Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
You need only look at the history of the Flames over the last 20+ years to know that they likely won't stay the course. The franchise will pull the pin on the "rebuild" or "retool" too quickly (like they did the last time) and push against being bad enough that they draft in the top ten or top five 2-3 times in order to accumulate elite talent.
Now, if they do go out and move more players between now and the start of the season and resist rounding out the lineup with UFA talent, it may just signal that they are going to let this play out and take a different approach.
Until that time passes and we do see a firm commitment to the tear down, you simply can't give the meatball response or benefit of the doubt statements to the franchise that seems to keep trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
|
Nah. I don’t really care what happened 10, 20, 30 years ago. Different management all the way through.
A “firm commitment to the tear down” is just such a subjective thing, sure looks like one to me. Personally, it just seems needlessly miserable to let management decisions from 15 years ago decide how you judge management decisions of today. Especially in the NHL, where even a decade is an eternity and few people last more than a few years on the job. What “the franchise” is, is largely just a made up thing people have compiled from memory that isn’t really a reflection of what it is today.
I expect them to trade more players, but I know there’s no urgency to do it. I also expect them to sign UFAs, because you have to ice a team, and every player can be an asset down the road.
I’ll take good team building and smart asset management over “trade everyone right now and sign no one!” Seems like a bad approach.