The Flames and Oilers rebuilds similar beginings

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Now we are in the basement throwing Hail Mary passes on prospects.

Yes, clearly the team would be better off if it didn't even bother having prospects and just folded.

But let's be serious. The Flames have room for perhaps three or four prospects to make the roster this October, and none of those prospects will be expected to carry the team. The closest thing to a 'Hail Mary pass' is that the club is letting its goaltending prospects battle it out for the starter's job. And they're not even doing that in the expectation of winning anything this season.

If you want a football analogy, the Flames are not making a Hail Mary pass this year. They're punting in the hope of improving their field position — which is a perfectly normal and sensible play.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Both teams failed to recognize the need for a rebuild until the bottom fell out. ...

The Flames could have been ahead of the curve by recognizing the need to rebuild two or three seasons ago. They didn't. Now we are in the basement throwing Hail Mary passes on prospects. As is always the case many fans are just assuming those passes will connect.

I disagree with most of this. Flames were mediocre but didn't "bottom out" entirely. Their biggest losing streak occurred after they traded Iginla and Bouwmeester. If anything the bottoming out happened after the Iginla deal was put in motion. After a couple weeks the team settled down and got back to mediocre levels.

I think getting "ahead of the curve" is much more difficult than you assume it to be.
I would suggest that in many ways the Flames did recognize the need to rebuild two or three seasons ago. They fired Sutter and there was all sorts of discussion about a rebuild. But a tear down was not easy to accomplish and plus there was the legitimate business concern about trading the two key players responsible for getting the franchise back on its feet. Iginla and Kipper contracts had value to ownership beyond their on-ice performance. That is almost certain.

On the ice, Iginla with NMC + 7.0M Cap Hit for 2 or 3 years and his 2010 season was not that strong. Not many teams would have room to fit him in at the best of times. Bouwmeester with NMC at 6.68M with 3 or 4 years left and not putting up numbers was also very tough to trade. I would suggest that the underperformance of some of the high paid players at the worst time made them virtually untradeable, like it or not. Iginla is tradeable with 1 month left on his contract, and Bouwmeester's bounce-back year makes him tradeable with 1 year left. The Flames were more or less destined to ride it out.

I think the false assumption being made is that there was massive trade value available for these guys two or three years ago. Rumours are only rumours, and I don't believe that the Kings (for example) were offering the same package for Iginla that they offered for Mike Richards. Richards is much younger, plays centre, had a long term cap-friendly deal, and like Iggy he won a gold medal and went to a cup final etc.

I also think the Hail Mary comment is awesome hyperbole.

[Bingo]

wow guys well done.

topics like this with comments that I've read above make me really happy this website has continued to chug along for 14 years.

Great read.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

I disagree with most of this. Flames were mediocre but didn't "bottom out" entirely. Their biggest losing streak occurred after they traded Iginla and Bouwmeester. If anything the bottoming out happened after the Iginla deal was put in motion. After a couple weeks the team settled down and got back to mediocre levels.

I think getting "ahead of the curve" is much more difficult than you assume it to be.
I would suggest that in many ways the Flames did recognize the need to rebuild two or three seasons ago. They fired Sutter and there was all sorts of discussion about a rebuild. But a tear down was not easy to accomplish and plus there was the legitimate business concern about trading the two key players responsible for getting the franchise back on its feet. Iginla and Kipper contracts had value to ownership beyond their on-ice performance. That is almost certain.

On the ice, Iginla with NMC + 7.0M Cap Hit for 2 or 3 years and his 2010 season was not that strong. Not many teams would have room to fit him in at the best of times. Bouwmeester with NMC at 6.68M with 3 or 4 years left and not putting up numbers was also very tough to trade. I would suggest that the underperformance of some of the high paid players at the worst time made them virtually untradeable, like it or not. Iginla is tradeable with 1 month left on his contract, and Bouwmeester's bounce-back year makes him tradeable with 1 year left. The Flames were more or less destined to ride it out.

