Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
It's not like we're going to be aging out of our hypothetical competitive window by then.
By 2031, Wolf and Zary are going to be 29.
What I want from the management is less an attempt to build a cup contender as soon as possible, but rather making consistently solid decisions that keeps the team competitive in a sustainable way.
Having a steady influx of good young players for 5 years sounds great to me.
|
That is a lot of years of Wolf, Parekh, Coronato, Gridin, Zary, etc. to waste. I want management to smartly build around these guys and not follow the sentiments of fans that the rebuild just started. In short, building around these existing assets is not "rushing".
First consideration: Player retention - These young players could play through a couple of bad seasons if they see the building blocks coming in to pull out of the rebuild sooner than later. If the rebuild is going to be 5+ years then the chances of keeping these guys in 2031 will shrink. They may or may not demand a trade but after living in the league basement for nearly a decade they will increasingly not want to sign an extension with the Flames when the RFA handcuffs come off.
We need 2026 to be a big draft for the Flames to help with player retention. My hope is 3 picks in the 1st round with a top 2 pick and then another top 10 pick (my expectation is we won't get that).
Second consideration: The way the team and the prospect pipeline is built right now, we have a few potential stars and lot of good middle and depth players. The pipeline is just missing superstar player(s) to build out the top line. Dragging out a rebuild to "do it properly" is arguable the wrong move as it wastes all of the existing assets when you really only need 2-3 high-end additions (and a few years of maturing) to turn this team around.
So, yes, in a general way I agree that having long term inputs will help the team. However, that does not change the fact that the trade fails to meet two big requirements: Urgency to support the existing young players, nor does it address the team's biggest needs (future #1C or top line wingers).
That is the whole punchline of the quality over quantity argument to *this* specific rebuild. We have too many existing pieces to pretend that there are no consequences to a long rebuild or to keep missing on addressing the team's biggest need while piling on pieces we have tonnes of already.
Breaking down the trade:
- Moving out Kadri = Great, he clearly needed/wanted to go and his demoralized play was only going to reduce his value
- Sending a 2027 4th = Fine. On the one hand, that 2027 4th might have more value than Curran who was a 5th in 2024. On the other hand, sending this pick was probably needed to get the 1st and 2nd.
- 2028 1st = Great, not excellent because of the number of years out. Goes down in score if it slides to 2029.
- 2027 2nd = Good.
- Olofsson = Meh.
- Curran = Meh, we picked Luke Misa 11 spots ahead of this guy. Both are long shots to make the NHL but I think Misa has a stronger chance to surprise us.
Giving the 8/10 is entirely because we got a 1st back but this was not a home run and one could argue that the 1st is a wash because of the 1st Tre spent to make room for Kadri.