Ownership and Management Perspective

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Lindholm, Hanifin, Mangiapane, Andersson, would all bring back solid returns. Gio, Brodie, Backlund, Markstrom, could have all brought back decent returns. The opportunity was there. So when you suck for 3 years and add your own top picks and add in those returns you likely have a pretty decent team in a short period of tike.. This idea that it might not work or will fans be on board never makes sense to me. The product we have and have been getting hasn't been much better majority of the time. Detroit had more wins than us. Montreal has 1 less. Vancouver has 2 less. We're not missing much. I'll take a young team with hope over an old slowly declining team.

You understand that they have to actually ice a hockey team right? Just perpetually turning every good player into futures makes them nothing more than a minor league franchise, feeding the rest of the league with talent (see: ARI, who have been doing this for 25 years, and what has it gotten them?)

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Lindholm, Hanifin, Mangiapane, Andersson, would all bring back solid returns. Gio, Brodie, Backlund, Markstrom, could have all brought back decent returns. The opportunity was there. So when you suck for 3 years and add your own top picks and add in those returns you likely have a pretty decent team in a short period of tike.. This idea that it might not work or will fans be on board never makes sense to me. The product we have and have been getting hasn't been much better majority of the time. Detroit had more wins than us. Montreal has 1 less. Vancouver has 2 less. We're not missing much. I'll take a young team with hope over an old slowly declining team.

Except most of the teams you listed have tried that, and none have gotten good in a short period of time. CHI and PIT and maybe LAK are the last teams to get catch fire and get good on the first upswing of their builds in the late 2000s. It doesn't work that way anymore - though NJD may be an exception (NYR has also been an enigmatic build that one cannot hope to emulate).

Pretty much every other good team in the league has been the product of a ~decade of building. STL, DAL, MIN, WPG, and even COL have all had seasons where things looked totally futile and they should have cashed in on their assets while they still had value. Two of them now have cup(s) to show for not going full fire-sale (but significant re-tooling, just as CGY has).

Wins are a weird metric to use...last time I checked playoffs are determined by points.

[Sylvanfan]

There seems to be this romantic notion that a rebuild will only take 2 to 3 years when they're more likely to be closer to 8. I do think the team needs to disrupt what they do and break the cycle. But I'm not so sure the Calgary of today will support a team that loses that long.

I'd need to do some research, but it wouldn't surprise me if hockey is not as popular on a per capita basis as it was 25 years ago. I have two kids aged 13 and 8 and neither one has much of an interest in the game. If I offer to take my 13 year old son to a game he'll say no. As a "poor" family that qualifies for Danielle Smiths you suck at life so here's $100 for each kid money...them not wanting to play isn't exactly breaking my heart. But I wonder how many other middle class lowlife's like myself are the same. I have not been to a NHL game that I paid for tickets in about 8 years now and have resigned myself to the fact that unless I can double my income...I'm never going again type of thing. So if it's a bad team who's been bad for 3 years and the tickets are not discounted...it could be a tough sell.

[taxbuster]

I have no shortage of tax clients in your position and can thoroughly empathize. This is a tough economy and cycle for younger people, and it's kyitty for all of you.

OTOH, from the lofty perspective of Gary and the Billionaire Owners Club ("BOC"), the gate is a bit of a bonus. The REAL money is in the revenue sharing from ads, licensed sales, TV and all that crap. And, of course, the free cash from the sale of new franchises. Those owners feeling the pinch can always sell to upmarket their investments. Murray ain't suffering any and most of the members of the BOC aren't either. Yes, the gate affects them, but if even the wonks in Arizona can survive (or CBJ or other small-market teams) then Calgary can, too.

There are a myriad of entertainment options and one of the cheapest is hockey on "free" ($100+/mo) TV. Live hockey? Different story unless you go downmarket from the NHL...because going to the 'Dome is not a cheap proposition.

