Ownership and Management Perspective

[Hackey]

The unfortunate thing is they chose to go all in when really they had no business doing that. Now, we're in a position that was really easy to predict. The team has likely topped out and will slowly regress. Since they have enough talent to be alright, they won't get high picks, and they'll also never be a true contender. Our guys get older, our assets lose value, guys leave, etc. So we pushed the rebuild way down the road, get no true success, and will start the rebuild with very few assets, making it much longer and it's chance at being successful much less. They should have been proactive. but once again their decisions seems to always be for the short term.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by curves2000

If I am ownership, I have to ask some very very hard questions and I want NEW answers. I find Tre to talk a lot and say a lot of corporate speak, general chat about compete, opportunities, doing the work, following the process etc. He is a salesman through and through. He's the guy who will tell you how great something is, the best of the best, the Rolls Royce of whatever but you may also need to buy the extended warranty to protect risk cause the thing will probably break down.

How do you explain to your owner that your 2017 first round pick (Valamaki) is chosen to be traded and you kept Mackay instead. I understand at the time there was a cap consideration for the higher AAV but realistically, management and coaching didn't really play him. He may have been a cheaper option but than didn't really contribute. He was than traded for what is without a doubt a more NHL caliber D in Stretcher, but at a higher cost contract, nullifying some of those savings.

Why risk mitigation measures were put into place for Johnny ?? Why did Tre wait until the very last second to hear back a polite no, I won't be back? Could that have been handled better for the overall health of the organization?

What was the line of thinking about offering such large contracts to players who hadn't skated on the Dome ice before with our new lads from Florida? Was it a PR move to indicate we have players who want to be here? Did we need to strike while we had an advantage in case the players went red hot and the cost went up?

There are lot's of examples and more so. It's almost like we need an evaluation of a lot of the work and how it adds up to success or lack of it. Lot's of people have been in this organization a long long time and sometimes dogma set's in. Sometimes you think your doing something the best way but other's are pressing the accelerator even further.

There are decisions, policies, practices and more that separate the top performing teams in the last 10 years vs teams like Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver etc.

A recent article on how the new management team is modernizing the Habs was interesting to me. Some of the most basic things like having a skills coach for the organization was missed by management. Why??

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...r-jeff-gorton/

Lot's to answer for these days

I think the answer to many of your questions lay at the feet of the owners. I strongly suspect they set the course and mandate for management and ever since the cap, regardless of who the GM has been. The direction has been consistent. Make the playoffs. Aside from Seattle and Vegas this is the only team of the remaining 30 that has never drafted in the top 3. I could be wrong but I believe it was only the Flames and the Rangers who could say this up until a few years ago. I don’t think what we are seeing is Treliving putting on his salesman’s hat and duping the owners. It’s probably the opposite. I wouldn’t be surprised if Treliving has put the rebuild or retool option in front of the owners before. He certainly would have when they were weighing offers for Tkachuk. That’s a franchise altering trade and I would have to think the owners were made aware of the options and likely had ultimate say in the overall direction. In this case, stay competitive.

As for Valimaki, it has been discussed, even yesterday by Loubardious, that Valimaki wasn’t going to be able to play under Sutter. His words were that Valimaki is a sensitive kid, and the environment Sutter creates was not going to be one Bslimaki was going to succeed in. I can’t help but think Valimaki’s confidence and development took a major hit with his injuries. Sutter is trying to win now and probably didn’t have the time or inclination to coddle him. Harsh but in this case I think letting Valimaki go was best for him and the Flames. Hope he does well.

[TheSquatch]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I strongly suspect they set the course and mandate for management and ever since the cap, regardless of who the GM has been. The direction has been consistent.

This is the strategic error that has been in place since... forever. When Feaster took over from Sutter (who was all-in, every year, as a GM) his first press conference was all about the mandate of "make the playoffs". He had authority within that mandate. Ken King was also transparent about this numerous times. So I think it's safe to assume that Treliving is working under the same conditions.

The good: they spend to the cap, and the GM is free to add and subtract as he pleases, so long as the team is in the playoffs. They've put money on the table for good players.

The bad: no team can always and forever be competitive. It's impossible. Never in the history of any pro sport has a team been forever a contender.

The result: because of reasons manifold the team has overpaid for good players, overpaid for bad players, and will continue to have to do so - it's not a destination team for elite players, really. No one is going to come here to have the "opportunity" to play with Coleman.

So the team is mediocre because it has mediocre talent, not for lack of trying, but for OVER trying EVERY year. "THIS IS OUR YEAR"

This is life as a Flames fan. Some years better than others, this year not good for all the reasons everyone has posted, from goaltending to scoring to coaching. Hopefully next year is better.

