Chance to make playoffs? Draft lottery?

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with most of this, in particular selling at tdl.

 

I might suggest though, as have before, that our prospect pool may not be as good as we think it is.    I mean, how many years now has BT been selling prospects/picks?

 

After a while you start to get used to it and think it's normal, and any sort of talent we see out of the system looks promising.

I'm not trying to discount all our prospects, or give Sutter a free pass.  Especially with Dustin Wolf.  But just saying.

well, I think what you end up with are bottom 6 players. NHLers, yes. Good ones? Ok maybe, but the top end guys are harder to find... and we have a bunch of guys that border 2nd and 3rd line. We should have kept Hathaway and built the 4th line around him. Maybe use the youth in those spots? 

[jjgallow]

13 hours ago, robrob74 said:

well, I think what you end up with are bottom 6 players. NHLers, yes. Good ones? Ok maybe, but the top end guys are harder to find... and we have a bunch of guys that border 2nd and 3rd line. We should have kept Hathaway and built the 4th line around him. Maybe use the youth in those spots? 

 

Agreed on Hathaway, and bottom 6 is important.   Sometimes vital.

 

But, really, to get anywhere you need some of your top 6 to come out of drafting/development.  Otherwise, among many other things cap space will get you.

 

In order to do that, drafting and development has to be maximized.  Or you get into a situation where you don't have prospects challenging for top jobs and you hit your cap space trying to fill vital gaps and, well. here we are.

[conundrumed]

15 hours ago, robrob74 said:

well, I think what you end up with are bottom 6 players. NHLers, yes. Good ones? Ok maybe, but the top end guys are harder to find... and we have a bunch of guys that border 2nd and 3rd line. We should have kept Hathaway and built the 4th line around him. Maybe use the youth in those spots? 

Lomberg was the guy to keep. Hathaway was due to $$$. The annoying part of Lomberg is he was found money by BT. He still plays for league minimum, he was your guy and you gave up on him for zero reason other than what? you wanted him to be a 2nd line guy?

I love 4th line players. They're so important in the playoffs to give your stars a rest, to motivate and to chip in on occasion. Having said that, outside of Lewis, our 4th line is 5th liners.

Lomberg is fast, hard, annoying and the biggest cheerleader in the league. Our 4th line would be different.

A great success story for BT. Just not for us, he's Florida's fan favourite.

Maybe they trade with us as a thank you card.

Lomberg, then Bennett, then Tkachuk. They took all of our gritty players.

Yet we keep trying to play a gritty style...

[travel_dude]

22 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with most of this, in particular selling at tdl.

 

I might suggest though, as have before, that our prospect pool may not be as good as we think it is.    I mean, how many years now has BT been selling prospects/picks?

 

After a while you start to get used to it and think it's normal, and any sort of talent we see out of the system looks promising.

I'm not trying to discount all our prospects, or give Sutter a free pass.  Especially with Dustin Wolf.  But just saying.

 

Well, it's hard to tell, isn't it.  When they come up, they have a role that might not fit them.

That's the coach that think he knows what's best.  We see you as this, and you may not agree.

Phillips?  Well don't even see it.  Doesn't fit the mold and I won't even bother.

Not every player is going to light it up in the AHL; it's what they can do when they get here.

There are many examples of gems, but they were given a chance out of need or smart talent evaluation.

 

But, I will also suggest that we ignore some players in the draft.  

They may not be can't miss ones, but they sure looked good in Draft year, D+1, D+2.

What I think we don't do well is trading for prospects.

But that's an area that is hard to tell, since teams only do that to win now.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Well, it's hard to tell, isn't it.  When they come up, they have a role that might not fit them.

That's the coach that think he knows what's best.  We see you as this, and you may not agree.

Phillips?  Well don't even see it.  Doesn't fit the mold and I won't even bother.

Not every player is going to light it up in the AHL; it's what they can do when they get here.

There are many examples of gems, but they were given a chance out of need or smart talent evaluation.

 

But, I will also suggest that we ignore some players in the draft.  

They may not be can't miss ones, but they sure looked good in Draft year, D+1, D+2.

What I think we don't do well is trading for prospects.

But that's an area that is hard to tell, since teams only do that to win now.

 

Agreed from top to bottom.

