GM Craig Conroy

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

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. 

 

My thoughts are that it's okay to miss the playoffs early into a GM's job because he's trying to fix the previous guy's mess.  But by year 3,4,5, etc not supposed to even miss it once.

 

And so, if I was Conroy, then I would take this first year to setup years 3,4,5 for playoff success.  Ignore the playoffs the first year.  It's still honeymoon phase and all.  Fans still like Conroy.

 

And honestly, this team is looking very bad in year 3,4,5 when the core of Kadri, Huberdeau, and Weegar age out of prime.

[Sarasti]

24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

 

The Avs have made some savvy moves but one that flies under the radar is the acquisition of Devon Toews.

I think he's a huge piece that helped push them over the top. He has been brilliant for them

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, zima said:

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?

 

ha.  well, they've got 25% of it right.

 

There's drafting and developing.   They don't do the developing.

 

in terms of drafting, they get high picks.     So there's having picks, and there's drafting the right players.

 

They don't draft the right players (except when it's too obvious to get wrong)

[jjgallow]

36 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

My thoughts are that it's okay to miss the playoffs early into a GM's job because he's trying to fix the previous guy's mess.  But by year 3,4,5, etc not supposed to even miss it once.

 

And so, if I was Conroy, then I would take this first year to setup years 3,4,5 for playoff success.  Ignore the playoffs the first year.  It's still honeymoon phase and all.  Fans still like Conroy.

 

And honestly, this team is looking very bad in year 3,4,5 when the core of Kadri, Huberdeau, and Weegar age out of prime.

 

Yup.   Agreed.   He would be smart to miss them now.  Then again he is a rookie GM.

 

All the same, this would be the time.

[robrob74]

45 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

well, I think what Peeps and JJ and I think is. Yes there's a way to buy, but you also have:

 

McKinnon

Landeskog is a 2nd overall

Makar, 4th overall

Rantenen was 10th overall but an out of the playoff player, who maybe in a redraft goes right up to top 4...

 

I guess Byram didn't do as much but he was 4th overall. I don't know if he was playing during the cup win.

 

you can buy a cup only after the pieces are in place, 

[jjgallow]

43 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

 

Denver will have an easier time than us, but I do agree they aren't a huge market team.

 

They did a combination but I would argue it was drafting and developing they really got right.  A bit of wheeling dealing too, but when they did the played the drafting/devleoping angle.

 

Their top 3 scorers are all drafted by them.  

 

     That starts and ends with Cale Makar.  Shouldn't need to say much more than that.

 

I will give you, they were unusual in that they were able to transplant a goalie in to make a cup winner.   This is very rare.

      But I would not say they bought them, it was simply an astute trade.

 

Some of the supporting cast, I agree with you.  But they already had the bones.

  We don't, and we won't for years.

 

Even when we do, it will be harder for us in Canada to buy that supporting cast.

 

 

Bottom line, if Colorado is the best example of buying the cup, that's pretty much all the evidence we need that it's not the way.

 

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Denver will have an easier time than us, but I do agree they aren't a huge market team.

 

They did a combination but I would argue it was drafting and developing they really got right.  A bit of wheeling dealing too, but when they did the played the drafting/devleoping angle.

 

Their top 3 scorers are all drafted by them.  

 

     That starts and ends with Cale Makar.  Shouldn't need to say much more than that.

 

I will give you, they were unusual in that they were able to transplant a goalie in to make a cup winner.   This is very rare.

      But I would not say they bought them, it was simply an astute trade.

 

Some of the supporting cast, I agree with you.  But they already had the bones.

  We don't, and we won't for years.

 

Even when we do, it will be harder for us in Canada to buy that supporting cast.

 

 

Bottom line, if Colorado is the best example of buying the cup, that's pretty much all the evidence we need that it's not the way.

 

colorado has 4 players drafted 4th overall or higher. One of the best Centers in the world. Probably the best defender in the world... 

 

then they got Rantanen right at 10th overall.  
 

landeskog was a long time ago, but can't say he didn't help and was 2nd overall... 

 

drafting at the top is almost the only way to win the cup these days. It's not impossible to do it our way, but it sure is damn hard and have been trying since '04 to do it this way...

