[Rumour] Francis: All contract talks on hold for Flames

[Classic_Sniper]

Whatever route the Flames go, I just hope they don’t allow their young draft picks to dictate the culture of the team. The Oilers screwed up bad because they let Hall, Eberle and Yakupov become the culture setters, so there was no accountability and the laziness/losing culture set in. Never let losing and laziness be ok, especially to the drivers of the team. This can poison the well and whatever new pick ups come along the way, they’ll just accept the losing culture as well.

Also, I hope the team slots guys properly. Knowing what you have is absolutely vital in assembling a contender. Don’t slot guys way ahead of where they should be and then reward them with term and dollar figures of a superstar. That just keeps your rebuild in prolonged perpetuity.

The best way to do it is to not fall in love with your guys, be disciplined, slot players correctly so you can pay them accordingly and then constantly augment until your line up is deep. You know you have true depth when your 3rd liners or 3rd pairs can be 2nd liners on any other team and so forth. That’s how you build a contender.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Don't do what the Oilers did is always good advice.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Don't do what the Oilers did is always good advice.

Senators fans giggling in fear as the rumours of Chiarelli circle their team…

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Don't do what the Oilers did is always good advice.

"Oilers rebuild failed, therefore don't rebuild" is like saying a drunk driver crashed into a pole, therefore no one should ever drive cars.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

With Markstrom, Huberdeau and Kadri on the books this is not a rebuild I want to see.

Underperforming, overpaid hasbeens with questionable work ethics. I see no leadership there.

Unfortunately we are stuck with them, fuc-k you very much Treliving you clown.

I’ve followed this team from Sweden since the late 80’s and Loob. I’m done, stick a fork in me. I’ll check some results every now and then, but there are other teams which are more interesting to follow now.

If it gets us to a few top-5 picks, who cares.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

We're stuck with Huberdeau and Kadri, oh well, worry about what you can control. We have four very good UFA pieces, get those deals right. Yes including Zadorov. Big physical depth D have tremendous trade value at the deadline. Move Tanev ASP before he gets hurt.

[GreenLantern2814]

FWIW, Huberdeau is a pretty good fit to staple to the wing of a top-3 pick centre.

Just thinking out loud.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

FWIW, Huberdeau is a pretty good fit to staple to the wing of a top-3 pick centre.

Just thinking out loud.

Huberdeau - Celebrini - Duclair

Flames top line 2024/2025

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

FWIW, Huberdeau is a pretty good fit to staple to the wing of a top-3 pick centre.

Just thinking out loud.

We're not trading to get Bennett back!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Yes, in cases of very good luck or very bad luck, you could see some scenarios play out as you described. But as far as I can tell, such scenarios are the exception and not the rule.



If a rebuilding team eventually achieves its end goal and can directly attribute that success to its rebuild, then it has rebuilt properly. Examples include:

Chicago (Kane, Toews)
Pittsburgh (Crosby, Malkin, Letang)
LA (Brown, Kopitar, Doughty)
Washington (Ovechkin, Backstrom)
St. Louis (Pietrangelo, Thompson (traded for O'Reilly), Tarasenko)
Tampa (Stamkos, Hedman, Vasilevskiy, Kucherov)
Colorado (MacKinnon, Makar, Rantanen, Landeskog)

Vegas is a unique situation as they had a contending team right out of the box by taking advantage of a generous expansion system, and GMs who didn't know how to handle the situation.

On the flipside, those who did not end up winning a cup, or at least make many deep runs in the playoffs, have (ignoring cases of extreme bad luck) failed to properly execute a rebuild.

At least, that's the way I look at it.

If “properly” is just a result and the only examples are Stanley Cup winners, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that rebuilding properly guarantees a cup? How would rebuilding “properly” merely just “more likely” lead to a legit contending team “rising from the ashes” if that is the case? Wouldn’t a team who did that but didn’t win a cup count as a not having done it properly?

That’s why I don’t buy these “truths.” If we’re saying “properly” is just winning a cup and having rebuilt at some point a long the way with some of the players you got, regardless of how long it was, how the team was managed through it, the kinds of trades, picks, signings, etc, then “properly” is meaningless. It doesn’t tell us any information anyone could apply to do it successfully, which makes it just as random as saying rebuild success is as varied as team success overall.

And I don’t think it’s totally random. I think there are factors you can control and factors you can’t. But people throw around terms like “proper rebuild” or “forced rebuild” or “re-tool” and it’s usually just to justify whatever conclusion they want to make, without actually providing any repeatable definition of what those things mean. I think there absolutely is such thing as a “proper rebuild” but I don’t think it makes success any more likely.