 

And I will admit, the Flames have done well in the lower half of the draft.   But it almost feel like they know and they're like "huh I guess we don't need the top half now" lol

[travel_dude]

21 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Agreed from top to bottom.

 

And I will admit, the Flames have done well in the lower half of the draft.   But it almost feel like they know and they're like "huh I guess we don't need the top half now" lol

 

When you have players here for 3,4,5 years and you aren't advancing, there is a cry from fans to add to the team.  We needed a stud D-man and spent draft on Hammy.  The Hammer one was not well thought out, but he was a lot better before the trade.  We needed a C so we traded a D.  Ended up wasting him at RW for a few years.

 

What I am getting at is that any team in the latter stages of rebuild (or over the rebuild early) needs to show the current team that they are supporting them by adding top players.  How many years of crap depth did EDM go with their top 2 needing more depth scoring?  Other than going after the lesser Reinhart, they horded draft picks and wasted 8 years of McD.  Instead they fixed one problem by creating another.  

[jjgallow]

5 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

When you have players here for 3,4,5 years and you aren't advancing, there is a cry from fans to add to the team.  We needed a stud D-man and spent draft on Hammy.  The Hammer one was not well thought out, but he was a lot better before the trade.  We needed a C so we traded a D.  Ended up wasting him at RW for a few years.

 

What I am getting at is that any team in the latter stages of rebuild (or over the rebuild early) needs to show the current team that they are supporting them by adding top players.  How many years of crap depth did EDM go with their top 2 needing more depth scoring?  Other than going after the lesser Reinhart, they horded draft picks and wasted 8 years of McD.  Instead they fixed one problem by creating another.  

 

imho the only way to do that, is develop the top talent yourselves, and a somewhat steady stream of it so you always have one or two blue chips on entry level.   then you add depth if needed, where needed.

 

The above is of course simply not possible if selling picks/prospects on the regular.  Or not developing.

 

I'm not even talking about a purge (nor am I always against them), I just mean steady building.

 

Edmonton actually appeared to do that, but the thing is, your top line Isn't actually the top players on a contender.   A good team builds out from the net.   They never bothered with net, or D.   

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

imho the only way to do that, is develop the top talent yourselves, and a somewhat steady stream of it so you always have one or two blue chips on entry level.   then you add depth if needed, where needed.

 

The above is of course simply not possible if selling picks/prospects on the regular.  Or not developing.

 

I'm not even talking about a purge (nor am I always against them), I just mean steady building.

 

Edmonton actually appeared to do that, but the thing is, your top line Isn't actually the top players on a contender.   A good team builds out from the net.   They never bothered with net, or D.   

 

Part of the problem is that when we sign UFA's we sign them for too long.

When they have value, in a losing season, they have too many years remaining.

So, we never get those prospects or additional picks even when we are out of the playoff run.

Klingburg was the prfect add for a non-contender.

Sell when you can.

I don't blame the Rooney signing; on most teams he would be more capable.

He was expected to drag along Lucic and Lewis.

Small potatoes.

 

We should have signed Milano to a one year deal.

Could have flipped him.

Or he was young enough to re-sign next season.

 

Anyway, the thing about this team is having too much loyalty to the players.

The owners love the community involvement (see Gio).

When teams have great seasons, they don't stick with everyone.

They move on when players have value.

Not the only smart thing they do.

They scout the other teams that have players they may want.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Part of the problem is that when we sign UFA's we sign them for too long.

When they have value, in a losing season, they have too many years remaining.

So, we never get those prospects or additional picks even when we are out of the playoff run.

Klingburg was the prfect add for a non-contender.

Sell when you can.

I don't blame the Rooney signing; on most teams he would be more capable.

He was expected to drag along Lucic and Lewis.

Small potatoes.

 

We should have signed Milano to a one year deal.

Could have flipped him.

Or he was young enough to re-sign next season.

 

Anyway, the thing about this team is having too much loyalty to the players.

The owners love the community involvement (see Gio).

When teams have great seasons, they don't stick with everyone.

They move on when players have value.

Not the only smart thing they do.

They scout the other teams that have players they may want.

 

 

Agreed with all of it.

[travel_dude]

And I know this is off topic a bit, but Jarnkrok was a decent goal scorer before he went to the Flames.

And again now that he is away from the Flames.  

