He does not have full control this season but I agree I am glad he didn't make any deadline moves and the chase was beneficial to development.
Getting young is a vague vision. I think, I and many people want to see young as in draft picks not dice roll on guys in their early and mid 20s as a focus for the rebuild.
You realize draft picks like they will get for their vets are just as much of a dice roll, if not moreso.
Saying Kadri won’t be able to produce for long because he is old is so last year. That being said it is also next year when he will once again be a 60-70 point guy. Almost certainly it will also be something you can say in 27/28. That is the nice thing about Kadri, he every year for the rest of his contract you will be able to say this is the last year he will produce at a 60-70 point pace because he is getting old.
The great thing about being proactive about a situation, is you can trade a player before they inevitably decline. And while you can still get value for them.
I know it hasn't been an organizational strength to trade a player before they decline though, but why not start now.
The Following User Says Thank You to Rhett44 For This Useful Post:
There is no where near the outrage if we did not get that interview from Maloney where he accused the fans of fantasy hockey and make claims they were not giving up on the season etc.
Conroy’s comments yesterday were on point and had that been the initial message the outrage on this board would likely not even have occurred.
Just a brutal job by the Flames. They should have announced these deals at the start of the season like they did Huska. Lots of failure in the PR department no doubt.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vinny01 For This Useful Post:
There is no where near the outrage if we did not get that interview from Maloney where he accused the fans of fantasy hockey and make claims they were not giving up on the season etc.
Conroy’s comments yesterday were on point and had that been the initial message the outrage on this board would likely not even have occurred.
Just a brutal job by the Flames. They should have announced these deals at the start of the season like they did Huska. Lots of failure in the PR department no doubt.
That outrage existed on this board long before the Maloney interview. It may have added a few confused folks but the outrage in the 48 page thread is from the same people who have been outraged all year because they say the Flames are not rebuilding.
That outrage existed on this board long before the Maloney interview. It may have added a few confused folks but the outrage in the 48 page thread is from the same people who have been outraged all year because they say the Flames are not rebuilding.
It poured gas on the outrage. Calling others confused is somewhat insulting when we bring up plenty of history where this organization has refused to bottom out even for a year.
Let’s not pretend this is one of the best run teams in the NHL because their results speak volumes. Ownership has always cast a shadow of doubt amongst this fanbase. Edwards wouldn’t be voted 30th in owners if that wasn’t the case.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Vinny01 For This Useful Post:
So you set a timeline that eliminates the movement out of 7 veteran players, and then decide that doing nothing after that isn't rebuilding?
Lets just agree to disagree ...
Sitting on mountains of cap space and draft capital and not adding is doing something ... it's purposely not trying to get better.
Which is my mind is rebuilding.
I did not set a timeline that excluded the 7 veterans. In the post you responded to it was clearly stated and commented on.
This is a club with a long history of avoiding rebuilds and persuing mediocrity. It is a club that says they are not rebuilding. It is a club whose rebuild actions have been nearly exclusively limited to expiring contracts, many of which they tried to extend. This is a club that told its players they were not rebuilding when several requested trades. This is a club that has taken no rebuild action for 16 months, almost certainly influenced by a "successful" season of missing the playoffs again. This is a club that has been mediocre since the 80s and yet marches out their president to publically say they like their team and are pursuing a "winning culture" not a rebuild.
Nearly the entire hockey community acknowledges the above as both fact and a problem.
How can anyone look at the facts and history and not acknowledge even the possibility this club is reluctant to commit to a rebuild?
The Following User Says Thank You to kehatch For This Useful Post:
It poured gas on the outrage. Calling others confused is somewhat insulting when we bring up plenty of history where this organization has refused to bottom out even for a year.
Let’s not pretend this is one of the best run teams in the NHL because their results speak volumes. Ownership has always cast a shadow of doubt amongst this fanbase. Edwards wouldn’t be voted 30th in owners if that wasn’t the case.
Probably the least successful NHL franchise in the past 2 decades outside of maybe Buffalo and Columbus. And some people are saying we are delusional wanting to bottom out, rebuild, and try something different.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rhett44 For This Useful Post:
This is a club that has taken no rebuild action for 16 months, almost certainly influenced by a "successful" season of missing the playoffs again.
