A quarter century of misery

[Bunk]

93-94 42-29-13 97pts; 1st in division; first round playoff exit
94-95 24-17-7 55pts; 1st in division; first round playoff exit
95-96 34-37-11 79pts; 2nd in division; first round playoff exit
96-97 32-41-9 73pts; 5th in division; missed playoffs
97-98 26-41-15 67pts; 5th in division; missed playoffs
98-99 30-40-12 72pts; 3rd in division; missed playoffs
99-00 31-36-10-5 77pts; 4th in division; missed playoffs
00-01 27-36-15-4 73pts; 4th in division; missed playoffs
01-02 32-35-12-3 79pts; 4th in division; missed playoffs
02-03 29-36-13-4 75pts; 5th in division; missed playoffs
03-04 42-30-7-3 94pts; 3rd in division; made Stanley Cup Final
04-05 NO NHL SEASON
05-06 46-25-11 103pts; 1st in division; first round playoff exit
06-07 43-29- 10 96pts; 3rd in division; first round playoff exit
07-08 42-30-10 94pts; 3rd in division; first round playoff exit
08-09 46-30-6 98pts; 2nd in division; first round playoff exit
09-10 40-32-10 90pts; 2nd in division; missed playoffs
10-11 41-29-12 94pts; 2nd in division; missed playoffs
11-12 37-29-16 90pts; 2nd in division; missed playoffs
12-13 19-25-4 42pts; 4th in division; missed playoffs
13-14 35-40-7 77pts; 6th in division; missed playoffs
14-15 45-30-7 97pts; 3rd in division; second round playoff exit
15-16 35-40-7 77pts; 5th in divsision; missed playoffs
16-17 45-33-4 94pts; 4th in division; first round playoff exit (swept)
17-18 37-35-10 84pts; 5th in division; missed playoffs

To summarize:

• 25 years; 24 seasons
• 10 years making playoffs, 14 years missing playoffs
• Of 10 years making playoffs, 8 first round exits, 1 second round exit, 1 stanley cup final

I got thinking about how much disappointment there is with this team. But one can only truly appreciate and understand the current mistery fully in a historical context.

Truly, there have been two actual bright spots in the past 25 years since I'd say the last time they were an actual contender - which was the 93-94 season, I believe. January to June 2004 when they caught lightning in a bottle, and the extremely fun 14-15 young team. The only two times where they didn't either miss the playoffs or get eliminated in the first round. Other than that, alternating between bad (but not bad enough to draft #1), and utterly mediocre.

Something need to fundamentally change in this organization to make it a winning franchise. What is it?

[Looch City]

A coach that can whip players into shape and punish them with bag skates, swear words, benching and whatever else when they're being lazy.

Gulutzan was a god damn joke and ruined this team for 2 years....and we're still seeing the affects.

We need a Sutter type coach to instill a culture of hard work into this team.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Something need to fundamentally change in this organization to make it a winning franchise. What is it?

Ownership.

[mrdonkey]

What's missing is commitment and willingness to rebuild properly and quit with this rebuild-on-the-fly/re-tool nonsense. The bottoming out period did not produce a winning core because it was too short, did not result in any significant picks on the level of Matthews/McDavid/Laine, and the players that were acquired (i.e. Bennett, Monahan) did not progress as much as was hoped.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ownership.

In what way?

[foofighter15]

It is truly painful when you think about how we've won the 3rd least amount of playoff series' out of any team since we won the cup INCLUDING expansion teams.

On the flip side it goes to show that Flames fans must be the most dedicated fans in the NHL to keep supporting a team that never wins, and why its so important we need to stay that way.

If we become a team/city with a negative fan base AND one that never wins AND has the worst arena in the league we'll never attract or keep top players....or even our franchise for that matter.

[Mickey76]

I think sometimes we underestimate the role of just plain old luck, not just in sports but life in general. We usually assume we are responsible for the good that happens, and no doubt our efforts and ability factor on the course of our life but that doesn’t explain it all.

Why bring this up in this thread? I can’t help but look at this first post and notice just how horrible this team has been in game 7’s. I don’t care what any hockey person says when a series comes down to a game 7 anything can happen, and I feel luck plays a large role in that. Think if the flames had 4 more game 7’s wins. We beat the oilers in 84 we beat the oilers in 91 we win a cup, in 04, and we beat Anaheim in 06. That is 4 lousy hockey games in 35! years and I think we look at this team totally differently.

