[Signing] Flames re-sign Michael Stone (1 yr, $750k)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I’m good with Mackey needing to earn his spot, that is not my question. If he hasn’t earned his spot yet, why give him a one way contract? I know there’s no salary cap in the AHL, it just reeks of poor management. That’s about a half a million dollars that could go into something like pro scouting which it seems this team could really use.

Signing a guy you have ear marked for the A to a one year deal, overpaying for Gudbranson. I just get tired of the head scratching decisions, even if some can pawn them off as no big deal.

Once upon a time I thought we were getting a moneyball GM who would be steps ahead of his peers. Instead this team still seems to operate in the prehistoric era.

Poor management?

Really?

I think if you think he is an NHL player and will play a role you are probably happy to have that second year locked up and not have to give him a raise a year earlier.

It's just management. Plain and simple. They made a call which they have to do on pretty much every player's contract progression. You don't have to agree with it for sure but contracts like Mackey and Dube to a degree are progression calls.

If you get it wrong and a player plateaus it's a mistake (Andersson to some degree), if you get them right you have a year or more of breathing room before you have to boost a player.

But poor management? It's just management.

[The Familia]

Woof. That free agent list above is downright pathetic, it’s enough to fire the guy no question. This is going to be a tire fire of a season, can’t wait to watch….

[Bingo]

Coleman
Gudbrandson

2020

Markstrom
Tanev
Leivo

2019

Talbot

2018

Neal
Ryan

You should do the other 30 teams!

You'll probably see a pattern. Lots of depth pieces added on one year deals to pretty much every franchise. Most teams turn over by a bout 35% every summer.

I deleted your list down to signings that actually matter.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Bull. In a capped league, winning the Cup is largely a matter of luck. The best roster in the league won't get you there unless they get hot at the right time, because there is so little separation between the top teams. And if you get hot enough, you don't even need to have one of the top teams to contend in the playoffs.

Is Bergevin suddenly the second-best GM in the league because his losing team rode a tailwind of magic fairy farts all the way to the Finals?

Only fans would be stupid enough to use that as a metric to judge management. Unfortunately, a lot of owners and a lot of media people also think like fans, which is a big part of why sports management in general is such a dysfunctional field.

If playoff success is a matter of luck, wouldnt the flames have had a high likelihood of bumbling into any winning post seasons? That argument doesn't seem likely, with 1 playoff series win since '04.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Nobody is going to think Bergevin is the 2nd best GM in the league. Nobody.


Take any 10 year segment, and you will see at least one surprise down year or one surprise year where the team exceeded expectations, for every single team in the NHL (well, except down years for the Oilers - those are meeting expectations, no?).


What separates pretenders like Montreal is consistency. How often has team X made the playoffs in those 10 years? How many times have they made it out of the first round? 2nd round? Etc.


Nobody - and absolutely nobody - is going to say that the San Jose sharks for about 10 years weren't a top team in the NHL and were exceptionally managed for those years, even though they never won a cup. Tampa has been a consistenly well-managed squad now for a while, having some deep lows, but how many times have they made a finals?


Do you need luck? Absolutely you do - you need the luck of not having a serious injury to one of your best players (or a plethora of them like the Flames have had in '04 Finals and the 09' playoffs). You need to avoid the bad luck of a phantom goal that never gets called. For sure luck plays a lot into actually winning a cup.


But a good GM will mitigate that luck. Build the best team possible, and you give yourself the best chance to win, period.



There are circumstances in Calgary that will provide reasonable excuses and legitimate explanations as to why Calgary hasn't had the success that it seemed like it was poised to have going back to the 2015 season.



For me, I just look at cycles and where a team is in their respective cycle. Had Treliving come in at the 2010 season when this team was showing signs of being relatively over the hill (though I think that should have been a playoff team if not for the coaching, but they were getting long in the tooth), then you can combine 3 years of 'trying to win with an older team out of pressure' with '3 years of rebuilding' to starting to compete. A lack of success would be a reasonable outcome.


Treliving took this team over when most of the initial rebuilding work was done (big names traded, some good young talent in the pipeline, a really good drafting and development program was reaping some seriously tasty fruits), and with some small tweaks, this was a 2nd round playoff team. Since then, this team has managed to get 3 single playoff team wins, and that's the sticking point for me. 3 measly game wins, and a 'get in one year, miss the next' playoff appearance routine.



Yes, there are excuses and actual reasons for this, but at the end of the day, it comes down to results. I loved Sutter as a GM for the most part, and he had WAY more success here. He also had the goodwill of coming in and completely changing this team around and making it relevant. He was unceremoniously dumped for a lack of success. I don't see why Treliving is a GM you die on a hill for.


However, he didn't get canned, and I do like the general direction that this team is on at the moment in getting back to being a big, bad team to play against that has a lot of skill. Nobody is going to confuse this team with the '89 squad, but they were both teams that were fairly quick, and could beat you in any game that you wanted whether it was a skilled game or a grinding physical game, and they weren't afraid of anyone.


