What do you want out of this season? Pick or Playoffs?

[Two Fivenagame]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

This is such a bad attitude among hockey fans generally. 1 team in 30 wins the cup. Your team can have a good season and you don't have to feel bitterly disappointed just because your team wasn't that 1 in 30. If your team is enjoyable to watch play over the course of a season you've gotten full value.

Sounds like Maple Leaf logic....

[Tinordi]

Remember all those seasons when the Flames started slow, I think it was like 5 in a row, Bingo and Jiri used to say that you needed 20 games to ascertain what kind of team this really was. We should all remember that now. Am I hugely impressed with how this team is playing? Yes absolutely, it's been great and shows that this team has indeed turned the page on the country club era.

But, I'll be gobsmacked if this team makes the playoffs. Right now we're being propelled by the greenest rookies and Giordano and Brodie playing out of their minds but once the grind of an 82 game season sets in we can't rely on that. Instead it will be our 2nd and 3rd tier vets carrying the mail.

So I don't think this will actually be a choice. By the deadline we'll most likely be out of it. And you know what, that's totally fine and to be expected with this first full year of a rebuilding roster. We should all remember that as the euphoria of the salad days of an early season fade and we get into playing meaningful games.

But to answer the question, Flash said it best, if this team is legitimately in the mix then we absolutely need to hold the line on the rebuild, no trading futures for flashy playoff help, the rebuild cannot be short cut, that's a fact. If this team is not in the mix then it needs to dive for another high pick by selling off its highest value trade bait.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by moon

The Sens have finished what 7th and 8th the last two years. I guess they got a play-off round win against a very weak Montreal team last year and then a blowout loss to the Pens in round 2 but they haven't exactly turned a whole lot around yet.

I would hope when the Flames are done the rebuild (whether 1 year or 4) they are a contender not a bottom half play-off team like the Sens.

Many think the Sens are turning into a contender as early as this season

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by moon

The Sens have finished what 7th and 8th the last two years. I guess they got a play-off round win against a very weak Montreal team last year and then a blowout loss to the Pens in round 2 but they haven't exactly turned a whole lot around yet.

I would hope when the Flames are done the rebuild (whether 1 year or 4) they are a contender not a bottom half play-off team like the Sens.

I'm curious, is it the fact that Ottawa made the playoffs that leads you to imply Ottawa is "done" with their rebuild?

The Kings finished 6th then 7th in 09-10 and 10-11. Were they done their rebuild at that point?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm curious, is it the fact that Ottawa made the playoffs that leads you to imply Ottawa is "done" with their rebuild?

The Kings finished 6th then 7th in 09-10 and 10-11. Were they done their rebuild at that point?

Nope it is the fact that people keep saying that the Sens turned it around in 1 season.

And I would say the Kings were mainly done with the rebuild portion of their team at that point and then used the assets they had to change the roster to make improvements.

[moon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Many think the Sens are turning into a contender as early as this season

Fair enough to them.

I don't see it and don't think they are any better now than they were last year but I don't think that highly of their roster.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm curious, is it the fact that Ottawa made the playoffs that leads you to imply Ottawa is "done" with their rebuild?

The Kings finished 6th then 7th in 09-10 and 10-11. Were they done their rebuild at that point?

The Kings are the best example of why you should commit to a rebuild. They rebuilt for 5 seasons, I think it was, without making the playoffs. They sold off present for future and grew their prospects into legit players. When they had a surplus of young talent they traded it for established and young NHL players to put them over the top. I wouldn't go about saying that after one half season of rebuilding that the Flames are anywhere similar to the Kings' trajectory and rebuild plan.

[Plett25]

You play to win the game.

I think people are confusing making the playoffs in a 21 team league with making the playoffs in a 30 team league. In the 30 team salary cap NHL, there isn't nearly the difference between 1st and 8th in a conference as there was in the pre-cap 21/24 team league.

Making the playoffs is a good goal, but not a goal worth mortgaging the future for. I want Stempy +/or Glencross +/or Cammy moved for draft picks/prospects regardless of the standings at the trade deadline. We're in last place? Trade 'em. We're in 6th place? Trade 'em.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by moon

Nope it is the fact that people keep saying that the Sens turned it around in 1 season.

Except that they did. For all this talk of "long term vision", you seem to have an attitude that demands instant gratification. Albeit in an absolutely bizarre fashion where you also seem to want to scourge yourself for a few years first. Ottawa was failing, made a series of moves, and one year later were headed in the right direction again. But that doesn't mean their journey is complete.

This is, in fact, something we all should be desiring for Calgary. We were failing, made a series of moves, and logically should be wanting the team to enjoy a similarly quick turn around on its own journey forward.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Such a shortsighted attitude. I'm not remotely surprised that you would adopt it.

