[Rumour] Kylington to test free agency

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by blankall

The Oilers do have a wider fanbase than the Flames, and they went to the finals with a marquee player in McDavid. Don't think the Flames would get quite that high, but they could do a lot better.

I do think the owners - and the city for that matter - will recoup much of the cost of the new arena pretty quickly.

The revenue is from 22-23 where they won one round. I'd imagine they'll lead the league in 23-24, probably top $300 million.

You're right, McDavid does help. I think Flames winning a playoff round in their new arena could get close to the top 3 in the league, though.

[Snuffleupagus]

Far too much time is passing, time to completely...

Spoiler!

Wish him well

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That chart is from a year ago - one year off of then winning a round and having a successful regular season. With a huge trade that looked like it was going to salvage the loss of two players. Attendance was fine.

https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attenda...h.php?tmi=5090

Attendance the last 2 seasons is the lowest it’s been in 20 years

Not sure attendance has been fine

That’s also why it’s funny people worrying about attendance during the rebuild . It was already bad and declining . It can’t go that much lower

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attenda...h.php?tmi=5090

Attendance the last 2 seasons is the lowest it’s been in 20 years

Not sure attendance has been fine

That’s also why it’s funny people worrying about attendance during the rebuild . It was already bad and declining . It can’t go that much lower

Seeing star players leave really killed a lot of hope and brought in a lot of negativity. People say winning puts butts in seats, which is true. But I would say it's more accurate to say hype puts butts in seats. When teams are winning, that brings hype. If you present and market it the right way, a rebuild and youth movement can bring hype as well.

But doing neither brings neither.

[Jason14h]

Agreed - and I would argue there is more “hope” right now then there has been the last few years

We do need a 1st overall pick to sell the new stadium hype though still …

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attenda...h.php?tmi=5090

Attendance the last 2 seasons is the lowest it’s been in 20 years

Not sure attendance has been fine

That’s also why it’s funny people worrying about attendance during the rebuild . It was already bad and declining . It can’t go that much lower

It can’t get much lower? Easy to say.

And it was a lot lower for 98-04. I wonder what was similar about the team back then?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It can’t get much lower? Easy to say.

And it was a lot lower for 98-04. I wonder what was similar about the team back then?

The common theme back then was lack of star power and a refusal to full on rebuild.

What the Flames are doing now has never been attempted by the Flames before.

[Zary's-Mustache]

Attendance was far from fine. It was very concerning. I couldn't give away tickets a lot of nights.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

And when you look at the Oilers, you see where the Flames can get to with a new arena and that's essentially the very top of the NHL.

(Also, Florida's revenue factors in a run all the way to the finals)

Yep. All they had to do is scam the city where citizens are struggling to make ends meet into agreeing to pay hundreds of millions to billionaires to a sports team ownership group so they can make more millions by charging more money for tickets and beer, while social services crumble around us.

Too bad every city wasn't this smart!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The common theme back then was lack of star power and a refusal to full on rebuild.

What the Flames are doing now has never been attempted by the Flames before.

What? Refusal to rebuild? Do you have any idea how the NHL worked back then, specifically for small market teams like Calgary and Edmonton?

Rebuilds had nothing to do with anything for the Flames in the late 90's/early 2000's. They were a feeder team for large markets regardless of anything they did or didn't do. Rebuild was not a term that mattered in that NHL landscape.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jayswin

What? Refusal to rebuild? Do you have any idea how the NHL worked back then, specifically for small market teams like Calgary and Edmonton?

Rebuilds had nothing to do with anything for the Flames in the late 90's/early 2000's. They were a feeder team for large markets regardless of anything they did or didn't do. Rebuild was not a term that mattered in that NHL landscape.

Between 1998 and 2004, the Flames made very few feeder team kind of deals. There was the Fleury trade in 1998, but he was a pending UFA anyway. After that, most of the trades the Flames made were lateral moves or hockey trades.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The common theme back then was lack of star power and a refusal to full on rebuild.

What the Flames are doing now has never been attempted by the Flames before.

No, the common theme was the losses. I doubt you remember but there was no cry for a rebuild. There were, in fact, complaints that they couldn't keep their stars. The Flames briefly tried to market a rebuild by branding it Young Guns. It was a miserable failure.

Attendance the last couple years has still been over 17K. Not in the 15-16K range like in those days.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by jayswin

What? Refusal to rebuild? Do you have any idea how the NHL worked back then, specifically for small market teams like Calgary and Edmonton?

Rebuilds had nothing to do with anything for the Flames in the late 90's/early 2000's. They were a feeder team for large markets regardless of anything they did or didn't do. Rebuild was not a term that mattered in that NHL landscape.

I vaguely remember the constant worry Iggy would end up in NY during one off season.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, the common theme was the losses. I doubt you remember but there was no cry for a rebuild. There were, in fact, complaints that they couldn't keep their stars. The Flames briefly tried to market a rebuild by branding it Young Guns. It was a miserable failure.

Attendance the last couple years has still been over 17K. Not in the 15-16K range like in those days.

I remember even discussing on here and FOI before that. The idea of rebuilds was invented after 2004.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I remember even discussing on here and FOI before that. The idea of rebuilds was invented after 2004.

The concept a tank for a high draft pick was certainly invented much earlier.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The concept a tank for a high draft pick was certainly invented much earlier.

Quebec tanked to build a amazing team that Colorado got to benefit from.

Pittsburg tanked so they could get Mario Lemieux.

This isn't a new idea. I am sure there are earlier examples.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Quebec tanked to build a amazing team that Colorado got to benefit from.

Pittsburg tanked so they could get Mario Lemieux.

This isn't a new idea. I am sure there are earlier examples.

I remember very specific discussion on the message and bulletin boards talking about the Flames doing just that after the Fleury trade, saying that we should rebuild through the draft. I even recall one of my friends, who happened to be an Oilers fan, ask me if I thought the Flames were going to rebuild. It's definitely not a newer concept. I even recall on here, or FOI as it was at the time, some people getting frustrated when the Flames went after a rental (Krivokrasov) to try and maintain mediocrity rather than rebuild.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The concept a tank for a high draft pick was certainly invented much earlier.

Most infamous case being the Pittsburgh vs. New Jersey turtle race in 1984.

The first team I can remember tearing its roster down to the studs and rebuilding from scratch was the Quebec Nordiques in the late 80s. They traded away every good player except the very young Joe Sakic, and wound up drafting 1st overall three years running.

In '88-89, their top scorers were Peter Stastny, Walt Poddubny, Jeff Brown, and Michel Goulet, with Sakic fifth. All were over 60 points.

In '89-90, Sakic scored 102 points. Of all the players who finished the season on the Nords' roster, the #2 scorer was Michel Petit, with 36.

I don't recall the word ‘rebuild’ being used at the time. This was basically the first time any GM had dismantled his team to that extent.

Before that, teams would have ‘youth movements’, shipping out older players after they had prospects who could plausibly take their place. The idea of getting rid of the old players and then drafting their replacements hadn't really caught on.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Quebec tanked to build a amazing team that Colorado got to benefit from.

Quebec was lucky enough to draft (what should have been) a generational talent and then trade him for a massive return. Also they never would have ever gotten Patrick Roy if they were still in Quebec and likely wouldn't have landed Bourque either.

[GioforPM]

The Mario tank was really egregious.