One of the bigger problem for the NHL is the generally crappy on-ice and in-arena product almost everywhere, especially in the 'Dome. Building lousier cars doesn't make more people want to buy them...and putting a crappy product in front of paying customers doesn't help...so yes...viewership is WAY down from where it was. Ballet on ice doesn't cut it.

Hopefully sometime you can get to a game live, as it's still an (occasionally) worthwhile experience for those who can't go regularly.

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

There seems to be this romantic notion that a rebuild will only take 2 to 3 years when they're more likely to be closer to 8. I do think the team needs to disrupt what they do and break the cycle. But I'm not so sure the Calgary of today will support a team that loses that long.

I'd need to do some research, but it wouldn't surprise me if hockey is not as popular on a per capita basis as it was 25 years ago. I have two kids aged 13 and 8 and neither one has much of an interest in the game. If I offer to take my 13 year old son to a game he'll say no. As a "poor" family that qualifies for Danielle Smiths you suck at life so here's $100 for each kid money...them not wanting to play isn't exactly breaking my heart. But I wonder how many other middle class lowlife's like myself are the same. I have not been to a NHL game that I paid for tickets in about 8 years now and have resigned myself to the fact that unless I can double my income...I'm never going again type of thing. So if it's a bad team who's been bad for 3 years and the tickets are not discounted...it could be a tough sell.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by KenHouston

Dink is a nice word Bingo.

@Cannon7 - been here over 20 years. The man running this place has never acted in any manner other than being a fan first, and second a journalist. Never an insider or anything else. The time and money he has spent is appreciated and loved my most of us.

I've been here >20 years. Doesn't mean what you appear to think it does.

Originally Posted by KenHouston

I don't post much but I troll and I know everything he has ever posted so please take that stuff elsewhere.

Take what stuff elsewhere? Telling Bingo to tone it down?

I'm not the one going around chastising other posters for their know nothing bitching", as Bingo put it.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Only one personal attack in this whole topic. Came from you.

Not sure I'm the one that needs a break.

What was the personal attack? That being a forum founder doesn't make you an insider? Aside from just being a fact, it was in response to you telling another poster they know nothing. Context matters. In case you missed the point, attacking another poster for "know nothing bitching" is both unnecessary and unconstructive to the discussion.

[ForeverFlameFan]

14/15 was a double-edged sword, it was both one of my favorite years as a Flames fan, but also one of the scariest ones too. Why? Because sometimes, exceeded expectations gets mixed with the reality of your current state. And as a realist most of the time, I knew we were in no position to pay assets when we still needed to build through the draft. Dougie Hamilton? That one gets a pass. He signed a 6-year, reasonable deal and played extremely well for his contract here. He then was a trade candidate which landed us our current 1C and a good #3 defenseman.

The Hamonic trade? Didn't make sense. Imagine if Dobson was here.

Worst of all, the Elliott trade. Why spend that kind of draft capital on someone that had only one year on his deal? Why didn't you just sign a goalie for free in a week? Instead, we lost out on another potential missing piece to the puzzle. This team would be differentif we picked Kyrou or DeBrincat. I know it's never a guarantee with picks, especially beyond the first round, but we've sacrificed darts to throw to hit bullseyes.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I have no shortage of tax clients in your position and can thoroughly empathize. This is a tough economy and cycle for younger people, and it's kyitty for all.

Well don't feel too sorry for me. If I'm poor than poor people either have really good in this country or I'm really too dumb to know any better.

But as food, transportation, and shelter go up its the other places where you cut back. Looking at Food prices in Costco and Walmart yesterday...it made me cringe...have to think that's hurting a lot of people who didn't have room in a budget for some discretionary spending.

30 years ago the Oilers could barely get 8000 people to go to a game, and the Flames came next often reporting 13,000 after they had sold off the good players by the late 90's. So no doubt that's still in the back of the owners mind. Chances are a guy like Marray Edwards is probably a lot angrier when he loses a buck than I am, otherwise he wouldn't have made so many of them. Likewise those affluent enough to attend the games may just walk away after 4 years of watching a bad team that's still bad having better things to spend time and money on. But there will be that fear that once they lose those customers they may not come back when the on ice product finally gets better. So until the league can become more economically self sufficient without the gate I do think teams like Calgary may operate with the goal of keeping a full building and getting playoff games every year as opposed to setting out a 10 year long plan to try and build an elite team that will have 4 or 5 years where they have a realistic shot to win it all.

