Captainship

[Reggie Dunlop]

[PuckSlap]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So you think the only reason they are not at the bottom 'where they should be' is Wolf.

But somehow your conclusion is 'a mushy middle team like they have been for 20 years'.

Okay.

So trade Wolf so that we can get back to the bottom where we should be?

I strongly believe that he is the reason that we have won 75% of the games we have, yes..


We should be at the bottom but we lucked out with this particular goalie. No we should trade him, but I promise we will all be just as miserable in 3 years when we’re trying to build a better team with no all star forwards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

I strongly believe that he is the reason that we have won 75% of the games we have, yes..


We should be at the bottom but we lucked out with this particular goalie. No we should trade him, but I promise we will all be just as miserable in 3 years when we’re trying to build a better team with no all star forwards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what do you suggest they do differently? It's really easy to call them stupid, but it gets a bit trickier to suggest a plan that would be better than the one they are on. Let's here it - how do we avoid being "just as miserable in 3 years"?

[All In Good Time]

Captainship?
Captaincy.
Cy…….sea. Ship. Hmmmmm. Interesting

[PuckSlap]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So what do you suggest they do differently? It's really easy to call them stupid, but it gets a bit trickier to suggest a plan that would be better than the one they are on. Let's here it - how do we avoid being "just as miserable in 3 years"?

I think we’re holding on just enough to end up with the same outcome we always get. We’re pushing for the playoffs, but it’s obvious we don’t have the pieces for a deep run. Instead of continuing the same cycle, I believe we should embrace short-term pain for long-term gain. Moving players like Huberdeau and others now could position us for a stronger future, even if it means missing the playoffs this year. It’s time to reset and build toward something better.

[Joborule]

Some of y'all really couldn't handle a rebuild. Could imagine how you would respond if the team was actually as bad as expected (wishing?) to be.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

I think we’re holding on just enough to end up with the same outcome we always get. We’re pushing for the playoffs, but it’s obvious we don’t have the pieces for a deep run. Instead of continuing the same cycle, I believe we should embrace short-term pain for long-term gain. Moving players like Huberdeau and others now could position us for a stronger future, even if it means missing the playoffs this year. It’s time to reset and build toward something better.

You think they can move Huberdeau with that contract?
Your plan isn't a plan. Specifics please. What is this reset you are talking about.
Specifics.

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by Coach

Sutters biggest mistake was not naming Backlund as soon as Gio left. Was a weird hole in the team for no reason.

For me it was rejecting Tkachuk when he wanted a contract extension and the captaincy.

[PuckSlap]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

You think they can move Huberdeau with that contract?
Your plan isn't a plan. Specifics please. What is this reset you are talking about.
Specifics.

I get that moving Huberdeau isn’t easy with his contract, but with the cap space the Flames have, they could retain a portion of his salary to make it more appealing for a contending team. The idea isn’t just about moving him but also about selling off other older players while they still have value. If we do this now, we likely fall further in the standings, which means a better draft pick rather than just barely missing the playoffs or getting eliminated in the first round again.

The reset is simple: move out long-term, expensive contracts that aren’t helping us compete, focus on younger players like Zary and Zayne Parekh, and build around them while stacking draft capital. This gives us a shot at landing an elite player who can actually change the franchise. Otherwise, we’re stuck in the same cycle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PuckSlap]

To add to that—at what point do you think it makes sense to move on from him entirely? At some point, you have to admit the signing was a mistake and eat part of the contract while he’s actually having a half-decent season. What’s the alternative? Holding on and hoping he magically turns things around? Or using that cap space to sign more aging players who might chip in a few goals but won’t move the needle?

He’s getting older and losing value. The flames aren’t going to win with him, and it’s obvious. So let’s cut ties.

Im not talking an entire buyout. I’m talking about admitting defeat and eating some or most of the contract while we still can. Or we end up paying for him the whole term while he sits at home and watches for the last 4 years of his deal.

Or we do the exact same thing next season.

[MrButtons]

OP seems like a person that thinks the captain needs to be the best player on team, how well is that working out for Edmonton?

A leader doesn’t need to be the best, a leader needs to bring out the best in people, u walnut.

Disclosure - I love backlund

[drewtastic]

They should make everyone the captain. The Wranglers too.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Underrated post. Very topical.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

I get that moving Huberdeau isn’t easy with his contract, but with the cap space the Flames have, they could retain a portion of his salary to make it more appealing for a contending team. The idea isn’t just about moving him but also about selling off other older players while they still have value. If we do this now, we likely fall further in the standings, which means a better draft pick rather than just barely missing the playoffs or getting eliminated in the first round again.

The reset is simple: move out long-term, expensive contracts that aren’t helping us compete, focus on younger players like Zary and Zayne Parekh, and build around them while stacking draft capital. This gives us a shot at landing an elite player who can actually change the franchise. Otherwise, we’re stuck in the same cycle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be a bad move to retain the amount of cap required for that long. And all those reasons why you want them to move him on, is why no team will take on that deal unless half the contract is covered. And that's a bad move for the Flames.

As for the rest. What players do you think they can move that don't have NTCs.
Andersson.
And?

Your plan isn't a plan.

[Big Erned Nevergivn]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

Captainship?
Captaincy.
Cy…….sea. Ship. Hmmmmm. Interesting

The best ships are friendships!

[Locke]

Clearly the only answer is to strip Backlund of the Captaincy and hand it over to Kirkland.

Its the only solution...to a problem that seemingly doesnt exist? But it must be done!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

For me it was rejecting Tkachuk when he wanted a contract extension and the captaincy.

That was Treliving, not Sutter and it was later.

I think if you had made Backlund captain for those 2-3 years and then moved it to Tkachuk with a long-term extension like you mentioned, we have a totally different team currently and maybe some nice playoff runs in there. Not naming a Captain just left this weird thing hanging for no reason and gave it a weight that it doesn't really have to have. It was like if you're not one of the best captains ever, why even give it you?

Honestly I think Sutter had a weird bias against Backlund. Maybe a bit of an outdated anti-Euro vibe (not consciously, but we all know that old boys club always made a point about Canadian or at least NA captains). I don't think he really expected much from him as a young player and didn't really seem to fully respect how his career had panned out, despite being the one constant through our worst stint of coaches ever. He was the obvious choice for Captain at the time as even Tkachuk had some big reverence for him and I think would have gladly served some years with him as the C until he was ultimately ready.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by Coach

That was Treliving, not Sutter and it was later.

I think if you had made Backlund captain for those 2-3 years and then moved it to Tkachuk with a long-term extension like you mentioned, we have a totally different team currently and maybe some nice playoff runs in there.

Honestly I think Sutter had a weird bias against Backlund. Maybe a bit of an outdated anti-Euro vibe (not consciously, but we all know that old boys club always made a point about Canadian or at least NA captains) . I don't think he really expected much from him as a young player and didn't really seem to fully respect how his career had panned out, despite being the one constant through our worst stint of coaches ever. He was the obvious choice for Captain at the time as even Tkachuk had some big reverence for him and I think would have gladly served some years with him as the C until he was ultimately ready.

He never got over those white skates

[Ba'alzamon]

I'm just saying, Backlund really needs to trim those sideburns. I mean, it's been almost 18 years, man!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

I'm just saying, Backlund really needs to trim those sideburns. I mean, it's been almost 18 years, man!

Damned straight! Trim those sideburns!!