For example, the Rangers. If the Rangers win a cup (and they could as well as anyone), that doesn’t mean they rebuilt properly. In fact, they did basically everything you shouldn’t do in a rebuild, despite putting out a letter warning everyone “hey, we’re rebuilding!”

The Oilers? Not a proper rebuild, but they did make the conference finals once! And yet, a terrible, terrible example.

The Canes? New Jersey? They haven’t won, but they sure look like teams that did it “proper.” Can we say they didn’t or aren’t?

I think the definition of a good or proper rebuild needs to be totally separate from the results. The teams that won have as varied of an approach to rebuilding as the teams that haven’t. There just isn’t any “truths” regarding rebuilds out there that aren’t just “truths” about team building in general. You need good players to win, rebuilds are one way to get good players, but you’re no more likely to win with good players than any other team with good players… which is the majority of them.

[zukes]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Worth stating. A planned rebuild is not guaranteed success. So many here think it's a magical bullet that will lead to multiple cups. Tanking is not a guarantee for success.

Look at Edmonton. Even with two MVPs on their team, they've never won the conference, and have only made Rd 3 once. And that's with McDavid and Draisaitl. They also had a bunch of failed years with Gagner/ Hall/ Nuge/ Yakupov. The Flames, through all of their 'mediocrity', have won the West, and division, and have been as competitive the last 10 years without tanking. If it weren't for Tkachuk/Gaudreau leaving for their own reasons, they would still be a top team in the West today.

Look at Buffalo. Playoff drought of 12 years. Sam Reinhart, Dahlin, Eichel, Cozens, and they have nothing to show for it.

Arizona has been tanking for years, and still doesn't look like they're going anywhere.

Toronto has already soured on Matthews/Marner, saying they can't cut it in the playoffs.

There are more busts in the top 10 of drafts than franchise chanaging hits.
-Tanking isn't a magical cure.
-Retooling without burning things to the ground can work and keep your team competitive.

I wish I could thank this several times. Thank you!

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Worth stating. A planned rebuild is not guaranteed success. So many here think it's a magical bullet that will lead to multiple cups. Tanking is not a guarantee for success.

Look at Edmonton. Even with two MVPs on their team, they've never won the conference, and have only made Rd 3 once. And that's with McDavid and Draisaitl. They also had a bunch of failed years with Gagner/ Hall/ Nuge/ Yakupov. The Flames, through all of their 'mediocrity', have won the West, and division, and have been as competitive the last 10 years without tanking. If it weren't for Tkachuk/Gaudreau leaving for their own reasons, they would still be a top team in the West today.

Look at Buffalo. Playoff drought of 12 years. Sam Reinhart, Dahlin, Eichel, Cozens, and they have nothing to show for it.

Arizona has been tanking for years, and still doesn't look like they're going anywhere.

Toronto has already soured on Matthews/Marner, saying they can't cut it in the playoffs.

There are more busts in the top 10 of drafts than franchise chanaging hits.
-Tanking isn't a magical cure.
-Retooling without burning things to the ground can work and keep your team competitive.

You are right a rebuild is no guarantee to win but what is guaranteed is you don’t win in this league with mediocre talent and at this point the best we can hope for is that we have a mediocre team.

There is no guaranteed way to win in the NHL but there are guaranteed ways to not win and our franchise has chosen that route for years maybe it’s time to try something different.

I would love to see the retool plan that keeps us competitive (not that we are competitive now) while building us into a contender, it’s sounds great in theory but in practice hard to imagine it is anywhere close to possible without insane luck.

[Philly06Cup]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

No one in the history of CP has ever once said rebuilding guarantees success.
There's literally no point in stating this and then giving a rebuttal to something no human has ever said.

There are tons of users who whine and whine and whine that all they will accept is a full rebuild, believing that will solve all of our problems.

I'm damn proud of the Flames 2018-19 season, when Monahan/Gaudreau/Gio/Lindholm all had career years and we won the West. I'm damn proud of the Flames 2021-2022 season, when Gaudreau/Tkachuk/Lindholm was the best line in hockey.

Those *elite* teams were built without a full firesale rebuild. The playoffs didn't pan out, but given all the information at the time, it's not crazy to push all in with those teams.

[Spurs]

Elite teams????

Come on

[Sainters7]

And when the Grease made their only West Final in this era, it's because the divisional format allowed them to go through the easiest division in the league. And the "worst team in the playoffs" Kings were 1 goal away from eliminating them. Then they got swept once they had to leave the Pacific. Put them in any other division in 2022 and they're 1st round fodder.

Not really hanging my hat on either argument, I just feel the need to mention the McGreasers' only final 4 run was smoke & mirrors...as the 3rd round proved.