On flip side think of the accolades that Messier gets as the “greatest leader, greatest everything blah blah blah Edmonton is no good.” He loses in 84 to Calgary, 87 to Philly, 90 to Winnipeg, and 94 to Vancouver and all those games were close enough to easily lose, and he is remembered as a great player for sure but nothing like he is thought of now. All because of 4 hockey games in a 25 year career.

[savardandjokinen]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

What's missing is commitment and willingness to rebuild properly and quit with this rebuild-on-the-fly/re-tool nonsense. The bottoming out period did not produce a winning core because it was too short, did not result in any significant picks on the level of Matthews/McDavid/Laine, and the players that were acquired (i.e. Bennett, Monahan) did not progress as much as was hoped.

Monahan? He's not a perfect player, but I'm extremely happy with how he progressed

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

What's missing is commitment and willingness to rebuild properly and quit with this rebuild-on-the-fly/re-tool nonsense. The bottoming out period did not produce a winning core, both because it was too short, did not result in any significant picks on the level of Matthews/McDavid/Laine, and the players that were acquired (i.e. Bennett, Monahan) did not progress as much as was hoped.

That might be it. I was prepared mentally for the full rebuild after Iginla was traded, but we never quite bottomed out in a way that solidified a winning core. Monahan and especially Gaudreau (someone we got in a late round before the rebuild) are very good, but it doesn't seem to be getting us there.

Is the solution to do a proper rebuild around a few existing young players like Tkachuk, Valimaki, Hanifin and go scorched earth with the rest to gain a buttload of picks and high end prospects? Being a young league, seems like a rebuild like that with a couple really high picks can happen pretty fast. I dunno - maybe things turn around with this group and that would be a major overreaction.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by savardandjokinen

Monahan? He's not a perfect player, but I'm extremely happy with how he progressed

Like it or not he has some major holes in his game. When he was drafted he was noted for his two-way play and maturity, and those parts of his game seem to have fallen off considerably. I don't see enough of a GAF level with this guy in terms of putting in a consistent effort at both ends of the ice.

Maybe he's still dealing with injuries, but thus far he hasn't lived up to the billing of being a cup contender's #1 centre or an elite #2 two-way player, he simply doesn't produce enough to overshadow the rest of his play.

[Rhettzky]

The starting point makes it look much worse than it is, especially since it's starts just after our most successful years in the league. Most of the 90's and early 00's we couldn't afford to keep our players given our small market status. I think starting after the 04/05 lockout would be a better measuring stick, and yeah it's still not good but not as grim as the picture painted above.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

I think sometimes we underestimate the role of just plain old luck, not just in sports but life in general. We usually assume we are responsible for the good that happens, and no doubt our efforts and ability factor on the course of our life but that doesn’t explain it all.

Why bring this up in this thread? I can’t help but look at this first post and notice just how horrible this team has been in game 7’s. I don’t care what any hockey person says when a series comes down to a game 7 anything can happen, and I feel luck plays a large role in that. Think if the flames had 4 more game 7’s wins. We beat the oilers in 84 we beat the oilers in 91 we win a cup, in 04, and we beat Anaheim in 06. That is 4 lousy hockey games in 35! years and I think we look at this team totally differently.

On flip side think of the accolades that Messier gets as the “greatest leader, greatest everything blah blah blah Edmonton is no good.” He loses in 84 to Calgary, 87 to Philly, 90 to Winnipeg, and 94 to Vancouver and all those games were close enough to easily lose, and he is remembered as a great player for sure but nothing like he is thought of now. All because of 4 hockey games in a 25 year career.

if you're attributing things to often just being luck, you have to go the other way, too. cuts both ways. maybe if flames didn't have luck they'd have never made it to the cup finals.

lets take 2004. what if the flames lost in the 7th game to Vancouver in the first round?
what if they lost in game seven against the oilers in 86 (the smith own goal game)
what if Vancouver won in round one in '89 and the flames didn't win the cup?

you're better off saying luck may have a small part but it often equals out in the end.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Like it or not he has some major holes in his game. When he was drafted he was noted for his two-way play and maturity, and those parts of his game seem to have fallen off considerably. I don't see enough of a GAF level with this guy in terms of putting in a consistent effort at both ends of the ice.

Maybe he's still dealing with injuries, but thus far he hasn't lived up to the billing of being a cup contender's #1 centre or an elite #2 two-way player, he simply doesn't produce enough to overshadow the rest of his play.