[zima]

I think what I enjoy most is that the Oilers have purchase the cup a dozen times and still failed now I know Bios opinion but tell me what other theam has gotten top 4 over all picks in the last 30 yrs history due to the 6 team system I won't count them

[travel_dude]

17 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Denver will have an easier time than us, but I do agree they aren't a huge market team.

 

They did a combination but I would argue it was drafting and developing they really got right.  A bit of wheeling dealing too, but when they did the played the drafting/devleoping angle.

 

Their top 3 scorers are all drafted by them.  

 

     That starts and ends with Cale Makar.  Shouldn't need to say much more than that.

 

I will give you, they were unusual in that they were able to transplant a goalie in to make a cup winner.   This is very rare.

      But I would not say they bought them, it was simply an astute trade.

 

Some of the supporting cast, I agree with you.  But they already had the bones.

  We don't, and we won't for years.

 

Even when we do, it will be harder for us in Canada to buy that supporting cast.

 

 

Bottom line, if Colorado is the best example of buying the cup, that's pretty much all the evidence we need that it's not the way.

 

 

So, STL, WAS and COL are examples of teams that only won the cup when they bought the right players.  I leave out TBL who bought the cup with additions.  For sure, you need to draft and develop top players.  We drafted 4 players, none of which are still here.  We bought the wrong players before those players expired.  Buying is also trading for them by using picks.  We didn't do that part well at all.  The Hammy trade was awesome, then it resulted in a Hammy trade.  Hammer was nopt good.  Toffoli is fine, but that is a bit late.  Jarnkrok was bad.

 

So, you draft, develop, trade and buy the team to win.  Need the right coach there too.

We did each of those things, but unlike the winners, we did them at different times.

And here we sit. 

[jjgallow]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, STL, WAS and COL are examples of teams that only won the cup when they bought the right players.  I leave out TBL who bought the cup with additions.  For sure, you need to draft and develop top players.  We drafted 4 players, none of which are still here.  We bought the wrong players before those players expired.  Buying is also trading for them by using picks.  We didn't do that part well at all.  The Hammy trade was awesome, then it resulted in a Hammy trade.  Hammer was nopt good.  Toffoli is fine, but that is a bit late.  Jarnkrok was bad.

 

So, you draft, develop, trade and buy the team to win.  Need the right coach there too.

We did each of those things, but unlike the winners, we did them at different times.

And here we sit. 

 

To win a cup, you have to do everything well.

 

All the teams you mentioned above did many things well.

 

We didn't.

 

So, on those grounds alone I don't see any comparable at all.

 

 

But, let's just say that the Flames did do those things well (acquiring Toffoli etc).

 

You also have to do them at the right time.  All of those teams above  made very well-timed acquisitions just prior to the cup win. Calculated and timed moves that addressed specific things for specific years.

 

Flames just sorta "go for it" every year, and as a result they age faster and lose assets faster, every year.

 

 

All of those teams above drafted and developed well, first and foremost.

 

Flames no.  We can debate the drafting part, I think we all agree on the development part.

 

 

As part of the drafting/development, all those teams had a lotta draft picks, and did asset management to ensure it.

 

Flames no.

 

 

...............

 

Basically there's two parts to this:  What you do, and how you do it.    Both need to be mastered to win a cup.

 

I don't see the Flames recent history as a comparable to what those teams above did, or how they did it.

 

I also don't see any of them as having bought a cup, although they all did get some boosts.  well timed calculated boosts.

 

 

 

[jjgallow]

 

I do think we are in a rebuild right now, and just don't know it yet.

 

It's funny, because, if that's the case when it's all said and done will people say "Conroy started the rebuild"?

 

If they do I'll never agree.  Imho BT started it.

 

Just like our last rebuild.   Feaster didn't start our last rebuild.  Sutter did.  By creating a massive asset deficit with questionable short term moves.  All Feaster did was announce it.

[sak22]

45 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

well, I think what Peeps and JJ and I think is. Yes there's a way to buy, but you also have:

 

McKinnon

Landeskog is a 2nd overall

Makar, 4th overall

Rantenen was 10th overall but an out of the playoff player, who maybe in a redraft goes right up to top 4...

 

I guess Byram didn't do as much but he was 4th overall. I don't know if he was playing during the cup win.