But there's no game-breaking superstar talent on the team. Huberdeau and Markstrom are the closest, and so far, neither is reliable. Maybe that will change.

Flames are of an ilk with many other teams, Dallas, Minnesota, CBJ, Predators. They're not terrible.

Hard to judge this year with all the changes and the absence of Kylington, that really was a wrench.

[CFO]

Whether Edwards driving the bus or not - very similar cnrl mentality. Don't sell anything - even if it's not part of your future.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by CFO

Whether Edwards driving the bus or not - very similar cnrl mentality. Don't sell anything - even if it's not part of your future.

Both are close-knit organizations of good people whose GAF level is through the roof.

[Enoch Root]

Great posts by the OP and browna

There has been lots of talk about what went wrong, but I think one of the things that hasn't been talked about enough is that when a roster experiences a lot of change, it usually struggles for a while, and often has an off year. I think that has been a factor here.

It is really easy (and naive, IMO) for fans to scream for change, but too much change is more rudderless than the perceived lack of direction that we have now. Saying the team lacks direction is silly - just because that direction isn't what you think it should be, does not mean that it is lacking.

The issue that management currently faces is that there has been a tremendous amount invested into this team - in salaries, contract terms, etc. This team SHOULD be good. Obviously, the season was a failure. But does that mean that everything should simply be torn apart? The fact is that the entire team (every important piece) is under contract for next season. With that in mind, the most rational choice is to give it another year - spend the summer determining what went wrong, and fix what you can, and give it another go. Because there is time to do so.

If it doesn't work again next year - tear it down. But you have to see first if this was simply a season where there was too much change and nothing went right, or if it was in fact a flawed roster. Anyone who thinks they KNOW the answer to that, is fooling themselves. Sometimes a little patience is required, in order to make good decisions. A lot of changes were made last summer - many of which were forced upon them - and giving up on those changes in half a season is just too reactionary.

The rational path is: breathe, evaluate over the summer, make any changes you determine are necessary/valuable, and give it one more year. If things don't work out, the team will have a boatload of pending UFAs to trade, and launching a rebuild will make a lot of sense, as opposed to being forced, like it would have been if they rushed into it over the last 2 weeks.

[really?]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

They have to evaluate the risk that the few people with consensus opinions on a message board aren’t reflective of the opinions of the actual people buying 19000 tickets every night

Concise and correct. Ownership will give their ear to the folks who actually put money in the bucket. Until that group grows cold, why should they change? If the season ticket holders are happy to just have a night out and watch a competitive, then why should my voice matter? I live in the US and only see a game or two per year on the road, so my thoughts should be of little concern to someone who holds a season ticket, and more importantly, ownership. I‘ve grown a little fatigued of following mediocrity, but one man’s pain is another’s paradise.

I think the Flames have been tragically short sighted and that has diluted my interest, but I respect that those who fill the Saddledome should have the greatest say in what direction the team pursues. As long as 19,000 say they’re good with the product on the ice, then it appears we have a mandate. I fear being a Flames fan will eventually morph into the experience of following the nka Commanders, but that, now loose, allegiance to futility has certainly resulted in me having more productive Sunday afternoons.

I’m sure there are a lot of decisions that go into the direction ownership decides to pursue with the team, but from a pure “fans” perspective, those closest to the product should have the greatest say.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by really?

Concise and correct. Ownership will give their ear to the folks who actually put money in the bucket. Until that group grows cold, why should they change? If the season ticket holders are happy to just have a night out and watch a competitive, then why should my voice matter? I live in the US and only see a game or two per year on the road, so my thoughts should be of little concern to someone who holds a season ticket, and more importantly, ownership. I‘ve grown a little fatigued of following mediocrity, but one man’s pain is another’s paradise.

I think the Flames have been tragically short sighted and that has diluted my interest, but I respect that those who fill the Saddledome should have the greatest say in what direction the team pursues. As long as 19,000 say they’re good with the product on the ice, then it appears we have a mandate. I fear being a Flames fan will eventually morph into the experience of following the nka Commanders, but that, now loose, allegiance to futility has certainly resulted in me having more productive Sunday afternoons.

I’m sure there are a lot of decisions that go into the direction ownership decides to pursue with the team, but from a pure “fans” perspective, those closest to the product should have the greatest say.

You're half right. Yes, the STHs are their primary audience. But if you think STHs are 'are happy to just have a night out', then I think you are mistaken. Everyone wants the team to be successful, including STHs, and I would argue them even more so. Everyone is frustrated.

Where I think you have it wrong (along with many others on this board, and CGY12 in this thread) is that tearing it down last week isn't the only rational or sensible path. Yes, we all want to see a plan that is more cup-focused, and less 'make the playoffs' focused. But that doesn't mean that all of that change needs to happen immediately and in a panic. That change needs to be a long-term commitment, and it has to permeate into all of their decision making. That doesn't happen overnight.

