Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Jiri Hrdina · 11-15-2022, 10:00 PM

I think the opportunity to manage an expansion team would be fun.

The less fun teams are the current asset weak clubs that are potentially going to be hurt more by this, and have an even tougher time going forward with fewer assets to go around.

So would veteran GMs, who are advocating for expansion, be willing to give up there current teams and take over an asset-weak, non-expansion team?

Some GMs of current weak asset teams could be given the choice of keeping their team, or taking an expansion club (if we choose to do this).
New GMs get moved into asset rich clubs vacated by veteran GMs.

That's probably the best way to address my concern (which has largely not been addressed in anything proposed)...which is how to make this OK for those currently asset weak clubs.

I will say, to be open about it, I have no interest in giving up the Wild. IF we were to do this I would be fine with the Wild losing more assets than other clubs, as long as its reasonable (something like Knut outlined) but I have no desire to switch clubs. We all play this game for different reasons and the part I enjoy is the long-term asset building including drafting and prospect development. The long-game has always been what I enjoy.

I will also note there are a lot of GMs we have NOT heard from. Would be great to hear from more voices.

11-15-2022, 10:00 PM	#47
Jiri Hrdina Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2014 Exp:	I think the opportunity to manage an expansion team would be fun. The less fun teams are the current asset weak clubs that are potentially going to be hurt more by this, and have an even tougher time going forward with fewer assets to go around. So would veteran GMs, who are advocating for expansion, be willing to give up there current teams and take over an asset-weak, non-expansion team? Some GMs of current weak asset teams could be given the choice of keeping their team, or taking an expansion club (if we choose to do this). New GMs get moved into asset rich clubs vacated by veteran GMs. That's probably the best way to address my concern (which has largely not been addressed in anything proposed)...which is how to make this OK for those currently asset weak clubs. I will say, to be open about it, I have no interest in giving up the Wild. IF we were to do this I would be fine with the Wild losing more assets than other clubs, as long as its reasonable (something like Knut outlined) but I have no desire to switch clubs. We all play this game for different reasons and the part I enjoy is the long-term asset building including drafting and prospect development. The long-game has always been what I enjoy. I will also note there are a lot of GMs we have NOT heard from. Would be great to hear from more voices.