5 cup winners were rebuilds.

 

A team that won the cup at some point went through a rebuild.

Therefore, a rebuild means you win a cup.

Was WAS in a rebuild or did they suck for a long time.

Was Kucherov and Point a rebuild result or a good drafting.

Binnington?

Which was a rebuild MacKinnon or Rantanen or Landeskog or Byram?