What do you want out of this season? Pick or Playoffs?

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by squirtle

Playoffs. Why?

For those who are picking picks because we get another "good prospect" to build around..you do realize IF the flames make the playoffs and continue this streak that would mean:

1) Monahan wins calder and Baertschi not far behind. Would you rather have two developed star prospects or three with potential to become stars? Isn't the point of having high end prospects is hoping they reach their projected upside?

Exactly. If this were still an older roster on its last legs, I could see why some may rather have the pick. But with how young the team is now, if they did make it to the dance, clearly that would mean our young prospects have progressed fantastically, which is obviously what we're all hoping for in the end.

[Wolven]

Playoffs - always.


However, as fun as it is to see the Flames undefeated in regulation 4 games into the regular season, I do not instantly turn that into a playoff contending team.

By the end of the season, I still expect this team to be looking to win the draft lottery and I am hoping for Ekblad. Reading this post back on the second page:

Originally Posted by macrov

Playoffs. Making the playoffs.


Some random thoughts:

1) Monahan was the second best player in this draft
2) Sven is looking great for a 20 year old
3) Gadreau and Porier could quickly become top 6 players
4) horak, reinhart, colborne, knight, sieloff and cundari are all knocking on the door step
5) Backlund is developing into a solid 2nd line center
6) Agostini and jankowski could also turn into solid players
7) Brodie looks amazing


If we made the playoffs this year, while trading Cammy for a 1st rounder, with this kind of talent being developed...well the future looks super bright.

The only D prospects mentioned in that post are Sieloff and Cundari. I know some of us are excited about Wotherspoon too and drool over Kanzig's size but we really do have a need for that #1D in the system. Drafting Ekblad would really compliment what the Flames already have going on with the rebuild.

[polak]

Unless this pace keeps up, we should still behave like a rebuilding team. If we start playing like a bubble team, I really hope management doesn't lose track of what we're doing and start making moves to try and make the playoffs. I still want to be sellers at the deadline and try to pick up as many draft picks for our vets as we can.

Again, this is assuming we don't keep up this pace. If we somehow magically become contenders then lets go for it

[Tinordi]

The fact that you and moon and Rerun have to rely so strongly on the false dichotomy of "you must suck or you must win everything" shows just how embarrassingly weak your argument is. There is nothing that says we can't improve in the standings while continuing to improve our depth and skill level to become true Cup contenders. Detroit has spent the last two decades doing it.

Just a couple of points. Detroit is not a model that any team can follow. Saying we should do what Detroit did is akin to hoping to win multiple jackpots at the slots. They got Hall of Fame players deep in the draft that have been the engine of that team. That is not repeatable. Sure they had excellent management and all of that which the Flames will need but they drafted a top five defenseman of all time in the 6th round along with a top 3 center in the league in the 8th round? Saying we should follow that model is just silly.

Second, you might point to Boston as another example. There's lessons to learn there for sure, that you should stockpile picks in the 2nd round, what does that mean? You continue to sell present for future where appropriate. But the incongruity with Boston is that it's unlikely the Flames will have the same success signing a free agent guy like Chara being a relatively backwater Canadian team. We just have a structural disadvantage against world cities like Boston, New York, LA, Chicago when it comes to attracting the best. SO I also don't think it's wise to hang our hat on making a huge free agent splash to fill in a large hole that will make us a contender.

Further, this team still has major weaknesses in the future most notably on defense that would be most likely addressed through the draft. We still just do not have the horses to make a legit push in the next three years without more top draft picks that can fill in the holes. Infact, our prospect pool resembles the team we often like to mock, heavy on forwards and thin on D.

With all that said, my first post in this thread summarizes how I feel, I don't think we should tank for the hell of it. Winning breeds winning, there is no doubt, but we absolutely need to stay committed to the rebuild. You can't short cut a rebuild and pointing to exceptions should remind us of the odds working against it happening not for it happening.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

With all that said, my first post in this thread summarizes how I feel, I don't think we should tank for the hell of it. Winning breeds winning, there is no doubt, but we absolutely need to stay committed to the rebuild. You can't short cut a rebuild and pointing to exceptions should remind us of the odds working against it happening not for it happening.

