Quote:
Originally Posted by Poe969
I'm always so curious about what constitutes as a hot take in some people's eyes. Is it something you just don't agree with or something you just don't want to believe. Before last season, if someone said you could replace the entire Flames roster with prospects and they won't do much worse than the actual team, I'm sure everyone would call it a "hot take" because it just sounds untrue to everyone...at the time. If you think about it, that could have happened. The Flames got 8 points after everyone else had finished the regular season against a team that mailed it in. Without those points the Flames would have finished around where, 27th or so? And they were in the weakest division there has been in years. Now, some people want to just make 1 or 2 changes and think the team will be a contender? What makes more sense: if the Flames keep this roster as is, are they a bottom 5 team next year or in the playoffs? If they played with just prospects, would they do better than last year?
So because you don't agree with something, or don't want to, is it a hot take?
|
Are you suggesting the Flames would have lost 4/4 to Vancouver if it was mid-season? I'd say that's a pretty hot take. Also, they only won 3/4 vs VAN so the take isn't even based on facts.
Claiming that a team of prospects would have done nearly as well as the Flames did this year is also a hot take because it's ridiculous. Is it just the Flames specifically or do you think a team of prospects would be better than 1/3rd of the NHL?
Getting lost in the hyperbole about the team here is that they were closer to a playoff spot than they were to 27th. As Barry Trotz said it's a tight league and the difference between top teams and bubble teams is about one win a month.
As for your question, I think if they bring the same team back next season they are far more likely to make the playoffs than be bottom 5. Not even a hard call in my opinion, I'd be shocked if they bottomed out like that.