Friedman: Flames have begun extension talks with Gaudreau & Eichel speculation

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Okay Charlie, tell me more about your 'nam days

I see you have no answer but a weak attempt at flippancy. I shall take it you concede the point.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I see you have no answer but a weak attempt at flippancy. I shall take it you concede the point.

Man, you are just the worst.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Man, you are just the worst.

Ran out of flippancy, did you? Insults don't make you right either.

[gilligans_off]

Now children, please.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Major Major

As game as I am for Eichel, this is just too much. Two players out of our top six for one improvement is a mistake because it means that we downgrade the other spot.

He's a 3-4 solid piece acquisition. When we include a young controlled asset playing and producing in a top 6 role, that is a huge piece and should only require 2 more A level pieces such as a first and Zary or Coronado. A kicker could be a second rounder, but beyond that, I think you are massively out bidding what the market is and have deflated your team.

You’re right, and while I don’t want to re-state why I believe Eichel is worth overpaying for, my point was more that even by overpaying, we don’t set ourselves that far back. Certainly not far enough back to turn us into some lottery team, as some predict.

All the evidence points to it being far easier to acquire a decent top-6 winger than the player in the highlight pack nobody wants to watch.

Imagine saying this sentence in three years, or for the next 30 “We could’ve got Jack Eichel, but we didn’t want to lose Andrew Mangiapane.”

I don’t care how well Bread has developed, or how good season he had.

Repeat the exercise for the player or prospect of your choosing - it doesn’t become less silly.

“We could’ve got a 26 year old Joe Thornton under contract for five more years, but we didn’t want to trade Dion Phaneuf.”

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The worst case scenario is losing the franchise because corporate buyers stop buyng tickets to a guaranteed loser. Mediocrity is a long way above that.

An example of that occurring, without that company in financial trouble, please.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's not the point. The point is that mediocre isn't the worst thing.

You want a current example of worse than mediocre? Look at Buffalo, for crying out loud. Ten straight years of no playoffs, and they have to sell off their 24-year-old franchise player and start yet another rebuild. That's how bad things can get with the salary cap.

You can’t live life in fear of the worst possible outcome. If you want to get ahead you have to take some chances.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

You can’t live life in fear of the worst possible outcome. If you want to get ahead you have to take some chances.

That’s right folks, so get vaccinated!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

You can’t live life in fear of the worst possible outcome. If you want to get ahead you have to take some chances.

If the Flames trade the kind of price people are suggesting for Eichel, and Eichel is unable to play, a perpetual bottom-feeder with no chance of rebuilding for years to come is the best possible outcome.

I'm not opposed to trading for Eichel – but I am absolutely opposed to overpaying. The Sabres want to get rid of his medical risk, let them pay a price to lay off that risk.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

An example of that occurring, without that company in financial trouble, please.

I don't have a list of the Flames' season-ticket holders from the late 1990s. But they didn't bottom out in the neighbourhood of 12,000 without losing corporate buyers, I can assure you.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I don't have a list of the Flames' season-ticket holders from the late 1990s. But they didn't bottom out in the neighbourhood of 12,000 without losing corporate buyers, I can assure you.

The lowest they got in the last rebuild was 18,501 per game. And that wasn’t even at the point where they bottomed out. During those years they were selling out. People will support a rebuild, even casual and corporate fans.

They’ll never hit the lows of the mid 90s, because the population of the city has doubled since then.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The worst case scenario is losing the franchise because corporate buyers stop buyng tickets to a guaranteed loser. Mediocrity is a long way above that.

There’s just no precedent for this, at least since the beginning of the salary cap era. We’ve seen Canadian markets withstand a rebuild before and it’ll happen again.

Standing pat for fear of this is just such a defeatist attitude.

[blender]

I wish I wasn't reading "mediocrity" in every third post here.

Its become a trope and has lost all meaning. Paper bagger even had the meme with the bar 6" off the floor. As if that has literally anything to do with hockey or the Flames.

F me.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I don't have a list of the Flames' season-ticket holders from the late 1990s. But they didn't bottom out in the neighbourhood of 12,000 without losing corporate buyers, I can assure you.

No, you really can't. But do keep hurling unsubstantiated statements as fact tho.

[djsFlames]

M e d i o c r i t y

Don't know what it means to CP.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

There’s just no precedent for this, at least since the beginning of the salary cap era. We’ve seen Canadian markets withstand a rebuild before and it’ll happen again.

Standing pat for fear of this is just such a defeatist attitude.

A defeatist attitude is building a losing team on purpose, because you wanna build something “special”. I’m not wired to lose on purpose. I’d rather a team try it’s best every season.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

A defeatist attitude is building a losing team on purpose, because you wanna build something “special”. I’m not wired to lose on purpose. I’d rather a team try it’s best every season.

Every GM is building a team with the expectation of winning. It just may not be for this season. If you don't have the roster, spending futures to win now doesn't make sense. Giving up assets for futures does. It isn't about trying to lose.

That said, in the context of the Flames, I agree we are not in rebuild territory. Our top players are in their prime and we are a year removed from the playoffs (2 from a conference title). No ownership in any sport is going to support a rebuild with a team where the Flames are. Shaking up the core? Sure. Flushing and starting with a fresh bowl? No chance.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Every GM is building a team with the expectation of winning. It just may not be for this season. If you don't have the roster, spending futures to win now doesn't make sense. Giving up assets for futures does. It isn't about trying to lose.

That said, in the context of the Flames, I agree we are not in rebuild territory. Our top players are in their prime and we are a year removed from the playoffs (2 from a conference title). No ownership in any sport is going to support a rebuild with a team where the Flames are. Shaking up the core? Sure. Flushing and starting with a fresh bowl? No chance.

OTT launched a rebuild 15 months after going to the ECF, and there best players were like 28 and 25

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by blender

I wish I wasn't reading "mediocrity" in every third post here.

Its become a trope and has lost all meaning. Paper bagger even had the meme with the bar 6" off the floor. As if that has literally anything to do with hockey or the Flames.

F me.

Mediocrity is the biggest problem and truest way of describing the Flames.
The Flames deserve to be called mediocre.

It's not just you who is tired of the word. Everyone is. But there's no better way of describing the Flames.

[Nelson]

(A) We’re talking about hockey, a game we watch for entertainment. Is it worth being angry and insulting others over something we consume for entertainment?

(B) The Flames have one playoff series win since the 04/05 lockout. Since the salary cap came in, they’ve made the playoffs a number of times but have never had sustained playoff success. In this position, let’s take the boom or bust risk! There’s not that much to lose. An Eichel bust would mean a rebuild arriving sooner, and this rebuild would have a better chance if the Flames are a perpetual bottom-feeder. An Eichel boom, him coming back at 100% at or close to the start of the season because of a successful artificial disk replacement operation, would mean the Flames having an elite centre. That could raise the Flames’ prospects considerably. And I personally consider the Eichel boom scenario more likely because Eichel’s rich. Health care is different in the USA between the rich and the non-rich. Also, recovery is better amongst people in excellent physical condition. But it doesn’t really matter. I will be happy as a fan even if they go down swinging for the fences. I just want to see my team try something drastic to change its fortunes.

(3) Also, Al Arbour: “It’s not complicated. Get good players."