I think the false assumption being made is that there was massive trade value available for these guys two or three years ago. Rumours are only rumours, and I don't believe that the Kings (for example) were offering the same package for Iginla that they offered for Mike Richards. Richards is much younger, plays centre, had a long term cap-friendly deal, and like Iggy he won a gold medal and went to a cup final etc.

I also think the Hail Mary comment is awesome hyperbole.

First, yes the bottom did fall out. They were near last place prior to trading Iginla.

Second, are you suggesting that a younger 40 goal scoring Iginla with multiple years under contract isn't worth more then we got?

Third, call it hyperbole if you want. But the fans here saying we are better off then Edmonton are doing it with the assumption that we are better off in the prospect department. That remains to be seen but the odds are not in our favour that a high percentage of them will be impact players.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, clearly the team would be better off if it didn't even bother having prospects and just folded.

But let's be serious. The Flames have room for perhaps three or four prospects to make the roster this October, and none of those prospects will be expected to carry the team. The closest thing to a 'Hail Mary pass' is that the club is letting its goaltending prospects battle it out for the starter's job. And they're not even doing that in the expectation of winning anything this season.

If you want a football analogy, the Flames are not making a Hail Mary pass this year. They're punting in the hope of improving their field position — which is a perfectly normal and sensible play.

I am not suggesting we shouldn't be focusing on prospects. I am saying that people are making the assumption we are better off then Edmonton was due to rose coloured glasses about our prospects. Most Edmonton fans expected their prospects to turn out.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Second, are you suggesting that a younger 40 goal scoring Iginla with multiple years under contract isn't worth more then we got?

Why make it sound like multiple years under contract x $7M for a 33 to 36 year old Iginla is instantly attractive to other GMs?

In 2010, Iggy had 32 goals (a decline for 2nd consecutive year) and was turning 33. $7M cap hit was poor value for the next 3 years to 36. Not going to get much then. Most teams would consider that a salary dump.

Next year turning 34 he had a great season at 43 goals, but how many GMs would be banking on him to repeat that at 35 to 36 years old to justify the $7M cap hit for 2 more years? Or how many elite teams (that Iginla would accept a trade to) would have the ability to shuffle the roster enough to fit Iginla's $7M under the cap for 2 or 3 seasons? A late 1st round pick and a couple of young prospects is about what you would get. Perhaps a little better than what Boston offered this year, but not significantly more.

Keep in mind that Iginla's NTC always allowed him to choose his destination which limited Feaster's ability to leverage. Also notice that Iginla had to sign an extremely cap friendly deal this year to fit onto a good team. $7M would be impossible.

To suggest that GMs would have been clamouring to get Feaster's attention with elite prospects/picks in return for a 33 or 34 year old Iginla (at 3x $7M) is simply not genuine.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

Why make it sound like multiple years under contract x $7M for a 33 to 36 year old Iginla is instantly attractive to other GMs?

In 2010, Iggy had 32 goals (a decline for 2nd consecutive year) and was turning 33. $7M cap hit was poor value for the next 3 years to 36. Not going to get much then. Most teams would consider that a salary dump.

Next year turning 34 he had a great season at 43 goals, but how many GMs would be banking on him to repeat that at 35 to 36 years old to justify the $7M cap hit for 2 more years? Or how many elite teams (that Iginla would accept a trade to) would have the ability to shuffle the roster enough to fit Iginla's $7M under the cap for 2 or 3 seasons? A late 1st round pick and a couple of young prospects is about what you would get. Perhaps a little better than what Boston offered this year, but not significantly more.

Keep in mind that Iginla's NTC always allowed him to choose his destination which limited Feaster's ability to leverage. Also notice that Iginla had to sign an extremely cap friendly deal this year to fit onto a good team. $7M would be impossible.

To suggest that GMs would have been clamouring to get Feaster's attention with elite prospects/picks in return for a 33 or 34 year old Iginla (at 3x $7M) is simply not genuine.

Do you even watch hockey? Trading Iginla after the 2010/11 season (43 goals/86 points) when they should have and they could very well have gotten the rumoured return from LA.

The only legitimate thing in your post is the NMC. Not because of the impact to value. But because Iginla didn't want to move. But if the Flames told him they were rebuilding he would almost certainly have agreed to move (and in fact publicly said he would agree to a move if the Flames asked.)