 

you can buy a cup only after the pieces are in place, 

Yeah Rantanen is easily a top 4 in a redraft, good scouting but that was just a real good draft.  Honestly I think 2015 will eventually go down as better than 2003.  One thing though is that Byram isn't a result of them bottoming out, it was a result of Duchene trade and Ottawa bottoming out, the league is just lucky Ottawa finished last so that pick had the best odds at #1, but 3 teams past them in the lottery and it dropped to #4.  Imagine that team with Jack Hughes, but showing the part of lottery luck, are the Devils looking like a contender in the next few years if they don't jump from 3 to 1, probably not because nobody is close to Hughes from that class.  Colorado also jumped Florida to draft Mackinnon, and had 3 teams jump them in 2017 for Makar who is the best in that class so far, do they still draft Makar if they win that or would they follow consensus for Hischier or Patrick.  

 

People make it sound like a fool proof plan, like they should be writing books on how to rebuild.  There is so much luck and timing that goes in.  Some years #1 isn't the best player, some years the drop off from 1-2 is very significant, or 2-3 or 3-4.  With the Flames they got luck in 2016 that Tkachuk fell, but 2014 was just not the year to have a top 4 pick, I say that because even without Bennett's struggles here I don't see either Reinhart or Ekblad being players who would've tipped the scales one way or another, Leon is a different story because how much of his development was gaining confidence from playing with McDavid.

[robrob74]

9 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Yeah Rantanen is easily a top 4 in a redraft, good scouting but that was just a real good draft.  Honestly I think 2015 will eventually go down as better than 2003.  One thing though is that Byram isn't a result of them bottoming out, it was a result of Duchene trade and Ottawa bottoming out, the league is just lucky Ottawa finished last so that pick had the best odds at #1, but 3 teams past them in the lottery and it dropped to #4.  Imagine that team with Jack Hughes, but showing the part of lottery luck, are the Devils looking like a contender in the next few years if they don't jump from 3 to 1, probably not because nobody is close to Hughes from that class.  Colorado also jumped Florida to draft Mackinnon, and had 3 teams jump them in 2017 for Makar who is the best in that class so far, do they still draft Makar if they win that or would they follow consensus for Hischier or Patrick.  

 

People make it sound like a fool proof plan, like they should be writing books on how to rebuild.  There is so much luck and timing that goes in.  Some years #1 isn't the best player, some years the drop off from 1-2 is very significant, or 2-3 or 3-4.  With the Flames they got luck in 2016 that Tkachuk fell, but 2014 was just not the year to have a top 4 pick, I say that because even without Bennett's struggles here I don't see either Reinhart or Ekblad being players who would've tipped the scales one way or another, Leon is a different story because how much of his development was gaining confidence from playing with McDavid.

 

Although, good to note is that Duchene was picked 3rd overall by the Avs, and subsequently that turned into a 4th overall Byram.

[robrob74]

10 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Yeah Rantanen is easily a top 4 in a redraft, good scouting but that was just a real good draft.  Honestly I think 2015 will eventually go down as better than 2003.  One thing though is that Byram isn't a result of them bottoming out, it was a result of Duchene trade and Ottawa bottoming out, the league is just lucky Ottawa finished last so that pick had the best odds at #1, but 3 teams past them in the lottery and it dropped to #4.  Imagine that team with Jack Hughes, but showing the part of lottery luck, are the Devils looking like a contender in the next few years if they don't jump from 3 to 1, probably not because nobody is close to Hughes from that class.  Colorado also jumped Florida to draft Mackinnon, and had 3 teams jump them in 2017 for Makar who is the best in that class so far, do they still draft Makar if they win that or would they follow consensus for Hischier or Patrick.  

 

People make it sound like a fool proof plan, like they should be writing books on how to rebuild.  There is so much luck and timing that goes in.  Some years #1 isn't the best player, some years the drop off from 1-2 is very significant, or 2-3 or 3-4.  With the Flames they got luck in 2016 that Tkachuk fell, but 2014 was just not the year to have a top 4 pick, I say that because even without Bennett's struggles here I don't see either Reinhart or Ekblad being players who would've tipped the scales one way or another, Leon is a different story because how much of his development was gaining confidence from playing with McDavid.