[OutOfTheCube]

I think it's pretty simple, they need to get rid of Sutter obviously. I never would've hired him in the first place because what he is now is what he was always going to end up as, a prehistoric jerk favoring bad players and driving young / promising players away. I speculate the elite talent that's left recently has done so partly to get away from him, and the talent that remains won't be in any rush to sign extensions as long as he's still here. In the meantime there's an extremely expensive elite talent they're stuck with who needs to be removed from him as well. They'll just keep spinning their tires the longer they wait to get it done.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

There seems to be this romantic notion that a rebuild will only take 2 to 3 years when they're more likely to be closer to 8. I do think the team needs to disrupt what they do and break the cycle. But I'm not so sure the Calgary of today will support a team that loses that long.

I'd need to do some research, but it wouldn't surprise me if hockey is not as popular on a per capita basis as it was 25 years ago. I have two kids aged 13 and 8 and neither one has much of an interest in the game. If I offer to take my 13 year old son to a game he'll say no. As a "poor" family that qualifies for Danielle Smiths you suck at life so here's $100 for each kid money...them not wanting to play isn't exactly breaking my heart. But I wonder how many other middle class lowlife's like myself are the same. I have not been to a NHL game that I paid for tickets in about 8 years now and have resigned myself to the fact that unless I can double my income...I'm never going again type of thing. So if it's a bad team who's been bad for 3 years and the tickets are not discounted...it could be a tough sell.

I don’t think a modern rebuild is 8 years. Even the last flames attempt, if you call it that, was more like 3 years and it fully refreshed the core. Had things not gone awry with Bennett perhaps it might have even worked.

It’s more of a young man’s game than ever, so 3 years of excess picks (multiple first rounders and sprinkled in a couple of top 10 picks) gives you a big shot in the arm in your NHL roster, and I think more excitement from the fanbase, than the aging, but failing, win-now edition of the flames.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I don’t think a modern rebuild is 8 years. Even the last flames attempt, if you call it that, was more like 3 years and it fully refreshed the core. Had things not gone awry with Bennett perhaps it might have even worked.

It’s more of a young man’s game than ever, so 3 years of excess picks (multiple first rounders and sprinkled in a couple of top 10 picks) gives you a big shot in the arm in your NHL roster, and I think more excitement from the fanbase, than the aging, but failing, win-now edition of the flames.

Well right now
- Buffalo has missed 11 straight and may get in
- Detroit has missed 6 and may get in
- Ottawa has missed 5 and may get in
- Anaheim has missed 4
- NJD have missed 4 and will get in

I think 3 is optimistic. 4-5 is the fastest most of the time. But it can certainly take longer.

[Kidder]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

There seems to be this romantic notion that a rebuild will only take 2 to 3 years when they're more likely to be closer to 8. I do think the team needs to disrupt what they do and break the cycle. But I'm not so sure the Calgary of today will support a team that loses that long.

I'd need to do some research, but it wouldn't surprise me if hockey is not as popular on a per capita basis as it was 25 years ago. I have two kids aged 13 and 8 and neither one has much of an interest in the game. If I offer to take my 13 year old son to a game he'll say no. As a "poor" family that qualifies for Danielle Smiths you suck at life so here's $100 for each kid money...them not wanting to play isn't exactly breaking my heart. But I wonder how many other middle class lowlife's like myself are the same. I have not been to a NHL game that I paid for tickets in about 8 years now and have resigned myself to the fact that unless I can double my income...I'm never going again type of thing. So if it's a bad team who's been bad for 3 years and the tickets are not discounted...it could be a tough sell.

