3 years ago we all said a 5 year rebuild would be fine.

[Tinordi]

Remember all the talk on this board about how we didn't need to rebuild but a retool was what was needed. The Flames, were retooling for years by the time that people recognized that a rebuild was needed. And Canucks have been retooling for the past 3 seasons. How's it going there?

Why do I bring this up? Because most people have no clue what this team needs to do to be a contender.

[DuffMan]

Are we still in a rebuild? if so, we've definitely hit a wall.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So you're good with the strategy the Canucks have been taking the last couple years - still try to win it all with the Sedins? Because the Flames in the last few years with Iginla had about as much a chance of winning the Cup as today's Canucks do.

Rebuilding is a legitimate strategy in the NHL. It takes time. The worse your asset base at the beginning of the rebuild (and the Flames' was terrible), the longer the rebuild. Ultimately, it comes down to drafting and development, but a team can stack the deck in their favour with a lot of picks and trading for some young pieces to complement the new core. The Flames would be in a lot better shape today if they acquired Brayden Schenn and/or Wayne Simmonds for Iginla and got something useful for Langkow or Kipper.

So the Canucks are trying to "win it all" with the Sedins while we are rebuilding with Giordano and Brouwer? No I don't care for what the Canucks are doing. But I disagree with blaming Sutter for the state of the young talent on the organization. It's a lame excuse. I can't think of a championship team has been built on the backs of trading star players for draft picks or young players. Let's stick to evaluating the management team currently in place.

I hate the word rebuild. Whether you are GM of the Flames or the Blackhawks, you build a winner by:

Drafting well.
Developing well.
Managing your finances wisely
Hiring a strong coaching staff
Filling needs through shrewd trades
Getting lucky

It's been a long time since Sutter had a hand in any of this.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

Speak with your $$. Unlike edmonton, where they would pack the place and occasionally toss a jersey on the ice when they were upset...still filling managements pockets...don't go. Through the 7 year misery of the "young guns" era, there were times where there were 10, 11 or 12,000 fans in the building, they moved people around the building to make it look more full on TV.

Calgary fans are more fickle and they should be...can't rely on the edmonton model of a decade ineptitude and luck to build a team and get a new stadium.

It's not the same here, and i'm proud of that. We aren't as willing to be fed pure bull$hit year after year and just sit there like a bunch of robots and be happy with it.

Things will improve if the front office sees it as a necessity.

They are moving people around now. Outside of games against Canadian teams and weekend, I'd wager they are moving people out of 3rd bowl to fill up first and second bowl seats 70% of the time. I have season tickets in the first row of the third bowl, and if i wanted to show up an hour before every, I could probably get a lower bowl upgrade any game on Sunday through Thursday. A flames rep is always there passing tickets out.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Corral

the rebuild model has mythical status around here and I don't know why. the only 2 franchises to pull it off are the Penguins and Blackhawks - and really those rebuilds took place more than 10 years ago - since 2009/2010 - their championships are not based necessarily on rebuilds - definitely not last year's Penguins. Likewise the other current perennial winner LA - I wouldn't call that a rebuild team either.

Washington and St. Louis are other examples of successful rebuilds.

Originally Posted by Corral

You only have to look at the Islanders and the Oilers prior to McDavid to see that rebuilds aren't a guarantee of anything.

Of course rebuilds aren't a guarantee of anything. Nothing is a guarantee in professional sports. But the NHL today is a cyclical league where you build through the draft, and where it's almost impossible to build a contender without multiple top-5 OA picks. That's just a fact on the ground. Some fans may not like it, but it's reality.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's just recency bias and "oh god why can't we score" frustration.

Bennett will be fine. Gaudreau will still be awesome. Monahan... is what he is, which is goals and little else. But hey, goals are valuable, they're hard to come by. Meanwhile, once they lose Wideman and Engelland (which will happen at the latest this summer), the team will be in position to sign one UFA and ice the best blue line in the league. You've got a good 2nd line in 3M, all you really need at that point is a real top line RW and league average goaltending.

No, these things aren't easy to get. But the holes are pretty obvious, and as a result so is the path forward.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Some of us thought it would take longer. Sutter left this team with the worst collection of under-27 players and prospects in the NHL. It takes longer than 5 years to draft and develop a new core and supporting players.

Sutter left the franchise with some big holes but that is far removed from the current problems 5 years after the fact. The inability of Feaster and co to develop anyone at the NHL level with our organization outside of Guadreau/Monohan (who was a no-brainer anyway) while signing some disastrous long term deals and executing poor trades in the process has left the team with massive holes in the depth department.

The problem is simply that too many picks in the last 5 years have the "long term" tag on them. This is why the team is forced to play Chaisson on the top line wing and sign aging players like Brouwer to expensive FA deals.

Treliving seems to be doing a fair bit better in that department so hopefully we start to see progress over the next year or two. Otherwise it could easily be argued that the Flames have one of the worst developmental records around.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Drafting well.
Developing well.
Managing your finances wisely
Hiring a strong coaching staff
Filling needs through shrewd trades
Getting lucky

Detroit has been doing all those things. But with Datsyuk gone and Zetterberg and Kronwall on their last legs, it isn't enough. They're out of the playoffs, and I doubt they make it back in for years. Hard to see a Stanley Cup contender emerging out of their prospect base today. They're going to get worse before they get better.

[Bingo]

I just don't get the need to think everything is broken during a losing streak. Four straight games have sucked, there is little debate on that topic. But now the current players suck, the coach sucks, the GM sucks, the old GM sucks, the team president sucks, the prospect base has failed ...

it's too much.