 

I can see your point on most of it. I think though, it's just asking for that chance. It's hard because while we've been drafting well, and Johnny and Tkachuk were by far the best picks in the years we were building, we haven't hit on others to make the team a contender. Johnny is rare. Tkachuk in his own way too. We got lucky there that the Canucks took their guy instead. Imagine how much we'd hate Tkachuk if he was a Canuck? 

 

 

[sak22]

27 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Although, good to note is that Duchene was picked 3rd overall by the Avs, and subsequently that turned into a 4th overall Byram.

Yeah not an easy accomplishment, but true to form that what goes around comes around.  Ottawa does that trade and bottoms out with Duchene, they traded Karlsson to SJ only for them to bottom out when the pick was to go to Ottawa and that is how they got Stutzle.  On the other hand Colorado years earlier traded a first to Washington for Varlamov and then missed the playoffs, the pick wound up being outside the top 10.  Filip Forsberg was the player selected in that slot he was ranked to be a top 5 player but fell and is probably the top forward from that draft.  Funny how things work out.

[The_People1]

45 minutes ago, sak22 said:

People make it sound like a fool proof plan, like they should be writing books on how to rebuild.  There is so much luck and timing that goes in.

 

What is "it" though?

What is your definition of "rebuild"?

 

To me, it's spending time in the basement (especially picking #1 and/or #2).

 

It's unfortunate that "it" comes through as a fool proof plan because when a strategy to build a Cup winner is discussed, it's assumed that those who argue for a rebuild seem to argue that the only requirement needed to win a Cup is to rebuild (tank/spend time in basement).

 

But I'm here to clarify on a personal level (because I don't speak for everyone) that a rebuild is only step 1 of a strategy to build a Cup winning team.  After that, there are other steps like draft and develop well, make good signings and trades, hire the right coach, keep the cap healthy, etc, etc.

 

Absolutely, if you only pull Gaudreaus and Foxes out of the 3rd round and find undrafted gems like Mark Giordano, then who needs to "rebuild"?  Right?  It's technically and theoretically possible to never spend time in the basement and build a Cup winning team. Just saying though, 100x more luck is required for that than to tank in the right year, etc.  (If you are arguing that rebuilding is purely luck then you need to look in the mirror).

 

And quite literally too.  3-out-of-4 top 4 picks normally go on to become star players.  On the other hand,  3-out-of-400 3rd round picks will ever become star players.  Which one needs more luck?

 

I know I know, there's no guarantees but math with me for a second bro.

 

Furthermore and probably most important of all, no one is saying do step 1 and then abandon everything else!  It's not a binary suggestion.  We are arguing to "include" a rebuild while also doing everything else.  "Include".  We are not saying rebuild in itself is fool proof but I get that it sounds like it.  It's not fool proof.  It's only step 1.  And because the Flames are not doing this while we push for this, it sounds like we are saying it's the only thing needed.

 

I can also appreciate that "tanking" is a dirty word and it feels like cheating.  Those who argue against tanking stand on a higher moral ground.  Admittedly.  But it's a fallacy to think that standing on higher morals means you stand on the side of math.

 

I can write more but it's already a wall of text.  At the end of the day, it's possible to never "rebuild" and still win a Cup but suggesting we do so as a first step evidently improves our outcome down the road.  COL, TB, PITs, CHI, etc all did it.  STL didn't.  I even thought BOS was going to win it all this year and they never "rebuilt" and yet, they lost too.

[robrob74]

7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What is "it" though?

What is your definition of "rebuild"?

 

To me, it's spending time in the basement (especially picking #1 and/or #2).

 

It's unfortunate that "it" comes through as a fool proof plan because when a strategy to build a Cup winner is discussed, it's assumed that those who argue for a rebuild seem to argue that the only requirement needed to win a Cup is to rebuild (tank/spend time in basement).

 

But I'm here to clarify on a personal level (because I don't speak for everyone) that a rebuild is only step 1 of a strategy to build a Cup winning team.  After that, there are other steps like draft and develop well, make good signings and trades, hire the right coach, keep the cap healthy, etc, etc.

