Flames goaltending is killing our chances at McDavid/Eichel/Hanifin: Discuss

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by loob job

I totally agree with the OP, getting a top two pick would have put us ahead a couple years on this clear rebuild. Signing Hiller, a very good goalie, was head scratching to me at the time. We trade away players for picks and now we're signing a number 1 or 1a goalie. I don't know which direction we're going here, i hope management does. I think it would have been smarter to see what we had with Ramo, maybe get one of these huge prospects in the draft to add to our already great prospects and then start making moves to improve the team next year. Just my opinion though.

I don't get the mystery here.

In the first place, even if the Flames are terrible, they will still be very hard pressed to be worse than Buffalo and Florida, and now worse than Carolina with their injury problems, and probably worse than Edmonton or Winnipeg. There are some really, really bad teams in the NHL this year. In short, even in the event that Treliving chose not to make any roster improvements from last season, chances are still pretty high that the team would not have finished in the bottom three.

Second, it is pretty clear that Hiller was signed to replace Reto Berra. A massive upgrade, to be sure, but one also that has virtually no impact on the development of any of the Flames current goaltenders and prospects. Even with Hiller on the roster, the Flames are not impeded in any way from seeing what they have in Ramo.

[Robbob]

Development is more important then a high pick. You can be just as successful not drafting first or second if you have a top notch development system. Red wings, kings, boston, anaheim, and chicago did what they did because how they developed so many players. you don't need to follow the oilers rebuild and continually draft first. Take the best player and successfully develop him and you will be fine. Flames have drafted two great players in the top ten and will likely get another. Having a culture the flames are developing can only help with the development.

You hit potential late picks like brodie, gaudreau, etc then you add significant depth the those high picks. More you develop the more assets you have, the more ammo you give the gm to improve the team.

[bubbsy]

let's give it some time. Flames looked good in bursts last year too.

the record looks good, but the flames have looked below average for most of their games thus far, but some hot goaltending has kept them close in games they had little business being in. They are giving up way more shots and chances than they are able to generate offensively, and i don't think that's a pattern that will change drastically.

No way this team is bottom 3, but once injuries hit, the goaltending cools off a bit, i expect the flames to be in that 25th overall spot.

no way we'll be worse than carolina, buffalo, florida, and likely battling things out with winnipeg, edmonton, and a surpriser along the way like the yotes, heck maybe even the avs.

[Red Menace]

I love to see the team having success, but do we really think it's a good thing to finish in 20th place this year? The way the system is set up, you better be a playoff team or a bottom 5 team....in between is horrible for the long term success of your franchise. I realize you have to spend a year or 2 in that limbo when transferring from one to another...but this is not the year to be in that no-man's land...I still cheer for the team to win every game, but I know that well fought losses are better for us this year.

[hummdeedoo]

Forgive me if someone mentioned this before:

I'm glad management isn't so single minded in believing that the only way to build a winner is to suck and draft high. There are good players no matter where you draft - work hard as an organization and find them. Sign the right free agents, develop your own players, instill a winning attitude in the players you have.

Just trying to suck sounds like trying to cut corners, doing it "the easy way" and avoiding the work.

[CliffFletcher]

This talk of tanking is bizarre.

Has anyone on this forum advocated tanking? Anyone? All those people getting indignant at the notion of tanking: can you point to a post or thread that calls for the Flames to intentionally lose?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This talk of tanking is bizarre.

Has anyone on this forum advocated tanking? Anyone? All those people getting indignant at the notion of tanking: can you point to a post or thread that calls for the Flames to intentionally lose?

Maybe not, but the premise of this thread is that good goaltending is making the Flames win, and that's a bad thing.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This list is pretty arbitrary. Take for example the history of just the #3 picks:

· Carolina's #3 was Jack Johnson, who didn't ever play for the team.

· One of Chicago's two #3's was Cam Barker, who was a marginal pick, and had a pretty limited role on their first cup win.

· Chris Gratton was one of TB's two #3s, and their other #3, Alexandr Svitov played only 11 games in their Stanley Cup winning year before he was traded to Columbus.



So really, the only #3 pick who has had any sort of tangible impact on his team's Stanley Cup win in the past ten years is Jonathan Toews. I suspect that if the Flames never again draft higher than #4, and if they manage to win another Cup at some point during Sam Bennett's career, then the same list could be compiled to show identical results, but for teams that have drafted in the top-four at least once.

This is fair enough, I was just curious to see and slow day at work haha. Yes the top 3 vs top 4 was pretty arbitrary. Though I will say that just because a high pick player was traded, doesn't mean they didn't have an impact (ie. the players they got in return could have contributed).

[Cflames_12.5]

This thread is embarrassing. Hopefully this is the last post on this thread and the thread disappears.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This talk of tanking is bizarre.

Has anyone on this forum advocated tanking? Anyone? All those people getting indignant at the notion of tanking: can you point to a post or thread that calls for the Flames to intentionally lose?

