Worst team in the league - Are we "OK" with it?

[UKflames]

I'm actually ok with the way that CC has ordered this rebuild. He has spent that last few drafts using lots of picks getting the supporting cast of skilled players together ready for when we draft that elite player, or two. Once we draft near to the top of the draft, this year and/or next, we are all set and ready to start moving upwards.

To me this is the opposite of what a lot of teams do. They tank, get the elite first or second OA pick, and then spend the next few years trying to get those skilled players to surround that high pick, like Chicago currently. This can waste most of their cheap ELC years.

A down year will suck to watch, but long term the plan seems to be going along nicely.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I disagree with most things on here - replies are in bold:

Originally Posted by boogerz

If we look at current rebuilds in the league, the Sharks are in year five, the Ducks are in year six, the Hawks are in year five, and the Sabres are in a second decade. All of these teams are still 3-5 years away from being contenders.
The years on some of the teams are a little off, but not far from it for most of them.

Spending one year as the worst team in the league is one thing, but doing a whole rebuild and spending a decade in the basement...Flames fans aren't ready for that.
Are you sure about this? What is the alternative? Sign UFAs (that typically Calgary has a harder time signing) and then trade futures for win-now players? Will Calgary Fans accept higher ticket prices to watch a team that is just inside the playoffs some years, and just outside the playoffs other years?

Even the Young Guns era that almost ended in franchise relocation wasn't as long as a rebuild...it only lasted seven seasons before the '04 cinderella run.
The economic climate had a lot more to do with this than the 'rebuild'. It wasn't a rebuild. It was the dismantling of a Stanley Cup Championship Team that Calgary couldn't afford to keep any longer. The dollar dropped, and within a few short years, it felt like Calgary had suddenly become a glorified AHL team. There was no hope for the future any longer. We all knew that the best case scenario was that any player that became good would end up playing for a richer team somewhere else, and the worst case scenario was that they were going to relocate, and it was only a matter of time since there was no way to compete. It was completely different than the climate in which the Flames rebuilt in 2012-13.

Except for the Hawks, the aforementioned teams can rebuild because they have relatively small fanbases that don't care, whereas we are rabid fans. The Flames' Dome attendance hasn't recovered to pre-Covid levels and is tracking for the fourth consecutive year of declining average attendance per game. Even the GDT threads and FAN 960 post-game show callers so far this season are more bipolar than normal. People will not be okay with watching rebuild-quality hockey for a decade. The players also won't be okay with it...the fiery veterans needed to bolster a roster (e.g. Kadri) don't want to play for bottom feeders.
The Flames haven't declared a rebuild. Again, what should be done to attract fans? I argue by not rebuilding, the team will just end up as middle-of-the-pack team again, and fans will recognize this. You don't want apathy to set-in in the 2nd or 3rd year of the new building. Also, again, it will not take a decade if the Flames are successful, but the alternative might last a decade or longer too. There is no guaranteed way back into 'success'. What the vets want or don't want is irrelevant. Kadri is 35. If he wants off the team, then so be it. He isn't a part of the solution moving forward regardless of the direction the Flames take. Few - if any - of the Vets are at this point.

Personally, I don't think a total rebuild is the way to go. For a Canadian team that needs to be able to compete each year in spite of being an undesirable FA destination, I like the Winnipeg model...draft well, hire decent/good coaches, play with a cohesive and consistent style and identity, and make good trades. They might not be favorites for the cup and they tend to underperform once the playoffs arrive, but at least they have a good probability of making deep runs every year.
Are you sure that the Winnipeg model is the one you wish to go by? Never rebuilt?
https://champsorchumps.us/team/nhl/winnipeg-jets
They certainly went through are rebuild in Atlanta, and when they arrived in Winnipeg, they were in the middle of a rebuild still. I don't think this is the example of not rebuilding. This was the example of rebuilding, but then staying patient for a long time without spending futures on getting them over the hump. They most certainly were a rebuilding organization in Atlanta and into Winnipeg, however.


Whether Murray Edwards is willing to invest in quality coaching and GMing is another question. Except for Sutter, he has never ever been willing to pay for a good and proven coach. Also, no shade at Conroy, but there is a difference between an okay-ish GM and the best in the league (e.g. Nill, Cheveldayoff, or Zito)

Are you sure that Edwards isn't willing to pay for a qualified coach, or is that perhaps the GMs are picking the wrong coaches, or that top coaches (like top players) don't want to come here?

