Level of change..

[DirtyDeeds]

You can ask just about any Flames Fan about what needs to change with the Flames, to be a contender for the cup and you will get numerous answers....

 

So...  What level of change and where will the quality of our hockey being delivered improve to a point of being a consistant contender?

 

Is there a quick fix?

Rebuild or retool?

Is it the Canadian teams setup just tougher to compete?

Is it the cap system holding us back?

 

Or what needs to change from Flames perspective to be successful?

 

Arena?

Owners?

President of Hockey Operations?

General Manager?

Coach[s]

Scouting?

Players or positions?

Farm system?

Budget/cap?

 

All, some, many or none of the above?

 

The present Owners mandates are "make the playoffs" Is this unreasonable for team building and development? Does this set the bar too low [high]?

If the bar is set at make the playoffs then should we expect a team that continuously hovers around a wild card spot or 1st round of playoff results?

[Thebrewcrew]

I would think there will be a GM change. I like what Treliving has done, but he's been on the job since 2014 with varying results. It's telling that Sutter got a extension and he didn't.

 

Not sure how attractive a job it would be, in terms of best available GM jobs. This is likely a job where the head coach will have more power than the GM. At least for the next two seasons. They could look internally, Conroy/Maloney/Murray.

 

Could be looking at a new goalie coach as well. There will be turnover on the staff after a season where you fail to meet expectations.

 

Tough spot to be in as they aren't a playoff team and they are in cap hell for next year. Zadorov is the most likely candidate to move. 

 

Also it's worth throwing it out there, a Markstrom buyout actually saves the Flames 6.3m next year. I don't think it's going to happen, but wouldn't necessarily rule it out, especially if there is change in the front office.

[cross16]

if the question is what is holding back the flames then imo that is ownership. I think the blueprint on how to be a consistent contender is pretty straightforward. You need to have a min of 4-5 star players. Game breakers who are among the best in their position in the league. Without that you’ll be a middling tram at best which is where the flames find themselves, and to defend them a little where most of the league does to. Obviously you need more pieces to supplement that but you need to start there. Really the only way to get therre, especially for a small market Canadian club like Flames is to draft them and to draft players like that you’ll need lottery picks which I think it’s pretty obvious by now the flames owners don’t want to do that. So the flames are in a spot there they can have anywhere from 0-3/4 stars which means they’ll be on this roller coaster for a while. 
 

j don’t think they get off of it without a philosophical change. You can change GMs and j think it’s looking likely they will but I don’t think that will change anything because it doesn’t solve the problem. If the flames don’t want to rebuild like that how do they acquire these players? What’s a new GM going to do that previous ones haven’t?

 

imo they are on this path until they get new owners or the current group changes it’s philosophy. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

if the question is what is holding back the flames then imo that is ownership. I think the blueprint on how to be a consistent contender is pretty straightforward. You need to have a min of 4-5 star players. Game breakers who are among the best in their position in the league. Without that you’ll be a middling tram at best which is where the flames find themselves, and to defend them a little where most of the league does to. Obviously you need more pieces to supplement that but you need to start there. Really the only way to get therre, especially for a small market Canadian club like Flames is to draft them and to draft players like that you’ll need lottery picks which I think it’s pretty obvious by now the flames owners don’t want to do that. So the flames are in a spot there they can have anywhere from 0-3/4 stars which means they’ll be on this roller coaster for a while. 
 

j don’t think they get off of it without a philosophical change. You can change GMs and j think it’s looking likely they will but I don’t think that will change anything because it doesn’t solve the problem. If the flames don’t want to rebuild like that how do they acquire these players? What’s a new GM going to do that previous ones haven’t?

 

imo they are on this path until they get new owners or the current group changes it’s philosophy. 

 

Ya but Johnny Gaudreau round 4 (and Adam Fox round 3).  Tanking is only for the Coilers (and COL, TB, CHI, PIT, etc but who cares about them).  <<Insert moral lecturing>>

[conundrumed]

10 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya but Johnny Gaudreau round 4 (and Adam Fox round 3).  Tanking is only for the Coilers (and COL, TB, CHI, PIT, etc but who cares about them).  <<Insert moral lecturing>>

Fox told everyone that he'd only play for the Rangers. We took him regardless. He shouldn't be in the league. The NHL needs to not allow these precedents, but they won't and it's pathetic that they can't/won't control it.

