Francis: It's time for the Flames to get serious about bottoming out

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

For me Regehr was that guy, not Dion.

It was the dead puck era, after all.

They failed because they didn't bring in adequate complementary skill. Half the roster were role players and the top six outside iggy had more playmakers than scorers.

Still, a couple things go differently (injuries) and they may have seen another deep run.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

We cannot judge Conroy on his actions. Rather we must judge him on what we think his thoughts might have been. This is the best way to reach a conclusion that matches our thoughts. It is a pretty simple, clearly objective, way to judge what is happening.

Good point. In fact, it’s so good it seems to have blown out the green text generator!

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

For me Regehr was that guy, not Dion.

It was the dead puck era, after all.

They failed because they didn't bring in adequate complementary skill. Half the roster were role players and the top six outside iggy had more playmakers than scorers.

Still, a couple things go differently (injuries) and they may have seen another deep run.

2008-09 was the year they should have had a deep run.

Iginla, Cammalleri, Langkow, Conroy, Bertuzzi, Bourque, Glencross, Moss all had 40+ point seasons up front, and then they added Jokinen to that group.

Phaneuf, Regehr, Aucoin, Sarich, Giordano, Pardy were the d-core and they added Jordan Leopold.

Kipper in net.

That was a legitimately good team that ran into injury issues down the stretch, couldn't dress a full roster because of the cap, and then were injured still in the playoffs against the young and hungry Blackhawks.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

For me Regehr was that guy, not Dion.

It was the dead puck era, after all.

They failed because they didn't bring in adequate complementary skill. Half the roster were role players and the top six outside iggy had more playmakers than scorers.

Still, a couple things go differently (injuries) and they may have seen another deep run.

When do you think the dead puck era was?

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

2008-09 was the year they should have had a deep run.

Iginla, Cammalleri, Langkow, Conroy, Bertuzzi, Bourque, Glencross, Moss all had 40+ point seasons up front, and then they added Jokinen to that group.

Phaneuf, Regehr, Aucoin, Sarich, Giordano, Pardy were the d-core and they added Jordan Leopold.

Kipper in net.

That was a legitimately good team that ran into injury issues down the stretch, couldn't dress a full roster because of the cap, and then were injured still in the playoffs against the young and hungry Blackhawks.

IIRC they started the subsequent 09-10 season with a dominant 12-ish game point streak or something and then … Flamed out, missing the playoffs altogether.

Good times.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

So many of these discussions give me flashbacks to trying to teach a friend how to play blackjack on a Vegas trip.

He could just not wrap his head around probability, demanding certainty, acting like odds was something I made up. Constant questions like "so if I hit on this I am guaranteed to win?" followed by anger at my responses explaining the probabilities based on his cards cards and what the dealer was showing. It was impossible to get him to understand even the most basic strategy because "If something else could happen, then you are just guessing, which means it is all the same".

Sorry not directly the same, more frustration ptsd.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

So many of these discussions give me flashbacks to trying to teach a friend how to play blackjack on a Vegas trip.

He could just not wrap his head around probability, demanding certainty, acting like odds was something I made up. Constant questions like "so if I hit on this I am guaranteed to win?" followed by anger at my responses explaining the probabilities based on his cards cards and what the dealer was showing. It was impossible to get him to understand even the most basic strategy because "If something else could happen, then you are just guessing, which means it is all the same".

Sorry not directly the same, more frustration ptsd.

Only a valid analogy if you view the value of making the playoffs this year as 0.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Only a valid analogy if you view the value of making the playoffs this year as 0.

Unfortunately, a number of posters seem to view the value of making the playoffs as zero unless you go all the way to the Stanley Cup finals. And some of them seem to think a GM can conjure a lottery win just by pure force of will.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Unfortunately, a number of posters seem to view the value of making the playoffs as zero unless you go all the way to the Stanley Cup finals. And some of them seem to think a GM can conjure a lottery win just by pure force of will.

What’s the value of just sneaking into the playoffs? Conroy has no direct control over it. He can’t conjure the team a playoff spot after the worst, or one of the worst starts in franchise history.

