[News] The Athletic - NHL Owner Rankings - Murray Edwards 30th

[dino7c]

The 1994 Flames were great...should have beat Vancouver in 5 games. Got bad bounce after bad bounce in that series. Canucks went to the finals.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by dino7c

If Murray was the owner in some non hockey market he would rank 15th or something...I mean he losses points here for not spending to the cap but the biggest Murray haters would be losing their #### if the Flames were spending to the cap right now

If my uncle had t!t's, he'd be my aunt.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by dino7c

If Murray was the owner in some non hockey market he would rank 15th or something...I mean he losses points here for not spending to the cap but the biggest Murray haters would be losing their #### if the Flames were spending to the cap right now

People are just out to get the Flames and poor M.E - No chance he just... sucks as an owner for building a successful team?

[Mr.Coffee]

This is a person that became a billionaire from acquiring, developing and producing what’s ultimately a public resource. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, and he absolutely took risks, is extremely business savv, and overall has employed thousands of Albertans, transferred a #### ton of wealth to many people and (I think / assume) donated an enormous amount of money to charities, schools, and various other institutions.

However for the amount of good this guy has done, it’s not a squeaky clean record, and there are other oil and gas giants with (seemingly) much better public records. He made his money off public resource and then refuses to pay tax on his wealth- flies away to live remotely to avoid his tax obligation then comes back to the public and asks them to build him a new hockey arena so that he can become even more enormously wealthy. To increase Flames franchise value from a few hundred million (he’s already made a few hundred million in equity) to billions. He rarely shows his face, and then he controls every aspect.

In the oil and gas world, his competitive streak has led to the bankruptcy of countless junior companies. Extremely cutthroat. Acquires facilities and will never sell anything and never give an inch. Charges crazy fees to process at CNQ facilities. Acquires liabilities and kicks them down the road. Reluctant to lay people off. Some would say this is good, but there’s a huge negative to this model as well- breeds low morale and likely depression, arguably a case of just not wanting to pay severance, etc. on this one I find it harder to criticize. Maybe he’s trying to just hold onto jobs for people.


But to me asking for the money for his rink? That one is unforgivable to me. I’d love if someone had the balls to ask him how much money is enough? I think personally once you breach 1B in wealth- you’re entering into a pretty disgusting world when I look around at how other people are doing and how many other people you’ve put out of business- ultimately either ruining their lives or making them hugely complicated.

I don’t think I’ve ever talked to anyone who’s a huge Murray Edwards fan, and that should tell you something.

One day I chatted to some kid, he was making minimum wage as a person who delivered furniture. Edward’s house was the destination for said furniture, and for all intents and purposes the interaction was… not good. I won’t post the whole story, but if this is how he treats people, there’s a reason he has the reputation he does.

I just think that, you show up in Alberta and sell its resources and make yourself a billionaire. And then when Alberta comes and says hey can you pay taxes on the gigantic life changing multigenerational wealth and you say nah I’m moving to ####ing London then Switzerland so nobody else has anything and by the way build me an arena? Like, seriously. It’s…

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

People are just out to get the Flames and poor M.E - No chance he just... sucks as an owner for building a successful team?

He is pretty irrelevant when it comes to the team on the ice. Not poor he has almost $4B. A lot of these "succesful" owners teams just sucked worse even when they were trying to win...then there is geography where the Flames are one of the worst spots in the league. They lost their 2 best players to geography but you guys can keep pretending it doesn't matter at all.

Like I said though he losses points on this list for not spending to the cap...you want him to spend to the cap? Would bump him up a few spots.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dino7c

The 1994 Flames were great...should have beat Vancouver in 5 games. Got bad bounce after bad bounce in that series. Canucks went to the finals.

In the regular season, the 1994 Flames were tied for 5th overall with Dallas and Boston, two teams that bowed out in the second round. Beating Vancouver would not have given them a free ticket to the finals. It was pretty freakish that the Canucks made it that far; the overall weakness of the Western Conference at that time helped.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by dino7c

He is pretty irrelevant when it comes to the team on the ice. Not poor he has almost $4B. A lot of these "succesful" owners teams just sucked worse even when they were trying to win...then there is geography where the Flames are one of the worst spots in the league. They lost their 2 best players to geography but you guys can keep pretending it doesn't matter at all.

Gaudreau we lost because of gross mismanagement. He should have been re signed the year prior and it never should have gotten to that point on the last day. We needed to lock him up earlier.

Tkachuk left because Gaudreau left, I firmly believe he stays if Gaudreau did.

So yes, we absolutely lost these 2 players because of incompetent management/leadership. And I don't know if this was all on Brad or also on the owners, but they are all terrible.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by dino7c

He is pretty irrelevant when it comes to the team on the ice. Not poor he has almost $4B. A lot of these "succesful" owners teams just sucked worse even when they were trying to win...then there is geography where the Flames are one of the worst spots in the league. They lost their 2 best players to geography but you guys can keep pretending it doesn't matter at all.

Like I said though he losses points on this list for not spending to the cap...you want him to spend to the cap? Would bump him up a few spots.

Edwards is the MOST RELEVANT thing about the Flames and the team on the ice. Nothing is less relevant.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In the regular season, the 1994 Flames were tied for 5th overall with Dallas and Boston, two teams that bowed out in the second round. Beating Vancouver would not have given them a free ticket to the finals. It was pretty freakish that the Canucks made it that far; the overall weakness of the Western Conference at that time helped.