 

Absolutely, if you only pull Gaudreaus and Foxes out of the 3rd round and find undrafted gems like Mark Giordano, then who needs to "rebuild"?  Right?  It's technically and theoretically possible to never spend time in the basement and build a Cup winning team. Just saying though, 100x more luck is required for that than to tank in the right year, etc.  (If you are arguing that rebuilding is purely luck then you need to look in the mirror).

 

And quite literally too.  3-out-of-4 top 4 picks normally go on to become star players.  On the other hand,  3-out-of-400 3rd round picks will ever become star players.  Which one needs more luck?

 

I know I know, there's no guarantees but math with me for a second bro.

 

Furthermore and probably most important of all, no one is saying do step 1 and then abandon everything else!  It's not a binary suggestion.  We are arguing to "include" a rebuild while also doing everything else.  "Include".  We are not saying rebuild in itself is fool proof but I get that it sounds like it.  It's not fool proof.  It's only step 1.  And because the Flames are not doing this while we push for this, it sounds like we are saying it's the only thing needed.

 

I can also appreciate that "tanking" is a dirty word and it feels like cheating.  Those who argue against tanking stand on a higher moral ground.  Admittedly.  But it's a fallacy to think that standing on higher morals means you stand on the side of math.

 

I can write more but it's already a wall of text.  At the end of the day, it's possible to never "rebuild" and still win a Cup but suggesting we do so as a first step evidently improves our outcome down the road.  COL, TB, PITs, CHI, etc all did it.  STL didn't.  I even thought BOS was going to win it all this year and they never "rebuilt" and yet, they lost too.

 

LA did get a top pick as well in Doughty

[conundrumed]

Edmonton's 4 1st oa and Detroit constantly in the basement and highest pic being 4th due to lottery losses say hello.

[The_People1]

42 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

LA did get a top pick as well in Doughty

 

Yes they did.

 

1 minute ago, conundrumed said:

Edmonton's 4 1st oa and Detroit constantly in the basement and highest pic being 4th due to lottery losses say hello.

 

First step taken.  Now onto the next steps.

[sak22]

29 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

And quite literally too.  3-out-of-4 top 4 picks normally go on to become star players.  On the other hand,  3-out-of-400 3rd round picks will ever become star players.  Which one needs more luck?

 

2005: Crosby, Ryan, Jack Johnson, Pouliot.  1/4 stars

2006: Johnson, J. Staal, Toews, Backstrom. 2/4 stars.  The other 2 are good but not stars 

2007: Kane, JVR, Turris, Hickey.  1/4.  Tell me where Chicago was supposed to pick based off standings?

2008: Stamkos, Doughty, Bogo, Pietrangelo.  3/4

2009: Tavares, Hedman, Duchene, Kane.  Tough but I'd say 2/4 Duchene and Kane aren't consistent

2010: Hall, Seguin, Gudbranson, Johansen.  At most I'd go 2/4, but the top 2 didn't age the best.

2011: RNH, Landeskog, Huberdeau, Larssen.  2/4

2012: Yakupov, Murray, Galchenyuk, Reinhart.  0/4

2013: Mackinnon, Barkov, Drouin, Jones.  I'll give 2.5/4 only because Jones is paid like a star

2014: Ekblad, Reinhart, Draisatl, Bennett.  1/4

2015: McDavid, Eichel, Strome, Marner. 3/4

2016: Matthews, Laine, Dubois, Puljuarvi.  1.5/4, Laine might be with good health and Dubois has the abilities, neither seem like centerpieces of a rebuild though.

2017: Hischier, Patrick, Heiskenen, Makar.  3/4

2018: Dahlin, Svechnikov, Kotkaniemi, Tkachuk.  A borderline 3/4 too early to tell.

2019 and 2020 are still too early to tell, but 2019 so far I'm at 1/4 with potential for Byram to be 2.  2020 I'm also only at 1 with Stutzle.

 

I think your too generous with the 3/4, being stars.  Maybe I'm too harsh on some, nothing wrong with the Jordan Staal's or Sam Reinharts, but if those are your first 2 picks in consecutive years to start a rebuild it may be extended

[The_People1]

6 minutes ago, sak22 said:

2005: Crosby, Ryan, Jack Johnson, Pouliot.  1/4 stars

2006: Johnson, J. Staal, Toews, Backstrom. 2/4 stars.  The other 2 are good but not stars 

2007: Kane, JVR, Turris, Hickey.  1/4.  Tell me where Chicago was supposed to pick based off standings?