[chedder]

The new additions have been really underwhelming and the powerplay has sucked but the main culprit in the team's record is the league worst goaltending.

Goaltending doesn't tank because of change to a couple of forwards.

Coaching has been questionable in the goalies' usage. Many believe Vladar should have been given the starting job while he was hot coming out of the all star break. Since that didn't happen both goalies have been poor.

Coaching has also been suspect in player usage. Why hasn't Huberdeau been tried with Lindholm for an extended period? The Kadri Huberdeau line just doesn't work.

Why the amount of minutes for the 4th line and more specifically at the end of games when we trail and the lack of line matching?

Lots of head-scratching stuff with Sutter this year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by chedder

The new additions have been really underwhelming and the powerplay has sucked but the main culprit in the team's record is the league worst goaltending.

Goaltending doesn't tank because of change to a couple of forwards.

Coaching has been questionable in the goalies' usage. Many believe Vladar should have been given the starting job while he was hot coming out of the all star break. Since that didn't happen both goalies have been poor.

Coaching has also been suspect in player usage. Why hasn't Huberdeau been tried with Lindholm for an extended period? The Kadri Huberdeau line just doesn't work.

Why the amount of minutes for the 4th line and more specifically at the end of games when we trail and the lack of line matching?

Lots of head-scratching stuff with Sutter this year.

Yes, there has been some debatable coaching from Sutter. But is that a reason to tear down your roster? That same coach was the toast of the league last year.


IMO, it's yet another reason why it makes sense to see what things look like next year.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, there has been some debatable coaching from Sutter. But is that a reason to tear down your roster? That same coach was the toast of the league last year.





IMO, it's yet another reason why it makes sense to see what things look like next year.

No. I haven't said tear down the roster. I'd be more inclined to change the coach but we all know that isn't going to happen.

The team overperformed last regular season in a year where the two biggest stars were auditioning for their new teams.
Playoffs brought the team back to their reality.

But next year really is the last kick at the can for this group as it's contructed. With 6 UFA's the team will likely look very different in the '24-25 season.

[really?]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You're half right. Yes, the STHs are their primary audience. But if you think STHs are 'are happy to just have a night out', then I think you are mistaken. Everyone wants the team to be successful, including STHs, and I would argue them even more so. Everyone is frustrated.

Where I think you have it wrong (along with many others on this board, and CGY12 in this thread) is that tearing it down last week isn't the only rational or sensible path. Yes, we all want to see a plan that is more cup-focused, and less 'make the playoffs' focused. But that doesn't mean that all of that change needs to happen immediately and in a panic. That change needs to be a long-term commitment, and it has to permeate into all of their decision making. That doesn't happen overnight.

The team already showed a bit of panic with the actions they took last summer. Personally I was optimistic they would convert at least Huberdeau into future assets, but they chose a different path, more present centered direction. Totally understandable, with the wisdom of that decision yet to be determined. Judging the decisions made last summer by the outcome of this season is absolutely short-sighted, and as a fan I will give those decisions time to play out.

Unfortunately, careers have a life span and this version of the Flames is past it's, "salad days." They may have a couple of good seasons left in them, but we've reached the point where there are a number of diminishing assets in the ranks, which will continue to erode the value of those players with each passing season. This summer will be interesting, and represents another future vs. present dilemna. Traditionally management/ownership has attempted to pursue a hybrid approach, which generally yields a competent present return, and a lesser lottery ticket. I expect more of the same, and can appreciate the prudence of such an approach, the frustration for me is that this approach has produced a predictable, decent result.

I agree with management's assessment that this is a good team, but this is a league controlled by great. Maybe the Flames will luck into greatness, but as they say, fortune tends to favor the bold. I'm sure that season ticket holders would absolutely love to see a more dynamic squad on the ice, but those dynamic players tend to stay in place, or cost a large chunk of a team's future, and the Flames have already sacrificed a portion of the future for the team they have now. I understand that the "blow it up" sentiment is often nothing more than emotion, and such a course is not necessary at this point, but until the appetite of the ticket holder dictates something different, all involved should expect more of the same from ownership and management.

[PepsiFree]

I don’t think Sutter is above criticism but I do think criticizing him for not giving Vladar a bigger opportunity and then criticizing him when Vladar gets a bigger opportunity and falters is the sort of absurd stuff that makes it hard to take it seriously.

Similar to the “Sutter hates youth” criticism with Pelletier hangs out on the 2nd line and Duehr/Ruzicka have collectively played most of the season.

