GM Craig Conroy

[JTech780]

14 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

How are you getting the organization is different?  What did they say or what signs point to this realization?

They have said that they want to get younger, they have also said that they won’t have another Gaudreau situation. Conroy has said multiple times that asset management is the key, and that he wants to build through the draft.

 

I think you will see trades for younger players and picks.

[The_People1]

4 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

They have said that they want to get younger, they have also said that they won’t have another Gaudreau situation. Conroy has said multiple times that asset management is the key, and that he wants to build through the draft.

 

I think you will see trades for younger players and picks.

 

I see.  But that's Conroy's own thoughts.  Ownership still wants to make the playoffs every year.

 

Like we all suspect, many who have come before Conroy couldn't really do what they wanted to do because ownership mandated playoffs.  So, we will see how far Conroy can get on that front.

[sak22]

59 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I see.  But that's Conroy's own thoughts.  Ownership still wants to make the playoffs every year.

 

Like we all suspect, many who have come before Conroy couldn't really do what they wanted to do because ownership mandated playoffs.  So, we will see how far Conroy can get on that front.

Treliving missed the playoffs 4 times and the team still would've taken him back this year, and in 3 of those 4 the sky was falling in the city.  2018 no playoffs and no pick until the 4th round, 2021 no playoffs and core players underperforming, 2023 complete tire fire of players hating coaches and players hating others + the 2 largest contracts in franchise history underperforming.  Don't know how anyone given a "mandate" survives all three of those and is still wanted back.  I think it's kinda natural that once you've been on the job a while you put more pressure on yourself to win, the GM's want to win too, and over time you just put less faith in the younger players.  The shift for Treliving came after the 2019 loss to Colorado, that year Dube won a spot in camp and the next year he didn't even have a spot to battle for and the camp battles have been almost non-existent since.  But I don't know if there was pressure from upstairs to add Tobias Reider instead of having an open spot.  Anyways rant over lets stop calling it a mandate, its a goal nothing else.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

Treliving missed the playoffs 4 times and the team still would've taken him back this year, and in 3 of those 4 the sky was falling in the city.  2018 no playoffs and no pick until the 4th round, 2021 no playoffs and core players underperforming, 2023 complete tire fire of players hating coaches and players hating others + the 2 largest contracts in franchise history underperforming.  Don't know how anyone given a "mandate" survives all three of those and is still wanted back.  I think it's kinda natural that once you've been on the job a while you put more pressure on yourself to win, the GM's want to win too, and over time you just put less faith in the younger players.  The shift for Treliving came after the 2019 loss to Colorado, that year Dube won a spot in camp and the next year he didn't even have a spot to battle for and the camp battles have been almost non-existent since.  But I don't know if there was pressure from upstairs to add Tobias Reider instead of having an open spot.  Anyways rant over lets stop calling it a mandate, its a goal nothing else.

 

Rumour is, the mandate is that it's okay to miss the playoffs one year but can't miss it two years in a row.

[conundrumed]

As much as I want lots of shiny new toys, I think we have to give what we have a chance. Lots of UFAs this year, oh well. Let it run until TDL and cast it in stone that if you're a borderline team, trade everyone and start a new palette.

The players now have their way with big changes, so let them either run with it or choke on it.

They've gotten their way to this point, why stop now? If it was a toxic environment, let them create the environment. It's only 1 year. If they start blaming everything else again, you know what to do. If they're successful and having fun, you know that too.

Throw caution to the wind for a season and see if the lunatics can run the asylum better. Call it a year of assessing what changing the environment does towards success. If they fail, well, there's your valuable lesson.

If you tie into big changes now, you'll never know.

[tmac70]

I like Craig, says the right things and provides the political advocacy that most do in these situations, great lip service. For me talk is cheap, show me what your going to do and than we can form judgement on what you said 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

As much as I want lots of shiny new toys, I think we have to give what we have a chance. Lots of UFAs this year, oh well. Let it run until TDL and cast it in stone that if you're a borderline team, trade everyone and start a new palette.

The players now have their way with big changes, so let them either run with it or choke on it.

They've gotten their way to this point, why stop now? If it was a toxic environment, let them create the environment. It's only 1 year. If they start blaming everything else again, you know what to do. If they're successful and having fun, you know that too.

Throw caution to the wind for a season and see if the lunatics can run the asylum better. Call it a year of assessing what changing the environment does towards success. If they fail, well, there's your valuable lesson.

If you tie into big changes now, you'll never know.

 

I do think that we know some things.  We know some of the vets are aging out.  If you can make some changes using Backlund and Hanifin, I don't think that sets us back.  Still leaves 5 other pending UFA's to show how they fit and that last year was a one-off.

