Do you think the Calgary Flames are tanking?

[Dion]

The team is doing what is best for the prospects with thier development. To facilitate that you need vetern players to fill roles until they are ready. The additions of Bolig, Hiller, Engeland, and Raymond prove that. There is no tanking going on.

[Dajazz]

Originally Posted by robaur

Answer with a simple Yes or No.

No further explanations etc.

Example:


I think Yes.

If you answered No,

Define what you think is TANKING.

Wow, this roster cut is really tough on you huh?

[wingmaker]

What a dumb thread.

Made more ridiculous by the fact that people who vote "no" are asked to explain themselves but people who vote "yes" are not.

EDIT: In response to photon, on second thought it isn't the thread that seems dumb but the way the thread is framed in the op.

[itsmagic]

Didn't vote.

Selecting one option or the other seems pointless when "tanking" is an illusion that exists only in the confines of Internet message boards.

Define what "tanking" is first, then show me evidence that isn't imaginary. I'll wait.

[photon]

People if you don't like the thread, then just stay out of it.

I voted yes but by tanking I mean positioning themselves to be competitive but not strong enough to rise out of the basement. Having a truly awful team is disheartening and demoralizing, especially over a long span. So I think they're trying to avoid that negative vortex by sailing around the top of it.

Having decent goalies, lots of hard work, and a few kids to keep the interest of the fans they're trying to do enough to keep the positivity while they rebuild. I think in their secret heart they want to finish about where they did last year.

[Cole436]

"This post is terrible" is my favourite poster on this site.

[Rerun]

Didn't vote because I think its too early to tell. But will vote yes if Setoguchi is still on the team by the end of November and his play hasn't improved considerably. Same goes for any other player who deserves to be sent to the minors and isn't because he's a veteran or one of Treliving's summer signings.

[gargamel]

If Treliving added Setoguchi, Raymond, Hiller, Bollig and Engellend in a genuine effort to improve as a team, I'd be seriously questioning his abilities as a GM. I don't think he did though, which is pretty much my definition of tanking.

In the sense of not putting your team in the best position to win on any given night (like the Avalanche a few years ago), no, I don't think Hartley would ever stand for that.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by gargamel

If Treliving added Setoguchi, Raymond, Hiller, Bollig and Engellend in a genuine effort to improve as a team, I'd be seriously questioning his abilities as a GM. I don't think he did though, which is pretty much my definition of tanking.

In the sense of not putting your team in the best position to win on any given night (like the Avalanche a few years ago), no, I don't think Hartley would ever stand for that.

My sentiments exactly. The only way to truly improve the team quickly, would be to sign a UFA to way too big of a contract for way too long or trade away a bunch of picks and prospects. That hurts the long run, so I don't see that as tanking.

Plus, we have to sign some vets to track the floor. That's why Engelland gets what he does.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Other teams play all their kids. Flames fans accuse them of tanking.

Flames play veterans. Flames fans accuse them of tanking.

Agreed. Lots of vets are mediocre but proven. Kids show promise but being consistent over 82 games is a very tall order.

Flames have solid G, good top end D and respectable throughout, just F is a crapshoot (with extra crap) right now

If they wanted high end help up front, I think other GMs appreciate the prospect depth. Tough place for management to be. But fun I am sure

[FlameZilla]

I won't make a thread about it, but I'd like to personally thank my favourite CP user "this post is terrible" for his/her excellent contribution to this board.

Regarding the OP, no we are not tanking. If all the kids usurped the vets straight out of camp I think we could be just as bad this season due to inexperience & whatnot. It's best to use the players that are here (that have very little trade value) for the time being, and if that results in a lottery pick so be it. Meanwhile the kids all develop more chemistry in Adirondack & by the time the trade deadline passes we should get to see what they really have to offer in April.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by robaur

Define what you think is tanking...

You first.

[Red Menace]

The franchise that has perennially spent to the cap is now barely above the floor....of course they are tanking.....doesn't mean the players and coaches aren't trying to win every game....but clearly the organization is putting them in a place to lose...which is what they should be doing.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Stuff like this is why I think you are the biggest joke on this board. The OP did exactly what the other poster did to him..... You never contribute anything intellectual nor thought provoking. You simply come in with some lame quip about another poster or passive aggressively attack others. Again, your name doesn't suit your tendencies.

As for the OP, people are likely looking at your two red blocks and thinking this guy has no right making this kind of thread. However if it were Bingo, people would be falling over each other to thank him.

I think the Flames are going to try and be competitive and if I doesn't happen, oh well, top 5 pick. But the key this year is rookie development, confidence building and line juggling. Throw shiz at the wall and see what sticks.

[ComixZone]

Yes.

When you're a "rich" organization, and you have a league-low $53,936,667 salary-cap, you're tanking.

But that doesn't mean it isn't the smart thing to do. We signed players that aren't very good to deals that range from "slightly overpaid" (Hiller, Raymond) to "haha, overpaid" (Engelland) in an effort to make the salary-cap floor, while not pushing us up the standings.

Of course the players and the coaches aren't looking at it that way - but neither do Oilers players. Taylor Hall has never sat back and said "well, we're tanking this year...so who cares", they're professionals and still do their best. Treliving and Burke have given Hartley a bottom 3 roster, and he'll do his best to be the best he can be and get the most he can out of it.

Who knows what happens, but yes - management has built a roster to tank. With the situation we're in, it's absolutely the right thing to do. You can't build a winner via free agency, and for us to become a fringe playoff team, that's what Treliving would have had to do.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by photon

People if you don't like the thread, then just stay out of it.

I voted yes but by tanking I mean positioning themselves to be competitive but not strong enough to rise out of the basement. Having a truly awful team is disheartening and demoralizing, especially over a long span. So I think they're trying to avoid that negative vortex by sailing around the top of it.

Having decent goalies, lots of hard work, and a few kids to keep the interest of the fans they're trying to do enough to keep the positivity while they rebuild. I think in their secret heart they want to finish about where they did last year.

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.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

No.

Tanking is about offering the most incapable NHL lineup possible, including putting rookies in the lineup before they're ready. You do not go out and sign and/or trade for 5 NHL veterans (Bollig, Engelland, Hiller, Raymond, Setoguchi) to help your team be better and more well rounded if you're trying to tank. You also would not have seen the push to re-sign Cammalleri last year. If they were trying to tank you'd see SOB still here instead of Engelland. Westgarth instead of trading for Bollig. Berra instead of Hiller. These are small upgrades I know, but still upgrades and indicate the team is trying to get better.

They also recognize they have young players ready to make the jump soon so they didn't sign any prohibitive contracts keeping them in the minors too long. Besides which, they wouldn't have been able to sign any great free agents unless they massively overpaid, which you could argue they did with Engelland anyway.

They aren't tanking, but they just aren't going to be any good for another season or two anyways. It's just the reality of the situation.

Besides, Burke is famously impatient and would never allow purposeful tanking in his organization, so philosophically I just don't see it with this management group.

[Flame On]

Keep it simple, only yes or no.
Explain yourself and what you think tanking is.
Does not compute.

[pylon]

First off, they haven't even played a regular season game yet, so 'tanking' in the present tense is not possible. So the question should be "Do you think the Flames are going to tank?"

How about you take a step back, and a deep breath OP, and let them play a dozen or so games, before you start accusing the team of Oilering it's way to a pick. Brian Burke has never been involved in a team that has tanked for a pick, and I do not expect him to start now. He outright said last year it was 'embarrassing' sitting at the draft lottery table.

[BurningSteel]

When I think of tanking I think of M1A1's, Shermans, T51's you know tank!!