[The_People1]

8 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Fox told everyone that he'd only play for the Rangers. We took him regardless. He shouldn't be in the league. The NHL needs to not allow these precedents, but they won't and it's pathetic that they can't/won't control it.

 

All drafted players who refuse to sign with the team that drafted them after 4 years should re-enter the draft.  If undrafted, then get UFA status.  Seems pretty simple to me.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

You can ask just about any Flames Fan about what needs to change with the Flames, to be a contender for the cup and you will get numerous answers....

 

So...  What level of change and where will the quality of our hockey being delivered improve to a point of being a consistant contender?

 

Is there a quick fix?

Rebuild or retool?

Is it the Canadian teams setup just tougher to compete?

Is it the cap system holding us back?

 

Or what needs to change from Flames perspective to be successful?

 

Arena?

Owners?

President of Hockey Operations?

General Manager?

Coach[s]

Scouting?

Players or positions?

Farm system?

Budget/cap?

 

All, some, many or none of the above?

 

The present Owners mandates are "make the playoffs" Is this unreasonable for team building and development? Does this set the bar too low [high]?

If the bar is set at make the playoffs then should we expect a team that continuously hovers around a wild card spot or 1st round of playoff results?

 

Quick fix to get back into the playoffs?  Yes.  In fact, we might even still make the playoffs.  IF we miss, then this summer only needs better peripheral pieces like a better 4th line that can play 10 minutes a night regularly.  We need a bottom D pairing like Zadorov-Gudbranson who can log 12-15-minutes a night and dominate.  That's pretty much it.  Those players can be gotten via UFA or try out some kids in the farm.

 

Quick fix to get back to Cup contender status like last season?  No way.  There is no "quick" fix for that because there's no young stars on the verge of emerging into stardom and taking over the team.  Don't have a young Gaudreau, Tkachuk, etc.  The players we have now are pretty much in prime.  What you see is what you get.  Which means, to get to Cup contender status, we have to blow this team up and start over again.

[rickross]

It’s just about every level that needs a change. It all starts with Murray Edwards, as soon as that chapter turns so will this franchise. I think the new arena will inherently bring about a sense of freshness and true restart for the franchise. They still have ability to make it THE best arena in the NHL let alone a energetic hub for the city! Regardless it always starts at the top…then it works  it’s way down. Quick fix, retool solution hasn’t worked, perhaps had Tkachuk and Gaudreau stayed but that’s not the case. Need a new core to build around and a new philosophy that actually translates to a winning formula

[tmac70]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

if the question is what is holding back the flames then imo that is ownership. I think the blueprint on how to be a consistent contender is pretty straightforward. You need to have a min of 4-5 star players. Game breakers who are among the best in their position in the league. Without that you’ll be a middling tram at best which is where the flames find themselves, and to defend them a little where most of the league does to. Obviously you need more pieces to supplement that but you need to start there. Really the only way to get therre, especially for a small market Canadian club like Flames is to draft them and to draft players like that you’ll need lottery picks which I think it’s pretty obvious by now the flames owners don’t want to do that. So the flames are in a spot there they can have anywhere from 0-3/4 stars which means they’ll be on this roller coaster for a while. 
 

j don’t think they get off of it without a philosophical change. You can change GMs and j think it’s looking likely they will but I don’t think that will change anything because it doesn’t solve the problem. If the flames don’t want to rebuild like that how do they acquire these players? What’s a new GM going to do that previous ones haven’t?

 

imo they are on this path until they get new owners or the current group changes it’s philosophy. 

The current roster is not a contender I agree, I do agree with the principle of the GM but this also applies to the coach. New owners that are willing to take a 20 million loss to stockpile such players would be fantastic but unreasonable. Much like the GM what's a new coach going to do with this roster? The overall assessment of the situation is very much bang on. The owners to a small degree did try this but IMHO Trevling or maybe one of the owners rushed the process based on a one-off season. 

 

 

[cross16]

16 hours ago, tmac70 said:

 The owners to a small degree did try this but IMHO Trevling or maybe one of the owners rushed the process based on a one-off season. 

 

This is the reason I point at the owners, IMO the Flames never rebuilt. 