 

We assume that at least one new player will be added to the top 6.  That has to be a trade to get one or a trade to get rid of salary to sign a UFA.  If we don't bring back Lewis, Lucic, Stone, any of the Ritchie's, then we have some internal change regardless.  

 

I am not adverse to PTO's but they better be guys that aren't at the end of their careers.  Don't waste too much camp evaluating them, just evaluate how they fit with different players, rookie and vet.  Go on the analytics and pro scouting.  Well, a decent pro scouting, not what we have seen to date.  

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I do think that we know some things.  We know some of the vets are aging out.  If you can make some changes using Backlund and Hanifin, I don't think that sets us back.  Still leaves 5 other pending UFA's to show how they fit and that last year was a one-off.

 

We assume that at least one new player will be added to the top 6.  That has to be a trade to get one or a trade to get rid of salary to sign a UFA.  If we don't bring back Lewis, Lucic, Stone, any of the Ritchie's, then we have some internal change regardless.  

 

I am not adverse to PTO's but they better be guys that aren't at the end of their careers.  Don't waste too much camp evaluating them, just evaluate how they fit with different players, rookie and vet.  Go on the analytics and pro scouting.  Well, a decent pro scouting, not what we have seen to date.  

 

I don't think last year was a one-off.  I think Sutter took a very average team to become one of the best in the NHL two seasons ago and then this team reverted back to it's norm last season.  We are a borderline playoff team on paper.

[travel_dude]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

I don't think last year was a one-off.  I think Sutter took a very average team to become one of the best in the NHL two seasons ago and then this team reverted back to it's norm last season.  We are a borderline playoff team on paper.

My comment was they need to show it was a one-off.  We can debate whether that is true or not, but that was not my meaning.

[sak22]

27 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't think last year was a one-off.  I think Sutter took a very average team to become one of the best in the NHL two seasons ago and then this team reverted back to it's norm last season.  We are a borderline playoff team on paper.

I don't know if the team had a norm, it was a very Jekyll and Hyde team, but I think the Western conference to an extent has been that way for the past 5 years with the exception of Colorado, but Winnipeg, St. Louis, Nashville, Dallas, Vegas have been up and down as well.  I don't think it was a fluke they won 50 games twice in a five year period, nor do I think it was a fluke they struggled as much, its just the nature of the conference a lot of good teams and a lot of really bad teams but few great teams.  But were running out of being able to compare, this year to years past as only a handful of players remain from that 2019 series, 5 to be exact who played that playoff series, and Mange was a 4th liner, and Hanifin and Andersson who are the only defensemen left from that series were the #4 and #5.  The old core is now long gone.

[robrob74]

11 hours ago, conundrumed said:

As much as I want lots of shiny new toys, I think we have to give what we have a chance. Lots of UFAs this year, oh well. Let it run until TDL and cast it in stone that if you're a borderline team, trade everyone and start a new palette.

The players now have their way with big changes, so let them either run with it or choke on it.

They've gotten their way to this point, why stop now? If it was a toxic environment, let them create the environment. It's only 1 year. If they start blaming everything else again, you know what to do. If they're successful and having fun, you know that too.

Throw caution to the wind for a season and see if the lunatics can run the asylum better. Call it a year of assessing what changing the environment does towards success. If they fail, well, there's your valuable lesson.

If you tie into big changes now, you'll never know.

I understand what you're saying, and all groups are different, we've just given so many groups a chance. Many chances. We should be called Calgary Many Chances instead of the Flames. We give the benefit of the doubt to vets but not kids. 

[robrob74]

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't think last year was a one-off.  I think Sutter took a very average team to become one of the best in the NHL two seasons ago and then this team reverted back to it's norm last season.  We are a borderline playoff team on paper.

I agree. I get that special stats say that the team should have been better all these years, but good teams aren't ones that are in one year out a bunch and then in another and out. Good teams are in every year. 
 

we say 4 posts made the difference, or OT, or goaltending... there were a lot of things. It wasn't one thing. 

[Sarasti]

8 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I agree. I get that special stats say that the team should have been better all these years, but good teams aren't ones that are in one year out a bunch and then in another and out. Good teams are in every year. 
 

we say 4 posts made the difference, or OT, or goaltending... there were a lot of things. It wasn't one thing. 

 

Honestly I think making noise when you are in the playoffs is more important than making it every year. That shows true progression and desire to win IMO.

 

The Iggy and Kipper teams made the show pretty consistently after 2004 but didn't have the pieces to ever get past the 1st round.

[Thebrewcrew]

31 minutes ago, Sarasti said:

 

Honestly I think making noise when you are in the playoffs is more important than making it every year. That shows true progression and desire to win IMO.

 

The Iggy and Kipper teams made the show pretty consistently after 2004 but didn't have the pieces to ever get past the 1st round.