The Flames were two seasons removed from the playoffs at that point and clearly in decline. They had just fired their GM in December and clearly the new coach and approach weren't working. They failed to look at the body of evidence and instead let themselves get fooled by a late season push.

They clearly would have gotten a better return for Iginla at that point and would be ahead today. It isn't a debate.

EDIT: Iginla didn't sign a cap friendly deal. He signed a 6-million dollar contract. Boston filled the contract with performance bonuses. But the bulk of that Iginla gets for playing a small number of games. It is a 6-million dollar contract. Boston didn't used the performance bonuses to keep the contract low. They used it to take advantage of the bonus cushion that allows them to postpone a portion of the cap hit until next season when the cap goes up.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by kehatch

EDIT: Iginla didn't sign a cap friendly deal. He signed a 6-million dollar contract.... They used it to take advantage of the bonus cushion that allows them to postpone a portion of the cap hit until next season when the cap goes up.

Hello? How is this deal not cap friendly? I repeat...hello??

Thanks for layin down the law though. I'm not sure you understand what a debate is. Your arguments (e.g. do you even watch hockey) are not overwhelming, but nevertheless I know that the majority would share your opinion that a complete rebuilding would have been very easy to accomplish if only hockey ops could comprehend what the guys at TSN were saying 2 or 3 years ago.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

Hello? How is this deal not cap friendly? I repeat...hello??

Thanks for layin down the law though. I'm not sure you understand what a debate is. Your arguments (e.g. do you even watch hockey) are not overwhelming, but nevertheless I know that the majority would share your opinion that a complete rebuilding would have been very easy to accomplish if only hockey ops could comprehend what the guys at TSN were saying 2 or 3 years ago.

Iginla has never signed a cap-friendly contract - he was signed for what was fair market value at the time at $6 Million per year. He is a big NHLPA supporter and has made that known throughout his playing career. I guess the structure help the team, but it also helps his pocketbook.

The Flames would have been able to get a better return for a better, younger, under contract Iginla. To suggest otherwise would be foolish, but I also question how good the return would be as the cracks in Iginla's game became increasingly evident.

[Vinny01]

I find it hard to believe Iginla did not have significant value during or after his 33 year old season when he scored 43 and 86. With 2 years left on his deal at that point he would have commanded the rumored LA package of Schenn and Simmonds.

The Flames organization believed they were so close to pushing for a playoff spot and having a goalie like Kipper could result in a long playoff run. Feaster retained Tanguay long term, made his big trade for Cammy, and tried hard to land Turris. The Flames had their best opportunity to blow it up midway through the 2010/2011 season. They had valuable trade chips, a brand new GM, and a team that was trending towards a bottom 5 finish until they hit an easy part of the schedule and won a ton of games to put themselves back in the mix.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I find it hard to believe Iginla did not have significant value during or after his 33 year old season when he scored 43 and 86. With 2 years left on his deal at that point he would have commanded the rumored LA package of Schenn and Simmonds.

The Flames organization believed they were so close to pushing for a playoff spot and having a goalie like Kipper could result in a long playoff run. Feaster retained Tanguay long term, made his big trade for Cammy, and tried hard to land Turris. The Flames had their best opportunity to blow it up midway through the 2010/2011 season. They had valuable trade chips, a brand new GM, and a team that was trending towards a bottom 5 finish until they hit an easy part of the schedule and won a ton of games to put themselves back in the mix.

Yep. And I think Darryl was ready to make significant changes (at the very least let Brent go) but Feaster convinced ownership that the group was good enough to make the playoffs with an addition or two.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I find it hard to believe Iginla did not have significant value during or after his 33 year old season when he scored 43 and 86. With 2 years left on his deal at that point he would have commanded the rumored LA package of Schenn and Simmonds.

The Flames organization believed they were so close to pushing for a playoff spot and having a goalie like Kipper could result in a long playoff run. Feaster retained Tanguay long term, made his big trade for Cammy, and tried hard to land Turris. The Flames had their best opportunity to blow it up midway through the 2010/2011 season. They had valuable trade chips, a brand new GM, and a team that was trending towards a bottom 5 finish until they hit an easy part of the schedule and won a ton of games to put themselves back in the mix.

