[Trade] Markstrom (31.25% retained) traded to NJ for 2025 1st (top 10 protected) and Bahl

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So what things can officially be put to bed now?

Flames will retain.
Conroy wasn't blocked from making a deal at the deadline for Markstrom.
Markstrom dealt so the team "will" rebuild.

Autonomy not as obvious I guess?

I think the “owner’s will not support a rebuild” is also put to bed. Basically a lot of commonly held beliefs about the Flames org have gone up in smoke over the past 12 months.

[metroneck]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Well, guys like Dreger, possibly the most reliable insider, and Nonis's cousin, explicitly said there was interference from "up top". Frank Seravalli was even more specific, saying it was Flames ownership that nixed the deal with New Jersey.

Meanwhile Conroy is employed by Edwards and would obviously never throw him under the bus.

Speaking from experience, I think Dreger’s relationship makes it less likely that he would ‘burn’ his cousin. Why would he put Nonis at risk like that?

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So what things can officially be put to bed now?

Flames will retain.
Conroy wasn't blocked from making a deal at the deadline for Markstrom.
Markstrom dealt so the team "will" rebuild.

Autonomy not as obvious I guess?

I bet Treliving put out lot of those rumors to put the blames on the ownership

Dude had free range and messed up royally but there are people refusing it’s his faults

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

I bet Treliving put out lot of those rumors to put the blames on the ownership

Dude had free range and messed up royally but there are people refusing it’s his faults

I dont know about that, but I do agree that people gloss over a lot of Treliving's faults and mistakes.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Ok, I know Theo is pretty political and unhinged nowadays but there is some reach here. First, he was going to get that pension regardless of the Flames tryout. Two, he had a better camp than many other scrubs on that team and the Flames were stupid not to give him one last run. They were not doing anything that year anyhow and he would have packed the Dome every night. Three, there is nothing to indicate there is bad blood still between the Flames and Theo Fleury. I think his outspokenness on social media is what has prevented his number from going into the rafters yet. As a matter of fact he was just in Calgary for the 89 Cup reunion, before that he was at the Lanny McDonald gala. If he was not so politically unhinged and has the mental issues he clearly does his number would already be retired. Joe Nieuendyk and Al MacInnis are not in the same tier of Flames iconic players as Fleury no matter how much some fans don't like him now. Not close. There are 3 players that are on the top tier, Lanny, Jarome, and Theo. Personally I don't read his tweets or other ramblings because I don't agree with what he says. On the other hand he does do a lot of work and seminars to help victims of sexual abuse. The bottom line is Theo is a Flames legend and that number should be retired. There are multiple players in the past that have done or said worse things than Theo Fleury that have had their teams retire their number and they don't have the excuse of being molested by their coach.

Say whatever you want about Theo.

But there is not a chance in hell he is higher up on the list than MacInnis.

[saillias]

It's not put to bed if you listen to the insiders. Seravalli picked a fight on Rusic and Rose over rebuilding just this past week. He is adamant it's not his opinion, it's the Flames - they don't believe in tanking and they want to try to win always.

How honest or realistic that is I'm not sure. It seems like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth a lot.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by saillias

It's not put to bed if you listen to the insiders. Seravalli picked a fight on Rusic and Rose over rebuilding just this past week. He is adamant it's not his opinion, it's the Flames - they don't believe in tanking and they want to try to win always.

How honest or realistic that is I'm not sure. It seems like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth a lot.

Which is really what they should be doing (talking out of both sides of their mouths, I mean).

The whole league thinks Calgary is always “trying to win”.

What does it gain the Flames to publicly disabuse them of that notion?

Every single one of Conroy’s moves so far has screamed “rebuild”.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I think the “owner’s will not support a rebuild” is also put to bed. Basically a lot of commonly held beliefs about the Flames org have gone up in smoke over the past 12 months.

This is still the biggest question mark and always has been. Trading UFAs is a no brainer. Markstrom is a good sign but he also could have asked for a trade behind closed doors as well. Andersson is really their last big trade chip so I hope they move him.

But ultimately time will tell how they operate in the upcoming years and if their appetite for a rebuild remains. Right now everything has been pretty much forced on them. I just hope they stay patient and build from within, no dumb trades like the Hamonic deal, don't do anything stupid in free agency.

