Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
There’s different ways owners and management can create a good environment for players. The training facilities and style of travel they provide. How they handle all the off-ice stuff like accommodation, tickets for family, etc. How they treat support staff. The Panthers organization gets top ratings for that stuff.
However, like most top teams they’re ruthless when it comes to player personnel. They didn’t hesitate to move core, life-long Panthers in Huberdeau and Weegar to improve the team. They’re likely going to let mainstay Ekblad walk, just like Tampa let Stamkos go. The same way Vegas hasn’t let sentiment sway them from all kids of heartless moves in their short history. But players still want to play for those franchises because they win.
Maybe small-market, unattractive destinations like the Flames can’t operate the same way. In the absence of great weather or a winning pedigree, we may have to rely on goodwill (and higher financial compensation) to attract and keep players. But being utterly ruthless around personnel is a trait common to top franchises in pro sports.
|
I'm pretty confused by this conversation on the ruthlessness or lack or ruthlessness around assets. When were the Flames last in a position to be ruthless or not in terms of moving on from an player of any substance? I honestly can't think of any, except and since Iginla.
And not to make excuses about that situation but:
1. That was well over a decade ago now............so how relevant is it.
2. That was executed by a GM who has had 3 predecessors since them (oh and was already over a decade ago).
3. And that player wasn't just any elite asset (like Huberdeau), he was literally the record book holder on most Franchise stats and most iconic Flame of all time.
Point being, I think we invent narratives around here that compliment our points of view. There's lots of valid things to debate about how this franchise is run (as there is with any franchise), but where did this "we won't make tough decisions and hold onto assets too long out of loyalty" narrative come from? Even if it's just because we haven't been in the position to not make a tough decision on a key player (that would likely require more success), it's not something the Flames have a track record of "not making the tough decisions on".