[troutman]

Pittsburg, Chicago, LA - they all drafted 3 Hall of Fame players.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

There are tons of users who whine and whine and whine that all they will accept is a full rebuild, believing that will solve all of our problems.

I'm damn proud of the Flames 2018-19 season, when Monahan/Gaudreau/Gio/Lindholm all had career years and we won the West. I'm damn proud of the Flames 2021-2022 season, when Gaudreau/Tkachuk/Lindholm was the best line in hockey.

Those *elite* teams were built without a full firesale rebuild. The playoffs didn't pan out, but given all the information at the time, it's not crazy to push all in with those teams.

The 18-19 team was definitely not elite. Smoke & mirrors team that got results in the regular season but outclassed by the Avs in that series.

21-22 you could make a case for, but they got completely overwhelmed by McDrai when the chips were down. Contrast that with the Avs who were able to keep McDrai under wraps.

In either case, neither of those Flames teams have any success if not for hitting on a 4th round pick that yielded a franchise winger. While a tremendous success that Flames scouts should get credit for, it's also the kind of thing that involves lots of luck and can't exactly be counted upon as a team building strategy. 4th round picks almost never become star players.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If “properly” is just a result and the only examples are Stanley Cup winners, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that rebuilding properly guarantees a cup? How would rebuilding “properly” merely just “more likely” lead to a legit contending team “rising from the ashes” if that is the case? Wouldn’t a team who did that but didn’t win a cup count as a not having done it properly?

That’s why I don’t buy these “truths.” If we’re saying “properly” is just winning a cup and having rebuilt at some point a long the way with some of the players you got, regardless of how long it was, how the team was managed through it, the kinds of trades, picks, signings, etc, then “properly” is meaningless. It doesn’t tell us any information anyone could apply to do it successfully, which makes it just as random as saying rebuild success is as varied as team success overall.

And I don’t think it’s totally random. I think there are factors you can control and factors you can’t. But people throw around terms like “proper rebuild” or “forced rebuild” or “re-tool” and it’s usually just to justify whatever conclusion they want to make, without actually providing any repeatable definition of what those things mean. I think there absolutely is such thing as a “proper rebuild” but I don’t think it makes success any more likely.

For example, the Rangers. If the Rangers win a cup (and they could as well as anyone), that doesn’t mean they rebuilt properly. In fact, they did basically everything you shouldn’t do in a rebuild, despite putting out a letter warning everyone “hey, we’re rebuilding!”

The Oilers? Not a proper rebuild, but they did make the conference finals once! And yet, a terrible, terrible example.

The Canes? New Jersey? They haven’t won, but they sure look like teams that did it “proper.” Can we say they didn’t or aren’t?

I think the definition of a good or proper rebuild needs to be totally separate from the results. The teams that won have as varied of an approach to rebuilding as the teams that haven’t. There just isn’t any “truths” regarding rebuilds out there that aren’t just “truths” about team building in general. You need good players to win, rebuilds are one way to get good players, but you’re no more likely to win with good players than any other team with good players… which is the majority of them.

Generally yes a proper rebuild will result in a cup at some point in the contention window. But you can definitely make exceptions for teams that make several deep runs during the window.

Rangers, Canes, Jersey, etc are still in their window and it remains to be seen how well they do in the coming years. Oilers are on what, their 3rd rebuild? After their previous ones failed spectacularly.

I do admit however that luck plays a part in building a true cup contender. You can get 1st overall picks and not draft elite players with them (RNH, Yakupov, etc). And the draft lottery system adds even more random chance into the mix. However, it has been shown over and over again that the best shot anyone has at getting their hands on elite players is to bottom out for a few years and draft high. Otherwise you're squeaking into the playoffs year after year and drafting 17th again and again, or barely missing the playoffs and drafting 16th over and over again. I think Flames fans have seen enough of it.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

There are tons of users who whine and whine and whine that all they will accept is a full rebuild, believing that will solve all of our problems.

Someone accepting a rebuild does not mean they're guaranteeing success

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

There are tons of users who whine and whine and whine that all they will accept is a full rebuild, believing that will solve all of our problems.

I'm damn proud of the Flames 2018-19 season, when Monahan/Gaudreau/Gio/Lindholm all had career years and we won the West. I'm damn proud of the Flames 2021-2022 season, when Gaudreau/Tkachuk/Lindholm was the best line in hockey.

Those *elite* teams were built without a full firesale rebuild. The playoffs didn't pan out, but given all the information at the time, it's not crazy to push all in with those teams.

When your organization has been so pathetic for 3 straight decades I guess you have to try and take pride where you can. We won the West and got booted round 1. Wow what a memory lol. And we did it with only a 4th OA and two 6th OA. Pat yourselves on the back. That is so much better than winning a cup with a couple top 3OA picks.