The Flames have had coaches on the payroll that have been fired. Hartley was one of the NHL's more highly paid coaches too. Edwards extended Sutter, and then agreed to terminate Sutter. If he was such a cheap ass, I would find it weird that he wouldn't just tell Maloney and Conroy to just 'deal with it'. Flames have also hired some more expensive Associate coaches lately (ex-coaches with experience).

I also think it is incredibly weird how this fan-base keeps thinking that Edwards is willing to spend 80+ million on payroll, plus bring in expensive AGMs, promote Maloney into President (pay rise), but for some strange reason be unwilling to throw another 1-3 million a good coach. Do you really believe that Edwards (and the rest of the ownership group) have some weird stance against spending on coaching, and find coaches to be worth only so much? I don't.

Edwards tried to hire Shanahan to be the President, and was turned down not over money, but because he knew he could get the Leafs' gig. He turned around and went and hired Brian Burke. I can't imagine that was cheap.


There is NO WAY that the owners are 'cheaping out' on coaching. They would have to be absolute morons to think that way, right? This logic has to really die from these forums. It just doesn't make any sense to believe this.
.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by boogerz

If we look at current rebuilds in the league, the Sharks are in year five, the Ducks are in year six, the Hawks are in year five, and the Sabres are in a second decade.

The Sharks are in year 3 of their rebuild - it didn’t start until they traded Meier in 2023.

Originally Posted by boogerz

Flames fans aren't ready for that. Even the Young Guns era that almost ended in franchise relocation wasn't as long as a rebuild...it only lasted seven seasons before the '04 cinderella run.

The Young Guns era was a consequence of a weak CDN dollar and lack of a salary cap in the NHL. Small-market Canadian franchises could not compete.

Originally Posted by boogerz

Except for the Hawks, the aforementioned teams can rebuild because they have relatively small fanbases that don't care, whereas we are rabid fans.

That doesn’t make any sense. Every team sees declines in attendance when they miss the playoffs. Why would teams with large rabid fanbases suffer worse drops in support than teams in cities where the fanbases are much smaller and less invested?

The answer is they don’t. Attendance for rebuilding teams is even lower in non-traditional markets that it is in Canadian cities. So ultimately what matters is the willingness of ownership to endure those declines in revenues.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I disagree with most things on here - replies are in bold:

I agree with most of your points. I will add that not only does the current approach risk us being mediocre, it also postpones the start of the rebuild and extends the rebuild in general.

I will say I think the Flames ownership might be cheaping out a bit on the coach, only because thet are still paying Sutter. Its moot though. An established high money coach doesn't want to coach a rebuilding team. They certainly don't want to coach a team that says they plan on competiting but don't have the roster to do it.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I agree with most of your points. I will add that not only does the current approach risk us being mediocre, it also postpones the start of the rebuild and extends the rebuild in general.

I will say I think the Flames ownership might be cheaping out a bit on the coach, only because thet are still paying Sutter. Its moot though. An established high money coach doesn't want to coach a rebuilding team. They certainly don't want to coach a team that says they plan on competiting but don't have the roster to do it.

I think you've hit it at the end there. I don't think this is an attractive destination for the best coaches, including because of the lack of talent, but also a history of firing coaches pretty quickly.

The best coaches typically have options. Why would they come here?

Sutter was an exception because of the local connection.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I agree with most of your points. I will add that not only does the current approach risk us being mediocre, it also postpones the start of the rebuild and extends the rebuild in general.

I will say I think the Flames ownership might be cheaping out a bit on the coach, only because thet are still paying Sutter. Its moot though. An established high money coach doesn't want to coach a rebuilding team. They certainly don't want to coach a team that says they plan on competiting but don't have the roster to do it.

I agree with Jiri's comment regarding the coaching just above.


With respect to the rebuild itself, I think it depends on how you see the team right now. I see them as in the midst of a full-blown rebuild, and you don't. I would be more inclined to agree with you if I didn't see them in a complete rebuild. Not an egregious one like Buffalo did, but I do think they are in a rebuild at the moment with the expectation is to finish at the bottom of the standings. They simply overachieved last year.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think you've hit it at the end there. I don't think this is an attractive destination for the best coaches, including because of the lack of talent, but also a history of firing coaches pretty quickly.