Letting players go and not replacing them with other UFAs is a rebuild action. If they were influenced by last season and trying to speed up the rebuild they would have. Instead they've let players from the Wranglers take those spots.
The Following User Says Thank You to Inferno For This Useful Post:
Probably the least successful NHL franchise in the past 2 decades outside of maybe Buffalo and Columbus. And some people are saying we are delusional wanting to bottom out, rebuild, and try something different.
03-04 to 2011-12: 5 playoff appearances, one division title, three rounds won one Stanley Cup final appearance.
13-14 to 22-23: 5 playoff appearances, 1 regular season conference title, two division titles, two rounds won.
Sabres since 2003: four playoff appearances, two division titles, four rounds won, none since 2007.
Blue Jackets entire 25-year franchise history: six playoff appearances, made it out of round 1 ONCE.
You realize draft picks like they will get for their vets are just as much of a dice roll, if not moreso.
So much of the whole rebuild vs. retool vs. tank vs. whatever discussion comes down to how frequently we allocate hope.
The argument can be made that trying year after year to make the playoffs just to "see what happens" is using hope up year after year after year with nothing to show for it.
The argument can be made that tanking to acquire high draft picks in the hopes of acquiring elite talent that all combines into a contender and some indeterminate time in the future is just saving up hope for a few years and then expelling it all at once in that future season where, hopefully, the team is now a "true contender". But it could just as likely turn into nothing to show for it.
How do you decide to dole out hope? Are you right to instruct others how often and when they should use their hope?
Nothing matters. No one cares. We're all going to die.
Last edited by Finger Cookin; 11-29-2025 at 04:27 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Finger Cookin For This Useful Post:
Value difference from 1st overall to 10th overall is proabably >= the sum of the assets for Andersson + Kadri + Coleman.
I think once Andersson is traded, the team will respond much like they did when Lindholm and Tanev were traded. Just flopped.
They are at the bottom of the standings now. Even if they crawl out to 5th or 10th by the trade deadline, I think they will flop hard with Andersson being dealt. The important thing is not what place they are at, but how many points they are away. I don't think any team is going to trade away as many players that are as important to their respective teams than Calgary will.
Like it or not, this team is really dialed-in, and Huska has them playing very good hockey right now. I noticed all the talk about him being a lousy coach has mostly died-down. He is getting the output of what the 2013-14 Flames did halfway through the season that Harltey did, but without the shenanigans behind the scenes. For those that don't remember, after the Vancouver brawl, the team performed much better, and ended up with Aaron Ward predicting (and getting ridiculed on-air) that the Flames would finish in the playoffs the following season. They did just that. Tough start to be sure, but boy have the Flames been playing really good hockey for the most part.
I just think they will crumble when Andersson gets moved (or Kadri, and maybe even just Coleman). This team already has too many holes, plus any wind that gets extinguished from their sales is enough for them to plummet, I think.
I won't like, however. Conroy's interview during the game yesterday did gnaw at me - at least one small part. The repeating of "this is unexpected" was something that I just attributed to him not throwing Maloney under the bus, or even getting the direction to say it (along with the very cringe 'signed 2 months ago' spiel). What really is gnawing at me is the apologizing for being this low for this long, as if he really believed the Flames SHOULD have been better by now.
I am probably over-thinking. The interview posted up - that I only watched today - was much better, however. Still repeated the same talking points, but he seemed to focus on the 'we have to be patient to build this the right way'. Put me much more at ease that the the plan is simply to continue bottoming-out and allow the young players to push this team back up, period.
Makes me much more comfortable moving forward.
Andersson will definitely get dealt this season, and I think more will be too. Flames are really playing well, and I think that's a credit to both Huska and the character of this team. However, once Andersson gets traded, I think a chunk of the will leaves in that trade as well. Tough slogging fighting from the bottom of the stands while one of your legs get chopped-off, right? I think a lot of the fight will leave this team - plus, this is a team with a lot of holes already - tough for them to stretch out enough to plug another huge hole without the fabric tearing.
It poured gas on the outrage. Calling others confused is somewhat insulting when we bring up plenty of history where this organization has refused to bottom out even for a year.
