Franchise Ranking (Treliving Era)

[dino7c]

Lol should I get a recent lottery winner to handle my finances because they made more money this year

[Flamesfan05]

How many of teams below the Flames still have a GM that has been around longer than Treliving?

[Barnet Flame]

I'm surprised to learn we're right in the heart of mediocre.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

How many of teams below the Flames still have a GM that has been around longer than Treliving?

Columbus. Funny, a certain portion of the posters here love them some Jarmo though. They love his "big moves".

Edit:

also there were quite a few moves just last off season, so some of the GMs of those teams might have been longer tenured. Eg Benning.

[SuperMatt18]

Unless you have a GM that is doing an absolutely terrible job then I think it's actually a mistake to change them - I feel like changing GMs too frequently is actually much worse than potentially hanging on to them too long.

[Poe969]

I'd give more points to historically bad seasons as they lead to high draft picks. Somehow, I would like to see this done for trades as well, then for prospect pools. Treliving has made some great trades and some not so great trades but overall I'd put him middle of the pack in that too.

Overall, this is a slightly below average franchise. They've tried going for it almost every year it seems, they should have tried rebuilding at some point but never really did, they rushed.

For better or worse, this is the team they have and they'll be stuck with it for a while. Now all they can do is hope it all just comes together and the vets make it work.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Unless you have a GM that is doing an absolutely terrible job then I think it's actually a mistake to change them - I feel like changing GMs too frequently is actually much worse than potentially hanging on to them too long.

Interestingly, if you took the guy with the most longevity, who manages a team currently well up in those rankings, namely Poile, and took, say, years 4-12 of his tenure (because they were an expansion team we won't count 1-4), I bet the Preds ranking would look like the Flames or worse. I bet Armstrong looks similar for his first 8 years with the Blues.

[CSharp]

Yes, a mediocre team with the middle of the pack results. Nothing new here really. There are some outstanding seasons where they're up on top of the standings but nothing to show for once playoff starts. Worst position to be in is the franchise continues to be smack dab in the middle.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Yes, a mediocre team with the middle of the pack results. Nothing new here really. There are some outstanding seasons where they're up on top of the standings but nothing to show for once playoff starts. Worst position to be in is the franchise continues to be smack dab in the middle.

Not sure I agree.

Some of the teams on this list have sucked every year in the regular season and still not managed to rebuild in any way or fashion.

That's the worst, and whole point of the exercise.

Four teams have had a total of 5 historically bad seasons in this range.

Buffalo 2
Arizona 1
Colorado 1
Detroit 1

Not sure the Coyotes or Sabres fan thinks the middle is the worst position.

Avalanche fan is happy they maxed out a face plant.

[Flaming Horse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Right ... but you walk out the "I hate Treliving" angle every chance you get.

You're predisposed.

I think it's deeper than that.

Is every GM's job the same? Same budget? Same cap space? Same ability to draw free agents? Same coaching pool?

Honestly who was expecting anything beyond middling?

I think some comments of late would have have you thinking 30th spot would be the result.

I expected a more intelligent response than that. Of course every GMs job is not the same. This is why I have said in some of my posts that the owners and the philosophy they have are also to blame. I sure was expecting more than middling and most fans should also.That is part of the issue in this market that middling is OK. Middling is not OK. I am sure when Tre took over the owners didn't say well even if we are middle of the pack that is okay. When Sutter took over you knew mediocrity would not be accepted.I expect more from a team I cheer for. The fan base has been deprived of a successful team for too long.We certainly deserve better.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flaming Horse

I expected a more intelligent response than that. Of course every GMs job is not the same.This is why I have said in some of my posts that the owners and the philosophy they have are also to blame. I sure was expecting more than middling and most fans should also.That is part of the issue in this market that middling is OK. Middling is not OK. I am sure when Tre took over the owners didn't say well even if we are middle of the pack that is okay. When Sutter took over you knew mediocrity would not be accepted.I expect more from a team I cheer for. The fan base has been deprived of a successful team for too long.We certainly deserve better.

Where did my response lack intelligence?

[Flaming Horse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Where did my response lack intelligence?

The fact that you accept mediocrity is pretty underwhelming.

[Hot_Flatus]

The big question now is whether or not there is a path to improvement from where the team has operated during this era. Given the state of the teams salary structure, and likelihood of it continuing to draft in the same middling area, it would be hard to expect vastly different results than what we've seen.

It likely all hinges on players like Weegar, Markstrom, Mangiapane and Huberdeau getting back to levels they have previously been at and someone like Pelletier/Coronato vastly exceeding expectations.

I don't see a lot of outside help coming via trade or signings.

[Flaming Horse]

I would have thought that you would have wanted more from a team that you cheer for.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Flaming Horse

I would have thought that you would have wanted more from a team that you cheer for.

Is it realistic though? Wanting more is a given, but it has been pretty clear what this franchise is - middle to back of the pack, with the occasional high end season sprinkled in for the better part of the last 20-25 years. Coaching, players and management haven't changed a thing to be honest. The only constant is ownership.

For me, the directive when Treliving came onboard seemed to be aimed at building a perennial contender (that was what I recall the talking points being anyway). There hasn't really been any point in time under Treliving where this team has been able to call itself a contender in a perennial fashion (which to me would be 3-4-5 consecutive years of challenging for a division title or winning a playoff round etc.

As fans, we've had 2-3 exciting years under Trevliving, but beyond that it always seems to revert to something similar to what we are seeing now. I still hold out hope this season could end differently, but it does seem foolish given the track record.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flaming Horse

The fact that you accept mediocrity is pretty underwhelming.

So it's not a lack of intelligence then?

Maybe it's a zen thing ... maybe I'm more in touch with my emotions and don't get crazy worked up over a sports team.

Either way ... why don't you worry about you? Not sure what I accept is really your business.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flaming Horse

I would have thought that you would have wanted more from a team that you cheer for.

I want more.

I hope for the best.

But I realize it's a pretty tough 32 team league with a lot of random chance and market conditions that make things challenging.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Flaming Horse

I would have thought that you would have wanted more from a team that you cheer for.

Bingo can answer for himself, but I'm assuming his comment 'who was expecting anything beyond middling' meant


knowing what we all know about how the Flames have done since Treliving took over, who is surprised their stats have them in the middle (as opposed to the bottom)


not


and I'm damn glad they are in the middle and wouldn't hope for anything more

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm just saying because those seem to be anomonlies maybe their team wasn't as well built as they were flash in the pan. See 2004 Flames.

I don't think I care how or why you win a cup, just that you do LOL.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Lol should I get a recent lottery winner to handle my finances because they made more money this year

So you think that winning the Stanley Cup can be based absolutely on 100% luck....