There is a direction here. I think Treliving is lucky to be employed at the moment, but that's ok to me right now. There are much worse options anyway, and I am sure he will really be feeling the heat this season. I don't think he deserved another season, but he has it. And with that being said, I peg the Flames to finish first in the Pacific this year.


Oilers don't have a goalie (Smith had one of his best seasons statistically at his elderly age, and I bet he takes a step down), and the defence got worse. I like Lehner as a goalie, but.. is he REALLY a #1? I don't know - about half his seasons he looks like an all-star and Vezina candidate, and then he looks almost replacement level in the others. I have the Flames finishing 1st this year, Vegas 2nd, and Edmonton as a bubble team (wheels are going to fall off that cart).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

We've had no success whatsoever in the past 15 years, maybe longer, so it must just be a total crapshoot...you in some kind of serious denial here????

Nothing any GM can do guarantees playoff success. Nothing. If you think otherwise, you're the one in denial.

Nobody is saying that the Flames have done well, or that building a good team is not a matter of skill. But good teams frequently get beaten by worse ones in the playoffs. The Lightning won two consecutive Cups with the same core that got swept in the first round.

It's like some of you have never heard of sample size.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

If playoff success is a matter of luck, wouldnt the flames have had a high likelihood of bumbling into any winning post seasons? That argument doesn't seem likely, with 1 playoff series win since '04.

First you have to make the playoffs. The Flames weren't even trying for a number of those years. The one year they did win a playoff series, they had no business even being in the playoffs… which shows that they did in fact bumble their way into the little success they had.

[DeluxeMoustache]

This is just bizarre

No business being in the playoffs? Winning enough games to get in the playoffs gives a team the business to be in the playoffs. That team played well

On the Bergevin front, a more detailed review would show that he has made several shrewd moves as GM in many ways. The trades involving Pacioretty (Tatar and Suzuki), Subban for Weber (huge culture change, from an idiot who fights his own teammates in practice for a true leader), Petry, Danault, and the one with Domi for Anderson over the years have turned out pretty well. Even picking up Vanek when they went on that run turned out well

Of course nothing a GM does “guarantees” success. But Montreal has its own challenges as well, Bergevin has been active, and his transactions have been influential

It is frankly a stupid position to not give a GM credit for actual team success

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

First you have to make the playoffs. The Flames weren't even trying for a number of those years. The one year they did win a playoff series, they had no business even being in the playoffs… which shows that they did in fact bumble their way into the little success they had.

Tbf they also bumble'd their way to most of the failure they had. Flames played their worst hockey in the last couple playoffs, even Gio looked bad in the playoffs. I just hope this team starts playing above expectations even if they are a low seed, even moderate playoff success could change some moods around here.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

This is just bizarre

No business being in the playoffs? Winning enough games to get in the playoffs gives a team the business to be in the playoffs. That team played well

That team won half their games by coming from behind, which is unheard of and not repeatable. At that, they just barely made the playoffs in a weak division and only won a round because they faced a weak opponent.

On the Bergevin front, a more detailed review would show that he has made several shrewd moves as GM in many ways.

Before his team backed into the playoffs last year, many people were calling for him to be fired for incompetence.

It is frankly a stupid position to not give a GM credit for actual team success

It is frankly a stupid position to give a GM credit for his team's luck. You might as well give the job to a rabbit's foot.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

First you have to make the playoffs. The Flames weren't even trying for a number of those years. The one year they did win a playoff series, they had no business even being in the playoffs… which shows that they did in fact bumble their way into the little success they had.

So a good GM can bring you to the playoffs but it takes luck to have playoff success?

I'm confused as to what your point is. You're saying words but they aren't forming a consistent argument

[DeluxeMoustache]

Yep. Bizarre. If you want to place the goalposts at a point of absurdity and yell at clouds, carry on

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

So a good GM can bring you to the playoffs but it takes luck to have playoff success?

Bingo.

It takes a well-built team to have consistent success over 82 games. But any team can lose four out of seven. And because of the different way the rules are enforced, quite a lot of teams go straight from one to the other.

If you build a team to win playoff hockey, at best you'll get the L.A. Kings of a few years ago: very good when they got in, but never a top seed and liable to miss altogether. Their regular seasons were nothing to write home about.

If you build a team to win in the regular season, you might get the Leafs or the Sharks and have plenty of regular-season success but do nothing in the playoffs.

Pick your poison. There is no reliable way, in a capped league, to build a team that is likely to excel in both versions of the game. And there is no way at all to build a team that can reliably overcome the turns of luck inherent in a seven-game series. As I pointed out, even the Lightning got swept in the first round.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Poor management?

Really?

I think if you think he is an NHL player and will play a role you are probably happy to have that second year locked up and not have to give him a raise a year earlier.

