The Athletic: LeBrun: Flames in a tough spot

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I agree, Giordano is still far and away the best defender on the team and outside of Tkachuk, the best skater on the roster.

Elias Lindholm says hello. That man is right in the middle of this conversation point.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No one wants to hear the changes I would make to this roster.

I would actually love to hear what you would try to do...it seems we only hear you gripe about past moves, and sometimes say what you currently would not do, but never what you would actually try to do.

I acknowledge the futility of proposing specific trades, but I'll offer you my bold 4 point plan:

1. Gaudreau out for best return available ASAP. Ideally including an RD in his early prime, but that is not a dealbreaker. Don't try to solve any other roster composition issues in this trade - best return available. If you don't like the offers before TDL, wait for the draft. If you don't like the offers at the draft, that sucks, but it means JG's value is what it is, and you take what you can get. Perhaps you hold off until later in the summer or start of the season, but I don't really see how the return is going to improve, and only keeps this team trudging down the same path of futility.

2. LD(s) for forward help.
3. No more than 1 yr deal to back up goalie (then hope for Parsons/Zag). Position could also be filled to help facilitate a trade (I'd explore something like Robert Thomas+Jake Allen for an LD)
4. Reassess halfway through next season.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I have been reflecting a lot lately on this team and former iterations of the Flames.


Here is my take relating to some of the historical stuff being discussed.


Darryl Sutter:
I always thought he was an excellent GM with the exception of hiring coaches. He was simply abysmal in that area, unfortunately. Here is a controversial statement: His drafting ineptness was overblown. Why? When he took over the team, he had 2 or three scouts in the department. Good on him for making those trades in order to get good players to try and get this team with Iginla on it to win the cup, and he pretty much did it if that phantom goal in game 6 was spotted. Ask Todd Button the question: "When was the current traits regarding prospects identified, and Todd will respond with "Under Darryl Sutter in 2008". Darryl saw the need to expand the scouting and development department, including having the Flames be in total control of their own AHL affiliate so that they could have a better chance to develop players. He did a lot of things right in this organization, and it is a shame that he was simply terrible at hiring a coach, which eventually led to his overreaction near the end of his tenure in trying to balance the roster out as Brent was incapable of designing a system that fit the team's strengths.


Look back at those years, however. Darryl got this team to over-achieve in '04, but transformed this team into a contender that just failed in the playoffs for one reason or another. However, his team consistently made the playoffs - not one year in, one year out. Those teams were thought of as a legitimate contender that underachieved. Has this current team - with Gaudreau, Monahan, Giordano, etc., - ever been thought of as a contender? Have they consistently made the playoffs?


I remember when the rebuild finally started. It was based all around building a contender that would be able to compete for the Stanley Cup. That hasn't happened yet, and it has been 7 seasons. Brad hasn't been the GM for all 7 obviously, but he has yet to build a contender. Actually, let's not even talk about contending - let's consider the fact that this team has yet to make the playoffs in consecutive seasons. Let's consider that this team isn't even a perennial playoff team. Let's not talk about 'making a run' until they actually start regularly making the playoffs. Playoffs are not a given with this team, even though they are supposedly in their 'contending window'.


Think about that for a second. I remember when Gaudreau and Monahan were re-signed, and the talk was: "Well, we have 5 good years of being a contender", and last off-season, Tkachuk was re-signed and again the talk was: "Well, the window is at its' widest for the next three seasons with Tkachuk's deal".



This team isn't even a playoff shoo-in.


I have very much felt that Treliving is a really great GM, but perhaps on my personal reflection lately, lavish praise is probably both premature and undeserved. I don't begrudge him, nor do I feel he deserves to be removed and replaced with someone else, but the Flames track record since the rebuild has been undeniable - no better than a playoff bubble team with the exception of one season, but never seriously seen as a contender at any point yet.



Remember in the 2nd season of the rebuild when it seemed like the Flames were going to experience a heck of a lot of success when they defied expectations and made it into the 2nd round of the playoffs? "Rebuilding is easy!" was a common sentiment then.


Now, I am not 'down' on this team. What I do think is that there should not be a single player on this roster that should be considered untouchable. I still firmly believe that coaching continues to be a huge issue with this team and Brad's ideas surrounding coaching (which seems to be in-line with 'Babcockian Hockey') hasn't produced good enough results.