I don't know if the flames would have been worse then Edmonton, Florida, and Colorado. Would they be much farther ahead with Strome or the players drafted after the three really bad teams? That draft year and the one after were pretty poor drafts. I don't know if the Flames would be much farther ahead if they blew things up that year.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

I disagree with most of this. Flames were mediocre but didn't "bottom out" entirely. Their biggest losing streak occurred after they traded Iginla and Bouwmeester. If anything the bottoming out happened after the Iginla deal was put in motion. After a couple weeks the team settled down and got back to mediocre levels.

I think getting "ahead of the curve" is much more difficult than you assume it to be.
I would suggest that in many ways the Flames did recognize the need to rebuild two or three seasons ago. They fired Sutter and there was all sorts of discussion about a rebuild. But a tear down was not easy to accomplish and plus there was the legitimate business concern about trading the two key players responsible for getting the franchise back on its feet. Iginla and Kipper contracts had value to ownership beyond their on-ice performance. That is almost certain.

On the ice, Iginla with NMC + 7.0M Cap Hit for 2 or 3 years and his 2010 season was not that strong. Not many teams would have room to fit him in at the best of times. Bouwmeester with NMC at 6.68M with 3 or 4 years left and not putting up numbers was also very tough to trade. I would suggest that the underperformance of some of the high paid players at the worst time made them virtually untradeable, like it or not. Iginla is tradeable with 1 month left on his contract, and Bouwmeester's bounce-back year makes him tradeable with 1 year left. The Flames were more or less destined to ride it out.

I think the false assumption being made is that there was massive trade value available for these guys two or three years ago. Rumours are only rumours, and I don't believe that the Kings (for example) were offering the same package for Iginla that they offered for Mike Richards. Richards is much younger, plays centre, had a long term cap-friendly deal, and like Iggy he won a gold medal and went to a cup final etc.

I also think the Hail Mary comment is awesome hyperbole.

Don't buy that there was no trade value for Iggy a couple of years ago. Maybe the LA deal was a bit far fetched ,but i have no doubt they would have done better than the 28th pick and 2 NCAA players, one of which looks like he will be lucky to get 50 NHL games under his belt.

The flames did not recognize to rebuild the team years ago. Feaster in his own words said that he completely misjudged the team. I have no doubt that KK and ownership also completely misjudged the team. You do not bring in Hudler, trade a pick for Wideman and give him UFA money, thinking about a rebuild.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I don't know if the flames would have been worse then Edmonton, Florida, and Colorado. Would they be much farther ahead with Strome or the players drafted after the three really bad teams? That draft year and the one after were pretty poor drafts. I don't know if the Flames would be much farther ahead if they blew things up that year.

The returns they would have got for Iginla and others would definitely put them ahead. The higher draft picks from having a bottom team would have them farther ahead. Not having terrible deals for guys that bring nothing like Hudler and Wideman would have them farther ahead. And most importantly since Feaster said he would not be the guy for the rebuild having a competent (or at least better than Feaster and his merry band of idiots) hockey staff in place would have this team much farther ahead.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by moon

The returns they would have got for Iginla and others would definitely put them ahead. The higher draft picks from having a bottom team would have them farther ahead. Not having terrible deals for guys that bring nothing like Hudler and Wideman would have them farther ahead. And most importantly since Feaster said he would not be the guy for the rebuild having a competent (or at least better than Feaster and his merry band of idiots) hockey staff in place would have this team much farther ahead.

A bottom team would not want Iginla. He would not have gone. What are the chances that a non-playoff teams makes an offer for Cammalleri?

It would have been interesting to see behind the scenes how Regher was enticed to move to Buffalo. Buffalo finished with 96 pts the season before the Regher trade and the Flames 94. The Sabres had cap space and an owner willing to spend 3M to dump Kotalik and the Flames had Bouwmeester and Iginla.



The return for Iginla a few years ago (43 goals) , using basic mathematics , would have had to include salary coming back. The very best rumored return would have been Mike Richards and a salary dump from LA.

