[CP Story] Decision Time in Calgary

[GGG]

I choose belief the team is better than it is but I also agree with their decision not to rebuild the last 3 years.

We have two assets in Kipper and Iggy that aren't replacable or at least very unlikely to be replacable. Both players were the best in the NHL at their positions for a period of time. So when you have two elite players you do everything you can to win within that window.

Even when we were out of a playoff spot the last 3 years the chances took to make the playoffs and win now were worthwhile. They delayed a rebuild but didn't really lengthen it. It will take a long time before we see a player as good as kipper or Iggy again but this year it is abundantly clear that they can no longer carry a team and we have effectively a zero chance of making the playoffs.

I also think that the rebuild started this past off season. Our team would have been better with Jokinan. We didn't try to resign him because he was not the long term answer. We tried out Cervenka and Backlund both young players with futures. I expect significant rebulding moves to be made at the deadline as this just continues the process that was started this past off season.

[CaramonLS]

They believe the team is better than it is (but it is also a combination of those other factors).

There is no way that Murray Edwards is giving his approval to spend to the salary cap, just to be a team that finishes on the outside looking in. I also think there is a certain measure of ego and stubbornness as well.

[Badgers Nose]

Imo the team's troubles started with the acquisition of Tanguay and worsened when they got Jokinen then JayBow.

Not because these are bad guys, I can't say one way or the other if they are or are not, but it has more to do with the fact that important pieces of the puzzle had to be let go in order to make room for these new guys.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by fotze

This may have been answered but what is the ownership structure of the Flames? Does Edwards own it all? How is it split?

I just read over their Wikipedia page and didn't find any discussion of detailed ownership structure. I don't think that Edwards is the majority shareholder, but I think he is the proxy for all the other owners.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

3 things to add:
- I think we have been slowly rebuilding as we have gradually playing a younger line up.

Enjoy your kool-aid before you actually look at our roster.

Tanguay (33) - Cammalleri (30) - Iginla (35)
Glencross (30) - Stajan (29) - Stempniak (30)
Hudler (29) - Backlund (24) - Comeau (27)
Jackman (31) - Cervenka (27) - McGrattan (31)

Brodie (22) - Bouwmeester (29)
Giordano (29) - Wideman (30)
Butler (26) - Smith (28)

Kiprusoff (36)

Average for top 6F, top4D, G: 30,3
Total Average: 29,3



For comparison, here's our comparison from March 20th 2011.

Glencross (28) - Backlund (22) - Iginla (33)
Tanguay (31) - Jokinen (32) - Bourque (29)
Hagman (31) - Stajan (27) - Kotalik (32)
Jackman (29) - Bouma (20) - Kostopoulos (32)

Regehr (30) - Bouwmeester (27)
Giordano (27) - Sarich (32)
Babchuk (26) - Staios (37)

Kiprusoff (34)

Average for top 6F, top 4D, G: 29,5
Total Average: 29,4


Summary: We have not been getting younger. At all.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

I don't think blowing everything up and tanking for couple of seasons is the best way to rebuild a team from hockey and business perspective. You have to compete for the playoffs every year and rebuild while you can still be competitive.

Easier said than done though. Which teams have been able to do it in this post-dynasty parity era? And is them being able to do it a result of specific types of decisions and tactics? Or is it just trying to be balanced combined with some great draft picks that they've kept around?

I suspect it's the latter.

And even then how much of it is just randomness? What's the difference between the Ducks last year and the Ducks this year? Whatever changes there's been hardly seems to justify the huge swing.

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

Ownership should be weary of isolating their fan base. If they start losing fans left right and center it won't be because Iginla and others are gone, it'll be because the team has once again returned to the joke they were from the mid 90's to early 2000's.

That's what I mean, by not trusting the fan base I mean the owners think the fan support will go away if they lose.

They (rightly or wrongly) think that by keeping Iginla, and by association trying (successfully or not isn't relevant to making the decision because no one can predict the future) to rework the team while remaining competitive is the way they can have a chance of keeping the fan support.

Every path has risk, and every decision works out or doesn't, but a full rebuild you almost certainly will have more lean years where (the owners assume, maybe rightly) fan support will erode, whereas if they try to just reload and continue to shoot for some playoffs they at least have the chance of having success enough to retain their fans (and keeping Iginla is part of that in being able to sell tickets around the name).