Literally no one thinks he can just conjure up a lottery win. He can make roster decisions to accumulate future assets while detracting from the roster while likely maximizing the odds that they will win a lottery draft.

How does Conroy make this roster play like a division champion without deficit spending? That sounds like conjuring by pure force of will.

What is the value of just sneaking into the playoffs and getting pummelled by actual good teams? What does it garner the team? We’ve seen for years that it doesn’t translate into year-to-year success.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Literally no one thinks he can just conjure up a lottery win. He can make roster decisions to accumulate future assets while detracting from the roster while likely maximizing the odds that they will win a lottery draft.

Yet a lot of posters are fixated on McKenna; and some posters are even saying the team needs to lose every single game, as if the lottery odds improve based on how many points you are behind the second-last team.

No matter how badly you do in the standings, the odds are still against you in the lottery.

How does Conroy make this roster play like a division champion without deficit spending? That sounds like conjuring by pure force of will.

He doesn't. Nobody is saying that he can or should. I certainly didn't say any such thing.

What is the value of just sneaking into the playoffs and getting pummelled by actual good teams? What does it garner the team? We’ve seen for years that it doesn’t translate into year-to-year success.

It makes the team make money instead of losing it. Silly question, silly answer.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I think you give the team until the end of December to show what they're made of. If they're not within 2-3 points of a playoff spot at that point, you pivot and embrace the tank.

There's no guarantee we're getting McKenna even with a last place finish, and even if we do, there's no guarantee he's going to be a Kucherov or Pasta level winger. He's having a just OK season so far at Penn State.

I would normally agree with you 100% on 'lets see what this team is made of' by some arbitrary point on the calendar in which to act. However, I really don't any longer. What does this team need to show you between now and December, or the trade deadline (or whatever arbitrary point you want to pick) that you don't already know now about them?


This team is a flawed. There best players that push the game are mostly all on the wrong side of 30. They have promising young players coming up through the system. However, they lack players in their prime with skill. If things go right and they out-compete every other team again, maybe they squeak into the playoffs. Maybe. However, they would most assuredly be first round fodder. They are neither skilled enough, nor defensive enough, nor big enough to compete.


I feel I have seen all I need to see out of this team from the last few years. I am very optimistic regarding the future, but I don't see the 'now'.


As for the 'there will be no chance at Mckenna' talk - two things (and this isn't just directed at you, but in general as I see a lot of posts about him on this page):


1) He is still likely to be the best player in the draft, and better than anyone the Flames have in their organization at the moment.
2) It isn't even necessarily about McKenna. It is about getting a 'franchise level' player to help build around. I am not pinning my hopes on McKenna or bust - it is finding a franchise player to build around.


One of the arguments I also see is "There are very good players drafted throughout the draft still, not just at the top of the draft." There are of course, but those players are few and far between. Your best chance at getting a star player is at the start of the draft, not the middle or end. It can happen, but it rare. I will add to this as well - how much better off would the Flames be by drafting a top 3 pick, and then finding another star later in the draft as well? I believe that the strength of this organization is through drafting and development, and I would like to see the Flames leverage this as much as possible.

I am a Flames' fan first and foremost, so I will watch and cheer and do all that stuff no matter in which direction they go. I just think that this is by design, and that we really know what this team is made of right now. It is a lot closer to picking 1st overall then it is to winning a cup. I think the natural progression would be to just lean in the direction it is closest to for now, instead of trying to fight against the current. I take offence (not from you MathGod - I haven't seen you post anything like this) that by having the opinion that this team should be targeting a high pick, that I am somehow less of a fan, or that I am 'pissing on this team', etc.


I am not openly cheering for losses. They are just easier to get over knowing that this is (IMO) the right path forward, as much as it sucks.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yet a lot of posters are fixated on McKenna; and some posters are even saying the team needs to lose every single game, as if the lottery odds improve based on how many points you are behind the second-last team.

No matter how badly you do in the standings, the odds are still against you in the lottery.