The best coaches typically have options. Why would they come here?

Sutter was an exception because of the local connection.

Murray is most definitely involved in things and there is definitely a cheapness (amateur hour) that is well known in the league.

[Strange Brew]

I don't think the Flames are looking to spend much money on a coach, and I'm sure Darryl's contract is a big factor. But I'm also in the camp that this is clearly a silent rebuild and the team is doing everything a rebuilding team does without proclaiming it. (CC replaced Tanev, Hanifin and Zadorov with Hanley, Pachal and Bean). So big money on a coach right now would be silly.

FWIW I don't think Peters came cheap.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by troutman

Even worse - we win the lottery and he refuses to play for Flames.

2017 Philly had the worst luck. They won the draft to draft Nolan Patrick 2nd overall.

I'd argue Avs had the craziest luck there. They lost the draft and had to settle for Makar at 4th overall over Hischer, Patrick, and Heiskinen.

If only Flames can have that sort of luck. Winning the draft lottery when it mattered to get a franchise guy (Mckinnon), but also losing a draft lottery to pick up another one (Makar).

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

2017 Philly had the worst luck. They won the draft to draft Nolan Patrick 2nd overall.

I'd argue Avs had the craziest luck there. They lost the draft and had to settle for Makar at 4th overall over Hischer, Patrick, and Heiskinen.

If only Flames can have that sort of luck. Winning the draft lottery when it mattered to get a franchise guy (Mckinnon), but also losing a draft lottery to pick up another one (Makar).

And as I noted elsewhere, not really a contender for a high pick in between Mackinnon and Makar, or even right before Mackinnon. Before Mckinnon they picked 41OA, and afterwards 23OA, 10OA (Rantanen), 10OA (Jost), then Makar.

[D as in David]

I'll be OK with it since, in all likelihood, how i feel about it will have little impact on what choices CC makes.

[Vinny01]

If the Flames bottom out is there a chance they do not extend Conroy and bring in someone new? I think it is unlikely considering he is not spending to the cap and doing anything to push this team towards winning by spending assets on win now pieces.

I don’t think the owners want to be last place though so I do wonder

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

If the Flames bottom out is there a chance they do not extend Conroy and bring in someone new? I think it is unlikely considering he is not spending to the cap and doing anything to push this team towards winning by spending assets on win now pieces.

I don’t think the owners want to be last place though so I do wonder

I think the risk more the other way. If Conroy isn't being given the autonomy to do this the way he thinks it should be done - will he not want to extend.

For instance, if based on the start, he goes to ownership and says they need to lean into the bad season, and they say "no - you have to figure out how to turn this" he could say eff this.

Though I strongly believe, based on the team's actions more than their words, that they will be OK with a horrible season, and Conroy will be extended before Xmas.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I agree with Jiri's comment regarding the coaching just above.


With respect to the rebuild itself, I think it depends on how you see the team right now. I see them as in the midst of a full-blown rebuild, and you don't. I would be more inclined to agree with you if I didn't see them in a complete rebuild. Not an egregious one like Buffalo did, but I do think they are in a rebuild at the moment with the expectation is to finish at the bottom of the standings. They simply overachieved last year.

The Flames are in an uncontrolled rebuild.

Yes, the Flames traded away a huge chunk of its veteran core. But all but one was on an expiring contract and the Flames attempted to retain at least some of them. The one player not on an expiring contract was traded because the crease was too full.

Yes, the Flames have maintained a big chunk of cap. But we know Conroy has attempted to take big swings (his words) and was unable to connect.

The Flames continue to refuse to acknowledge a rebuild. Not just to us. But also to the players, the insiders, other teams, etc. We have never heard insiders tell us the Flames are "open for business" or actively rebuilding.

Instead we hear they aren't taking calls on key veterans. We hear the Flames are targeting 97 points and think they have the roster to do it.

Outside of his first season dealing with expiring contracts Conroy has done very little. He has one trade in nearly 16 months. And as I said above, a lot of the evidence that the Flames are in a rebuild only exists because Conroy wasn't able to retain free agents or connect on big deals.