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by photon

I chose fear of losing season ticket base, but I agree it can be a combination of many factors, but ultimately I think it's a business level decision rather than a hockey decision.

The only question I have is can they trust the fans?

When the team was going through its rough patch in the 90's and the team's viability in Calgary was at least discussed as being at risk, wasn't attendance and support evaporating?

Wouldn't that suggest to the owners that they can't trust the fan base?

I don't know because I don't recall enough from the 90's to know if the situation is comparable to trusting the fans now to be supportive through a rebuild.

any stat I've seen on that era was that paid vs show was the biggest gap, not the actual sales

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/

only checked 2 years in that era but the averages were 16000 and 15700

[photon]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Great post and I think the owners can't trust the fan base and they've got a point in not trusting them.

I'm not certain, it's a possibility to me.

I look at it this way: it's not like the owners and management set out to make decisions that they know will fail, they all have their contexts and reasons for the decisions they make. Without knowing all the context and reasons it's very difficult to tell the difference between a bad decision and a good decision that didn't turn out as expected.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bingo

any stat I've seen on that era was that paid vs show was the biggest gap, not the actual sales

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/

only checked 2 years in that era but the averages were 16000 and 15700

Heh, look at the graph:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=5090

Then, without looking at the year numbers, try and guess which year had a big success in it.

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by photon

That's what I mean, by not trusting the fan base I mean the owners think the fan support will go away if they lose.

They (rightly or wrongly) think that by keeping Iginla, and by association trying (successfully or not isn't relevant to making the decision because no one can predict the future) to rework the team while remaining competitive is the way they can have a chance of keeping the fan support.

Every path has risk, and every decision works out or doesn't, but a full rebuild you almost certainly will have more lean years where (the owners assume, maybe rightly) fan support will erode, whereas if they try to just reload and continue to shoot for some playoffs they at least have the chance of having success enough to retain their fans (and keeping Iginla is part of that in being able to sell tickets around the name).

It seems to me that there is no 1 right answer on how to build a winning team. There is however at least 1 wrong answer. We have been witnessing it for 4 years. Yes fan support could erode over some lean years during a rebuild, that's the risk this team needs to take to try and better itself.

A rebuild doesn't have to involve trading Iginla, but it does need to change the direction of the franchise so Iginla is no longer the center piece of the franchise.

Honestly the last 4 years have already been 'lean' years. I wonder if ownership thinks fans will stay if they keep throwing together a mediocre team in the hopes of making the playoffs.

[photon]

Oh the only other point I wanted to bring up was people talk about having to win at a specific clip (i.e. .650 or whatever) to make the playoffs, and then talk about teams that have played this season or the last whole season at that clip, that's not really a completely valid comparison (though more valid for this season since we've only played what, 30 games). The # of teams that managed a .650 winning percentage over any 20 game span is likely higher than the # of teams that managed it for the whole season, heck a non-playoff team might have managed it.

Not saying the Flames can do that, just wanted to bring up the comparison, one would have to look at each team's record and calculate a running 20 game win percentage to be able to really say how likely or unlikely it is in general.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

Summary: We have not been getting younger. At all.

To be fair, our "Core" has aged an entire year. So in order to maintain the same age, we have to insert younger players in the other positions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

It seems to me that there is no 1 right answer on how to build a winning team. There is however at least 1 wrong answer. We have been witnessing it for 4 years.

But the last 4 years doesn't involve a single "how", the changes have been significant over the last 4 years. The only players the same between then and now are Iggy, Cammalleri, Glencross, Sarich, Gio, Backlund and Kipper. That's like 60% of the roster (plus coach and GM).

Even if you could say that there was specific ways to build a winning team, you could apply one way and still not have a winning team, again look at the Ducks from last year to this year.

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

Yes fan support could erode over some lean years during a rebuild, that's the risk this team needs to take to try and better itself.

The team caught lightning in a bottle and have maxed out since, and that wasn't a result of a rebuild to better themselves.

I agree with you if it was me making the decision, but trying to infer the owners' motivations I can maybe appreciate why they don't agree.

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

A rebuild doesn't have to involve trading Iginla, but it does need to change the direction of the franchise so Iginla is no longer the center piece of the franchise.

Ideally I agree, I've been proposing moving the C for a while now, but unless you really have the guy that can step up and take that place it's hard to do, especially for a conservative organization like the Flames.