Your argument taken to a logical extreme is that you want to finish 30th in the NHL until you can guarantee a championship.

It will never happen.

Even at a more reasonable interpretation, you are relying on a series of false dichotomies. There is no requirement that a team desire to lose - much like you do - before it can win a Cup. There is no law that says we need to want to suck before we can get better.

In your typically short sighted way, you miss the obvious: Championship teams get better over time. Teams don't simply transition from suck to Cup contender overnight. And that means there are going to be years where we squeak in.

In order for a team to move forward, it has to actually move forward. We finished 25th last year. Only a loser would want us to do worse. That you delude yourself with rationalizations about how we're a better team for being worse is pitiful.

Teams that rise above mediocrity draft well where it isn't easy. Drafting top 10 is easy. Drafting talent lower down is where success is born. You're looking for a lottery ticket. I'm arguing that you should be smarter than that.

The cup isn't guaranteed by a few high draft choices but drafting in the top 3 certainly does increase your chances of winning.... just sayin.

2009 SC winner – Pittsburg – drafted 2nd in 2004 (Malkin) and 1st in 2005 (Crosby)
2010 SC winner – Chicago – drafted 3rd in 2005 (Toews) and 1st in 2006 (Kane)
2011 SC winner – Boston – won without high draft picks
2012 SC winner – LA – drafted 2nd in 2008 (Doughty)
2013 SC winner - Chicago – drafted 3rd in 2005 (Toews) and 1st in 2006 (Kane)

[MarchHare]

I want the Flames players to work their butts off every night and once again become a team that other clubs hate to play against. If that results in enough wins that Calgary qualifies for the playoffs, I'll be ecstatic. However, if they're not in the playoff hunt despite playing hard for a full 60 minutes every game, then I'd prefer if they really tank and draft someone like Reinhart or Ekblad (or McDavid next year) than to just barely miss the playoffs and draft somewhere in the 10-14 range.

In other words:
Best case scenario: Flames make the playoffs
Second-best case scenario: Flames have a lottery pick and draft a high-end impact player
Worst-case scenario: Flames finish 9th or 10th in the West with a mid-round pick

[moon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that they did. For all this talk of "long term vision", you seem to have an attitude that demands instant gratification. Albeit in an absolutely bizarre fashion where you also seem to want to scourge yourself for a few years first. Ottawa was failing, made a series of moves, and one year later were headed in the right direction again. But that doesn't mean their journey is complete.

This is, in fact, something we all should be desiring for Calgary. We were failing, made a series of moves, and logically should be wanting the team to enjoy a similarly quick turn around on its own journey forward.

What instant gratification to I want?

I have said in this thread I don't want an Oilers style awful next 3-4 years so not sure how I want to scourge myself for a few years first.

My point with Ottawa is that they were bad made it up to mediocrity and now look a lot like the post-lockout Flames where they are going to be finishing 6th-8th in the conference and relying on b level prospects and later picks to come through to help them become a contender. I have seen how that scenario plays out and am not too interested in it. I would rather the team have to suffer some lean, preferably not awful years, and get the type of talent that when they do reach the play-offs it is trending towards a contender level not just play-off team.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The Kings are the best example of why you should commit to a rebuild. They rebuilt for 5 seasons, I think it was, without making the playoffs. They sold off present for future and grew their prospects into legit players. When they had a surplus of young talent they traded it for established and young NHL players to put them over the top. I wouldn't go about saying that after one half season of rebuilding that the Flames are anywhere similar to the Kings' trajectory and rebuild plan.

One could argue that the Flames are on the same trajectory - though of course, there is no way to tell yet if they can reach as high as LA did.

Grow prospects into legit players: Brodie, Baertschi, Monahan, Gadreau, Granlund, Pourier, Klimchuk, Jankowski, Broissoit, etc. Hopefully they all become solid NHLers. Hopefully some become stars.

Sold off present: Iginla, Bouwmeester, Tanguay gone (though the latter obviously not for "future pieces"). Cammalleri is likely to go at this trade deadline.

So up next is the development piece. And that is where the Kings went from bottom feeders to a team that just squeaked in to champions and perennial contenders.

It is a really bizarre attitude that suggests that just getting in for a couple years means the team has peaked. LA didn't, neither did Boston. It is very difficult to understand how certain people can actually think that making the playoffs this year - even as a 4 seed - is a bad thing.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that they did. For all this talk of "long term vision", you seem to have an attitude that demands instant gratification. Albeit in an absolutely bizarre fashion where you also seem to want to scourge yourself for a few years first. Ottawa was failing, made a series of moves, and one year later were headed in the right direction again. But that doesn't mean their journey is complete.

