Do you think the Calgary Flames are tanking?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

In my not so secret heart I want them to finish worse than last year but I don't buy for a second that Burke and Treliving in any way feel that picking top 4 is a consolation for being a bad team. These guys are simply way too competitive to accept losing regardless of what players it may land them in the draft. When the season is over and maybe they are in position to draft McDavid or Eichel then they shift their focus and are probably feeling good about the offseason but I don't think there will be any secret high fives for being a terrible hockey team.

Not secret high fives, and I agree about them being competitive guys, but being competitive means they want to win. That could mean eventually. Doesn't necessarily mean they want to maximize the # of wins today based on all available assets, but want to maximize the # of wins in x years, so making/not making moves that help establish all the other goals and "does this move increase the # of wins" not really being a priority.

It's at least not implausible, we've seen far more overt moves to decrease a team's competitiveness elsewhere.

I don't think they'd see getting a top 4 pick as consolation for being a bad team if that was their actual goal for this year as part of the x year plan.

But yeah I see what you mean I don't know if Burke would have that kind of thing in him lol.

[Danomite]

not a chance! NHL players have too much pride

[indes]

We have one of the worst rosters in the league, I don't see how you can try and sugercoat it by saying the flames will be intentionally losing, implying they could start winning whenever they wanted.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Danomite

not a chance! NHL players have too much pride

When a team decides to tank its not the players who make that decision (unless of course you're the 1919 Chicago White Sox) or even the coaching staff. Its management who push the team in that direction by making bad trades and signing/playing bad players when there are obviously better players available.

[DoubleF]

I define it as being playing below your capabilities. There's two sides that can control the performance of the team IMO.


Management side: Arguable, but I say no tanking.
Player/Coach side: Absolutely no tanking.


Management side:
You can flash the cash but you can't guarantee playoff spot or Stanley Cup. So spending more cash for a higher ranking is a moot point. Otherwise all teams should be required to spend their cap or be criticized as a tanking team.

My perception:
Management has grabbed the players they did to have the kids make the jump. Management also wants kids to play consistently the full season so the plugs make sense too. All the moves seem to circle around getting the best from the future players. So, no. No tanking.


I forgot to mention: I feel that management has put together a team with a coin flip outcome. 50% fail, 50% chance succeed. If the kids succeed, you flash the cash and become playoff bound pretty quick. If kids don't make it, one more year of the same.

[EldrickOnIce]

Yes. Where Tanking is defined by the organization not doing everything it can to win now.

And they shouldn't. Stay the course.

[Scoutski]

I have to agree that this thread is a bit of waste as every response has varied definitions of what tanking is, unless you were willing to define it, the poll information is useless.

In my case, tanking is management CONSCIOUSLY and PURPOSEFULLY making bad decisions to cause the team to lose games.

This is not happening with the Flames, that has nothing to do with the fact that the current roster strength is not particularly high. Management needs to have a plan in place that considers the present, the immediate future and the long-term future, I feel like those considerations are being made and the team is working with all three time frames in mind.

[Red Ice Player]

The Flames are set up properly for a rebuild. The team is made up mostly of journeyman talent signed to shorter term deals. Our salary cap space will gradually erode as our younger players mature. Our AHL team is bristling with offensive talent. This isn't tanking. We can determine if tanking is taking place during the regular season.
If our goaltending can't get it done and we don't make changes....that's tanking.
If our coach has lost the team and management does nothing...that's tanking
If veteran players cannot produce at an NHL level during the regular season and aren't benched or replaced, that's tanking.
I haven't seen any of these tanking indicators at play with the Flames yet, going by last season. Instead I see a hardworking team that doesn't have enough talent to make the playoffs, but will make opponents work hard every night and will regularly embarrass better teams who decide to mail one in against the Flames. Maybe people just aren't used to seeing what a proper rebuild looks like. This is it.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Raymond is a poor man's replacement for Cammallari but in our situation, we aren't going to attract top UFAs, so Raymond is decent. Minor loss.

