[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[NegativeSpace]

I think that there is some middle ground between your views, both of which are useful historical examples. The 90s Flames attendance numbers are an example of what attendance would be for a protracted and difficult rebuild - dropping to the point of the franchise folding. That may be a fear of the team if the rebuild has some picks not pan out. The 2013 - 2016 rebuild is a more recent example of the team rebuilding and Ashasx is correct to point out that it had more fan support. I wonder if the rebuild was not so quick to turn it around - e.g., without a Gio already there or Johnny materializing - how long those attendance numbers would have lasted. By all accounts it was a quick (too quick?) turn around where the team did not bottom out. There was enough competitiveness with the team that fans weren't kept away. However, if this team was truly awful like some posters are advocating then are we looking at 90s attendance numbers?



It is all speculation at the end of the day, but they are interesting parallel examples.

[SuperMatt18]

Yeah it's tough to use 2013-2016 attendance because the team made the playoffs in 14-15 and was probably the most excited a lot of fans had been about the Flames in 5-7 years at that time.

The big thing though is that it's not like attendance dipped to 12k or something even in the 90s when the team was bad for 7 straight years.

Even in the peak of the Young Guns era they averaged around 16k, last year they were around 18k. That's not a huge difference.

You could argue that by rebuilding, and not spending to the cap, you'd be saving $10-$15M in player salary, and that probably covers pretty close to that 2k difference in attendance anyways.

(41 games x $150 average ticket x 2k = $12.3M)

You could argue the worst outcome for the owners pocket book is what happened last season - spend to the cap and miss the playoffs. No playoff revenue, and no player salary savings.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hackey

... The end of the Gaudreau/Tkachuk era there was clearly an order to not rebuild even though it was an ideal time.

I don't think that is remotely clear. Given where the team had just finished and some of the players and contracts already on the roster it seems like a fairly natural response to replace Tkachuk and Gaudreau with roster players. Yes, there was a vocal part of the fanbase that saw a rebuild as "ideal," but some of these posters also have the bad tendency to assume their opinions as incontrovertible facts.


Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by Hackey

As soon as Tkachuk wanted out they should have traded him for a good young player. They should have sold off a bunch of players and loaded up with prospects and picks. They likely would have fallen in the draft last year and landed a solid player. That would have gave them a nice start to a rebuild in just one year. Not to mention they would have no bad contracts on the books. They could have lined up a young exciting team on the rise perfectly with the new arena.

BOOM! Sign this guy up to manage the team! Brilliant! It's like hitting an easy button. This is a roadmap of unprecedented success, the like of which we have never seen, guaranteed. There are 32 GM in the league that are afraid for their jobs. Savant? Prodigy? Genius? All three? Hackey has arrived! But why stop at the new arena? Give us your world peace solution and coordinate a Flames Stanley Cup when everyone in this world joining hands and singing Kumbaya!

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yeah it's tough to use 2013-2016 attendance because the team made the playoffs in 14-15 and was probably the most excited a lot of fans had been about the Flames in 5-7 years at that time.

The big thing though is that it's not like attendance dipped to 12k or something even in the 90s when the team was bad for 7 straight years.

Even in the peak of the Young Guns era they averaged around 16k, last year they were around 18k. That's not a huge difference.

You could argue that by rebuilding, and not spending to the cap, you'd be saving $10-$15M in player salary, and that probably covers pretty close to that 2k difference in attendance anyways.

(41 games x $150 average ticket x 2k = $12.3M)

You could argue the worst outcome for the owners pocket book is what happened last season - spend to the cap and miss the playoffs. No playoff revenue, and no player salary savings.

Something harder to factor is how ticket prices were affected...in those dark years they may have only maintained attendance by keeping prices the same or even lowering them slightly, whereas in competitive years price increases probably outpace inflation.

I'm also not sure how much faith we should have in reported attendance figures. Also gotta factor other things like suites below capacity or lower rates for sponsorship/advertising when the product is not 'hot'.

[howard_the_duck]

The 'dark years' is a difficult analog becuse the league is so different now. In the pre-cap era veteran-laden teams were running the league. There were also way fewer players breaking through in their ELCs and becoming impact players under 23 like we see now.

So trotting out a team led by Jason Wiemer and Todd Simpson and suggesting we were the 'young guns' was a futile exercise when going up against the Red Wings of the world who had two lines of hall of famers with no penalty. And that's an extremely challenging narrative to sell a fanbase that we'll be competitive again soon with a straight face.

I think that era is about as bleak and dark as they come. With the way the league now operates, hitting in one draft can put NHL and impact-ready talent on your roster immediately.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Dude - you are cherry-picking one year whereas I'm talking attendance over multiple years. And as far as individual season go, 2013-14 was bad. But the Flames have had at least 8 seasons with worse records. Explain what happened between 94-04 attendance wise. Explain why last year's attendance was 3.5K more than the previous year? Could it be that people liked the success of 2021-22 and bought seasons tix?

This is my hunch, and I am not a mathematician nor have I used my abacus to crunch these numbers but the Covid restrictions may have had something to do with the lower numbers in 21/22.

Games with the following attendance probably brought down the average

9,639 fans
9,639 fans
9,039 fans
9,639 fans
9,639 fans
9,639 fans
9,639 fans
9,639 fans
9,639 fans
9,639 fans
9,639 fans
9,639 fans

Those 12 games which made up 30% of all the home dates really had a negative effect on the average. There certainly was no some dash to buy tickets because they won the year before.

