Flames goaltending is killing our chances at McDavid/Eichel/Hanifin: Discuss

[Huntingwhale]

#### Mcdavid. Hopefully whatever team wins the tank war gets to watch him turn into a bust and to reflect on that season they threw it all away for nothing.

Building a team with a never-quit attitude with a bunch of hardworking players that play for each other >>> Tanking a season and potentially (but probably not) drafting a possible superstar.

[Murph]

Go back and look at Crosby's draft year - The Kings got Kopitar at 11. For every McDavid/Crosby, there are a couple of top notch players to be had from the 5-15 range. Just gotta do the scouting to make sure you get one of them. I'd rather win a few games and take my shot at drafting a Kopitar, then tank for a shot McDavid.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Seriously? You wouldn't want Crosby? Or Stamkos? Or Tavares?

What saillias said is that he wouldn't want Crosby and Malkin. Having the best player in the world at one position is great. Having the two best players in the world at the same position is overkill.

And it's not as though if you draft a superstar you aren't allowed to draft other good players as well. Having Toews and Kane hasn't stopped the Hawks from putting together an excellent team.

No, because (until now) they didn't have Toews and Kane eating up $18 million in cap space between them. Chicago built their team by a careful balancing act, keeping the salaries of their stars from going out of whack so they would have the cap room to sign great supporting players. Pittsburgh spent so much money on those two superstars that they often didn't have room for luxuries like a goalie. So the only year they won the Cup was the year Fleury caught lightning in a bottle.

I wouldn't mind having one player of Crosby's calibre. But a team with 20 good players will generally beat a team with 2 great players and 18 scrubs.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by BigRed

As a result, we don't suck anywhere near as much as we ought to. Don't get me wrong: I don't love losing either. But if there was one year in the next 5 for us to stink to high heaven, this would be it. And we looked ready to do it, except for Goddamn Hiller and Ramo!

I'm kind of kidding, but my point is that our results are skewed by exceptional goaltending. After being outplayed and outshot in all but a couple of games, we're looking artificially respectable. Can these guys keep up this kind of play, or are we heading for a fall?

Originally Posted by devo22

Having the youth part of a winning team is much more beneficial to us then them getting developed in a losing atmosphere. Ideally, those youth players would be productive in the Flames success, meaning their development is effective, and the better chance of a successful rebuild.

Losing and losing lots doesn't guarantee winning in the future. If anything, it leads to more losing.

[Muta]

We're already winning without McDavid. We're winning games we shouldn't be winning.

We're developing a reputation of being an extremely hard-working team to play against. This is WITHOUT any superstars in the lineup.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

I personally despise Tanking for picks BS. For my team, it wasn't a conscious effort to tank, Toews and Kane were good, but, at the time, neither was a slam dunk #1 pick (Toews was a #3 pick, and Kane was viewed as "undersized"). For us it was a combination of inept politics in the front office (Pulford (and $Bill Wirtz) vs. Peter Wirtz (and more progressive thinkers), and a lack of proper talent utilization on the ice, due to a succession of untried coaches, in Yawney and Savard.

There is a historical lesson in the dangers of tanking...the 1979 Detroit Lions were determined to get Oklahoma halfback Billy Sims in the 1980 draft. The shed talent, and really just threw games. They got their guy. Then, lacking talent to surround him, he wasted a decent career, as the Lions sputtered, and for the next THIRTY YEARS couldn't put together the whole package of balanced talent. When their offense was good (with Sims and Sanders), their Defense stunk...when they built a Defense, the Offense was on the downswing. The ethic of losing pervaded the organization from the Owner on down. Karma. They only eked into a couple of playoffs, and were destined, even then, for a quick loss and attendant fist round exit.

Alienating the loyal fans, and courting a losing tradition, is the price of tanking...

Moreover, there are no guarantees that the targeted pick will ever perform at the expected levels once he gets to the top leagues, injury or intangibles can derail a promising career...after all, in the NFL, for instance, wasn't Ryan Leaf the slam dunk prospect, and Peyton Manning more the risk, as merely a product of his college system?

Tanking does not guarantee anything, that is for sure but it is hard to argue it can't work either after the Penguins did it to draft Lemieux and it snowballed from there. Of course when they did it there was no draft lottery either. Now with a 20% chance if you tank the hardest it just isn't worth it. Besides, I would rather build a winning work hard atmosphere around the team than like the loser idiots up North.

