Originally Posted by Psytic
You did. Otherwise, what was the point of bringing up Montreal drafting in the top five only once in 10 years because of injuries to their top-line players? You're implying that this somehow disproves my point. But an injury isn't something you plan for. It's a fluke. Montreal was a middle-tier team that never would have drafted that high without that injury. That’s not a plan, and it supports what I’ve been saying.
Backstrom was an elite goalie who propped up a middle-of-the-pack team. That’s the comparison I was trying to make. That’s why I included him. It makes sense, right?
Crawford, on the other hand, was an average-to-above-average goalie playing behind a dynasty team. Chicago already had elite and future Hall of Fame players in place before he even became the starter. That’s not remotely comparable to the Flames' current situation. So yes, there's a reason why one is included and the other isn’t.
Pittsburgh, Chicago, even Tampa aren’t relevant comparisons. We’re looking for teams that resemble the Flames right now—teams that acquired an elite goalie and tried to stay competitive while building around a veteran core. That’s a small list. Only six teams in the last 15 years. The Flames are not tanking. They’re not planning to trade Kadri or most of their vets (aside from Andersson, as far as we know). They aren’t trying to draft in the top 10. So if we want a useful discussion, we need to compare apples to apples.
Bringing up examples that don’t reflect the Flames' current context just muddies the conversation.
No, they’re not. The Flames have never intentionally been bad. If they end up bad by accident, fine, but they’ve always tried to stay competitive. They target 20 to 25-year-old middle-six forwards, chase free agents, and spin their wheels. That’s the cycle I’m pointing out doesn’t work.
Unless you fully bottom out with veterans still in place, it doesn’t result in meaningful success. LA had Hall of Fame players at center and on defense. The Flames don’t. They had 96 points last season, and you can bet the plan is to stay in that range, not to pick top 10. Conroy has said he expects to be middle of the pack and remain competitive, trying to “roll Yahtzee” with mid-round picks with an elite goalie in place. That’s the issue, and that’s the pattern I’ve been highlighting.
It is a pattern, at least when we focus on teams in situations similar to the Flames. Of course it’s not, if you keep using examples that don’t actually apply.
That’s not a fair comparison. If the Flames could somehow tank with this current roster and land a top 2 picked center like Byfield, great. That’s what I’m advocating for. But that's not the plan management has outlined. The valid comparisons are with other teams that tried to build off a mediocre core and elite goalie, stayed competitive, and hoped for the best.
Take J.S. Giguère. Yes, he was acquired before Getzlaf, and yes, they won a Cup. But again, not comparable. Who’s our Selanne? Who’s our Niedermayer, who only signed because his brother was already there? Anaheim got incredibly lucky. They landed a Hall of Fame center in one of the deepest drafts in history at 19...that's extremely rare. That's not a plan. It's a perfect storm.
Unless the Flames sign Makar in free agency and Honzek turns into Getzlaf, the comparison doesn’t hold up. Even then, we’d still need a Selanne-level forward and for Parekh to develop like Niedermayer. That’s a massive amount of good fortune. You can’t build a model around that kind of outcome.
So again, if you can find a team in a truly comparable situation—no Hall of Famers, middle-of-the-pack core, elite goalie already in place, management committed to retooling on the fly with mid-round picks—and show me that more than 50% of them succeeded, then sure, I’ll concede the Flames might be following a sustainable model. But as it stands, I’ve found six examples, and it didn’t work out for any of them.
|