Some posters have certainly expressed that they would rather "win for the next 10 years"(ie. draft McDavid) than do well this year. A la Boomer.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by heep223

Some posters have certainly expressed that they would rather "win for the next 10 years"(ie. draft McDavid) than do well this year. A la Boomer.

But that's not tanking.

• I will be disappointed if the Flames win enough games this year that they pick higher than 5th.
  
• I do not want (or expect) the Flames to tank.

Those two sentiments are not mutually-exclusive.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This talk of tanking is bizarre.

Has anyone on this forum advocated tanking? Anyone? All those people getting indignant at the notion of tanking: can you point to a post or thread that calls for the Flames to intentionally lose?

Originally Posted by heep223

Some posters have certainly expressed that they would rather "win for the next 10 years"(ie. draft McDavid) than do well this year. A la Boomer.

I'm not about to go digging through the old PGTs from last season, but there were definitely the occasional posts from disgruntled fans after wins who whined about how this would affect the Flames' draft position. That's what I can't stand: absolutely celebrate the silver lining that accompanies losing in the form of a high draft pick, but complaining about wins sucks—without any reservation, it sucks.

[foshizzle11]

The 80% chance that we will not pick 1st overall finishing last and picking McDavid is what scares me. Why lose on purpose or not try to make the team better. That is what the GM is paid for. Those are bad odds to gamble with in trying to improve by picking first. Ya, it would be great to get McDavid but in reality we won't finish below Florida, Buffalo, Edmonton, Winnipeg and maybe Carolina, no way we are below all of those teams.

I like what is happening right now. Bennett and Monahan are great pieces for us that will be the future of this team. Along with Backlund, Bouma, Brodie, Gaudreau and hopefully guys like Ferland, Knight, Granlund, Jouris, Poirier and Klimchuk can develop into good NHLers. I would not trade our roster for Edmonton's today. No way. Our future IMO is much brighter because of the culture that Hartley has created in Calgary.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This talk of tanking is bizarre.

Has anyone on this forum advocated tanking? Anyone? All those people getting indignant at the notion of tanking: can you point to a post or thread that calls for the Flames to intentionally lose?

i don't think anyone is talking about sucking on purpose. I think the flames moves (other than bringing in hiller) can point to management using the "patient progress thru organic development" which at this stage can only point to a very minimal improvement in Wins this year compared to last. That points to another bottom 5 finish this year. It's not tanking it's the slow progression over the first few years of a rebuild before the kids can start taking on meaningful roles on the big club, and the GM having enough assets (prospects/picks) in the piggy bank to start trading those in for roster players.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But that's not tanking.

• I will be disappointed if the Flames win enough games this year that they pick higher than 5th.
  
  
  
• I do not want (or expect) the Flames to tank.
  

Those two sentiments are not mutually-exclusive.

The premise of this thread is based on the fact that there's an argument we should tanking. "Flames excellent goaltending is killing our chances for a top 3 draft pick" is implying that better goaltending=bad which is implying that we should be tanking.

I think there's been a ton of posters saying things along these lines in numerous threads and much debate has ensued.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

I would not trade our roster for Edmonton's today. No way...

But it's safe to say that half the GMs in the NHL would.

[badger89]

Originally Posted by shermanator

The method of sucking to get high draft picks is the no good Edmonton way of doing things. Quite frankly, I'd rather see this team get results they deserve based on their play.

If we get a high draft pick, then so be it. If we get a top 10 pick, then so be it.

It's also the Penguins, Black Hawks, and Avalanche way. Just sayin.

[bubbsy]

just to add, if there's a year to unfortunately not do well, this is the year. getting a generational talent is not a gimme, even if you win the lottery (just ask the oilers, who only really got 1 incomplete game breaker out of their 3 top picks). This year's draft really has a real player, who by all accounts could be a generational talent.

not cheering for losses, but would also not be all that disappointed if the team nose dives by the end of the year. Getting mcdavid puts us in the direct path of being a contender for a decade as early as the end of his ELC .

[The Fonz]

Even if this Flames team tried to tank, I don't think we'd do any worse than 26th overall, leaving us with these odds:

1st: 8.5%
5th: 54.5%
6th: 37%

No point getting upset over not grabbing one of McDavid or Eichel... we were never going to finish that low anyways. Buffalo, Carolina, Phoenix, and Edmonton are going to be in that 55-65 point sewer.

Lets hope for wins, have a fun season, and draft 8th-10th overall. Who knows... if Gio/Brodie stay healthy, Hiller/Ramo continue pushing each other, and Backlund/Monahan/Gaudreau find their offense, this team could very well push for a playoff spot.

[IntenseFan]

Above all we must avoid the "culture of loss" that has infected a few NHL teams, despite drafting high over the last few years. Chief culprit is the Oilers, although there are others (the Panthers have picked in the top 5 in 3 of the last 4 years too).

I'd much rather the Flames pick in the upper top 10 and have some pride and competitiveness than instill the culture of loss for a higher pick.