[McG]

The intermission interview I could take it or leave it. It was whatever. And that should have been that. There was no need to do another interview with Francis.

Here's my bigger problem. Why is it that words like "culture" and "vision" are tossed around with reckless abandon with no real meaning behind them? I find it absolutely incredible that a so called president of hockey operations cannot differentiate between vision, strategy, and tactics. I don't expect everyone to understand this, except maybe if you have, I don't know, the word president in your title?

Vision is fine. Long term, limited to zero change, where you want to go, the guiding light for the team/organization. it can be a little bit aspirational, but generally it informs the organization and its people of what they are going towards. Sure, win a Stanley cup could be a vision, but it might be something like "make the playoffs every year".

Strategy is what you are going to do to get to your vision. seriously. Strategies change...but not every single year. Many strategies exist for 4 to 5 years...and that's because the underlying tools or events might make you adjust how you do things. Vision unlikely to change.

Tactics...this is what you do to achieve strategy. much, much more short term. like 1-2 years. so your tactics might change twice to deliver the strategic goals in a 4-5 year cycle. totally natural! tactics change because circumstances change. But your strategy doesn't. and certainly your vision doesn't.

why do I write this. and this is for you don Maloney. The Flames vision is what? Be a top 4 team consistently? Win the Stanley Cup? Are these unique? The Flames strategy would be draft and develop with free agent signings to provide star power. And the tactics would be to go after player X as a UFA, or drafting Centres for the next 3 draft cycles, or BPA for next 3 drafts or whatever. You can fill in with just about any approach here...but the point is that each of these has to be consistent for the necessary time period. You don't keep unsuccessful tactics for 5 years because they are obviously wrong if they aren't delivering the strategy to support the vision.

Here's what Maloney (and by extension, the Flames) are missing. I can sign up for the vision. I can sign up for the strategy. Tactics are meant to be flexible. The guy talks like tactics are strategy and they aren't. It is extremely mathematically improbable that the flames make the playoffs this year. Like last year. So change the tactics!!! See what I mean? Everyone loved the spirit of the flames last year...probably great culture in the room and with the fans! Hard work! Yay! Did the Flames seriously, seriously think that it was permanently repeatable? Then shame on them. And here we are where we are crying out for a change in tactics.

Flames (and Treliving previously) have been absolutely terrible asset managers over the years. You don't trade Anderson et al because you want to tank, you trade them because they are worth absolutely nothing at the end of the season. They extend or they are traded as UFAs. Are they helping the Flames win right now? Standings say no. Flames strategy might/should be to never let a player become a UFA. You make it known to players and then turn it into an organizational strength.

As Don might say...wow McG...you live in a fantasy world. But you just have to look up highway 2 to see the effect of 2 players. Lost is the fact that when you draft at the top of the first round, you draft at the top of every single other round too! And maybe you pick up other draft picks so you can draft in the 20s from other teams. And wow...it is more likely that you get the better players at the top of the draft. Parekh fell...sure. But only to the 9 spot where Flames somehow were picking without going on a "win for culture" end of season jaunt.

TLDR? McG feels that the Flames are terrible asset managers and don't have the foggiest clue about vision, strategy, and tactics.