[The Yen Man]

I'm ok with the Flames bottoming out. The games will probably be less enjoyable to watch this year because of it, but it is what it is, and I understand it will probably be better for the team long term.

What I don't want is a culture of losing to permeate in the room. Once it settles, it takes a LONG time for it to away.

Look at even the Panthers. Before the past few seasons, previously that team just kept losing, getting high picks, and never going anywhere to break that cycle, and you need to make sure the team isn't ok with losing as a default thing.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think the risk more the other way. If Conroy isn't being given the autonomy to do this the way he thinks it should be done - will he not want to extend.

For instance, if based on the start, he goes to ownership and says they need to lean into the bad season, and they say "no - you have to figure out how to turn this" he could say eff this.

Though I strongly believe, based on the team's actions more than their words, that they will be OK with a horrible season, and Conroy will be extended before Xmas.

I agree if Conroy decides he does not want to extend that would be massively telling since he has worked in management for 14+ years and finally getting promoted and then walking.

I think Trelivng knew he had a very good to almost lock chance he was taking over for Dubas in Toronto but unless Conroy wants to go to Buffalo I am not sure another opportunity to run a club presents itself.

I thought they would have announced his extension prior to the season but in my mind Conroy has done a fine job so far but he has done the easy part of moving on from older free agents that do not want to be here. He signed some nice contracts but has his misses so far most notably the Sharangovich extension. To me he is absolutely worth giving a longer look to and I am sure it will happen but not sure why it is taking so long?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by kehatch

The Flames are in an uncontrolled rebuild.

Yes, the Flames traded away a huge chunk of its veteran core. But all but one was on an expiring contract and the Flames attempted to retain at least some of them. The one player not on an expiring contract was traded because the crease was too full.

Yes, the Flames have maintained a big chunk of cap. But we know Conroy has attempted to take big swings (his words) and was unable to connect.

The Flames continue to refuse to acknowledge a rebuild. Not just to us. But also to the players, the insiders, other teams, etc. We have never heard insiders tell us the Flames are "open for business" or actively rebuilding.

Instead we hear they aren't taking calls on key veterans. We hear the Flames are targeting 97 points and think they have the roster to do it.

Outside of his first season dealing with expiring contracts Conroy has done very little. He has one trade in nearly 16 months. And as I said above, a lot of the evidence that the Flames are in a rebuild only exists because Conroy wasn't able to retain free agents or connect on big deals.

Why do you so want to believe something that clearly infuriates you?

Why does the team need to admit fully what they are doing publicly?

Tyler Toffoli wasn't an expiring contract.

This has been argued about a zillion times, but having a contract opening position and then trading the player doesn't negate the value of not negotiating and moving such player.

They weren't signed.

They were moved.

If it was win at all costs that wouldn't have been the case.

Nor would they hold $20M in cap space for two years.
Nor would they not add to a team near a playoff spot at last year's deadline.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Why do you so want to believe something that clearly infuriates you?

Why does the team need to admit fully what they are doing publicly?

Tyler Toffoli wasn't an expiring contract.

This has been argued about a zillion times, but having a contract opening position and then trading the player doesn't negate the value of not negotiating and moving such player.

They weren't signed.

They were moved.

If it was win at all costs that wouldn't have been the case.

Nor would they hold $20M in cap space for two years.
Nor would they not add to a team near a playoff spot at last year's deadline.

Tyler Toffoli was an expiring contract just traded in the summer but he was in his last year of the deal.

I agree with the rest that they are not operating in the mode where they must win at all costs. Last year’s roster was built to keep the flames with their own draft pick but they were much better than anyone expected.

I don’t think Conroy was fooled by it. He chased targeted players that he was unable to get or not willing to pay the asking price so he held firm.

I do think the urgency to be better for the new building is going to be the case. I can see him being more aggressive in pursuit of new core pieces next summer. If they take the expected huge step back I think they will be looking to take 2 steps forward next year

[Ba'alzamon]

If Conroy's job security hinged on the Flames winning this year, wouldn't he be... you know... doing something?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Tyler Toffoli was an expiring contract just traded in the summer but he was in his last year of the deal.

Looking it up ...

Traded on June 26, 2023

Contract signed with Montreal expired on June 30th, 2024.

He played the Jersey/Winnipeg season on the same contract that was used as a Flame.