Honestly, I am not sure what we are arguing about then. I have never argued that we should short cut the rebuild. I am arguing against those who think that finishing as a wild card who gets to go up against LA or Chicago in round one is a sign the team isn't moving the right direction.

We're 78 games between here and there, mind you, and the losers may well get their wish.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Just a couple of points. Detroit is not a model that any team can follow. Saying we should do what Detroit did is akin to hoping to win multiple jackpots at the slots. They got Hall of Fame players deep in the draft that have been the engine of that team. That is not repeatable. Sure they had excellent management and all of that which the Flames will need but they drafted a top five defenseman of all time in the 6th round along with a top 3 center in the league in the 8th round? Saying we should follow that model is just silly.

Second, you might point to Boston as another example. There's lessons to learn there for sure, that you should stockpile picks in the 2nd round, what does that mean? You continue to sell present for future where appropriate. But the incongruity with Boston is that it's unlikely the Flames will have the same success signing a free agent guy like Chara being a relatively backwater Canadian team. We just have a structural disadvantage against world cities like Boston, New York, LA, Chicago when it comes to attracting the best. SO I also don't think it's wise to hang our hat on making a huge free agent splash to fill in a large hole that will make us a contender.

Further, this team still has major weaknesses in the future most notably on defense that would be most likely addressed through the draft. We still just do not have the horses to make a legit push in the next three years without more top draft picks that can fill in the holes. Infact, our prospect pool resembles the team we often like to mock, heavy on forwards and thin on D.

With all that said, my first post in this thread summarizes how I feel, I don't think we should tank for the hell of it. Winning breeds winning, there is no doubt, but we absolutely need to stay committed to the rebuild. You can't short cut a rebuild and pointing to exceptions should remind us of the odds working against it happening not for it happening.

Plus, would Boston have won the Cup without Tim Thomas in goal? Probably not.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Honestly, I am not sure what we are arguing about then. I have never argued that we should short cut the rebuild. I am arguing against those who think that finishing as a wild card who gets to go up against LA or Chicago in round one is a sign the team isn't moving the right direction.

We're 78 games between here and there, mind you, and the losers may well get their wish.

Oh get off your high horse. Losers are the people that can't look past the tip of their nose constantly seeking short term gratification. Like, you know, the strategy this team employed for the past 5 years. What did it get them? 3 years of utterly inept play and no playoffs. Thank god they still went for it though and tried to win, we can hold our heads high!

While nobody is hoping for a tank, alot of us look at rationally as something that's probably for the best. Does that make them losers? Give me a break.

edit: and your argument implies that the fruits of losing, say a player like Monahan are somehow not as legit as going for it and choosing lesser players later in the draft. If that's the case I hope you aren't enjoying the success of Monahan early in this season because we got him by basically tanking.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The fact that you and moon and Rerun have to rely so strongly on the false dichotomy of "you must suck or you must win everything" shows just how embarrassingly weak your argument is. There is nothing that says we can't improve in the standings while continuing to improve our depth and skill level to become true Cup contenders. Detroit has spent the last two decades doing it.

The facts say otherwise... for your benefit I will repost this...

2009 SC winner – Pittsburg – drafted 2nd in 2004 (Malkin) and 1st in 2005 (Crosby)
2010 SC winner – Chicago – drafted 3rd in 2005 (Toews) and 1st in 2006 (Kane)
2011 SC winner – Boston – won without high draft picks (but would have never won without Thomas playing lights out hockey in goal)
2012 SC winner – LA – drafted 2nd in 2008 (Doughty)
2013 SC winner - Chicago – drafted 3rd in 2005 (Toews) and 1st in 2006 (Kane)

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Plus, would Boston have won the Cup without Tim Thomas in goal? Probably not.

Playing the "what if" game won't get very far in the debate... I would counter the Thomas question with:

If the Bruins had traded for an offensive Dman other than Kaberle that allowed them to actually score on the PP, could any team have slowed them down? Probably not.