I have loved the following players while growing up - Nieuwendyk, MacInnis, Roberts, Hunter, Gilmour, Mullen, Iginla, Otto, etc., and I have seen them all be traded and playing on different teams. I have also seen other players whom I loved equally retire, such as MacDonald, Loob. None of the players on the current roster have done as much or meant as much to this team as the previous players have, yet I got over their trades.


I don't envy Brad's work here. Hamonic and Brodie are two players that can return significant assets (especially Brodie). Letting them walk after this season, especially when you consider this upcoming draft, is very significant. Bad luck with Hamonic, but if he isn't able to re-sign Brodie then he better find a trade (and if you look up my history, you will find that I think Brodie is the most important defencemen on this team, and should be considered a core player - I love his game and feel he adds an incredible amount to this team).


I am ready for a quick rebuild. This team - blame it on the coaching or not - is just not good enough. If you can't be a perennial playoff team, then you have no business trying to be thought of as a contender. If you are not a contender after 7 years of rebuilding, then what you are is a failure of a rebuild.



Building a contender is hard and it requires luck on top of making the 'right decisions', but this team simply hasn't accomplished the task it set out to do 7 years ago, and it has not built a better team than the one that played between '04 and '09. It simply isn't a better team.


I personally put a lot of that blame on coaching, but ultimately Brad is responsible for that as well.


I want to see significant changes this year. Heck, give me another rebuild even. Just don't say that 'we are close'. The only thing this team has consistently shown is that they are NOT close. Treliving has a lot of tough decisions to make, and I am sure some of those decisions are going to require some buy-in from ownership, which I see as the norm in practically every team.


I don't see one untouchable player on the roster. There is nothing untouchable about it. I am not really venting here (I don't think), nor am I 'down' on this team and think they are a bunch of losers. They have shown that they are simply not good enough for whatever reason, I have no confidence in coaching, I have no confidence in the GM any longer in making a good coaching hire, and unless something changes, I don't I don't have any confidence that this team can succeed in any meaningful way.


What is a successful rebuild? Ultimately it is winning a Stanley Cup (or better, becoming a dynasty!), but that's very unfair. A proper rebuild should be considered successful if it allows for a few runs (3rd round or further) a few times with the 'core' you assembled. Luck has a lot to do with winning a cup too, and of course there are other teams that may have done a better rebuild.


What is an unsuccessful rebuild? When the core you assembled can't even make the playoffs regularly.



Maybe it is all coaching, but I don't really care too much right now. There are now 3 solid coaching candidates available (even though one is overrated in my opinion). This team has consistently been inconsistent. I am ok with change.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Like trading away a 27-year-old Lydman for a 3rd round pick. Lydman went on to remain a #3 d-man for the next 6 years.

That was more because Sutter thought he was soft. Reinprecht was a main piece in the trade involving Drury to the Avs and after seeing the player for a season couldn't get him out of town fast enough trading him for 3 games of Brian Boucher and 15 games of Mike LeClerc. He didn't have a lot of patience for players that didn't fit his mold of toughness.

[GioforPM]

C4L:

I agree with almost all of that except I think Sutter's drafting was every bit as bad as advertised. Only 8 out of 59 picks had any kind of NHL career. Phaneuf, Boyd, Prust, Pardy, Backlund, Bouma, Ferland, Brodie, and of those Boyd, Pardy, Prust and Bouma were all "meh" careers. Backlund, Brodie, Phaneuf and Ferland were the only impact draftees by Sutter.

6 players from Treliving's first two drafts alone have played significant NHL minutes (in fairness, I have less faith in the careers of the more recent drafts except for Valimaki, Pelletier and maybe Wolf).

And moreover, his first rounders were just not good picks. Chucko, Pelech, Irving, Nemisz, Erixon. Only 2 decent first rounders, and in hindsight, Phaneuf wasn't the pick we all thought at the time (and even if he was, he was traded for Stajan and a bunch of spares).

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

C4L:

I agree with almost all of that except I think Sutter's drafting was every bit as bad as advertised. Only 8 out of 59 picks had any kind of NHL career. Phaneuf, Boyd, Prust, Pardy, Backlund, Bouma, Ferland, Brodie, and of those Boyd, Pardy, Prust and Bouma were all "meh" careers. Backlund, Brodie, Phaneuf and Ferland were the only impact draftees by Sutter.