The problems with the team this year are a lot more complicated than just the coach, or just one reason in general, so I don’t know why people bother pretending otherwise.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Both are close-knit organizations of good people whose GAF level is through the roof.

I agree that's true. But it has translated to top of bracket success for CNQ but not so much for the Flames. I think the strategy needed is different.

They probably need someone to sell a rebuild to Edwards with the analogy of buying oil and gas assets during a cyclical downturn (something he's a master at).

[Samonadreau]

If Huberdeau and Markstrom can get back to even their 'norm' and we bring up Wolf next season and he excels this will be a team that can win the division. Those are big ifs though at this point. I think that is what management is banking on though.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

If Huberdeau and Markstrom can get back to even their 'norm' and we bring up Wolf next season and he excels this will be a team that can win the division. Those are big ifs though at this point. I think that is what management is banking on though.

I will be stunned if the team is brought back as is. I think they will make changes. And to me that's why not much happened at the deadline. Buyers at the deadline aren't looking to subtract from their core roster, they want to add. The Flames aren't looking to trade their core players for futures.
I think they will look to change the make-up of the team, and perhaps in doing so, acquire players that are younger and/or locked up longer.

And those deals aren't ones you find at the deadline.
I suspect a busy off-season.

The biggest question mark is who will be steering that off-season.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t think Sutter is above criticism but I do think criticizing him for not giving Vladar a bigger opportunity and then criticizing him when Vladar gets a bigger opportunity and falters is the sort of absurd stuff that makes it hard to take it seriously.

My criticism wasn't that at all. Vladar was playing well going into the all-star break. He should have been given the leash to see if it could continue right after. Instead Markstrom is given the net back. Timing means something and playing the guy who has the confidence when he has it is a better plan than hoping the other guy gets it back.

[really?]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I will be stunned if the team is brought back as is. I think they will make changes. And to me that's why not much happened at the deadline. Buyers at the deadline aren't looking to subtract from their core roster, they want to add. The Flames aren't looking to trade their core players for futures.
I think they will look to change the make-up of the team, and perhaps in doing so, acquire players that are younger and/or locked up longer.

And those deals aren't ones you find at the deadline.
I suspect a busy off-season.

The biggest question mark is who will be steering that off-season.

Totally agree that this was a big part of the Flames thought process at the deadline. The off-season will be busy, as the Flames pursue player for player trades. Unfortunately, this is also how you end up with players like Tyler Toffoli on the first line, or end up dependent on guys other teams were generally eager to move on from.

Maybe it works this time, but acquiring players other teams want to move on from has historically resulted in acquiring "good" players at best. Lindholm is a good player, Hanifin is a good player, the Flames are a good team, but the best league in the world is going to largely overwhelm good.

As a caveat, I was against the acquisition of Tyler Toffoli, and I was totally wrong. He is a solid player, and brings it on a nightly basis. I don't see him being a value added performer on a top line, but a true cup contender could do far worse than have that guy manning the right wing with some fast players on line 2. Definitely a good acquisition.

[Sylvanfan]

Yesterday or this week was not the time to start making some of the massive changes that some were fantasizing about. Many of the pro rebuild types also believe other teams are willing to part with good young established players to get a slightly more proven veteran player. Which is not the case at all. Many of these good picks traded are for 2024 or 2025 with conditions to kick them down the road another year.

So if you committ to a full fledged rebuild it can be 8 to 10 years for a lot of teams to emerge from it, sometimes more. So if you are a season ticket holder and it's 3 straight years of nights out watching your team lose as you wait to finally get that 2026 first round pick it can be tough to keep spending on that.

To me this last week playing top teams showed that the players were trying. But Colorado and Toronto have top end talent that they can't match that made a difference. Boston and Vegas losses both due to Vladar giving up weak goals and him playing was partially due to Markstroms poor season long play.

I'm sure there will be a lot of evaluation thru the rest of this season and into the summer. There are quite a few older veterans who have a time frame of 2 to 3 years left and a couple of guys in that upper 20's spot who will want 7 or 8 year contracts. So it will be an important offseason.

[Aarongavey]

The ownership/management perspective is years in the making, it is not something that just came about this year. 5 first round picks in the last 8 drafts. 7 second round picks in the last 8 drafts. Six third round picks in the last 8 drafts. This team has consistently for almost a decade traded futures to win now. They have not won anything in that time. The desire to plan for tomorrow in my opinion has way more to do with what has happened in the last 8 years than it does with what happened this year.

The Flames have zero NHL prospects on the backend under the age of 22 outside of Poirier who would not be considered a top prospect in any other org.

They have three legit NHL forward prospects under 22.

The cupboards are pretty bare compared to every other team and that was an organizational decision from the last 8 years. The desire to improve that situation has little to do with this iteration of the team.