[Barn Burner] Boomer: "You were wrong"

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Real examples please, PREMIUM assets traded for future assets.

The Hamilton Trade ended up being a good one, but it wasn't to "re-build" it was simply a hockey trade 2 for 2 (and a great one at that) though Fox screwing us over at the time of still stings.

I'm talking trades where we sold off a premium asset and acquired A+ prospects and picks in return.

.

I don’t know how you discount the Hamilton trade. The Flames traded the player who was clearly the best player in the deal, a pending UFA, and a rapidly developing prospect who wasn’t going to sign here for a 23 and 21 year old RFA who were both top 5 picks and had not fully developed. Rare that a team would trade 2 former top 5 picks before either is 24/25 years old. The Flames sold off a highly coveted 25 year old point producing, analytics darling, big, mobile Dman to get these 2 who hadn’t lived up to the hype of being top 5 picks. In Calgary Lindholm has been a top line player every year and number 1 center over the past couple years and Hanifin a reliable top pairing Dman who found some offensive upside last year.

[Royle9]

Again, my point is the flames have never rebuilt.
You claimed they have.

I never said they would win a cup, you claim they have to keep burning assets because that’s what teams have to do.

Unfortunately we’ve been doing that for years and still have no cups, so how do you propose they fix it? Just keep trying? That’s what mediocrity is.

I’m not even saying I want them to rebuild (they can’t)

Sellers this deadline, not buyers unless it’s hockey trades.

We need our picks and little quality prospects, that’s my takeaway.

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I don’t know how you discount the Hamilton trade.

I’m not lol, I literally said it was a great one.. you quoted it but took it out of context.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I was agreeing with you, you said now is not the time to sell.

I was referring to your point that the Flames are trying to win the cup this year. No need to be disingenuous.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I was referring to your point that the Flames are trying to win the cup this year. No need to be disingenuous.

When some of your top forwards are 32, 30, 33, 31, 28, 29 and some of your top 33 and 29 you better be hoping to win the Cup. If you are not you can’t realistically think that those players will be better as they get older.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by dobbles

Is there a single example here where a team was in rebuild mode? These are all just hockey trades. And I am sorry, but calling Martin 'never broke 60 points in a season' Erat a PreMiUm AssEt is just comical. You have dug in way too far man. Just let it go.

Is typing with random capital letters meant to make you sound smarter or perhaps make you more menacing & serious? Not sure the intent there but it's rather comical.

Posting fact apparently equates to "digging in too far"... lol got it.

Erat came off of a 58pt season and was a 50+ point forward since breaking into the league for 10 straight years... there's nothing wrong with that.
So yes, he was a premium asset on a very poor Nashville team at the time.
Nashville was awful that year, prior to the trade:
He was tied for 3rd in scoring on Nashville (21pts) behind Weber (28pts), Legwand (25pts)

Do me a favor, name me Calgary's premium assets as of today. Do you have to break 60 pts to be a premium asset? What's your definition?

[browntrout]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Again, my point is the flames have never rebuilt.
You claimed they have.

I never said they would win a cup, you claim they have to keep burning assets because that’s what teams have to do.

Unfortunately we’ve been doing that for years and still have no cups, so how do you propose they fix it? Just keep trying? That’s what mediocrity is.

I’m not even saying I want them to rebuild (they can’t)

Sellers this deadline, not buyers unless it’s hockey trades.

We need our picks and little quality prospects, that’s my takeaway.



I’m not lol, I literally said it was a great one.. you quoted it but took it out of context.

I get your frustrations, this ownership has never fully supported a rebuild...no high draft picks to speak off, crappy playoff record, laughing stock of the league when it comes to their arena. If we are out of the playoffs next year, this would be the time to sell all of their expiring contracts, they could get a boatload of 2nd and 1st round picks.

Take your licks for the next 5 years, restock the cupboards with blue chip prospects, maybe even announce an arena deal for heaven's sake. This would at least get fans excited for the future, right now this team is lacking star power, boring to watch and play in a dump, something needs to change, IMO

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Again, my point is the flames have never rebuilt.
You claimed they have.

I never said they would win a cup, you claim they have to keep burning assets because that’s what teams have to do.

Unfortunately we’ve been doing that for years and still have no cups, so how do you propose they fix it? Just keep trying? That’s what mediocrity is.