Milano couldn't succeed here (not that he is some kind of great player).

Monahan was back to what he was like before he got injured (and Suttered).

Point of this is that when we target players in trade, we have no idea how they will work here.

Toffoli is doing good, but he's playing he's playing with the top C on the top line.

Either we need to better take into account the coach's style/game style or replace the coach.

[robrob74]

17 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Lomberg was the guy to keep. Hathaway was due to $$$. The annoying part of Lomberg is he was found money by BT. He still plays for league minimum, he was your guy and you gave up on him for zero reason other than what? you wanted him to be a 2nd line guy?

I love 4th line players. They're so important in the playoffs to give your stars a rest, to motivate and to chip in on occasion. Having said that, outside of Lewis, our 4th line is 5th liners.

Lomberg is fast, hard, annoying and the biggest cheerleader in the league. Our 4th line would be different.

A great success story for BT. Just not for us, he's Florida's fan favourite.

Maybe they trade with us as a thank you card.

Lomberg, then Bennett, then Tkachuk. They took all of our gritty players.

Yet we keep trying to play a gritty style...

Hathaway was found money too. What I don't get is, we talk like 1.5 is a lot yet we sign Brouwer and Neal, now have Lucic ... it's too much when you got other players overpaid. 
 

We are soon to hate 10.5, and 7.5. People already are a bit upset with what Weegar is doing for his contract... 

 

imagine Lomberg and Hathaway together?  Probably the same position though. We only ever had LWers until recently...

[robrob74]

10 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

imho the only way to do that, is develop the top talent yourselves, and a somewhat steady stream of it so you always have one or two blue chips on entry level.   then you add depth if needed, where needed.

 

The above is of course simply not possible if selling picks/prospects on the regular.  Or not developing.

 

I'm not even talking about a purge (nor am I always against them), I just mean steady building.

 

Edmonton actually appeared to do that, but the thing is, your top line Isn't actually the top players on a contender.   A good team builds out from the net.   They never bothered with net, or D.   

I think now all I want is the team to keep picks, stop trading for "help" when we are clearly not a contender nor look like one, because "anything can happen." 
 

My bet is that when anything can happen it has nothing to do with the trade deadline adds... 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

Hathaway was found money too. What I don't get is, we talk like 1.5 is a lot yet we sign Brouwer and Neal, now have Lucic ... it's too much when you got other players overpaid. 
 

We are soon to hate 10.5, and 7.5. People already are a bit upset with what Weegar is doing for his contract... 

 

imagine Lomberg and Hathaway together?  Probably the same position though. We only ever had LWers until recently...

 

Hathaway and Lomberg played the year we got dumped by COL.

It wasn't a pleasant year, but we we scoring at least.

Lombo got in 4 games and spent 17 minutes in the box.

IIRC he was injured in one of the fights.

Hathaway was a good player for the money, but who even knows if he wanted to sign.

BP was the head coach and not exactly player friendly.

We had zero control.

 

But the bottom line is players look better out of this system.

Bennett, Lombo, Hathaway.

 

I think you are finally seeing what the top pair should have been from day 1.

Weegar-Ras.

Both can skate, both make smart plays.  Both can score.

Hanifin is starting to look like the odd man out; not exactly fitting with Tanev now.

 

Since we are paying less than 10M for both Weegar and Hubey this season, I will reserve judgement.

 

 

[conundrumed]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

Hathaway was found money too. What I don't get is, we talk like 1.5 is a lot yet we sign Brouwer and Neal, now have Lucic ... it's too much when you got other players overpaid. 
 

We are soon to hate 10.5, and 7.5. People already are a bit upset with what Weegar is doing for his contract... 

 

imagine Lomberg and Hathaway together?  Probably the same position though. We only ever had LWers until recently...

We have to have players that play at a certain pace. If we get fast players, we'd have to stop being mistake-riddled horrendousness when trying to play uptempo. So we have to make sure we get guys that aren't above average skaters and hope the league ends this nonsensical speed game and bring back clutching and grabbing. I suppose next they'll want us to have fast transitions and a fast-passing PP. It's so unfair. It's actually racialist against guys that can't think the game very quickly, like most of our team.