Let’s not pretend this is one of the best run teams in the NHL because their results speak volumes. Ownership has always cast a shadow of doubt amongst this fanbase. Edwards wouldn’t be voted 30th in owners if that wasn’t the case.
This team has been in full tear down rebuild for 3 years now. Traded 8 vets for picks, prospects and young players. Signed zero UFAs that can actually help them win. This is the third straight year they have tried to bottom out. There is very little more they can do to try to lose. Suspect they will try to move that very little out to continue their efforts to lose this year. That is where the confusion came in, informed fans can see that they have been trying to lose for 3 straight years and Maloney made it seem like they might be trying to win.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
There is very little more they can do to try to lose.
I'm sorry but this sentence is ridiculous lol. Trade Kadri, Andersson, and Coleman tomorrow and then you can say something like that.
We have done nothing over the past year and a half to try and change anything. To this point outside the Markstrom trade we have done the bare minimum to tank.
The Following User Says Thank You to Rhett44 For This Useful Post:
I'm sorry but this sentence is ridiculous lol. Trade Kadri, Andersson, and Coleman tomorrow and then you can say something like that.
We have done nothing over the past year and a half to try and change anything. To this point outside the Markstrom trade we have done the bare minimum to tank.
Yes we know, you think they should trade those 3 right now for whatever crappy return is currently on the table. Thankfully Conroy has a plan and will trade them when he gets the best return. Feel confident that Conroy’s approach will be the correct one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
You realize draft picks like they will get for their vets are just as much of a dice roll, if not moreso.
A young player brought in by trade typically has a higher floor than a 1st/2nd round pick, but a lower ceiling. Most players that turn out to be real difference-makers have popped by 23 or 24, and teams that drafted and oversaw their development for several years are best placed to assess their potential.
Targeting young players rather than picks is a conservative, more short-term strategy. Which suits the MO of the Flames.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
A young player brought in by trade typically has a higher floor than a 1st/2nd round pick, but a lower ceiling. Most players that turn out to be real difference-makers have popped by 23 or 24, and teams that drafted and oversaw their development for several years are best placed to assess their potential.
Targeting young players rather than picks is a conservative, more short-term strategy. Which suits the MO of the Flames.
NHL teams also need players to play on their teams, teams often have to move out a contract for cap or 50 contract reasons, there are many reasons why a team might do that.
In the 8 veteran trades that Conroy has made, 4 have had young NHL players come back in them and 4 were pure prospects and picks. The MO for Conroy seems to be getting picks and prospects (those exist in every trade except the Frost/Farabee trade) and taking players potentially because he wants a player or potentially because the team he is trading with wants to offload a contract.
I did not set a timeline that excluded the 7 veterans. In the post you responded to it was clearly stated and commented on.
This is a club with a long history of avoiding rebuilds and persuing mediocrity. It is a club that says they are not rebuilding. It is a club whose rebuild actions have been nearly exclusively limited to expiring contracts, many of which they tried to extend. This is a club that told its players they were not rebuilding when several requested trades. This is a club that has taken no rebuild action for 16 months, almost certainly influenced by a "successful" season of missing the playoffs again. This is a club that has been mediocre since the 80s and yet marches out their president to publically say they like their team and are pursuing a "winning culture" not a rebuild.
Nearly the entire hockey community acknowledges the above as both fact and a problem.
How can anyone look at the facts and history and not acknowledge even the possibility this club is reluctant to commit to a rebuild?
Who the hell is that?
There are numerous people on this site that think it's a rebuild. Imagine their shock and dismay to find out they're not part of the hockey community.
I don't deny some of your facts.
I just don't come to the same conclusion as you. Guessing many in the hockey community agree with me.
A young player brought in by trade typically has a higher floor than a 1st/2nd round pick, but a lower ceiling. Most players that turn out to be real difference-makers have popped by 23 or 24, and teams that drafted and oversaw their development for several years are best placed to assess their potential.
Targeting young players rather than picks is a conservative, more short-term strategy. Which suits the MO of the Flames.
I don't think guys like Frost really have lower ceilings than, say, a 27-35 OA pick.