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

Honestly the last 4 years have already been 'lean' years. I wonder if ownership thinks fans will stay if they keep throwing together a mediocre team in the hopes of making the playoffs.

I don't think that's really fair because I can guarantee they didn't say "hey, let's throw together a mediocre team and just hope for a good run, the fans will stay.", because they're spending to the cap. If they actually thought that they'd be closer to the floor than the cap. They want to build a team that can win, they just haven't been able to make the right series of moves to do that.

[Travis Munroe]

Couldnt choose loyalty to Iginla as he has a NMC anyway and I believe he would prefer to be on another serious contender right now.
Close on the team being better than it is which I personally feel like on paper we should be better than we are. Kipper has barely played what you would consider average hockey for a goalie and some bad luck with Backs injuries killing us in the middle and Iginlas slow start it has really hurt us.
Hunger for playoff revenue is stupid if it is a thought as we could lose 4-1 in a series and only see 2 extra games which is peanuts.
Losing ticket holders.... I have been on a waiting list for 2 years. Even if we finished last by a long shot I don't see selling season tickets to be too difficult as many of us would see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Too many cooks is what I chose because it has to be extremely difficult to build a team when there are multiple opinions being given. This is why I would love to see Burke come in. We know he wouldnt put up with not having the majority say in building a team.

[timbit]

Bottom line , the Core is too old and the team is certainly not a cup contender for the foreseeable future nor a legitimate playoff contender.
The former better change soon or the latter will be a lot longer wait than some people believe.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

To be fair, our "Core" has aged an entire year. So in order to maintain the same age, we have to insert younger players in the other positions.

Two years actually from that point of comparison, but I don't really see how that is "being fair", it's just stating the obvious. My point is exactly that despite the talk, Feaster has not made the team any younger.

Actually I'm quite failing to see what has Feaster really done in his 2+ years here except stick with the status quo. (Which I guess could be interpreted as a sign that someone else has indeed been running the show.)

He needs to do well at the trade deadline for me to have any faith in him.

[Dion]

I would have voted we are the easts version of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Too afraid to make the moves needed, loss of a fan base and the win now mentality. I'm glad I gave up my ST's years ago.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by Dion

I would have voted we are the easts version of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Too afraid to make the moves needed, loss of a fan base and the win now mentality. I'm glad I gave up my ST's years ago.

should I be happy for you? what does this mean then for current ST holders, like me...are we suckers who continue to feed into the Flames' issues that it's run as a "business" first (which is exactly what all pro-sports are, so that argument is silly to me)?

I'm not one of those people who will blindly say that I'll have the same interest and budget in a rebuilding team that sucks. I'll hang on to the tickets, but anyone who says they'll sit in the stands and cheer just as hard for a young, newly blown up squad that gets murdered every night is just flat out lying. everyone's interest will grow and wane with the team's success and that's natural...but don't feel like you need to announce how savvy you were to pull your funds from the Flames when things started going bad.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Itse

Enjoy your kool-aid before you actually look at our roster.

Tanguay (33) - Cammalleri (30) - Iginla (35)
Glencross (30) - Stajan (29) - Stempniak (30)
Hudler (29) - Backlund (24) - Comeau (27)
Jackman (31) - Cervenka (27) - McGrattan (31)

Brodie (22) - Bouwmeester (29)
Giordano (29) - Wideman (30)
Butler (26) - Smith (28)

Kiprusoff (36)

Average for top 6F, top4D, G: 30,3
Total Average: 29,3



For comparison, here's our comparison from March 20th 2011.

Glencross (28) - Backlund (22) - Iginla (33)
Tanguay (31) - Jokinen (32) - Bourque (29)
Hagman (31) - Stajan (27) - Kotalik (32)
Jackman (29) - Bouma (20) - Kostopoulos (32)

Regehr (30) - Bouwmeester (27)
Giordano (27) - Sarich (32)
Babchuk (26) - Staios (37)

Kiprusoff (34)

Average for top 6F, top 4D, G: 29,5
Total Average: 29,4


Summary: We have not been getting younger. At all.

Not drinking the koolaid, but I will contend I am mistaken about the age of the team

I hope the rest of my points are still valid though

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Not drinking the koolaid, but I will contend I am mistaken about the age of the team

I hope the rest of my points are still valid though

I'd say so. Sorry for the kool-aid comment.