To be fair, as a 6 pick, I don't think he was billed to be in the same category as Crosby, Tavares, Matthews, McDavid, MacKinnon as #1 or #2s are. He was slated to be an impactful player, but not a true franchise player. If he was, he'd have gone in the top 3. I'd say he's definitely lived up to being a very impactful player.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

What's missing is commitment and willingness to rebuild properly and quit with this rebuild-on-the-fly/re-tool nonsense. The bottoming out period did not produce a winning core because it was too short, did not result in any significant picks on the level of Matthews/McDavid/Laine, and the players that were acquired (i.e. Bennett, Monahan) did not progress as much as was hoped.

This is what I’ve been thinking as well. Iirc ownership finally got on board with using the word rebuild around 2014, and 2015 was supposed to be our bottoming our year, and pre-season predictions had us competing for a McDavid shot. Instead, we overachieved more than we have in decades and led to management thinking we were ready to exit the rebuild. And here we are now, with a solid cast of players, but a player on the Matthews/mcdavid/mackinnon level sure would be nice.

I also wonder what would have happened had steve begin not scored 2 goals in the twilight of the 2013 season, if backstrom hadn’t shut out the wild, etc, but that’s not too constructive.

[Tron_fdc]

I think a lot of it is fan expectations. There has always been a lot of pressure to win now, and you can see it in a lot of the transactions.

I was around in the early-mid 90's when we dismantled a team that very well could have won cups. Fans wanted change for the sake of change, and the result was plugging in guys like Phil Housley for Al Macinnis or Tabaracci for Vernon. Sure there were salary constraints, but I truly believe ownership could have held on a bit longer to that team. I mean, I'm reading the trade transactions and they're ridiculous. Within 3 years we got rid of Vernon, Suter, Macinnis, Makarov, Roberts, Gilmour, Reinhart....the entire core was punted because we couldn't be patient.

Turn back the clock on 1990-1995 and I think our record looks A LOT different.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Bunk

To be fair, as a 6 pick, I don't think he was billed to be in the same category as Crosby, Tavares, Matthews, McDavid, MacKinnon as #1 or #2s are. He was slated to be an impactful player, but not a true franchise player. If he was, he'd have gone in the top 3. I'd say he's definitely lived up to being a very impactful player.

Granted, he'd be an excellent support player, but what the Flames really missed out on in their rebuild is that Mackinnon/Matthews type player that a true cup contender needs (Crosby and McDavid are special cases but also fit this category).

Bennett was never really billed as being that kind of player, but certainly had the potential to be once upon a time. His busting (or whatever you want to call it) was a huge blow to the fortunes of this core, along with the lack of patience and willingness to completely tear down and wait for that elite, 1st line franchise centre to come to them in the draft.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

What's missing is commitment and willingness to rebuild properly and quit with this rebuild-on-the-fly/re-tool nonsense. The bottoming out period did not produce a winning core because it was too short, did not result in any significant picks on the level of Matthews/McDavid/Laine, and the players that were acquired (i.e. Bennett, Monahan) did not progress as much as was hoped.

So we didn't fluke out and win lotteries? hard to blame them for that

Jets and Flames had basically the same season when the Jets got Laine

Monahan is still the leading goal scorer of his draft...pretty good for #6

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by dino7c

So we didn't fluke out and win lotteries? hard to blame them for that

Jets and Flames had basically the same season when the Jets got Laine

Monahan is still the leading goal scorer of his draft...pretty good for #6

We came out pretty darn well in that Draft too. We were incredibly lucky actually to have Tkachuk fall to us. He really should have gone 3rd.

[Bunk]

One major factor is goaltending. Kiprusoff propped up a pretty weak team overall in front of him for quite a long time. If we had Kipper with this team in front of him, it would be quite a different story. An unlucky mismatch of timing.

[Badgers Nose]

1. The 'misery' makes winning that much sweeter. It builds a fanbases' soul.
2. There has been way more awesome than misery these last 25 years, you just haven't been paying attention if you don't see the bright spots.

I'm more concerned with the quality of the entertainment on an ongoing basis, and the team's ambition as expressed by hiring guys like BT and BP. Both of those guys are OK but they were/are unproven at winning. Whereas guys like 13 and 19 are proven winners. I think the back office has to match the team you ice (Elite players needs Elite coaches).