[jayswin]

Yeah, I think he must have forgot about that when looking up the attendance.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

I think that there is some middle ground between your views, both of which are useful historical examples. The 90s Flames attendance numbers are an example of what attendance would be for a protracted and difficult rebuild - dropping to the point of the franchise folding.

I wonder how much the Alberta economy and the low oil prices of the 90s played into those attendance woes. Hard to justify big entertainment spending when times are tight.

I mean both Alberta teams missed the playoffs for 5 years straight starting in 2010 and still managed "perfect" attendance over that period. I got my season tickets around that time. The numbers in Edmonton were obviously fudged, but the building was still pretty full most nights despite a bad product on the ice. $100 dollar oil and a loonie on par with the greenback just might have been behind it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Why was our attendance in 2022-2023 more than 2021-2022? There were no covid attendance restrictions in place for the 2022-2023 season.

I didn't cherry pick one year. The Flames averaged 100% attendance from 2013-2016 when the team had it's most recent historical low - and fans supported the team.

It's not even like the team was coming off a few hot seasons either. The team lulled in the middle - exactly where you don't want to be - for the three seasons prior to that.

I simply can't comprehend the argument that you think I am cherry picking numbers when you are referencing the 90s to argue that fans won't support a rebuilding team in Calgary.

Yes, COVID restrictions were ending. And….The Flames were coming off a Pacific first place finish. And Treliving had added interest by seemingly turning a bad situation around.

I never said the fans wouldn’t support a rebuild. Who knows - they’ve never actually done a serious rebuild. I said the owners might be concerned about that, and concerned over loss of PO revenue.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by flambers

Bigger picture, Flames were a bubble team 11 out of last 13 years.

Yes they had a really good season in 2018 - 2019.

16th
6th
20th
19th
2nd
20th
15th
26th
16th
27th
25th
17th
17th

26th, 27th, 25th are not bubble teams (especially in a 30-team league, as it was then). That was a full tear-down and rebuild. So you can't even count those years.

Your claim needs a bit of editing: ‘The Flames are always and forever mediocre because they refuse to rebuild, except for those several years when they actually did a rebuild and a couple of years when they were good as a result, but we don’t count those years because reasons.’

Doesn't sound as impressive, does it?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by transplant99

In 97-98 the Flames won 26 games.

In 13-14 they won 35 games.

In '97-98 there were no loser points. Over 15% of games ended in ties and therefore had no winner. The numbers aren't comparable.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

26th, 27th, 25th are not bubble teams (especially in a 30-team league, as it was then). That was a full tear-down and rebuild. So you can't even count those years.

Not really, since there wasn't much left to tear down. It was more like a they laid them to rest after a death of natural causes. Then they immediately threw their high picks onto the roster, started throwing picks away on old garbage, and spending every last cent of the cap on free agents while they were still a basement team.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

When you try and make a data sample larger than it should be to suggest things are bad and will stay bad ... yeah it's negative.

You can be negative and call it an opinion ... no problem with that. And it's certainly a discussion.

But clearly negative.

Conroy has been on the job three months. He hasn't brought in any older players, he's made the team younger, and added a pick. They drafted well.

You can choose to worry about what Al Coates did as a GM or you can take what we've seen so far as potentially a step in the right direction.

You keep bringing up the management group when I already told you the issue is with the directive from ownership. I never once said anything about this current management group.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Redrum

Not really, since there wasn't much left to tear down. It was more like a they laid them to rest after a death of natural causes. Then they immediately threw their high picks onto the roster, started throwing picks away on old garbage, and spending every last cent of the cap on free agents while they were still a basement team.

…..isn’t this what a rebuild is?

Still a basement team? They won a round in 2015. Was that smoke and mirrors, yeah probably a bit but they certainly weren’t a basement team.

I suppose your idea would be to not trade a single pick and acquire as many as possible. There would be as few veterans as possible and the ones you did have probably want out because there’s no sign the organization is trying to compete. Your comment ‘throwing away picks on garbage’ implies this wouldn’t happen in your scenario, which seems like a dubious claim. Seems like this line of thinking would have you saying the Flames threw away picks ‘on garbage’ when a certain (the majority) of picks don’t make it to the NHL.

Building a team requires a mix of veterans, mid-career, and youth. At least if you’re trying to compete.

[GioforPM]

Aside from Monahan, who in that period was a high pick immediately thrown on the roster?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hackey

You keep bringing up the management group when I already told you the issue is with the directive from ownership. I never once said anything about this current management group.

I think I was a little more detailed than that.

Thought I summarized your thoughts fine to be honest.

35 years ... and I said nothing in common across the board. You steered it to ownership and I suggested that has changed too, and you'd have to go back to when Edwards became the principal.

[FlamesAreOne]

@Fan960Steinberg

General manager Craig Conroy says talks with Elias Lindholm are moving in a good direction.

Says Lindholm wants to be in Calgary and they’ll continue working at it. #Flames

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by FlamesAreOne

@Fan960Steinberg

General manager Craig Conroy says talks with Elias Lindholm are moving in a good direction.

Says Lindholm wants to be in Calgary and they’ll continue working at it. #Flames

Well I guess that's that then

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by FlamesAreOne

@Fan960Steinberg

General manager Craig Conroy says talks with Elias Lindholm are moving in a good direction.

Says Lindholm wants to be in Calgary and they’ll continue working at it. #Flames

do I jinx it by finally getting that Lindholm jersey I've thought about since he was traded here?