I’m not even saying I want them to rebuild (they can’t)

Sellers this deadline, not buyers unless it’s hockey trades.

We need our picks and little quality prospects, that’s my takeaway.



I’m not lol, I literally said it was a great one.. you quoted it but took it out of context.

The Hamilton trade is an example of trading premium assets for future bets which is an example of the type of deal you say the flames don’t make which is why I said you discount that deal as a hockey trade. Lindholm and Hanifin developed a ton in Calgary and are huge reasons they won the division twice in the 1 full seasons after the trade (no division winner in 20 and 21 was a throw away Covid year)

What is truly the definition of rebuilding properly? In my opinion it is turning over an old core that is too old or not good enough to compete and bringing in younger players to build again and compete.

The Flames picked higher in 13/14/16. They traded picks to get a top 10 pick from 11 and later turned him and other assets into top 5 picks from 13/15. When they tore it down by trading Iginla, Bouwmeester, Kipper (retire), Tanguay, Cammalleri (walk) they kept their new captain and top Dman in Gio, middle 6 center in Backlund and bidding top pairing D in Brodie. I think the Flames biggest misstep in their rebuilding process was dipping into the free agent pool too heavy and too frequently.

With Free agency it started out okay with 2-3 year deals for Hiller, Engellend, Raymond but they starting spending more and longer term shortly after with Frolik, Brouwer, Neal. Half of those players were bought out/dealt and the others worked out okay for the majority of their time here.

The trading of picks probably came too soon as well. While I am fine with a team trading known picks for young players like they did to get Hamilton (especially after coming off a second round playoff lead by 2 young players) it was the following trades that hurt the rebuild. Brian Elliott for the 34th pick in the draft, 1st (Dobson) and 2 2nds for Hamonic who was a brutal player not worth half the price. The 3rd for Stone propelled that team to the playoffs but the 3rd for 2 years of Smith and 2nd for Lazar were not ideal moves.

Maybe the Flames dipped into free agency too fast and spent picks on players too soon but they rebuilt with high picks in 3 years and had multiple picks in the first 2 rounds in 13,14,16 and would have in 15 if Hamilton wasn’t available. It just sucks they picked 6, 4, 6 and not 1, 1, 1 and had MacKinnon, Ekblad, Matthews to build around.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Again, my point is the flames have never rebuilt.
You claimed they have.

Right, because as I just pointed out, your definition of a rebuild is excessively narrow and completely ignore teams that successfully rebuild aka win a cup. If the point isn’t to win anything, why would we want to follow your definition of a rebuild? It would have no value.

Originally Posted by Royle9

I never said they would win a cup, you claim they have to keep burning assets because that’s what teams have to do.

You didn’t, but the point is to win a cup, no? Or just win an extra playoff series here and there? Isn’t that mediocre too? I haven’t said anything close to suggesting they need to keep burning assets, why make that up?

Originally Posted by Royle9

Unfortunately we’ve been doing that for years and still have no cups, so how do you propose they fix it? Just keep trying? That’s what mediocrity is.

Yeah, keep trying. That’s how teams win cups. Sometimes teams try until they have nothing left (results don’t come, guys age out, ask for trades, etc) and they rebuild (not your definition, the actual definition). If they get lucky when they’re bad, they get the pieces to become really good. But through it all, they’re always trying. That’s not mediocrity, that’s sports.

Originally Posted by Royle9

I’m not even saying I want them to rebuild (they can’t)

Sellers this deadline, not buyers unless it’s hockey trades.

We need our picks and little quality prospects, that’s my takeaway.

Cool, we agree.

Originally Posted by Royle9

I’m not lol, I literally said it was a great one.. you quoted it but took it out of context.

But you said it wasn’t to “rebuild,” so if teams that aren’t rebuilding make the kind of trades you want, and teams that are rebuilding don’t, then you narrow definition of a rebuild is probably flawed, right? And you discounted the Tkachuk trade because he wanted out, but that happens just as much as any other reason for trading a premium asset. You’ve made your desire so narrow that you’ve basically set yourself up to be miserable because you’ll never see it, and if you do, it’s because you’re watching a cash strapped team that will never win anything.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The Hamilton trade is an example of trading premium assets for future bets which is an example of the type of deal you say the flames don’t make which is why I said you discount that deal as a hockey trade.

Your post is great, its factual with evidence and I appreciate it.
I will address this point however as it relates to my original post.