6 players from Treliving's first two drafts alone have played significant NHL minutes (in fairness, I have less faith in the careers of the more recent drafts except for Valimaki, Pelletier and maybe Wolf).

And moreover, his first rounders were just not good picks. Chucko, Pelech, Irving, Nemisz, Erixon. Only 2 decent first rounders, and in hindsight, Phaneuf wasn't the pick we all thought at the time (and even if he was, he was traded for Stajan and a bunch of spares).

Well, that's fair if you just look up the drafting history and compare them side-by-side with no context. I think he did well given the lack of scouts and development system. I think he did well in trading picks away in light of this, and building a team that consistently made the playoffs with one amazing finals run.


Was his drafting a success? Absolutely not. What he did do, however, was set the groundwork by getting the ownership group on board with hiring additional staff and spending money on their development. Without him pushing for those, the rebuild would probably have taken a lot longer.



That's what I mean by his drafting ineptness being overblown - I just think as a first-time GM in a franchise devoid of an actual scouting department, he started essentially at ground zero in building it up. Which scout do you trust more over an another? How do you hire scouts that you do trust when you have never been a GM before and have no interaction with scouts since you have been a coach essentially since you retired from the game?



I think that - under the circumstances and with context - that Darryl Sutter did a better than expected job at drafting. He shouldn't be lauded for his drafting, but I do think that the context in which he worked under should be noted. Essentially, if not for him, Feaster would not have had the relative luxury of having a decent scouting team and 'letting them handle it'.


That's the way I see it. I would argue that he should have made bigger changes quicker, but I have no idea how tied his hands were with ownership's willingness to spend money in those areas, vs his own inexperience and ineptitude at the position. I just don't think he was as horrible as the drafting record indicates, as I do see improvement on it as the years went by for the most part, especially when given context. I will never say he was great at drafting, but he wasn't the buffoon that people state he was.

[Flash Walken]

Why are we talking a out a GM who hasn't been with the org in a decade instead of the current GM who has been with the organization for 6 years?

Misdirection?

[Toonage]

Boredom?

Pining for the heady days?

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why are we talking a out a GM who hasn't been with the org in a decade instead of the current GM who has been with the organization for 6 years?

Misdirection?

Probably because we are less than a week before deadline and people in both the buyers and sellers camps for this team haven't had any trades this team has made to talk about.

What do you think is the misdirection?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why are we talking a out a GM who hasn't been with the org in a decade instead of the current GM who has been with the organization for 6 years?

Misdirection?

Because I feel people haven't given you enough material for your criticisms, complaints and drivebys.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That was more because Sutter thought he was soft. Reinprecht was a main piece in the trade involving Drury to the Avs and after seeing the player for a season couldn't get him out of town fast enough trading him for 3 games of Brian Boucher and 15 games of Mike LeClerc. He didn't have a lot of patience for players that didn't fit his mold of toughness.

Sutter's main criteria for assessing a player was whether he'd want him as a teammate on the 1983-84 Blackhawks during a line brawl. By the time he became GM, the game had already passed him by, let alone after post-lockout sea change in the NHL.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Well, that's fair if you just look up the drafting history and compare them side-by-side with no context. I think he did well given the lack of scouts and development system. I think he did well in trading picks away in light of this, and building a team that consistently made the playoffs with one amazing finals run.


Was his drafting a success? Absolutely not. What he did do, however, was set the groundwork by getting the ownership group on board with hiring additional staff and spending money on their development. Without him pushing for those, the rebuild would probably have taken a lot longer.



That's what I mean by his drafting ineptness being overblown - I just think as a first-time GM in a franchise devoid of an actual scouting department, he started essentially at ground zero in building it up. Which scout do you trust more over an another? How do you hire scouts that you do trust when you have never been a GM before and have no interaction with scouts since you have been a coach essentially since you retired from the game?



I think that - under the circumstances and with context - that Darryl Sutter did a better than expected job at drafting. He shouldn't be lauded for his drafting, but I do think that the context in which he worked under should be noted. Essentially, if not for him, Feaster would not have had the relative luxury of having a decent scouting team and 'letting them handle it'.