 

- After they traded Iginla, Feaster publicly stated his marching orders were to get back into the playoffs the following season

- They didn't even "rebuild" by choice. Iginla told them he wasn't going to sign

- They hired Burke, a hockey executive who is famous for not being patient

- when Burke fired Feaster he was asked point blank was this to speed up the rebuild. Answer "yes". That's a direct quote. 

- You don't sign a starting goalie like Jonus Hiller to a 2 year deal if your plan is to rebuild through the draft. 

 

Can't rush what you don't start. 

[tmac70]

23 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

This is the reason I point at the owners, IMO the Flames never rebuilt. 

 

- After they traded Iginla, Feaster publicly stated his marching orders were to get back into the playoffs the following season

- They didn't even "rebuild" by choice. Iginla told them he wasn't going to sign

- They hired Burke, a hockey executive who is famous for not being patient

- when Burke fired Feaster he was asked point blank was this to speed up the rebuild. Answer "yes". That's a direct quote. 

- You don't sign a starting goalie like Jonus Hiller to a 2 year deal if your plan is to rebuild through the draft. 

 

Can't rush what you don't start. 

I agree with your assessment. From the owner's position, any business venture taking on a controlled loss for a larger return happens daily in my world, but they have control or professional information as to the probable outcome. With a rebuild that is being proposed, there is no probable outcome, ability to run projections or control the fate of the outcome. The intangibles or elements that have to work together to accomplish this feat are not controllable.  With a teardown and rebuild the outcome or end project may never be profitable enough to recoup the original cost of the venture. The owners IMHO take a more neutral position and do what they can to be competitive and get in. The amount of capital loss is not worth the risk

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

This is the reason I point at the owners, IMO the Flames never rebuilt. 

 

- After they traded Iginla, Feaster publicly stated his marching orders were to get back into the playoffs the following season

- They didn't even "rebuild" by choice. Iginla told them he wasn't going to sign

- They hired Burke, a hockey executive who is famous for not being patient

- when Burke fired Feaster he was asked point blank was this to speed up the rebuild. Answer "yes". That's a direct quote. 

- You don't sign a starting goalie like Jonus Hiller to a 2 year deal if your plan is to rebuild through the draft. 

 

Can't rush what you don't start. 

 

We are exactly where all those anti-tank fans wanted us to be.

 

Where are they now?

[jjgallow]

On 2/26/2023 at 2:10 PM, conundrumed said:

Fox told everyone that he'd only play for the Rangers. We took him regardless. He shouldn't be in the league. The NHL needs to not allow these precedents, but they won't and it's pathetic that they can't/won't control it.

 

I am really loving this negativity and I completely agree.   Flames should have taken it up with the NHL imho.

 

Or been smart and traded him earlier.

[jjgallow]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This is the reason I point at the owners, IMO the Flames never rebuilt. 

 

- After they traded Iginla, Feaster publicly stated his marching orders were to get back into the playoffs the following season

- They didn't even "rebuild" by choice. Iginla told them he wasn't going to sign

- They hired Burke, a hockey executive who is famous for not being patient

- when Burke fired Feaster he was asked point blank was this to speed up the rebuild. Answer "yes". That's a direct quote. 

- You don't sign a starting goalie like Jonus Hiller to a 2 year deal if your plan is to rebuild through the draft. 

 

Can't rush what you don't start. 

 

I completely agree with this.  Actually.

 

 

But I choose to ignore this because I think a change in ownership is even above the wishful thinking of Flames fans.  Unless one of us as afronted with a ghastly amount of cash.

 

Failing winning 20 lottos in a row,

 

I choose to blame the GM because it is more tangible.   Also, I believe there are SOME GMs who could stickhandle the owners.

 

 

 

(what the owners are really saying is we don't care, we don't live in Calgary anymore, and we want this team to earn steady predictable revenue.   A Really...really...REALLY good GM/President could show them they can have that, and still legit go for a cup with a rebuild.   Admittedly this has huge caveats)

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

I completely agree with this.  Actually.

 

 

But I choose to ignore this because I think a change in ownership is even above the wishful thinking of Flames fans.  Unless one of us as afronted with a ghastly amount of cash.

 

Failing winning 20 lottos in a row,

 

I choose to blame the GM because it is more tangible.   Also, I believe there are SOME GMs who could stickhandle the owners.