Hiller is a big upgrade over what we had last season. Win.

Bollig is the replacement for Westgarth, maybe not as tough but a better hockey player. Win.

Engelland replaces Butler, he's a better defenceman and he's bigger and a whole lot tougher which helps fix one of our biggest weaknesses. Win.

Setoguchi, I just don't understand this signing when we could have promoted a rookie or just left the spot open. Anyways a don't matter signing.

The thing is we made three improvements that addressed our weaknesses, so I can't see how anyone can say we are tanking.

So you see Engelland who is coming off a 13:00 /game ice time with a team that lost their top 2 d-men (Letang and Martin) for over half the year as a replacement for Butler's 20 minutes.

Butler was replaced by Smid and Russell and Wideman coming off injury.

If you see Engelland playing 20 minutes a game then you have the definition of tanking at the coaches level.

Raymond is decent? The Canucks left him go for nothing. The Flames turned him down last year when he publicly declared he wanted to play for them. He was the #6 forward on the Leafs who finished 7 pts ahead of the Flames with a much softer schedule.

He had 8 goals and 17 pts +6 in his first 22 games when he was fighting to stay in the NHL (What setoguchi will be trying to do his first 22 games).

Over the rest of the season: 11 goals 28 pts -12 in 60 games .47 ppg Baertschi was sent down on a weak scoring Flames team for .42 ppg.

Westgarth was the reason we lost last year and needed replacing?

Engelland is a great signing for #6 d-man toughness... to have someone always dressed who is is truclent...

Hiller is an obvious upgrade.... basically the only significant one.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by photon

Not secret high fives, and I agree about them being competitive guys, but being competitive means they want to win. That could mean eventually. Doesn't necessarily mean they want to maximize the # of wins today based on all available assets, but want to maximize the # of wins in x years, so making/not making moves that help establish all the other goals and "does this move increase the # of wins" not really being a priority.

It's at least not implausible, we've seen far more overt moves to decrease a team's competitiveness elsewhere.

I don't think they'd see getting a top 4 pick as consolation for being a bad team if that was their actual goal for this year as part of the x year plan.

But yeah I see what you mean I don't know if Burke would have that kind of thing in him lol.

I feel it's more acceptance of where they are right now and a mission statement to stay the course of rebuilding from within rather than opt for quick fixes that still don't make this team a contender. The Flames could have signed the best UFA forward, defenseman, and goaltender from the 2014 free agency pool and IMO would have still been a team outside of the playoffs and would have wasted considerable cap space and future flexibility in the process. There's simply not much they can do other than sign some stopgap players and hope for internal development on the team and in the AHL.

[The Yen Man]

Since when did people start equating rebuilding to tanking? Just because a team recognizes the need to rebuild through developing their prospects and taking a long term approach to improving the team, it doesn't mean they are "tanking". Tanking means intentionally losing.

What evidence do you see from Flames management that they're intentionally throwing games in the next season? The fact they signed a proven goalie to a short term deal to challenge the other number 1 into playing better? The fact they signed character guys to have a positive influence in the dressing room and to teach the kids how to grow as a team? The fact that they signed stop gap short term deals in hopes the team will remain competitive while the kids develop properly in the minors?

I have seen zero evidence that the Flames are "tanking" anything. Just because they don't throw the kids to the wolves ala Oilers style doesn't mean the Flames are tanking.

[ricardodw]

Last year one team made the playoffs with a Cap spending less than 60M - Coloradao due to Landeskog and McKinnon having $925K cap hits.

19 of the top 20 teams in the standing spent over 60M

Of the 23 teams spending over 60M 15 made the playoffs

Of the 7 team under 57M 1 made the playoff

Of the bottom 5 teams in the stands there cap hit last year was

#NY ISLANDERS 51,716,431
#CALGARY 54,008,745
#EDMONTON 57,269,640
#FLORIDA 50,631,906
#BUFFALO 57,330,958


This year's cap hit for the Flames is the same 54M as it was last year. So unless Monahan and Gaudreau are as good as Mackinnon and Landeskog were last year it is pretty clear the Flames are tanking.