[TheScorpion]

Actions speak louder than words. The Flames have parroted the same line about striving for competitiveness after each trade they've made while continuing to pick away at this roster piece by piece. Either they're delusional or they're making a conscious choice about their messaging.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Actions speak louder than words. The Flames have parroted the same line about striving for competitiveness after each trade they've made while continuing to pick away at this roster piece by piece. Either they're delusional or they're making a conscious choice about their messaging.

I believe it was Jim Hacker who famously said “press statements aren’t given under oath.”

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Actions speak louder than words.

Hey! Someone else has actually heard that saying!

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Say whatever you want about Theo.

But there is not a chance in hell he is higher up on the list than MacInnis.

100% disagree. There are still plenty of Fleury jerseys at the Dome, not so much Al. When you go anywhere outside of Calgary the 3 players everyone always mention when talking about the team history is Lanny, Iggy, and Theo, those three are the icons of the Flames.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Grant Fuhr was basically the spokesman for cocaine & prostitutes through the 80’s and and he’s been in the HHOF since 2003.

If Fuhr can have his number retired and be inducted then I fail to see why Fluery can’t.
Yea politics has tarnished his image, but the guys gone through more trauma than 95% of the hockey world.

I don’t agree with him politically either, but there’s no denying his dedication to the game and most of that in Calgary.

The difference is Fuhr has always been an ambassador for the Oilers and the league, all around nice human being and used his addiction to teach kids the dangers of drugs and still does.

With Fleury it's always the poor me, dissing the Flames and the league, crazy conspiracy crap and all around bad human being.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

The difference is Fuhr has always been an ambassador for the Oilers and the league, all around nice human being and used his addiction to teach kids the dangers of drugs and still does.

With Fleury it's always the poor me, dissing the Flames and the league, crazy conspiracy crap and all around bad human being.

Well… Fuhr might be different if he was sexually abused by people he trusted for years.

Can’t seemingly ignore that major curveball.
He’s not right in the head, that’s for sure.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Well… Fuhr might be different if he was sexually abused by people he trusted for years.

Can’t seemingly ignore that major curveball.
He’s not right in the head, that’s for sure.

Sheldon Kennedy, Todd Holt, Greg Gilhooly and probably others were assaulted by James and seemingly aren't bat##### crazy, Fleury made the whole case about him.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know about that, but I do agree that people gloss over a lot of Treliving's faults and mistakes.

I kind of feel the opposite. The guy tried to build a winner and failed - and obviously it looks bad in hindsight only because we didn't win anything, but 31 other teams don't win anything each year.

I would argue again that some of his moves only look bad in hindsight because we didn't win, but there are so many variables to winning it's hard to pin everything on him.

Example - Getting Huberdeau and Weegar for a guy who demaded a trade was a miracle as far as "win-now" moves go. Who knew Huberdeau would have turned into such a pumpkin.

Example 2 - Monahan was traded for a 1st on the premise that he was completely broken, Huberdeau would completely replace Gaudreau if not be better, and we finally can sign a competent #2C who could play behind Lindy. Kadri for a broken Monahan on the verge of retirement and a 1st expected to be in the 20-25 range is a deal you made 10/10 as a contender. The fact that so many conditions were put in place as "just in case" is just good planning. We could have EASILY traded an unprotected 2024 1st to dump Monny.

Example 3 - Lindholm and Hanifin for Hamilton and Ferland was a slam dunk. Ferland hit his high-water mark in his last season with Calgary and was out of the league in a few years. Hamilton left CAR as a FA. Lindy and Hanifin were a huge part of our core when we were competitive and were traded for good packages to kick-start our rebuild.

Neal and Brouwer were fairly high-end UFA signings. Sometimes they don't work out. Markstrom, Tanev and Coleman were also high-end UFA signings and they did work out. The fact that this market was able to attract some high profile FA's - some of that should at least be credited to how aggressive Tre was in FA. The Markstrom and Tanev trades again set us up nicely for a rebuild. Wouldn't it have been great to have taken a couple of big swings like that when Iggy and Kipper were here? Instead of patchwork and trimming around the edges with guys like Amonte, McCarty, Bertuzzi, Morrison etc.?

The ONLY trade I 100% blame Tre for was Hamonic. We gave up a really good pick at a time whe we definitely weren't ready to go all in. There should have been some more long-term thinking there.