 

 

 

(what the owners are really saying is we don't care, we don't live in Calgary anymore, and we want this team to earn steady predictable revenue.   A Really...really...REALLY good GM/President could show them they can have that, and still legit go for a cup with a rebuild.   Admittedly this has huge caveats)

 

Okay, so combine the lost revenue during the getting back to relevance period with the cost to build a new arena.

EDM sent a decade to get McD and be a playoff team.  Firtunately for them, the cost of the arena fell to taxpayers.

He also got a sweet deal on confirmed tenants for a new building he did fund.  The city.

 

While the loss of playoff revenues for about 5 years is bad enough, the loss of ticket revenue regular season adds to it.

Hard sell for a GM.

[The_People1]

26 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Okay, so combine the lost revenue during the getting back to relevance period with the cost to build a new arena.

EDM sent a decade to get McD and be a playoff team.  Firtunately for them, the cost of the arena fell to taxpayers.

He also got a sweet deal on confirmed tenants for a new building he did fund.  The city.

 

While the loss of playoff revenues for about 5 years is bad enough, the loss of ticket revenue regular season adds to it.

Hard sell for a GM.

 

Just have to sell the owners the PITS, CHI, TB, and LA models.  Spend 5 years in the basement and get 5-8 years of glory, plus a Cup or two.  Compared that to what we have now which is one or two rounds of playoffs... and in one year and out the next.

[travel_dude]

10 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Just have to sell the owners the PITS, CHI, TB, and LA models.  Spend 5 years in the basement and get 5-8 years of glory, plus a Cup or two.  Compared that to what we have now which is one or two rounds of playoffs... and in one year and out the next.

 

I would not use PITTS as an example of what can happen.

TB won in two obscure seasons.

 

[conundrumed]

On 2/26/2023 at 2:18 PM, DirtyDeeds said:

You can ask just about any Flames Fan about what needs to change with the Flames, to be a contender for the cup and you will get numerous answers....

 

So...  What level of change and where will the quality of our hockey being delivered improve to a point of being a consistant contender?

 

Is there a quick fix?

Rebuild or retool?

Is it the Canadian teams setup just tougher to compete?

Is it the cap system holding us back?

 

Or what needs to change from Flames perspective to be successful?

 

Arena?

Owners?

President of Hockey Operations?

General Manager?

Coach[s]

Scouting?

Players or positions?

Farm system?

Budget/cap?

 

All, some, many or none of the above?

 

The present Owners mandates are "make the playoffs" Is this unreasonable for team building and development? Does this set the bar too low [high]?

If the bar is set at make the playoffs then should we expect a team that continuously hovers around a wild card spot or 1st round of playoff results?

I have turned this over in my pea-brain since you posted.

First step - Arena. Spoken as a Detroit fan. We're the worst team in the league, but we are jacked that we have the best arena in the league in an awesome area for entertainment. Going to a game here, instead of the 'ol Joe is a whole other level. We're going to lose, but what a fun, interactive experience.

Flames - I've been to 100+ games at the Saddledome. It's musty and depressing. I can stay at a reasonably-priced nearby hotel just S on MacLeod. The area is musty and depressing. Alternatively, I can drop another $300 and stay downtown. Just stay away from the LRT downtown after 11pm.

It is an entirely different dynamic to view live games. I went to an afternoon game at LCA, got out at 5pm, went to eat and drink, went to the Fox Theatre to see Lenny Kravitz for $45 on last-minute resale tix, 8th row. The whole thing totaled about 5 minutes of walking.

It's more than just an arena, it creates a really positive experience that people will want to do again. Dark and dank and funneling into the Saddledome like cattle doesn't set a great mood. It's supposed to be entertaining.

The PoHo idea is a good one. If you own 16 businesses, you aren't running them. All you need to focus on is your lawyers and accountants. Hockey is no different. Hire someone capable of running it and stay away. In this environment, you can't just buy whatever your wealthy heart desires so leave it to someone that understands it far better.

Next rows I don't see much issue until we get to farm system. Be far more conservative tossing picks around. Good draft/bad draft prospects isn't really a thing. In this day and age, every draft has a wave of 18yos that are future NHLers. Don't trade them for a perceived need. If you were wrong in that perceived need, that becomes a huge mistake. Develop everything from within, from coaches to players. A small market team will overpay for everything pretending that they're something that they're not.