[travel_dude]

57 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

We have to have players that play at a certain pace. If we get fast players, we'd have to stop being mistake-riddled horrendousness when trying to play uptempo. So we have to make sure we get guys that aren't above average skaters and hope the league ends this nonsensical speed game and bring back clutching and grabbing. I suppose next they'll want us to have fast transitions and a fast-passing PP. It's so unfair. It's actually racialist against guys that can't think the game very quickly, like most of our team.

 

You take players that have grown up with a mindset to think the game faster.

But then you play them in a methodical type system.

Possession over pressure.

Shot volume over quality of chances.

Man on man vs zone.

Dump and chase vs controlled entry.

 

Some of these don't work together well.

Shot volume means you fore it at the net, but give up possession.

Dump and chase gives up possession.

Honestly some games I don't even know which of these we are working from.

Man on man and we have two D going after one man.

 

Speed means the coach has to adapt.

Slow the game down so they can get the right players out.

Follow it up with the pluggers.

[robrob74]

I actually think the flames will make the playoffs. 
 

They go something like 7-2-3to end the year. 
My bet is it's a lower end of the spectrum to take the last spot.  And we end with 94 points. My first thought was 7-3-2... 

 

can we beat teams below us This year though?

 

 My bet is Winnipeg and  Nashville only win 5 or 6 games each to end the year. Even with an ot loss here and there they ends up with 92 or 93 points... we can't tie any of them... 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

I actually think the flames will make the playoffs. 
 

They go something like 7-2-3to end the year. 
My bet is it's a lower end of the spectrum to take the last spot.  And we end with 94 points. My first thought was 7-3-2... 

 

can we beat teams below us This year though?

 

 My bet is Winnipeg and  Nashville only win 5 or 6 games each to end the year. Even with an ot loss here and there they ends up with 92 or 93 points... we can't tie any of them... 

 

I see at least 4 losses coming.  LA, Vegas, LA, WPG or NAS.  Not to mention that we struggles against VAN some nights.  That's just too many losses.  

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

I actually think the flames will make the playoffs. 
 

They go something like 7-2-3to end the year. 
My bet is it's a lower end of the spectrum to take the last spot.  And we end with 94 points. My first thought was 7-3-2... 

 

can we beat teams below us This year though?

 

 My bet is Winnipeg and  Nashville only win 5 or 6 games each to end the year. Even with an ot loss here and there they ends up with 92 or 93 points... we can't tie any of them... 

I seem to remember something about, "a waste of 9 days" being applied to the 8th seed last year. Does that still apply?

Every team in the conference are fighting for position, not resting players like the Top East teams. Then you have the non-playoff teams playing their playoffs right now, their cup is spoiling anyone else's chance.

We're not making the playoffs. It's been more than apparent since Detroit thumped us 5-2 at home.

We haven't won a game when trailing heading into the 3rd. Welp, the season's in the 3rd period and we're trailing.

I don't expect the mental fortitude that's been missing all season to suddenly show up now.

It's been a season of compounding problems both on the ice and up the ladder.

We're in a state of paralysis until somebody, somewhere actually makes a decision. Adding Ritchie and Stecher defines that. There are no hills to climb, no valleys to descend, just a long flat prairie of mediocrity until somehow ownership finally puts a fork in the road.

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I actually think the flames will make the playoffs. 
 

They go something like 7-2-3to end the year. 
My bet is it's a lower end of the spectrum to take the last spot.  And we end with 94 points. My first thought was 7-3-2... 

 

can we beat teams below us This year though?

 

 My bet is Winnipeg and  Nashville only win 5 or 6 games each to end the year. Even with an ot loss here and there they ends up with 92 or 93 points... we can't tie any of them... 

 

The possibility is there but it requires TWO teams to lose down the stretch combined with the Flames getting hot and hitting 94-points.  Both WPG and NAS need to go sub-500 basically... which is obviously possible but the odds are not in the Flames favour that both do it.  This whole scenario is like 10% chance.

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I seem to remember something about, "a waste of 9 days" being applied to the 8th seed last year. Does that still apply?

Every team in the conference are fighting for position, not resting players like the Top East teams. Then you have the non-playoff teams playing their playoffs right now, their cup is spoiling anyone else's chance.

We're not making the playoffs. It's been more than apparent since Detroit thumped us 5-2 at home.

We haven't won a game when trailing heading into the 3rd. Welp, the season's in the 3rd period and we're trailing.