The Flames couldn't have gotten Cammalleri without Bourque and his 3.3 M / year going the other way. At the time CP was happy because they thought Bourque had no value and would be a buy-out candidate.

We have gotten so used to Bouwmeester's near 7M anchor we fail to see what other teams expect from 7M players.


I totally agree that the Flames had cap burning a hole in their pocket when they signed Hudler. Wideman was a better cheaper Bouwmeester replacement.

[moon]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

A bottom team would not want Iginla. He would not have gone. What are the chances that a non-playoff teams makes an offer for Cammalleri?

Why does it have to be a bottom team wanting Iginla? Why a non-play-off team for Cammalieri?

The return for Iginla a few years ago (43 goals) , using basic mathematics , would have had to include salary coming back. The very best rumored return would have been Mike Richards and a salary dump from LA.

The rumoured deal of Schenn/Simmonds was obviously before Mike Richards was even there and no real salary coming back. If LA needed to dump a contract with those two who cares and really if it was Mike Richards coming back that it way better than what we ended up with.

We have gotten so used to Bouwmeester's near 7M anchor we fail to see what other teams expect from 7M players.

I totally agree that the Flames had cap burning a whoile in their pocket when they signed Hudler. Wideman was a better cheaper Bouwmeester replacement.

And of the course the false and useless Bouwmeester hate thrown in for no reason.

Wideman a better option? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I don't know if the flames would have been worse then Edmonton, Florida, and Colorado. Would they be much farther ahead with Strome or the players drafted after the three really bad teams? That draft year and the one after were pretty poor drafts. I don't know if the Flames would be much farther ahead if they blew things up that year.

Firstly the 2011 draft is looking like one of the deepest drafts in recent memory. The top half of that draft with Nuge, Landeskog, Huberdeau, Brodin, Couturier all looking very good. Players like Sven, Zibenijad, Schiefele, Hamilton, Larsson are all very promising. It is looking strong in the late rounds as well. Saad was a 2nd rounder, Gaudreau was a 4th rounder.

The Flames would have likely tanked in the 2nd half instead of surged and likely could have landed a top 5 pick that year + had Schenn/Simmonds etc who they would have got for trading their key pieces then.

Iggy, Tangs, Olli, Glencross, Bourque, Regehr all would have held decent trade value then. Maybe only Glencross and Bouw would have had worse value that year than they do today.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by moon

And of the course the false and useless Bouwmeester hate thrown in for no reason.

Wideman a better option? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

"useless Bouwmeester hate" ---- the signing of Wideman was thinking ahead with the plan/knowledge that Bouwmeeester was going to be dumped.

If Bouwmeester was a functional top pairing D-man the signing of Wideman to replace Hannan would not have been a priority.


I really like the Bouwmeester high-light package---- especially his great play in the Flames playoff runs.


You know that Bouwmeester was really bad when Hudler and Stempniak and even Pardy have enough good plays to put together a highlight package...... Haven't seen one from Bouwmeesters 279 games as Flame.

[moon]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

"useless Bouwmeester hate" ---- the signing of Wideman was thinking ahead with the plan/knowledge that Bouwmeeester was going to be dumped.

If Bouwmeester was a functional top pairing D-man the signing of Wideman to replace Hannan would not have been a priority.

I really like the Bouwmeester high-light package---- especially his great play in the Flames playoff runs.

You know that Bouwmeester was really bad when Hudler and Stempniak and even Pardy have enough good plays to put together a highlight package...... Haven't seen one from Bouwmeesters 279 games as Flame.

The signing of Wideman was we have a ton of money and the stupid idea that we can be competitive so lets sign this defensive liabilty that can score points if allowed to stay on PP for 2 minutes. The only way he is a replacement for Bouwmeester is as a player to fill out the roster on the ice he does nothing to replace him.

I didn't realize that we are judging players by highlight reels but I love the highlight reel of Chris Dingman carrying the Cup around the ice twice with that loser Iginla and bum Dionne never doing it once. Guess it is clear that Dingman is the much better player than those two losers.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Well, this thread went in the crapper pretty quickly.