Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Why must it either be one or the other?
The thing I don't get in this constant argument is the notion that the Flames only have two choices: either to embark on a scorched earth rebuild, or to continue to attempt to ice competitive teams via free agency and trades each year in hopes of making the playoffs at the expense of the longer term future. I just don't see either currently at work in the Flames organisation. Rather, it seems to me that management is taking a more patient approach: gradual turnover in the roster and restocking through the draft, supplemented by the free agent market. This is my interpretation of the last couple of drafts and also the way in which Feaster has constructed the current roster.
I don't think there are many serious Flames fans who actually believe that the current group is now or at any point in the next couple of seasons a legitimate contender in the League. However, I also think that this is not otherwise some egregious oversight on the part of management that urgently must be corrected. Could another alternative simply be that the next couple of seasons are transition periods through which the team is rebuilt more gradually?
|
I would strongly disagree that the Flames aren't signing free agents and making trades to try and make the playoffs every year. We did sign 2 free agents to long-term, $4m+ dollar deals this summer. We did trade away a 2nd rounder and a prospect to acquire Cammalleri last year. We signed a 32-year old Tanguay to a 5 year deal two summers ago. Those are all clear moves towards aging veterans with a focus on winning now.
Either way, this idea of "gradually" improving the roster is the same strategy that 75% of the league employs. Except we're starting from behind everyone else given our lack of prospect depth and the fact that our main roster doesn't have a single impact player between the ages of 23-27 (almost all other teams have one or the other). So not only do we have to beat everyone at their own game - we have to do so starting at a disadvantage. Sounds like a prudent strategy to me.