That's the way I see it. I would argue that he should have made bigger changes quicker, but I have no idea how tied his hands were with ownership's willingness to spend money in those areas, vs his own inexperience and ineptitude at the position. I just don't think he was as horrible as the drafting record indicates, as I do see improvement on it as the years went by for the most part, especially when given context. I will never say he was great at drafting, but he wasn't the buffoon that people state he was.

I don't think Sutter was buffoon at all. I think he's far smarter and more adaptable than people think. And I have no idea what tools he had when drafting. My sense is his hands weren't very tied, and that was his demand when he was elevated to GM.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sutter's main criteria for assessing a player was whether he'd want him as a teammate on the 1983-84 Blackhawks during a line brawl. By the time he became GM, the game had already passed him by, let alone after post-lockout sea change in the NHL.

Lydman wouldn't play through concussions symptoms in the playoffs, ergo, he's soft.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sutter's main criteria for assessing a player was whether he'd want him as a teammate on the 1983-84 Blackhawks during a line brawl. By the time he became GM, the game had already passed him by, let alone after post-lockout sea change in the NHL.

As a GM, the guy could do no wrong in 2004. The criteria you're using there is probably a pretty good template for building a team for a long playoff run pre-lockout. Throw in 1 Iginla and 1 Kiprusoff.

[saXon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I agree, Giordano is still far and away the best defender on the team and outside of Tkachuk, the best skater on the roster.

Tkachuk is a horrible skater. Have you ever watched him? He's sloppy. He gets to where he needs to be, and his game sense is off the charts. But his skating is probably the weakest part of his game, entirely.

Look at guys like Brodie, Crosby, and Pietrangelo for solid skating technique.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by saXon

Tkachuk is a horrible skater. Have you ever watched him? He's sloppy. He gets to where he needs to be, and his game sense is off the charts. But his skating is probably the weakest part of his game, entirely.

Look at guys like Brodie, Crosby, and Pietrangelo for solid skating technique.

I think the poster you quoted meant "skater" as in every player who isn't a goalie. The poster was saying Tkachuk is one of our best players, not the fastest skater. At least that's how I interpreted it.

But I believe Lindholm is being underrated by some as I think he's probably our best player overall this season. I think his role in the success of the Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm line last year was underrated. It looks more and more like he was the key cog on that line, not Gaudreau or Monahan. In the last year whichever line he's been on has been our best line. That's a sign of a great player who makes his teammates better.

Lindholm and Tkachuk are the two most important Flames moving forward imo. I think Valimaki could surprise some people next season.

[saXon]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think the poster you quoted meant "skater" as in every player who isn't a goalie. The poster was saying Tkachuk is one of our best players, not the fastest skater. At least that's how I interpreted it.

But I believe Lindholm is being underrated by some as I think he's probably our best player overall this season. I think his role in the success of the Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm line last year was underrated. It looks more and more like he was the key cog on that line, not Gaudreau or Monahan. In the last year whichever line he's been on has been our best line. That's a sign of a great player who makes his teammates better.

Lindholm and Tkachuk are the two most important Flames moving forward imo. I think Valimaki could surprise some people next season.

If we're going by that, then I's say Tkachuk is Calgary's most important player going forward, and their future. Even more than Gio. Sure he's the captain, and he's been a solid one at that, but his time here is limited. Matthew has the game face, and the finish every team craves. Lindholm is a close 2nd.

I don't feel the same with Johnny Gaudreau. Moreso with Monahan. It's always felt as if Johnny's had one foot out the door since his name became recognizable outside of Calgary.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Rando

Yeah, exactly. Feaster gave away a 2nd to dump Kotalik so he could chase Brad Richards. Robyn Regher should've been a career Flame. He had a bad year and everyone thought it was done. Initially the trade to Buffalo was blocked, the Sabres liked him so much the owner reached out to Robyn to convince him IIRC.

It wasn't to sign Richards, it was to re-sign Tanguay after he had a nice 69 points.
That's how the guys on 960 explained at least. During the 11-12 season the Flames were near the cap anyways.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by saXon

I don't feel the same with Johnny Gaudreau. Moreso with Monahan. It's always felt as if Johnny's had one foot out the door since his name became recognizable outside of Calgary.

That sounds like a projection of your own insecurities

[saXon]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

That sounds like a projection of your own insecurities

I don't believe I've ever seen a franchise cater to a whole family of a player such as his to get him to sign. Have you?

Projecting my projection. Nice.