Also bridging Tkachuk for 3 years just to keep Frolik was 100% on Tre. But Backlund and Frolik were a pretty elite 3rd line pair at the time.

Tre left a mess only because he went all in in his last few years. But we were coming off of a Division championship and clear win-now mode. It's so easy to #### all over him now because our team is a mess, but Daryl left a mess just as big when he left. I say Tre built a better team than any GM we've had since maybe the mid 90s.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

I kind of feel the opposite. The guy tried to build a winner and failed - and obviously it looks bad in hindsight only because we didn't win anything, but 31 other teams don't win anything each year.

I would argue again that some of his moves only look bad in hindsight because we didn't win, but there are so many variables to winning it's hard to pin everything on him.

Example - Getting Huberdeau and Weegar for a guy who demaded a trade was a miracle as far as "win-now" moves go. Who knew Huberdeau would have turned into such a pumpkin.

Example 2 - Monahan was traded for a 1st on the premise that he was completely broken, Huberdeau would completely replace Gaudreau if not be better, and we finally can sign a competent #2C who could play behind Lindy. Kadri for a broken Monahan on the verge of retirement and a 1st expected to be in the 20-25 range is a deal you made 10/10 as a contender. The fact that so many conditions were put in place as "just in case" is just good planning. We could have EASILY traded an unprotected 2024 1st to dump Monny.

Example 3 - Lindholm and Hanifin for Hamilton and Ferland was a slam dunk. Ferland hit his high-water mark in his last season with Calgary and was out of the league in a few years. Hamilton left CAR as a FA. Lindy and Hanifin were a huge part of our core when we were competitive and were traded for good packages to kick-start our rebuild.

Neal and Brouwer were fairly high-end UFA signings. Sometimes they don't work out. Markstrom, Tanev and Coleman were also high-end UFA signings and they did work out. The fact that this market was able to attract some high profile FA's - some of that should at least be credited to how aggressive Tre was in FA. The Markstrom and Tanev trades again set us up nicely for a rebuild. Wouldn't it have been great to have taken a couple of big swings like that when Iggy and Kipper were here? Instead of patchwork and trimming around the edges with guys like Amonte, McCarty, Bertuzzi, Morrison etc.?

The ONLY trade I 100% blame Tre for was Hamonic. We gave up a really good pick at a time whe we definitely weren't ready to go all in. There should have been some more long-term thinking there.

Also bridging Tkachuk for 3 years just to keep Frolik was 100% on Tre. But Backlund and Frolik were a pretty elite 3rd line pair at the time.

Tre left a mess only because he went all in in his last few years. But we were coming off of a Division championship and clear win-now mode. It's so easy to #### all over him now because our team is a mess, but Daryl left a mess just as big when he left. I say Tre built a better team than any GM we've had since maybe the mid 90s.

Agree with a lot if what you said here. I would give a lot to know who started and ended the hamonic deal. It was clearly a year too early.

I often think the red mile run was one of the worst things that happened because i think management way overvalued a team without a clear number one or two center. Yes i get the argument about backs but i didnt see lindholm as a vastly superior player either, nor a clear number one.

As disappointing as not getting a chance at 10, i see any first and second round picks as wins especially when they come from your aging signed for money goaltender who doesnt fit our timeline. If Anderson, kuz, mang, sharangovich return some picks thats pretty much more picks than this team has ever had as long ad i have been watching.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

I kind of feel the opposite. The guy tried to build a winner and failed - and obviously it looks bad in hindsight only because we didn't win anything, but 31 other teams don't win anything each year.

I would argue again that some of his moves only look bad in hindsight because we didn't win, but there are so many variables to winning it's hard to pin everything on him.

Example - Getting Huberdeau and Weegar for a guy who demaded a trade was a miracle as far as "win-now" moves go. Who knew Huberdeau would have turned into such a pumpkin.

Example 2 - Monahan was traded for a 1st on the premise that he was completely broken, Huberdeau would completely replace Gaudreau if not be better, and we finally can sign a competent #2C who could play behind Lindy. Kadri for a broken Monahan on the verge of retirement and a 1st expected to be in the 20-25 range is a deal you made 10/10 as a contender. The fact that so many conditions were put in place as "just in case" is just good planning. We could have EASILY traded an unprotected 2024 1st to dump Monny.