I’d recommend reading “Before the Lights Go Out” by Sean Fitz-Gerald. It analyzes the state of the game, framed around a season of the Peterborough Petes of the OHL, interjected with interviews and studies from all corners of hockey.

Just a fantastic read, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well right now
- Buffalo has missed 11 straight and may get in
- Detroit has missed 6 and may get in
- Ottawa has missed 5 and may get in
- Anaheim has missed 4
- NJD have missed 4 and will get in

I think 3 is optimistic. 4-5 is the fastest most of the time. But it can certainly take longer.

People also disregard that the Flames basically did a perfect rebuild/retool just this decade but sometimes things don't work out.

2010 - drafted Ferland in the 5th round, a 20 goal power winger that teams now would fall all over themselves to have (essentially Tom Wilson)

2011 - landed a franchise player in the 4th round in Gaudreau and useful depth pieces in Granlund and Baertschi

2013 - Traded a bunch of guys and had 3 first round picks. Monahan, Poirier and Klimchuk

2014 - picked 4th overall and landed Bennett

2015 - picked up 2 top 4 defensemen in Andersson and Kylington and a top 6 forward in Mangiapane

2016 - picked top ten again and landed a franchise player in Mathew Tkachuk and also picked a franchise defenseman in Adam Fox and top 9 forward in Dube.


You basically are going to be hard pressed to do any better than that.


But in reality:
We moved Ferland before concussions took him out of the league he landed us Noah Hanifan and Elias Lindholm - but his career was over by the time he was 27.

Gaudreau left town as a UFA

Monahan was a #1 center but injuries broke him down to where he was a shell of himself at 26.

Poirier and Klimchuk busted for various reasons.

Kylington is taking this year off due to personal issues.

Adam Fox didn't report.

Matthew Tkachuk left as a free agent.

Jusso Valimaki got a serious knee injury and fell a mile down the depth chart.



You can rebuild and basically nail it - picks that didn't work out like Poirier or Klimchuk are more than made up for by landing Gaudreau, Ferland, Mangiapane and Fox in later rounds - and end up right where we are now.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

What was the personal attack? That being a forum founder doesn't make you an insider? Aside from just being a fact, it was in response to you telling another poster they know nothing. Context matters. In case you missed the point, attacking another poster for "know nothing bitching" is both unnecessary and unconstructive to the discussion.

You really misunderstood that post.

I wasn't talking specifically to anyone. Just pointing out that none of us know what was left on the table, but many still bitch about inactivity.

That was it.

You decided to take a shot at my integrity by suggesting I think I'm better than everyone and an insider because I have a website which was never the case.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I don’t think a modern rebuild is 8 years. Even the last flames attempt, if you call it that, was more like 3 years and it fully refreshed the core. Had things not gone awry with Bennett perhaps it might have even worked.

It’s more of a young man’s game than ever, so 3 years of excess picks (multiple first rounders and sprinkled in a couple of top 10 picks) gives you a big shot in the arm in your NHL roster, and I think more excitement from the fanbase, than the aging, but failing, win-now edition of the flames.

I think the concept of a "rebuild" is antiquated. For a small market to compete, I think you need to look at it as a pipeline. Perpetually hoard futures, be eager to move anyone over the age of 25 who isn't a franchise player (for futures, obviously), treat your core as a rotating door of young up-and-coming players, never make any significant UFA or trade deadline acquisitions unless absolutely necessary, etc. The franchise will operate very much like an NCAA sports team, where players typically have a 4-5 year shelf life and in any 4-6 year window the core will have almost completely changed. Team success will be driven by successful scouting and development, as such the franchise will need a top notch team here which will cost top dollar. Having a coaching staff specializing in player development will be critical as well.

Running the franchise this way will make it attractive to young players because it almost guarantees career development and advancement. Getting drafted by such a franchise, you know that in 2-3 years time you and your cohorts will be depended upon for team success. There won't be a glut of veterans blocking your path to the NHL, for better or worse.