Calgary outplayed Vancouver the entire series...its stands to reason if they escaped the first round curse they would have had a good shot similar to the 89 scare. They were certainly a contender that year. Robert Reichel had about 5 posts/crossbars that would have sent the Canucks packing.

lol November 21st 2025 but I am totally over it

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

Gaudreau we lost because of gross mismanagement. He should have been re signed the year prior and it never should have gotten to that point on the last day. We needed to lock him up earlier.

Tkachuk left because Gaudreau left, I firmly believe he stays if Gaudreau did.

So yes, we absolutely lost these 2 players because of incompetent management/leadership. And I don't know if this was all on Brad or also on the owners, but they are all terrible.

January immediately preceding Gaudreau’s free agency. I came on here and posted they need to give him an ultimatum. Sign by end of Jan or we’re trading you.

Was destroyed by posters here. How could we do that? We’re in a playoff push. If we make it what if?

What if we traded Gaudreau for a kings ransom at the height of his career? What could we have got and couldn’t that massively speed up a rebuild? He walked for nothing.

On CP- when players are bad it’s not a good time to trade/ the value is low. When players are good, it’s not a good time to trade/ what if you win?!?

Nobody here will agree. But the truth is this team has been mismanaged despite what dino7c, Bingo or Jiri tells you.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

Gaudreau we lost because of gross mismanagement. He should have been re signed the year prior and it never should have gotten to that point on the last day. We needed to lock him up earlier.

How much would you have offered Gaudreau after a season of 49 points in 56 games on a non-playoff team?

From what I recall, the Flames made Gaudreau an offer and he turned it down, because he would rather bet on himself to have a rebound year. That bet paid off gloriously. Even so, he left money on the table to go to a U.S. team instead of playing in Calgary.

[dino7c]

Conroy has already said they won't lose a significant UFA for nothing on his watch. That being said the Flames were deadline buyers and picked as a serious cup contender at the time. Sometimes you have to go for it.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

January immediately preceding Gaudreau’s free agency. I came on here and posted they need to give him an ultimatum. Sign by end of Jan or we’re trading you.

Was destroyed by posters here. How could we do that? We’re in a playoff push. If we make it what if?

What if we traded Gaudreau for a kings ransom at the height of his career? What could we have got and couldn’t that massively speed up a rebuild? He walked for nothing.

On CP- when players are bad it’s not a good time to trade/ the value is low. When players are good, it’s not a good time to trade/ what if you win?!?

Nobody here will agree. But the truth is this team has been mismanaged despite what dino7c, Bingo or Jiri tells you.

I don't agree that you trade JG even if he isn't signing - You were a top contender that year.

What would you have gotten? A 1st, prospect, and fillers.

It's OK to lose a player to FA if you are going for it. It happens. If anything the Flames should have gone (more) all in that season.

The problem was everything that happened after

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

How much would you have offered Gaudreau after a season of 49 points in 56 games on a non-playoff team?

From what I recall, the Flames made Gaudreau an offer and he turned it down, because he would rather bet on himself to have a rebound year. That bet paid off gloriously. Even so, he left money on the table to go to a U.S. team instead of playing in Calgary.

Its true, and he wasn't great in Columbus either. It was a classic contract year season.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

How much would you have offered Gaudreau after a season of 49 points in 56 games on a non-playoff team?

From what I recall, the Flames made Gaudreau an offer and he turned it down, because he would rather bet on himself to have a rebound year. That bet paid off gloriously. Even so, he left money on the table to go to a U.S. team instead of playing in Calgary.

For a player like Gaudreau? I am giving him what he wants. Instead of paying James Neal 6 million, I would have been happy to overpay a game changer.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I don't agree that you trade JG even if he isn't signing - You were a top contender that year.

What would you have gotten? A 1st, prospect, and fillers.

It's OK to lose a player to FA if you are going for it. It happens. If anything the Flames should have gone (more) all in that season.

The problem was everything that happened after

he had trade protection too

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I don't agree that you trade JG even if he isn't signing - You were a top contender that year.

What would you have gotten? A 1st, prospect, and fillers.

It's OK to lose a player to FA if you are going for it. It happens. If anything the Flames should have gone (more) all in that season.

The problem was everything that happened after

Ah but see there’s the rub. Did the Flames REALLY have a chance that year?

Really? Did you honestly think they’d win the Stanley Cup that year?

Banking on a Cinderella run is a bad strategy.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by dino7c

he had trade protection too

To 31 teams?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

How much would you have offered Gaudreau after a season of 49 points in 56 games on a non-playoff team?

From what I recall, the Flames made Gaudreau an offer and he turned it down, because he would rather bet on himself to have a rebound year. That bet paid off gloriously. Even so, he left money on the table to go to a U.S. team instead of playing in Calgary.

Dude if you’re going to argue they didn’t mismanage Gaudreau then there’s not really a point in discussing anything. That is an absurd and hilarious take.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Ah but see there’s the rub. Did the Flames REALLY have a chance that year?

Really? Did you honestly think they’d win the Stanley Cup that year?

Banking on a Cinderella run is a bad strategy.

I would have been mad if we traded him that year. But I was also mad we did not re sign him the year prior over what a couple million? When we were happy to hand out 6 million to bums like James Neal like it was candy.

Just absolutely incompetent management at the time.