It's just management. Plain and simple. They made a call which they have to do on pretty much every player's contract progression. You don't have to agree with it for sure but contracts like Mackey and Dube to a degree are progression calls.

If you get it wrong and a player plateaus it's a mistake (Andersson to some degree), if you get them right you have a year or more of breathing room before you have to boost a player.

But poor management? It's just management.

Yes really. There's good managing of your resources, and poor managing of your resources in any business and I'm sure you'd agree.

I guess you're saying the only way to get Mackey signed for two years was to give him one way for both years. The player had no leverage and he is 8th on the depth chart.

Maybe he's honoring a promise made when they signed him initially. Only thing that makes sense.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Bingo.

It takes a well-built team to have consistent success over 82 games. But any team can lose four out of seven. And because of the different way the rules are enforced, quite a lot of teams go straight from one to the other.

If you build a team to win playoff hockey, at best you'll get the L.A. Kings of a few years ago: very good when they got in, but never a top seed and liable to miss altogether. Their regular seasons were nothing to write home about.

If you build a team to win in the regular season, you might get the Leafs or the Sharks and have plenty of regular-season success but do nothing in the playoffs.

Pick your poison. There is no reliable way, in a capped league, to build a team that is likely to excel in both versions of the game. And there is no way at all to build a team that can reliably overcome the turns of luck inherent in a seven-game series. As I pointed out, even the Lightning got swept in the first round.

I mean, you could look at the Islanders as of late. Your view is stupid

[getbak]

Johnny's reaction to the signing...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1436737739047636997

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I mean, you could look at the Islanders as of late. Your view is stupid

What about the Islanders? A single example doesn't invalidate a general rule, especially when you can't even be arsed to say what it is an example of.

Look, here is my argument:

1. The variation within each hockey game attributable to luck is greater than that attributable to skill. Even the best teams lose about a quarter of their games, sometimes by lopsided scores. Even the worst teams win about a quarter of theirs.

2. Luck tends to even out in the long run. An 82-game sample size is enough for the quality of the team to show much more strongly than the luck within any single game.

3. Seven games is not a long run. A 4- to 7-game sample is not enough for the quality of the team to outweigh the factor of chance. The worst team in the playoffs will sometimes beat the best team in the playoffs in a seven-game series.

In baseball, which has been analysed a lot more than hockey, I am assured by statisticians that the worst team in MLB – not just the worst playoff team – will win three out of five against the best team about 15 percent of the time. Hockey is a lower-scoring game, so the effect of a single lucky goal is correspondingly larger. A quick bit of Google-fu tells me that if Team A has a 70 percent chance of beating Team B in any one game – an unlikely spread between two playoff teams, as only the very best teams win 70 percent of their games in a full schedule, including games against bottom-feeders – there is still about a 13 percent chance that Team B will win four out of seven.

4. If you want to judge the GM's performance, and not simply the luck of the team, you need to base your judgement on the larger sample size.

We've seen extreme examples of luck in both directions in just the last three years. I repeat: The Tampa Bay Lightning, the best-managed and best-constructed team in the league, were swept in the first round with the same core that went on to win two straight championships. The Montreal Canadiens, with questionable management and a weak roster, after a season in which they lost more games than they won, hit a lucky streak and made it to the Stanley Cup finals.

If you were to judge the GM by playoff results, you'd have wanted to fire Julien BriseBois after his first year on the job and gut the team that won the President's Trophy. Fortunately for the Lightning, their owners are not that foolish. You'd also think the Canadiens were run by geniuses, which, I am sad to say, DeluxeMoustache actually appears to believe.

I am not defending Brad Treliving here. I believe he has used up all his rope and should probably have been fired by now, based on his teams' performance in the regular season. I put no stock in the fact that the Flames fluked into a second-round appearance once, nor that they bombed out against Colorado in a series they were widely predicted to win. Those things happen all the time in a best-of-seven playoff format.

Now explain to me which of the above points is stupid.

[dino7c]

so about Michael Stone

guy always looks great out there to me...heck put him on the PP and let him unleash the bombs. I don't know what happened but last year he was skating better than he ever has.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yes really. There's good managing of your resources, and poor managing of your resources in any business and I'm sure you'd agree.

I guess you're saying the only way to get Mackey signed for two years was to give him one way for both years. The player had no leverage and he is 8th on the depth chart.

Maybe he's honoring a promise made when they signed him initially. Only thing that makes sense.

No I'm saying if you think year two will be $2.4M because of success you envision in year one, you do the two year deal at closer to league minimum and not worry about the one way.

If you think he's an AHL player you don't do that.

[Stanley]

Originally Posted by dino7c

so about Michael Stone

guy always looks great out there to me...heck put him on the PP and let him unleash the bombs. I don't know what happened but last year he was skating better than he ever has.

Agreed. I think playing him too much you would likely see that regression but let him get those bombs off from the point!