This was a hockey trade, they traded away Dougie *arguably* the better player at the time, but I wouldn't call Lindholm or Hanifin future bets, they were both established players in the league and 1 and 2 years younger than Hamilton.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Your post is great, its factual with evidence and I appreciate it.
I will address this point however as it relates to my original post.

This was a hockey trade, they traded away Dougie *arguably* the better player at the time, but I wouldn't call Lindholm or Hanifin future bets, they were both established players in the league and 1 and 2 years younger than Hamilton.

Hamilton was the clear best player in the deal 4 straight years of 42-50pts and was 25. Ferland was 27.

Lindholm was 23 and had yet to crack 20 goals or 50 pts. Hanifin was 21 literally coming off his ELC. The flames included the prospect but were getting a forward 4 years younger than the one they traded and a Dman 4 years younger than the one they traded not 1-2 years. Hamilton was a legit top pairing Dman on any team and Lindholm and Hanifin were not legit top 6/top 4 players. The Flames got both for under $5M per on 6 year deals because they were betting on the future growth which they got from both players. Hamilton predictably went and signed a max term deal at $9M when his contract expired and Fox found his way to the NYR like everyone assumed at the time of the deal.

I feel like the Tkachuk trade was far more a hockey deal with 2 100+ point players dealt for each other. The Flames bet on 2 former 5th overall picks the Hurricanes refused to give long term deals to.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Your post is great, its factual with evidence and I appreciate it.
I will address this point however as it relates to my original post.

This was a hockey trade, they traded away Dougie *arguably* the better player at the time, but I wouldn't call Lindholm or Hanifin future bets, they were both established players in the league and 1 and 2 years younger than Hamilton.

Lindholm was 18 months and 2 draft classes younger
Hanifin was 3.5 years and 4 draft classes younger

More importantly, Hamilton only had 3 yrs remaining to UFA.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Is typing with random capital letters meant to make you sound smarter or perhaps make you more menacing & serious? Not sure the intent there but it's rather comical.

Posting fact apparently equates to "digging in too far"... lol got it.

Erat came off of a 58pt season and was a 50+ point forward since breaking into the league for 10 straight years... there's nothing wrong with that.
So yes, he was a premium asset on a very poor Nashville team at the time.
Nashville was awful that year, prior to the trade:
He was tied for 3rd in scoring on Nashville (21pts) behind Weber (28pts), Legwand (25pts)

Do me a favor, name me Calgary's premium assets as of today. Do you have to break 60 pts to be a premium asset? What's your definition?

The capital letters is to point out your absurd and ever changing standard of what a 'premium asset' is.

I'll be honest, I just have no idea what you are actually arguing at this point? Your goalposts seem to be all over the place. Are you arguing Calgary has never done a rebuild? Because most would say they went through a decent on post Iginla. But again, you get on some kick about saying they didn't trade away a premium asset like Martin Erat or Griffin Reinhart.

This whole side conversation about Erat and all the trades you listed is silly because you were asked for an example of trades that met your outlandishly high criteria for 'premium assets' as part of a full rebuild. Instead you provide a list of random regular hockey trades between teams at various levels of success. Pretty sure none of your examples were in a firesale rebuild.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

When some of your top forwards are 32, 30, 33, 31, 28, 29 and some of your top 33 and 29 you better be hoping to win the Cup. If you are not you can’t realistically think that those players will be better as they get older.

Sure. Things change over the course of a season. It’s a sport.

The Flames likely did enter the season with an intention to compete for the cup but, clearly, that’s not going to happen. Should they have foreseen Markstrom’s drop from a vezina finalist to below replacement level performance? What about Huberdeau?

This presumption that building a team is binary, compete or rebuilt, is dumb. Teams are fluid. Things change year to year. See Winnipeg Jets. See Dallas Stars. And on the other side of the coin, see Vegas Golden Knights.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by dobbles

The capital letters is to point out your absurd and ever changing standard of what a 'premium asset' is.

I'll be honest, I just have no idea what you are actually arguing at this point? Your goalposts seem to be all over the place. Are you arguing Calgary has never done a rebuild? Because most would say they went through a decent on post Iginla. But again, you get on some kick about saying they didn't trade away a premium asset like Martin Erat or Griffin Reinhart.

This whole side conversation about Erat and all the trades you listed is silly because you were asked for an example of trades that met your outlandishly high criteria for 'premium assets' as part of a full rebuild. Instead you provide a list of random regular hockey trades between teams at various levels of success. Pretty sure none of your examples were in a firesale rebuild.