This is, in fact, something we all should be desiring for Calgary. We were failing, made a series of moves, and logically should be wanting the team to enjoy a similarly quick turn around on its own journey forward.

No, we want to build a contender. Not be a middle of the pack team hoping to catch lightning in a bottle again. Why is just good enough good enough for many fans? If you want to win a Stanley Cup you have to build into a contender, for small market Canadian teams that fundamentally means building through the draft.

[gunnner]

its a trick question everyone. the correct answer is both. you trade Glencross to Edmonton (who foolishly thinks they will make a run for it) for their first round pick, then watch them dive to 4th last in the standings, and sneak into the playoffs yourself in a sea of red.

A+ Answer.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The bad attitude is the acceptance of losing.
Why do Americans usually do so well in the Olympics and Canadians do so poorly? Attitude. For most Canadians (except when it comes to hockey), just making the Olympics is a win in itself. I want more.

Pardon me but that's a load of bullcrap. There is nothing wrong with the attitude of our olympic athletes.

I assume you're referring to the summer games with your statement. Keep in mind the USA has roughly 10 times the population to draw from and a climate that allows year-round training. I also expect, generally speaking, that American athletes are much better funded though that will vary sport by sport.

[Poe969]

This whole thread was about what do you want. All of sudden we have some posters come in and say "if you want that you're wrong!" or "that's what losers want"

Take it easy people. It's not even "what do you think is better". If someone wants us to push for the playoffs, great! They can think what they want. Many people in here have had the attitude that wanting higher draft picks is a bad idea. Then there are people who think getting a better pick will help the team long term, they can think that too.

Last year is the lowest this team has finished in a long time, they got a high pick and that pick came on to the team and is making an instant difference. Some people think that it's enough to push us to the playoffs and some people think that getting another pick like we just did or even better will help the team long term.

Think whatever you want. Don't say that people who want something different then you are wrong and then call them short sighted.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The cup isn't guaranteed by a few high draft choices but drafting in the top 3 certainly does increase your chances of winning.... just sayin.

2009 SC winner – Pittsburg – drafted 2nd in 2004 (Malkin) and 1st in 2005 (Crosby)
2010 SC winner – Chicago – drafted 3rd in 2005 (Toews) and 1st in 2006 (Kane)
2011 SC winner – Boston – won without high draft picks
2012 SC winner – LA – drafted 2nd in 2008 (Doughty)
2013 SC winner - Chicago – drafted 3rd in 2005 (Toews) and 1st in 2006 (Kane)

For Pitt they also drafted Fluery #1 in 2003 and Staal #2 in 2006

Boston did pick Kessel #5 in 2006 but traded him and while Seguin had a couple nice games in the 2011 playoffs he was not the sole reason. They just drafted really well in later rounds (Bergeron, Krejci, Lucic in 2nd round, Marchand in the 3rd round) and signed a franchise player UFA (Chara)

LA also picked #4 in 2007 but Hickey ended up busting. They did trade a top 5 pick to get Richards though

Kane was also 1st overall in 2007 only 3 years before the won the cup

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

No, we want to build a contender. Not be a middle of the pack team hoping to catch lightning in a bottle again. Why is just good enough good enough for many fans? If you want to win a Stanley Cup you have to build into a contender, for small market Canadian teams that fundamentally means building through the draft.

For all the effort you are putting into knocking down a strawman, you have utterly failed to challenge my argument. Wanting to see the team turn around and move forward is not the same as thinking "just good enough is good enough". In fact, that was pretty strongly implied by noting that Ottawa's journey isn't complete. That should have clued you into the fact that I am saying Ottawa is going the right direction, but needs to continue to improve.

The fact that you and moon and Rerun have to rely so strongly on the false dichotomy of "you must suck or you must win everything" shows just how embarrassingly weak your argument is. There is nothing that says we can't improve in the standings while continuing to improve our depth and skill level to become true Cup contenders. Detroit has spent the last two decades doing it.

[The Fonz]

As long as they stay the course (rebuild), I'd be thrilled with making the playoffs.

But if at the deadline over the next couple seasons, they trade away a pick in any of the top 3 rounds, or a promising young prospect, in the hopes of making a playoff push... I will snap.

If they hang on to +30 year old pending UFAs at the deadline that could be traded for picks in the top 2 rounds (Cammalleri/Stempniak, arguably Stajan) or young talent, I will be extremely pissed.

Playoffs would be great, so long as the team doesn't forget they're rebuilding. Can't be gearing up for a postseason run until they're widely considered a top 5 contender in the league. Can not let assets walk in the summer without getting value sent back our way either.