[CaptainYooh]

I was actually thinking about starting a similar thread about how long it could take? What a horrible feeling for a fan watching his team giving up completely! This was the feeling I had this evening watching the game. Am I mentally prepared to see Flames suck this bad for the next 3-5-7 years?

Some interesting quotations from an older 2010 thread:

Originally Posted by Caged Great

...

The Flames do have a small but good nucleus of younger players. The Stajan's, Bourque's, Giordano's etc. and while those players are all good secondary pieces, the Flames need to develop primary pieces. Backlund, Brodie, and Erixon might be the only three players in the organization that could develop into 1st/2nd line players or top for 4 men. Getting any top players is not likely to happen through free agency, so you pretty much either have to blow, or increase your scouting staff in order to find some gems. ....

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

...
Sorry to be a downer, a win is great... but I'm not sold yet. There are so many holes all across the board that I just don't believe. The problems run blood thick, and a little makeup isn't going to cure that. Its the erratic play, the many many comments from coaches saying the biggest problem with the players is in between the ears, the criticism of the leadership group. The coaching isn't great either. Its not even about the wins and losses, its not even really the talent, its the cracks in the vase that are very very evident. That being, team psych, the leadership of this group, the stuff that you can't justify with numbers. This is Brent Sutter saying it, Darryl saying it, Peter Mahr saying, now many different anonymous 3rd hand comments that are consistant with everything said and seen. I would very much be on board with burning the house down and rebuilding, although it would be sad to see Iginla/Regehr/etc go...

Originally Posted by TOfan

...

As for the argument that the flames should tank for a few years, that is equally as dumb. First of all no team ever just tanks a season for a draft pick. Chicago had the worst owner, arguably, in pro sports. Pittsburgh was bankrupt and was nearly re-located. Washington was a dead-beat franchise that couldn't draw 8,000 people to a game. Edmonton began last year with the hope of making the playoffs, and if it weren't for a terrible season of injuries they wouldn't have finsihed last in the league. and the list goes on. Teams that finish last are ussually terrible franchises. ....

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

...
I'm still not convinced that this concept of tanking for 2-3 years is the best method of developing a team. It takes a lot of work and a great team of scouts to build a quality franchise. It takes more than 3 quality picks to make a contender, you need a strong supporting cast and some that come from having lower ranked players becoming diamonds in the rough.

This one is still very much on the ball, I think:

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

...
Winning teams that remain competitive every year do not run the risk of losing money, losing respect, and possibly re-locating. Calgary is pretty much one of the 'bright lights' in the NHL with respect to revenue (sure, the Canadian dollar has something to do with it, Alberta's mineral resources has something to do with it) but Calgary would still be a money losing franchise had it not been for '04, and the constant competitive product they have put on the ice.

I think that for sure this franchise can withstand 1-3 years of 'sucking badly' and drafting high. However, not every draft is deep. Some #1-#5 players wilt and barely leave a mark in the NHL (if at all), and there is absolutely no guarantee that Calgary manages to start winning after tanking.
...
Maybe I am overly-skittish, but tanking and running the risk of losing this organization (we all know that the Dome would NOT sell out like it is - the late 90's was proof of that) on more or less a gamble. Most teams stay at the bottom, or rise to mediocrity. Sometimes a few good seasons, and then back down to mediocrity because they can't retain their free agents that come of age (which are younger now, btw). Maintaining a strong team is the best way of maintaining a strong franchise. ....