I think that’s fair.

 

Look at Minnesota. To their credit, they’re a frequent playoff team. They have made the playoffs in 10 of the past 11 seasons. They’ve only been in the second round twice.

 

I’m sure ownership loves it. But they’ve always got a team good enough to make it, but not good enough to do damage.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

I agree. I get that special stats say that the team should have been better all these years, but good teams aren't ones that are in one year out a bunch and then in another and out. Good teams are in every year. 
 

we say 4 posts made the difference, or OT, or goaltending... there were a lot of things. It wasn't one thing. 

 

Two years we had Markstrom with below average to poor seasons.

The one year we made it, he was the early team MVP.

10 shutouts make a difference.

That doesn't translate to 10 wins, but at least nets you 10 points over possible overtime losses.

 

Make no mistake.  A team with poor goaltending is not making the playoffs consistently.

One with average to good goaltending disguises issues.

Over the last 6 years, we have had Markstrom, Smith, Talbot.

BSD was never the starter.

 

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I think that’s fair.

 

Look at Minnesota. To their credit, they’re a frequent playoff team. They have made the playoffs in 10 of the past 11 seasons. They’ve only been in the second round twice.

 

I’m sure ownership loves it. But they’ve always got a team good enough to make it, but not good enough to do damage.

 

Canadian markets are tough though.  It's Cup or nothing.

 

The Leafs made the playoffs 7 years in a row and finally get to the second round = Fired the GM.  Flames fans were the same in the prime Iginla years.  Flames were still making the playoffs but fans were tired of not winning it all.  Had enough.  Same with the Senators, Habs, etc.  Canucks fans burned down their city for coming close and not winning it all.  Can't settle for just making the playoffs.  

[conundrumed]

A fun little interview with Conroy on Overdrive yesterday:

https://post.futurimedia.com/chumam/playlist/listen-43897.html

[The_Tribal Chief]

Was watching couple days ago Conny still has game was playing in a old timers game and scored a goal lol lol

[jjgallow]

On 5/25/2023 at 11:41 PM, The_People1 said:

 

Canadian markets are tough though.  It's Cup or nothing.

 

The Leafs made the playoffs 7 years in a row and finally get to the second round = Fired the GM.  Flames fans were the same in the prime Iginla years.  Flames were still making the playoffs but fans were tired of not winning it all.  Had enough.  Same with the Senators, Habs, etc.  Canucks fans burned down their city for coming close and not winning it all.  Can't settle for just making the playoffs.  

 

I'll admit this is exactly me, I really only see the cup as a goal, I have no interest in whether we do or don't make the playoffs.   I just need to see a plan for a cup.

 

But I don't believe our organisation actually does this.   When we do things like trade Monahan  and somehow lose  a first round pick in the deal so that ownership can save money, I don't see an organisation trying to win a cup.  Gotta trade Monahan?  Weird but ok.   So the obvious thing to do is throw some money in on the trade to bring his salary down to something normal, or take on an even worse contract and buy them out...etc etc.  Bottom line is the Flames should have got a first round pick out of that deal, not lost one.

 

I have 20 other examples.

 

Flames are not spending to win a cup or to have a future.  They have been spending just what it takes to make the playoffs and not a penny more.   Making decisions based around making the playoffs, rather then being a contender for X years.

 

When Conroy says we want to get younger, I think he'll deliver, but it's kind of hard not to.  There's nobody left and our remaining core is already pretty old.   They won't be able to eat up all those minutes forever.

 

Yeah.  We're gonna get younger.   Not even a decision anymore.  Question is, will we set the goal of becoming a contender or will we set the goal of making the playoffs again in the shortest amount of time.

[travel_dude]

5 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'll admit this is exactly me, I really only see the cup as a goal, I have no interest in whether we do or don't make the playoffs.   I just need to see a plan for a cup.

 

But I don't believe our organisation actually does this.   When we do things like trade Monahan  and somehow lose  a first round pick in the deal so that ownership can save money, I don't see an organisation trying to win a cup.  Gotta trade Monahan?  Weird but ok.   So the obvious thing to do is throw some money in on the trade to bring his salary down to something normal, or take on an even worse contract and buy them out...etc etc.  Bottom line is the Flames should have got a first round pick out of that deal, not lost one.

 

I have 20 other examples.

 

Flames are not spending to win a cup or to have a future.  They have been spending just what it takes to make the playoffs and not a penny more.   Making decisions based around making the playoffs, rather then being a contender for X years.

 

When Conroy says we want to get younger, I think he'll deliver, but it's kind of hard not to.  There's nobody left and our remaining core is already pretty old.   They won't be able to eat up all those minutes forever.