Example 3 - Lindholm and Hanifin for Hamilton and Ferland was a slam dunk. Ferland hit his high-water mark in his last season with Calgary and was out of the league in a few years. Hamilton left CAR as a FA. Lindy and Hanifin were a huge part of our core when we were competitive and were traded for good packages to kick-start our rebuild.

Neal and Brouwer were fairly high-end UFA signings. Sometimes they don't work out. Markstrom, Tanev and Coleman were also high-end UFA signings and they did work out. The fact that this market was able to attract some high profile FA's - some of that should at least be credited to how aggressive Tre was in FA. The Markstrom and Tanev trades again set us up nicely for a rebuild. Wouldn't it have been great to have taken a couple of big swings like that when Iggy and Kipper were here? Instead of patchwork and trimming around the edges with guys like Amonte, McCarty, Bertuzzi, Morrison etc.?

The ONLY trade I 100% blame Tre for was Hamonic. We gave up a really good pick at a time whe we definitely weren't ready to go all in. There should have been some more long-term thinking there.

Also bridging Tkachuk for 3 years just to keep Frolik was 100% on Tre. But Backlund and Frolik were a pretty elite 3rd line pair at the time.

Tre left a mess only because he went all in in his last few years. But we were coming off of a Division championship and clear win-now mode. It's so easy to #### all over him now because our team is a mess, but Daryl left a mess just as big when he left. I say Tre built a better team than any GM we've had since maybe the mid 90s.

When Brouwer signed he had never had a season with more than 43 points .

Amonte was coming off a season of 53 points.
Bertuzzi was coming off a season of 40 points
Morrison was coming off a season of 42 points.

If Brouwer was a high profile signing then all of those guys were as well. They were all equal or better players than Brouwer at the time of the signing.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

I kind of feel the opposite. The guy tried to build a winner and failed - and obviously it looks bad in hindsight only because we didn't win anything, but 31 other teams don't win anything each year.

I would argue again that some of his moves only look bad in hindsight because we didn't win, but there are so many variables to winning it's hard to pin everything on him.

Example - Getting Huberdeau and Weegar for a guy who demaded a trade was a miracle as far as "win-now" moves go. Who knew Huberdeau would have turned into such a pumpkin.

Example 2 - Monahan was traded for a 1st on the premise that he was completely broken, Huberdeau would completely replace Gaudreau if not be better, and we finally can sign a competent #2C who could play behind Lindy. Kadri for a broken Monahan on the verge of retirement and a 1st expected to be in the 20-25 range is a deal you made 10/10 as a contender. The fact that so many conditions were put in place as "just in case" is just good planning. We could have EASILY traded an unprotected 2024 1st to dump Monny.

Example 3 - Lindholm and Hanifin for Hamilton and Ferland was a slam dunk. Ferland hit his high-water mark in his last season with Calgary and was out of the league in a few years. Hamilton left CAR as a FA. Lindy and Hanifin were a huge part of our core when we were competitive and were traded for good packages to kick-start our rebuild.

Neal and Brouwer were fairly high-end UFA signings. Sometimes they don't work out. Markstrom, Tanev and Coleman were also high-end UFA signings and they did work out. The fact that this market was able to attract some high profile FA's - some of that should at least be credited to how aggressive Tre was in FA. The Markstrom and Tanev trades again set us up nicely for a rebuild. Wouldn't it have been great to have taken a couple of big swings like that when Iggy and Kipper were here? Instead of patchwork and trimming around the edges with guys like Amonte, McCarty, Bertuzzi, Morrison etc.?

The ONLY trade I 100% blame Tre for was Hamonic. We gave up a really good pick at a time whe we definitely weren't ready to go all in. There should have been some more long-term thinking there.

Also bridging Tkachuk for 3 years just to keep Frolik was 100% on Tre. But Backlund and Frolik were a pretty elite 3rd line pair at the time.

Tre left a mess only because he went all in in his last few years. But we were coming off of a Division championship and clear win-now mode. It's so easy to #### all over him now because our team is a mess, but Daryl left a mess just as big when he left. I say Tre built a better team than any GM we've had since maybe the mid 90s.

Replace hindsight with excuses and Tre was a great GM

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Replace hindsight with excuses and Tre was a great GM

Name me a GM, or any human being, who made his decisions in the moment with the benefit of hindsight.

It is not ‘excuses’ to point out that Treliving did not know in advance which players would be injured, which players would suddenly lose their touch, or which players would fail to pan out at all.