[BurningSteel]

I don't think we were ever really in the running for this anyway. A lot can happen over the season but I see us picking 8th this year at the draft.

[MissTeeks]

It won't last. Besides the long road trip, our schedule isn't that tough to start the year. I'm sure once we start getting into more divisional play, it will even out. Justin Bourne posted this today:

Justin Bourne@jtbourne · 4h4 hours ago
By the time the Calgary Flames hit game 17, they'll have played two games against divisional opponents. Their next *10 games* are against

Justin Bourne@jtbourne · 4h4 hours ago
teams from other divisions; 9 of 10 are from the Eastern Conference. In all, they play four of their first 21 games against the Pacific.

[foshizzle11]

I don't like seeing these threads. If all of our players start playing exceptionally well, we will be no where near the bottom of the league. Here is hoping that happens and we are vying for a playoff spot and not the bottom.

I don't care if we get a top 3 pick if our guys are playing hard and winning games. The talent will come. No panic yet.

[darthma]

I have no true opinion, I only like to stir the pot with new threads. Discuss.

[Poe969]

Tanking is a fail safe method that is proven to be affective. The oilers have drafted 3 first overall picks, a third overall pick and a seventh overall pick in their last 5 years. All of which have proven to be generational talents. There is no losing culture associated with the oilers, they just get high draft picks every year because tanking is better for business than winning is. Look at the history of the franchise and answer me this, who knows more about winning than us?!?!?

- Kevin Lowe.

[DoubleF]

If we get close to playoff range this year and we swap the pick for some really good players to make the push, would anyone here be angry?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

If we get close to playoff range this year and we swap the pick for some really good players to make the push, would anyone here be angry?

Depends if they are long term pieces or not. I'd rather not give it up to finish 8th with a couple rentals or old guys.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

If we get close to playoff range this year and we swap the pick for some really good players to make the push, would anyone here be angry?

If it was just to make a push into the playoffs, then I would avoid it.

But it depends on the age of the player and contract status I suppose.

[mile]

If this team was a contending team I'd agree and be concerned as well but we're not. For the most part how the standings are and which draft picks we are getting is out of our control, so I'm not worried. The young players on our current roster are important too and it's crucial they know they can go into a game and have a chance to win every night.

If our goaltenders continue to play well we can trade one of them for a pick. In any case the focus should be to stockpile picks and make the most out of each pick regardless of where we pick. A scenario in which we pick in the 6-10 range but also get more picks as a result of trading players who had good seasons and helped us finish higher in the standings would still be very good for the rebuild.

And plus as a fan, I don't think I would be able to handle losing like Buffalo and Edmonton are. Also, it's very early so you can't rule out our chances at anything when it comes to the draft.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

If we get close to playoff range this year and we swap the pick for some really good players to make the push, would anyone here be angry?

Yes. Because we're still a long way from finished in this rebuild. We're getting long periods of getting dummied every night and our goaltending and one D pairing is keeping us in games. This is a mirage, and I would expect the management to be smart enough to see that.

Enjoying watching it while it happens, but we're still some years away from being a legit playoff contender.

[DoubleF]

Sorry, I meant long term pieces for the draft pick. Not guys with a few years left before turning into a beached whales.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Seriously? You wouldn't want Crosby? Or Stamkos? Or Tavares?

And it's not as though if you draft a superstar you aren't allowed to draft other good players as well. Having Toews and Kane hasn't stopped the Hawks from putting together an excellent team.

Let me clarify, I don't want 2 phenom types that the team has to pay 9 mil because they can put up 100 points if they play 82 games... Would rather have guys like Kopitar that are good for 70-80 pts but cost 2 million less.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Depends if they are long term pieces or not. I'd rather not give it up to finish 8th with a couple rentals or old guys.

Management has been pretty vocal about having an established, long-term plan for team building, and about prioritising pieces that will contribute to that future. Given this mandate, I can't imagine that there would be any draft picks or high end prospects sacrificed for rentals at this stage, regardless of where the Flames finish.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by saillias

Let me clarify, I don't want 2 phenom types that the team has to pay 9 mil because they can put up 100 points if they play 82 games... Would rather have guys like Kopitar that are good for 70-80 pts but cost 2 million less.

So is McDavis the guy that gets 100 points but makes $9M, or is Hannifin that guy? Or is it Eichel that will get 80 points but make $2M?