Among the challenges will be remaining above the cap floor, remaining consistently competitive year over year, keeping the fanbase engaged with the ever changing roster, etc. But as long as the scouting and development teams do their jobs, there will be more competitive seasons than not, and when the team struggles, it will only mean more ammunition for the scouts in the offseason. There will also be more direct job performance for these roles as there won't be a way to cheat into a winning franchise through free agency.

Not that any of this will ever happen with the Calgary Flames.

[Yeah_Baby]

I think the frustrating thing in hindsight is that we had a young core developing together, Monahan, Bennett, Gaudreau, and Tkachuk.

Sean's body betrayed him.

Sam wasn't developing like many expected, bounced back with another team, and has now returned to earth.

The Johnny thing was out of the Flames control largely and Matthew wanted to take his ball and go elsewhere.

The fact of the matter is hockey players are people, and no organization in sports, the public or private sector can plan for every potential outcome of the human element.


It's been a REAL tough year. And yeah when the team is winning it's easy to glaze over what we feel are long term shortcummings of the team. But I don't think we can over estimate how the no playoffs young gun era in which the future of the team staying in Calgary hung on the edge of a knife informs Ownership's approach to the business. I sort of think it like folks that lived though the depression that still have cash under the mattress or in the freezer.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You understand that they have to actually ice a hockey team right? Just perpetually turning every good player into futures makes them nothing more than a minor league franchise, feeding the rest of the league with talent (see: ARI, who have been doing this for 25 years, and what has it gotten them?)

I think Arizona not being able to draw fans and not having an owner who can do anything but launder the rest of the league’s cap issues is an important distinction.

[guzzy]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Monahan was a #1 center but injuries broke him down to where he was a shell of himself at 26.

That shell has a higher point per game that our soon to be $10.5mm superstar this season. Yes, Monahan is broken and will never likely play a full NHL season again because he is made of jello. But at least he produces when he is healthy.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You really misunderstood that post.

I wasn't talking specifically to anyone. Just pointing out that none of us know what was left on the table, but many still bitch about inactivity.

That was it.

Ok, fine.

When another poster asked this:

Originally Posted by zamler

Is there some history I don't know about? Your response is way disproportionate to say the least.

You said "yes". Which suggests it wasn't a general statement. But whatever. I don't actually care that much about what was meant, it just stuck out among a number of otherwise thoughtful posts from others.

Originally Posted by Bingo

You decided to take a shot at my integrity by suggesting I think I'm better than everyone and an insider because I have a website which was never the case.

I was using your position and role at CP to contrast your "way disproportionate" post (as the poster above rightly put it). I didn't say you thought you were an insider (you might be, I don't know) -- what I did say is being the founder of a forum doesn't intrinsically make you one. All in response to you lashing out at "bitching know nothing" posters.

We've (to my knowledge) never had beef. I wasn't taking a shot at your integrity. I don't even think it would be that easy, so am a bit surprised we're here. I'll be more mindful next time.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well right now
- Buffalo has missed 11 straight and may get in
- Detroit has missed 6 and may get in
- Ottawa has missed 5 and may get in
- Anaheim has missed 4
- NJD have missed 4 and will get in

I think 3 is optimistic. 4-5 is the fastest most of the time. But it can certainly take longer.

Take a longer view and it it's a bit bleaker.

New Jersey is 9 of 10 years out, finally emerging with what looks to be a team that might be able to be in it multiple years.

Buffalo and Ottawa might make it this year as a low seed like Jersey did 4 yesrs ago. But they could fall back out for a couple years afterwards too until they establish themselves as a consistent team

I look at Colorado who first fell out of the playoffs in 06-07, got back the next year, fell off again to get the #3 pick, and bounced in and out for a couple years, had a good reg season than were terrible for a couple more years until establishing themselves again as a regular playoff team and now an elite team.

So 4 to 5 years to be in the playoff mix and than another 3 to 5 years to become a true upper echelon team.

But even that can be very dynamic.