Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
No need to get moody. All I'm saying is if the Flames are currently making the playoffs at a roughly 50% clip, a rebuild that takes 5-6 years and gets you a team that makes the playoffs 5-6 years in a row puts you in the exact same spot. So the risk seems minimal. Especially when you can offset the lost revenue with reduced team spending during those rebuilding years. But if you build the team correctly during those 5-6 years and have a little luck, you should get a solid 5-10 years of steady playoffs and hopefully some deep runs in those years that actually bring in higher revenue. So financially, it seems worth the gamble. Unless of course you believe Craig Conroy is Peter Chiarelli 2.0. In which case, we're doomed no matter what.
|
Nobody is moody, you OK?
As Jiri pointed out, sure, if *everything* goes right you might net 5-6 years in the playoffs. Maybe. But considering 27/32 teams haven’t made the playoffs 5 years in a row, including the most recent Cup champions… probably not.
What you were saying was that, if ownership
actually cared about playoff revenue, they’d rebuild. What you were shown was that a rebuild =/= increased playoff revenue, especially if the Flames of all teams have managed to make more than multiple rebuilding teams, including teams that won
championships in that time span. Seriously, think about it. The Flames and the Kings have played the same number of playoff home games over the last 20 years. The Kings won two cups in that time. The Flames have been out of the first round… three times? If that? And you’re pretending a rebuild nets you more playoff revenue than what the Flames are currently doing, when a 2x cup champ has the same number of dates and teams like Buffalo and Edmonton are trailing hard? Hahaha. Yikes.