2008: Stamkos, Doughty, Bogo, Pietrangelo.  3/4

2009: Tavares, Hedman, Duchene, Kane.  Tough but I'd say 2/4 Duchene and Kane aren't consistent

2010: Hall, Seguin, Gudbranson, Johansen.  At most I'd go 2/4, but the top 2 didn't age the best.

2011: RNH, Landeskog, Huberdeau, Larssen.  2/4

2012: Yakupov, Murray, Galchenyuk, Reinhart.  0/4

2013: Mackinnon, Barkov, Drouin, Jones.  I'll give 2.5/4 only because Jones is paid like a star

2014: Ekblad, Reinhart, Draisatl, Bennett.  1/4

2015: McDavid, Eichel, Strome, Marner. 3/4

2016: Matthews, Laine, Dubois, Puljuarvi.  1.5/4, Laine might be with good health and Dubois has the abilities, neither seem like centerpieces of a rebuild though.

2017: Hischier, Patrick, Heiskenen, Makar.  3/4

2018: Dahlin, Svechnikov, Kotkaniemi, Tkachuk.  A borderline 3/4 too early to tell.

2019 and 2020 are still too early to tell, but 2019 so far I'm at 1/4 with potential for Byram to be 2.  2020 I'm also only at 1 with Stutzle.

 

I think your too generous with the 3/4, being stars.  Maybe I'm too harsh on some, nothing wrong with the Jordan Staal's or Sam Reinharts, but if those are your first 2 picks in consecutive years to start a rebuild it may be extended

 

Agreed it helps to spend extended time in the basement if necessary.  The more time one spends there, the odds of locking in a franchise player increases.

 

Again, at the end of the day, it's just step 1.  You can't only rely on one pick/player.

 

Yes you can abandon this step but you need a lot more luck elsewhere in the draft.  As bad as you may want to paint the top 4 picks in each draft class, spending time in the basement still yields the best odds of finding these star players.

 

We can still sign the next Panarin from the KHL.  We can still draft another Gaudreau in round 4.  Spending time in the basement doesn't stop us from doing these things.  It is simply an additional advantage to gain on the competition.

[sak22]

38 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Agreed it helps to spend extended time in the basement if necessary.  The more time one spends there, the odds of locking in a franchise player increases.

 

Again, at the end of the day, it's just step 1.  You can't only rely on one pick/player.

 

Yes you can abandon this step but you need a lot more luck elsewhere in the draft.  As bad as you may want to paint the top 4 picks in each draft class, spending time in the basement still yields the best odds of finding these star players.

 

We can still sign the next Panarin from the KHL.  We can still draft another Gaudreau in round 4.  Spending time in the basement doesn't stop us from doing these things.  It is simply an additional advantage to gain on the competition.

Just so you know, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say.  Rebuilds are something every team needs because you can't keep the same group of players forever, and its better to bottom out than be a bad team who isn't bad enough.  I do feel this is a time the team should really go in that direction.  I just carry a pessimistic view, I'm generally pessimistic with sports (my team won the last Super Bowl, do I think they'll repeat?  No), you see Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, etc. as the end result, I see Buffalo, Edmonton, Islanders, Thrashers, Columbus as the most likely one.  I can accept a rebuild, but I don't really look forward to it, I couldn't imagine going through what Buffalo is.

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, sak22 said:

Just so you know, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say.  Rebuilds are something every team needs because you can't keep the same group of players forever, and its better to bottom out than be a bad team who isn't bad enough.  I do feel this is a time the team should really go in that direction.  I just carry a pessimistic view, I'm generally pessimistic with sports (my team won the last Super Bowl, do I think they'll repeat?  No), you see Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, etc. as the end result, I see Buffalo, Edmonton, Islanders, Thrashers, Columbus as the most likely one.  I can accept a rebuild, but I don't really look forward to it, I couldn't imagine going through what Buffalo is.

 

Fair enough.  I am also just agreeing with you that there are no guarantees either way.  Just saying the stats favour rebuilding as part of a Cup winning build.  For a small market team like the Flames that is already at a disadvantage in the UFA market, we need any other advantage we can get.  It's the most optimistic path we can get to winning a Cup, even if it's not guaranteed.