 

Yeah.  We're gonna get younger.   Not even a decision anymore.  Question is, will we set the goal of becoming a contender or will we set the goal of making the playoffs again in the shortest amount of time.

 

I think what you have is results vs expectations.  The spending is to get a cup winner every year.  The playoffs is not the goal.  The problem is that the coach, the scouts and the GM don't always have the same view of the team needs.  The GM is trying to set up a 3 year contender to win the cup.  The coach only looked at the current year.  The pro scouts may not have a good idea of what works or it may differ from how the coach sees the holes.

 

The Flames are a leaky boat.  We add a top 6 C and a top 6 LW, and lose 2 top 6 wingers.  We add a top 2 D and lose a top 4 D to personal time.  We get under average goaltending the same time we lose scoring and PP efficiency.  We get scoring from the bottom pair D and lose it from the top 2 D.   

[cross16]

On 5/24/2023 at 8:39 PM, The_People1 said:

 

I see.  But that's Conroy's own thoughts.  Ownership still wants to make the playoffs every year.

 

Like we all suspect, many who have come before Conroy couldn't really do what they wanted to do because ownership mandated playoffs.  So, we will see how far Conroy can get on that front.

 

 

This is the litmus test we'll have to se play out. Did the owners agree to Conroy for his vision, or because of his history with the club?

 

Conroy has said all the right things but most new GMs do. When push comes to shove here or the flames have a dissponting year does it get harder to execute on? How long is the leash for getting younger and building through the draft if he misses the playoffs?

 

I hope he did sell them on a new vision but i'm VERY skeptical. 

[zima]

Right now the only thing we can hope for is the top players we got back from the lose of 2 very elite players can do what they were suppose to do last yr and Marks can play up to his potential if not then we are looking at another very sad and frustrating season with the only hope that Wolf perhaps puts a smile on ppl faces if they allow him up that is the question.

[jjgallow]

13 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think what you have is results vs expectations.  The spending is to get a cup winner every year.  The playoffs is not the goal.  The problem is that the coach, the scouts and the GM don't always have the same view of the team needs.  The GM is trying to set up a 3 year contender to win the cup.  The coach only looked at the current year.  The pro scouts may not have a good idea of what works or it may differ from how the coach sees the holes.

 

The Flames are a leaky boat.  We add a top 6 C and a top 6 LW, and lose 2 top 6 wingers.  We add a top 2 D and lose a top 4 D to personal time.  We get under average goaltending the same time we lose scoring and PP efficiency.  We get scoring from the bottom pair D and lose it from the top 2 D.   

 

For me I don't see any of these actions as a plan, they are reparative in nature.

 

The only way you get ahead of the FA/cap game on a small market team is really great drafting/development.  To this effect, I have not seen a plan, rather quite the opposite we've depleted this for short term goals.

 

If the goal was truly to have a cup team every year (even for me this is unrealistic), they've done the opposite of what would be needed to have any hope of that.   I don't believe you can buy a cup.  Definitely not here.  And also, we don't have the money for the number of buyouts necessary.    You can buy a playoff ticket.  Imho this is more what we've seen.

[zima]

4 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

For me I don't see any of these actions as a plan, they are reparative in nature.

 

The only way you get ahead of the FA/cap game on a small market team is really great drafting/development.  To this effect, I have not seen a plan, rather quite the opposite we've depleted this for short term goals.

 

If the goal was truly to have a cup team every year (even for me this is unrealistic), they've done the opposite of what would be needed to have any hope of that.   I don't believe you can buy a cup.  Definitely not here.  And also, we don't have the money for the number of buyouts necessary.    You can buy a playoff ticket.  Imho this is more what we've seen.

Gezz the Oilers do it all the time do you think it is a fluke they end up with the first over all almost every yr?

[travel_dude]

40 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

For me I don't see any of these actions as a plan, they are reparative in nature.

 

The only way you get ahead of the FA/cap game on a small market team is really great drafting/development.  To this effect, I have not seen a plan, rather quite the opposite we've depleted this for short term goals.

 

If the goal was truly to have a cup team every year (even for me this is unrealistic), they've done the opposite of what would be needed to have any hope of that.   I don't believe you can buy a cup.  Definitely not here.  And also, we don't have the money for the number of buyouts necessary.    You can buy a playoff ticket.  Imho this is more what we've seen.

 

Denver is a big market?  Didn't they buy a cup?

Buying includes all the players they added in trades, like Manson and Lehkonen.

I agree that you need superior drafting and development.

But coaching has an impact the the dev and team aspects.

 

You definitely need younger guys on ELC's and cheap 2nd contracts to build under the cap.

You can't expect to get there when you pay $5.75M for a 4th line bruiser.

Or you let go three top 6 players.