My answer - If that Bruins team scored on the PP at all they probably would have swept through the entire playoffs regardless of who was in net for them.

I think the Bruins would be a great organization to model the Flames after. They have a pretty solid draft system and they seem to be very successful in develping players. Everything else (trading to fill needs, signing UFAs) gets easier when your draft picks turn into NHLers.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The bad attitude is the acceptance of losing.
Why do Americans usually do so well in the Olympics and Canadians do so poorly?

Better doping programs.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Playing the "what if" game won't get very far in the debate... I would counter the Thomas question with:

If the Bruins had traded for an offensive Dman other than Kaberle that allowed them to actually score on the PP, could any team have slowed them down? Probably not.

My answer - If that Bruins team scored on the PP at all they probably would have swept through the entire playoffs regardless of who was in net for them.

I think the Bruins would be a great organization to model the Flames after. They have a pretty solid draft system and they seem to be very successful in develping players. Everything else (trading to fill needs, signing UFAs) gets easier when your draft picks turn into NHLers.

Yes.. Boston did it without high draft choices but they are the only team to do it in the last 5 years. All the other cup winners drafted in the top 3 four to five years before winning the cup. Argue all you want but those are the facts.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Play out the season, if we somehow work hard enough to make the playoffs, the flames can always send vets packing to move up in the draft (like Van getting Bo Horvat).

A winning culture is much more important than top lottery picks, just look at Edmonton. The team should play as hard as they can for the post season.

[StrykerSteve]

High draft picks are nice and all, but they are a consolation prize.

I want the CUP.

Playoff success or bust. Finishing 1 point out of the playoffs is the worst case scenario.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

edit: and your argument implies that the fruits of losing, say a player like Monahan are somehow not as legit as going for it and choosing lesser players later in the draft. If that's the case I hope you aren't enjoying the success of Monahan early in this season because we got him by basically tanking.

As you always seem to do, you continue to argue against strawmen. I have already said there is a difference between accepting when we finish low and draft high, and wanting to finish low so we can draft high. So no, despite your ridiculous assertion, I am not arguing that Monahan is "not as legit" as drafting someone later.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

High draft picks are nice and all, but they are a consolation prize.

I want the CUP.

Playoff success or bust. Finishing 1 point out of the playoffs is the worst case scenario.

High draft picks help win cups.

[jammies]

I will be happy as long as Vancouver either misses the playoffs or is swept out of them again.

[nemanja2306]

Other than a few vets, this team is already young with lots of potential (Sven and Sean are obviously the ones with superstar potential). So, if we make the playoffs, wouldn't that mean that our young team show potential that they could be SC contenders in 2-3 years?

This is different than the Iggy country club sneaking in and hoping for the best.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As you always seem to do, you continue to argue against strawmen. I have already said there is a difference between accepting when we finish low and draft high, and wanting to finish low so we can draft high. So no, despite your ridiculous assertion, I am not arguing that Monahan is "not as legit" as drafting someone later.

So let me get this straight, if you don't "want" to tank but do then it's acceptable. If you want to tank and do then you're a loser? And you're trying to lecture me about straw men? You're straw man is this ridiculous dichotomy between acceptance and want, neither of which has any impact on the final outcome and both achieve the same outcome. However continue to further this as a way for you to feel superior to other posters for no other purpose than self gratification.

Not even to mention the logical outcomes of this argument. Basically if you build a team not to tank and do (the definition of failure) that's acceptable because you never accepted tanking. If you're putting together a sub-optimal roster that wont make the playoffs then that's not acceptable because you didn't do your best to win. Man these past 3 years have really affected you.

[getoverit]

I don't want 9th or 10th..........so make playoffs and be able to compete to then pics to continually improve. no inbetween

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

While nobody is hoping for a tank, alot of us look at rationally as something that's probably for the best. Does that make them losers? Give me a break.

Lots of people are.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So let me get this straight, if you don't "want" to tank but do then it's acceptable. If you want to tank and do then you're a loser?

Tanking to me is losing on purpose.