I don't expect the mental fortitude that's been missing all season to suddenly show up now.

It's been a season of compounding problems both on the ice and up the ladder.

We're in a state of paralysis until somebody, somewhere actually makes a decision. Adding Ritchie and Stecher defines that. There are no hills to climb, no valleys to descend, just a long flat prairie of mediocrity until somehow ownership finally puts a fork in the road.

 

"Waste of eight days" was implying how dominating the Avs were last season.  Clearly going to plow through their first round opponent.  There's no such powerhouse team this season.

 

This is one of those years where if we can get in then anything can happen.  The West is wide open.

[cross16]

9 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I seem to remember something about, "a waste of 9 days" being applied to the 8th seed last year. Does that still apply?

Every team in the conference are fighting for position, not resting players like the Top East teams. Then you have the non-playoff teams playing their playoffs right now, their cup is spoiling anyone else's chance.

We're not making the playoffs. It's been more than apparent since Detroit thumped us 5-2 at home.

We haven't won a game when trailing heading into the 3rd. Welp, the season's in the 3rd period and we're trailing.

I don't expect the mental fortitude that's been missing all season to suddenly show up now.

It's been a season of compounding problems both on the ice and up the ladder.

We're in a state of paralysis until somebody, somewhere actually makes a decision. Adding Ritchie and Stecher defines that. There are no hills to climb, no valleys to descend, just a long flat prairie of mediocrity until somehow ownership finally puts a fork in the road.

 

Tough position. I can make a sound argument that the Flames should get into the playoffs because I agree the West is so wide open. There is no team in the West that I think would walk over the Flames if they got in. Heck if Markstrom can play like he did up until the Edmonton series last year I could make a case they should be the favorite is some series. 

 

I just don't see how a switch is suddenly going to flip for Markstrom or this team. There really isn't a "team" here anyway (in terms of how they play/execute) and the coach can't even decide on a working lineup. 

 

Too many things that just need to click for this group. 

[bosn111]

With 11-14 games to go for all teams in the league, only Boston has clinched a playoff spot while Columbus, San Jose, Chicago, and Anaheim are officially out.

 

The Flames have 12 games remaining and are 4 points behind the last wildcard spot Winnipeg with a game in hand, 6 behind Seattle in the other wildcard spot who have a game in hand on the Flames. Calgary is 9 points behind Edmonton for third in the division. Nashville is 1 point behind the Flames with 2 games in hand. 
 

Calgary plays back to back games today and tomorrow against LA and Anaheim with Vegas on Thursday. San Jose Saturday, LA on the following Tuesday, Vancouver on the Friday, Anaheim the Sunday, Chicago Tuesday, Winnipeg Wednesday, Vancouver Saturday, Nashville  Monday, San Jose Wednesday.

 

To hit 95 points, the best estimate for getting the last wildcard spot, Calgary needs 18 of the final 24 points. This means that at worst they can lose 3 games in regulation and win the rest. Losing in OT or SO is better than regulation loss, but not by much at this point. With 2 back to backs, the way the Flames have been playing, likely means they lose 1 of each at least. LA and Vegas are neck and neck for top in the Pacific so both teams will be playing hard and focussed. Winnipeg and Nashville at the end could be difference maker games. 
 

In order to make the playoffs, the Flames will need enough magic to fool Penn and Teller. It is possible, but don’t hold your breath. 

[robrob74]

It looks like the Jets and Flames play nearly the same nights with, I think, one night each they don't play the same night. It'll be interesting to see the comparison between the two on the nights they play.

[travel_dude]

44 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

It looks like the Jets and Flames play nearly the same nights with, I think, one night each they don't play the same night. It'll be interesting to see the comparison between the two on the nights they play.

 

Realistically, the other teams all have to fail while we win.

We also have to be one point up on both to get in.

So, technically we are 5 back of a playoff spot.

 

The odds of all three happening are not great.  

[tmac70]

So we need 16 out of a possible 20 points, to have a chance. In the next 4 games, we need 7 out of 8 points to even make them NSH and WPG sweat. Really they should not be nervous it play to win if you play passively and conservatively to get loser points your out. They need at minimum 6 points 7 for sure 8 would be awesome. Anything less you are asking for WPG and NSH to play sub-.500 % hockey which I just can't see.