Got it, so you don't have any idea what an asset is either then or are too scared to define it/provide an example lol.

You'll simply attempt to discredit an example by spouting random character letters wrapped around a players name claiming they were never worth anything when the analytics prove they were.
Keep on keeping on.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Sure. Things change over the course of a season. It’s a sport.

The Flames likely did enter the season with an intention to compete for the cup but, clearly, that’s not going to happen. Should they have foreseen Markstrom’s drop from a vezina finalist to below replacement level performance? What about Huberdeau?

This presumption that building a team is binary, compete or rebuilt, is dumb. Teams are fluid. Things change year to year. See Winnipeg Jets. See Dallas Stars. And on the other side of the coin, see Vegas Golden Knights.

Things are fluid for a team like the stars when you have the following players under the age of 25 - Robertson, Johnston, delandrea, heiskanen, Lundqvist, Oettinger.

Teams that do not have a second level of young prospects do not really change their trajectory (see Sharks).

I am not saying they should have foreseen it, I am saying it is now happening and they should adjust appropriately. Maybe putting too many guys on the block would saturate the market but trying to maximize the value of some of those would be the smart thing to do.

Maybe Lindholm is a guy you keep and you move Toffoli. I don’t know, but I am pretty sure that when all the Flames top 6 are 30 or older in two years will not be the time to make a run. They have assets that they could move to speed up a youth infusion in the lineup, that would be a good thing to do.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Got it, so you don't have any idea what an asset is either then or are too scared to define it/provide an example lol.

You'll simply attempt to discredit an example by spouting random character letters wrapped around a players name claiming they were never worth anything when the analytics prove they were.
Keep on keeping on.

Wow you are insufferable. Have a nice life.

[PeteMoss]

The idea the Flames didn't go full tank mode when they traded Iginla and Bouwmeester is crazy sauce. They had 3 first round picks.

They just tanked two of them. That's basically exactly what going scored earth is. You trade for 1st round picks - but the only teams trading first round picks are good teams. So you end up with late 1st rounders which are more of a crapshoot.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The idea the Flames didn't go full tank mode when they traded Iginla and Bouwmeester is crazy sauce. They had 3 first round picks.

They just tanked two of them. That's basically exactly what going scored earth is. You trade for 1st round picks - but the only teams trading first round picks are good teams. So you end up with late 1st rounders which are more of a crapshoot.

Sorry, Iginla and Bouwmeester weren’t PREMIUM ASSETS traded exclusively for PICKS AND PROSPECTS one poster particularly likes, so it couldn’t have possibly been a rebuild. It’s not like they “rebuilt” the team or anything. That would be insane!

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The idea the Flames didn't go full tank mode when they traded Iginla and Bouwmeester is crazy sauce. They had 3 first round picks.

They just tanked two of them. That's basically exactly what going scored earth is. You trade for 1st round picks - but the only teams trading first round picks are good teams. So you end up with late 1st rounders which are more of a crapshoot.

I would say full tank mode goes beyond trading a couple pending UFA's while their stock was at their lowest. "Mode" implies years of sucking. That being said the picking 6th, 4th and 6th in three times in four years (2013-2016) is as good as any tanking team can could've hoped for, so the results were the same.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The idea the Flames didn't go full tank mode when they traded Iginla and Bouwmeester is crazy sauce. They had 3 first round picks.

They just tanked two of them. That's basically exactly what going scored earth is. You trade for 1st round picks - but the only teams trading first round picks are good teams. So you end up with late 1st rounders which are more of a crapshoot.

I’ll nitpick here because I’ve seen the 2013 draft referenced a couple times now. I object to the notion that the Flames blew it that day. Monahan was a tremendous pick at 6. His body broke down. Not the Flames fault. Poirier wasn’t a bad pick either. He had off the ice issues that derailed his career. IIRC he had two very good post draft seasons and was on track to be a contributor, at least, at the NHL level. Labeling that pick a bust misses the mark. Klimchuck you might want to have back but that’s what you get most of the time when you’re picking 28th.

If the Flames are going to trade Toffoli, Lindholm,Tanev, Hanafin, Backlund or whoever else has a year and a half left, that’s about the range you can expect. Late 20’s for a guy who might help 3-5 years down the road.