[nik-]

I think a bunch of our moves are tanking moves. Like overpaying Engelland, keeping Setoguchi (we'll see how long that lasts). But Hiller is an anti-tanking move ... so who knows.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think a bunch of our moves are tanking moves. Like overpaying Engelland, keeping Setoguchi (we'll see how long that lasts). But Hiller is an anti-tanking move ... so who knows.

I can see that with Setoguchi, zero risk move and is either taking his time get ng going or camp was what we are going to get for his tenure.

I'll disagree on Engelland though. I've been pleasantly surprised by him in preseason. Definitely believe the Flames brass thought there was more to his game to offer andfrom what I've seen I tend to agree with their assessment. We will see.

[Locke]

Tanking indicates either losing deliberately or intentionally fielding a weaker lineup than possible.

While I suppose its certainly true that one could point to the fact that the Flames havent broken the bank to acquire the overpriced-UFA-du-jour, that method hasnt been proven to be effective.

Look at the Edmonton Oilers who threw a ton of money at Sheldon Souray, various cup run heroes and Khabibulin and became a cap team that were still godawful.

Further, tanking indicates an attitude of failure, ie: Fall for Hall, Fail for Nail and whatever pithy slogan they had for RNH.

Or: The Colorado Avalanche who finished 29th in one season all while having half-hearted contract negotiations with O'Reilly and then win the Conference the next season while icing an almost identical lineup.

I would love to know what people who think the Flames are tanking think they could do better? The Flames are hardly an ideal destination for even better than marginal UFAs, and as I indicated earlier, selling the farm and throwing tons of cash at players doesnt guarantee a better team on the ice.

So in conclusion, they arent tanking, they're being cautious and patient.

[hummdeedoo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Last year one team made the playoffs with a Cap spending less than 60M - Coloradao due to Landeskog and McKinnon having $925K cap hits.

19 of the top 20 teams in the standing spent over 60M

Of the 23 teams spending over 60M 15 made the playoffs

Of the 7 team under 57M 1 made the playoff

Of the bottom 5 teams in the stands there cap hit last year was

#NY ISLANDERS 51,716,431
#CALGARY 54,008,745
#EDMONTON 57,269,640
#FLORIDA 50,631,906
#BUFFALO 57,330,958


This year's cap hit for the Flames is the same 54M as it was last year. So unless Monahan and Gaudreau are as good as Mackinnon and Landeskog were last year it is pretty clear the Flames are tanking.

I find your posts very entertaining - keep up the good work!

[Nehkara]

No. Tanking is intentionally losing games.

[djsFlames]

Poll is so stupid it doesn't even deserve my vote.

[Miniac]

Originally Posted by Danomite

not a chance! NHL players have too much pride

Players might have pride but what about management?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Last year one team made the playoffs with a Cap spending less than 60M - Coloradao due to Landeskog and McKinnon having $925K cap hits.

19 of the top 20 teams in the standing spent over 60M

Of the 23 teams spending over 60M 15 made the playoffs

Of the 7 team under 57M 1 made the playoff

Of the bottom 5 teams in the stands there cap hit last year was

#NY ISLANDERS 51,716,431
#CALGARY 54,008,745
#EDMONTON 57,269,640
#FLORIDA 50,631,906
#BUFFALO 57,330,958


This year's cap hit for the Flames is the same 54M as it was last year. So unless Monahan and Gaudreau are as good as Mackinnon and Landeskog were last year it is pretty clear the Flames are tanking.

If we had only overpaid for Seto, Orpik and Bolland, we would have had a chance!
The low cap hit means we are rebuilding. That is all it means. Did you forget the last half dozen years of futility spending to the cap?