[conundrumed]

11 hours ago, The_People1 said:

First step taken.  Now onto the next steps.

Due solely to scouting. Every draft lottery is a loss, for NJ, it's a win. The NHL has done zero to help Detroit. We are totally on our own and the NHL can go Blockchain itself with the lottery. Are you prepared for that scenario where our scouting HAS to be almost unreal because every lottery is a guarantee of getting pegged down?

Then, what's your exit strategy? Add free agents? Again, Detroit has been great in that department. Last year they added Perron, Kubalik, Walman and Maatta. Great signings. But every term you sign is with an eye on "help for now and will still command some return".

When does this part of the rebuild end? Because this is exactly the part of the process that stagnates it year after year.

Anaheim is terrible and at the least a few years behind Detroit. Falling to terrible takes a few years just to start. 5 years later you're start wondering about exit strategy,

Are you sure you've got the stomach for it? I sure don't from watching one. I feel like the success rate is low but the success stories are extremely hyperbolic.

[tmac70]

17 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

What is "it" though?

What is your definition of "rebuild"?

 

To me, it's spending time in the basement (especially picking #1 and/or #2).

 

It's unfortunate that "it" comes through as a fool proof plan because when a strategy to build a Cup winner is discussed, it's assumed that those who argue for a rebuild seem to argue that the only requirement needed to win a Cup is to rebuild (tank/spend time in basement).

 

But I'm here to clarify on a personal level (because I don't speak for everyone) that a rebuild is only step 1 of a strategy to build a Cup winning team.  After that, there are other steps like draft and develop well, make good signings and trades, hire the right coach, keep the cap healthy, etc, etc.

 

Absolutely, if you only pull Gaudreaus and Foxes out of the 3rd round and find undrafted gems like Mark Giordano, then who needs to "rebuild"?  Right?  It's technically and theoretically possible to never spend time in the basement and build a Cup winning team. Just saying though, 100x more luck is required for that than to tank in the right year, etc.  (If you are arguing that rebuilding is purely luck then you need to look in the mirror).

 

And quite literally too.  3-out-of-4 top 4 picks normally go on to become star players.  On the other hand,  3-out-of-400 3rd round picks will ever become star players.  Which one needs more luck?

 

I know I know, there's no guarantees but math with me for a second bro.

 

Furthermore and probably most important of all, no one is saying do step 1 and then abandon everything else!  It's not a binary suggestion.  We are arguing to "include" a rebuild while also doing everything else.  "Include".  We are not saying rebuild in itself is fool proof but I get that it sounds like it.  It's not fool proof.  It's only step 1.  And because the Flames are not doing this while we push for this, it sounds like we are saying it's the only thing needed.

 

I can also appreciate that "tanking" is a dirty word and it feels like cheating.  Those who argue against tanking stand on a higher moral ground.  Admittedly.  But it's a fallacy to think that standing on higher morals means you stand on the side of math.

 

I can write more but it's already a wall of text.  At the end of the day, it's possible to never "rebuild" and still win a Cup but suggesting we do so as a first step evidently improves our outcome down the road.  COL, TB, PITs, CHI, etc all did it.  STL didn't.  I even thought BOS was going to win it all this year and they never "rebuilt" and yet, they lost too.

Really we did go through a rebuild unfortunately you had the wrong engineer constructing this. Once again we had a 2- top six picks with Monahan and Chucky a 4th with Bennett, 11 th with Valimaki and we got a gem in the 4th round with Gaudreau. We had Norris trophy winner in GIo and we won NOTHING. Currently, we are left with nothing in a top forward, we don't have the game changer or the guy that moves you to the edge of your seat. I loved what Trotz's said  to his scouts " Finding or getting a 3rd 4th liner we can get any time, find me the guy that brings you out of your seat, take some risks" . Trevling is well respected for being a classy guy, but really what has he left us with as a GM.  We all would have taken what he got in return for Chucky, but in IMHO it should have never gotten to that point. All the focus was on JG and the real franchise guy is or was Chucky. He is the one the drags a team into battle. Some will say this couldn't have been avoided I call BS. The attention and focus were misdirected to Matthew from a management level.