Put all of your faith in the "process" that there will always be great minds and young players that will be the future. Use that to be consistently good. You can't just buy/trade your way out of issues and suspend the future. At some point, you'll have to fix your future because suddenly it will be now.

[travel_dude]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I have turned this over in my pea-brain since you posted.

First step - Arena. Spoken as a Detroit fan. We're the worst team in the league, but we are jacked that we have the best arena in the league in an awesome area for entertainment. Going to a game here, instead of the 'ol Joe is a whole other level. We're going to lose, but what a fun, interactive experience.

Flames - I've been to 100+ games at the Saddledome. It's musty and depressing. I can stay at a reasonably-priced nearby hotel just S on MacLeod. The area is musty and depressing. Alternatively, I can drop another $300 and stay downtown. Just stay away from the LRT downtown after 11pm.

It is an entirely different dynamic to view live games. I went to an afternoon game at LCA, got out at 5pm, went to eat and drink, went to the Fox Theatre to see Lenny Kravitz for $45 on last-minute resale tix, 8th row. The whole thing totaled about 5 minutes of walking.

It's more than just an arena, it creates a really positive experience that people will want to do again. Dark and dank and funneling into the Saddledome like cattle doesn't set a great mood. It's supposed to be entertaining.

The PoHo idea is a good one. If you own 16 businesses, you aren't running them. All you need to focus on is your lawyers and accountants. Hockey is no different. Hire someone capable of running it and stay away. In this environment, you can't just buy whatever your wealthy heart desires so leave it to someone that understands it far better.

Next rows I don't see much issue until we get to farm system. Be far more conservative tossing picks around. Good draft/bad draft prospects isn't really a thing. In this day and age, every draft has a wave of 18yos that are future NHLers. Don't trade them for a perceived need. If you were wrong in that perceived need, that becomes a huge mistake. Develop everything from within, from coaches to players. A small market team will overpay for everything pretending that they're something that they're not.

Put all of your faith in the "process" that there will always be great minds and young players that will be the future. Use that to be consistently good. You can't just buy/trade your way out of issues and suspend the future. At some point, you'll have to fix your future because suddenly it will be now.

 

I don't know what the actual experience is like in Nashville, but it's supposed to be an entertainment district.

Ghila Arena looked to be designed that way, but drop it in the middle of nowhere and all you get is tailgaters for the dome football games.

EDM media shows the arena as the centre of the Ice Zone, but more like the crack zone.

A bar in spitting distance and an outdoor place for them to watch losses in the playoffs.

The LRT line is about the only convenient thing, to get the F outa there.

 

The team is in need of a strong voice, but BT is being worked by the owner group.  I would like to see better pro coaches, since we either have a disconnect between coaching and GM or we have pro scouts that don't know how to fill a need.  Jarnkrok was a perfect example.  Good player, but didn't fit.  Neal was just a fading player but also he wasn't a fit anywhere with us.  One was a waste of picks while the other tied us to a terrible contract that was shed for a worse one.

[jjgallow]

15 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Okay, so combine the lost revenue during the getting back to relevance period with the cost to build a new arena.

EDM sent a decade to get McD and be a playoff team.  Firtunately for them, the cost of the arena fell to taxpayers.

He also got a sweet deal on confirmed tenants for a new building he did fund.  The city.

 

While the loss of playoff revenues for about 5 years is bad enough, the loss of ticket revenue regular season adds to it.

Hard sell for a GM.

 

Edmonton has an NHL team?

[travel_dude]

16 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Edmonton has an NHL team?

 

Yeah, the Elks.  Wasn't that what we were talking about?

[jjgallow]

12 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Yeah, the Elks.  Wasn't that what we were talking about?

 

lol.

 

Even though this thread is going ultra-dark and probably very accurately blaming the owners for long term direction which is...pretty bleak right now...

 

You have to have some hope and that's ultimately why I say blame GM.   I know the arguement can fall apart but whadya do?

 

At the end of the day are there some GMs out there who could show the owners the light?  I do truly believe there are.   We all know this very much means assuring them they would see steady revenue during a period of rational moves where we don't blow up our future, whatever we want to call that.   Treliving has failed to do that and is it entirely his fault?  No he's probably taking marching orders.   But maybe don't need a yes man in there.