When the Flames went 9-1-1 I was even keeled enough to know that they were cashing in on some pretty solid bounces. They were playing well, but they couldn't sustain that.

Now they are getting every conceivable bounce against them and it's broken their spirit.

That's the issue to me ... a dry spell where the team learns something about manning up. Not Stajan and Engelland, but the younger core. It happens every year to almost every team.

It's a good hockey team, with a coach that I'm coming around to. Things will be fine. I had them at a bubble team this year, guess what that's exactly what they are. It's a transitional season for young core players to get better and some bad contracts to come off the books.

I didn't necessarily envision the bubble team arriving here by looking awful then unbeatable, then average and then terrible but they've pretty much done what I expected.

I can't argue with fan passion, but it does make me shake my head sometimes.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Washington and St. Louis are other examples of successful rebuilds.

Of course rebuilds aren't a guarantee of anything. Nothing is a guarantee in professional sports. But the NHL today is a cyclical league where you build through the draft, and where it's almost impossible to build a contender without multiple top-5 OA picks. That's just a fact on the ground. Some fans may not like it, but it's reality.

Well you and I have a different view of what is 'successful' if the Capitals and Blues are on that list for you. Agreed on the draft, and as everyone knows we already have multiple top 5 ish picks in our lineup.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I hate the word rebuild. Whether you are GM of the Flames or the Blackhawks, you build a winner by:

Drafting well.
Developing well.
Managing your finances wisely
Hiring a strong coaching staff
Filling needs through shrewd trades
Getting lucky

.

i think this nails it. Well said.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Detroit has been doing all those things. But with Datsyuk gone and Zetterberg and Kronwall on their last legs, it isn't enough. They're out of the playoffs, and I doubt they make it back in for years. Hard to see a Stanley Cup contender emerging out of their prospect base today. They're going to get worse before they get better.

I'm not sure they have been doing all these things well. I don't really follow the Res Wings that closely but if they were, wouldnt it mean their prospect base was better?

Or does being bad and getting high draft picks trump everything else? If so let's stop making fun of the Oilers.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by jlh2640

There are only 2 players on this team who have taken a step toward this year. Frolik and Backlund. Johnson over achieved. And Tkachuk is a rookie so we're not sure what we have in him yet long term. Everyone else looks worse then ever or even to what they were

Add Hamilton to that. He's actually been a bright spot this year.

[Strange Brew]

Double post

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Sutter left the franchise with some big holes but that is far removed from the current problems 5 years after the fact. The inability of Feaster and co to develop anyone at the NHL level with our organization outside of Guadreau/Monohan (who was a no-brainer anyway) while signing some disastrous long term deals and executing poor trades in the process has left the team with massive holes in the depth department.

The problem is simply that too many picks in the last 5 years have the "long term" tag on them. This is why the team is forced to play Chaisson on the top line wing and sign aging players like Brouwer to expensive FA deals.

Treliving seems to be doing a fair bit better in that department so hopefully we start to see progress over the next year or two. Otherwise it could easily be argued that the Flames have one of the worst developmental records around.

How do you figure? This just flat out shows you had way to high of expectations on how quickly draft picks should become NHL ready IMO. If anything, our top draft picks from the past 5 years have progressed quicker then we should have expected.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Corral

Well you and I have a different view of what is 'successful' if the Capitals and Blues are on that list for you. Agreed on the draft, and as everyone knows we already have multiple top 5 ish picks in our lineup.

How are the Capitals and Blues not on that list? It is hard to win the cup. The Penguins only did it once in their prime post rebuild years. And they have Crosby, Malkin, Letang and Fleury. If the Flames end up being in the top 5 regular season teams, and perennial playoff contenders, then that is success... the cup, although the ultimate goal, isn't guaranteed no matter how well you manage your team. There is a lot of luck involved.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It's been a long time since Sutter had a hand in any of this.

The impacts of bad moves can literally cost a franchise for 10 years and beyond.
I don't know how that can even be disputed.
So what Sutter did is still impacting the state of the organization. The refusal to rebuild earlier is costing the organization. Just trace the assets. They tell a clear tale of asset erosion.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I'm not sure they have been doing all these things well. I don't really follow the Ted Wings that closely but if they were, wouldnt it mean their prospect base was better?

Or does being bad and getting high draft picks trump everything else? If so let's stop making fun of the Oilers.

Since the lockout, who has won the Cup who didn't have minimum of a 2nd overall pick they drafted in the lineup?
Detroit - but doesn't count due to early jump by drafting from Europe.
Anaheim? Maybe - Ryan was 2nd OV pick but I doubt was in lineup yet.

Regardless, Its not a guarantee you have to really suck first to ultimately win, but recent history suggests it sure helps.

[Spinach]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Why do I bring this up? Because most people have no clue what this team needs to do to be a contender.

This is true, considering the world's population is about 7 billion, the vast majority of whom do not follow hockey.

[Spinach]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Since the lockout, who has won the Cup who didn't have minimum of a 2nd overall pick they drafted in the lineup?
Detroit - but doesn't count due to early jump by drafting from Europe.
Anaheim? Maybe - Ryan was 2nd OV pick but I doubt was in lineup yet.

Regardless, Its not a guarantee you have to really suck first to ultimately win, but recent history suggests it sure helps.

Boston in 2011 (as well as making the finals in '13) didn't have a homegrown 1st or 2nd-overall draftee. But they had made a colossal (literally) free-agent signing in Chara, and getting franchise players for nothing via free agency isn't a dependable way to build a contender. Hence your point stands.