He doesn't. Nobody is saying that he can or should. I certainly didn't say any such thing.



It makes the team make money instead of losing it. Silly question, silly answer.

The Flames are under the cap by more than they will make from playoff revenue.


On top of this, if they build back up again and we have 2nd-line players as 'stars' (like we have now), how soon will apathy set in? Imagine the brand new building not selling out in year 3. Tickets will take a jump with the new building. Can you imagine if the building is not selling out by season two or season three?


It isn't just as simple as make the playoffs. Even if this is the argument, then they better make sure they build a good team, because they were a cap team that didn't make the playoffs consistently, and if they did, were bounced in the first round usually.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The Flames are under the cap by more than they will make from playoff revenue.

And still liable to lose money. We've gone from a situation where more than half the league was actually over the cap to one where more than half the league is significantly under it. The teams aren't spending less; the cap has gone up faster than their willingness or ability to spend. Which makes cap space a bad measure of pretty much anything at this point.

On top of this, if they build back up again and we have 2nd-line players as 'stars' (like we have now), how soon will apathy set in?

That's irrelevant to the question of whether there is any value in making the playoffs.

It isn't just as simple as make the playoffs.

Of course it isn't. But pretending that there is no value at all in making the playoffs is silly.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

2008-09 was the year they should have had a deep run.

Iginla, Cammalleri, Langkow, Conroy, Bertuzzi, Bourque, Glencross, Moss all had 40+ point seasons up front, and then they added Jokinen to that group.

Phaneuf, Regehr, Aucoin, Sarich, Giordano, Pardy were the d-core and they added Jordan Leopold.

Kipper in net.

That was a legitimately good team that ran into injury issues down the stretch, couldn't dress a full roster because of the cap, and then were injured still in the playoffs against the young and hungry Blackhawks.

I always think back to that season as well. They were a couple points back of Detroit for 1st in the west about 2/3 through the season. They were a dominant looking team. Then, in the span of 2 weeks, they lost all the depth on team to injury - Bourque, bertuzzi, langkow, gio and I think glencross were all gone in that span. Some came back right before playoffs but they never got back to form and the flames dropped in the standings without the team depth. Has little momentum going into the playoffs. Lost to Chicago. But even in that series, they were an unlucky rim around the glass from being up 2-0 in the series.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by stemit14

I always think back to that season as well. They were a couple points back of Detroit for 1st in the west about 2/3 through the season. They were a dominant looking team. Then, in the span of 2 weeks, they lost all the depth on team to injury - Bourque, bertuzzi, langkow, gio and I think glencross were all gone in that span. Some came back right before playoffs but they never got back to form and the flames dropped in the standings without the team depth. Has little momentum going into the playoffs. Lost to Chicago. But even in that series, they were an unlucky rim around the glass from being up 2-0 in the series.

Sarich playing on I think two broken feet, Phaneuf rushing back with broken/cracked ribs? I think Langkow came back with a busted hand in the playoffs too?

It was wild. That was pure bad luck. I also think the response to that season breaking down was way off base. They should have done their best to run that team back (including Keenan...Brent was a disaster). Even with Darryl getting all hot and bothered by Jbo, why not still do that and then trade Dion in the Summer with a bidding war?

The complete "no, we need a shutdown coach and a shutdown team with zero offense" was just Darryl losing it.

[Jay Random]

As I recall, Langkow actually had two broken hands in the 2009 playoffs, and could barely hold his stick, let alone shoot the puck.

I also recall that some posters on CP said that was no excuse for how poorly he performed in the series against Chicago.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

As I recall, Langkow actually had two broken hands in the 2009 playoffs, and could barely hold his stick, let alone shoot the puck.

I also recall that some posters on CP said that was no excuse for how poorly he performed in the series against Chicago.

That's right - I have memory of him having a great chance in the slot in the elimination game, and he had to spin around and take a backhand because he couldn't shoot on the forehand.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by stemit14

Has little momentum going into the playoffs. Lost to Chicago. But even in that series, they were an unlucky rim around the glass from being up 2-0 in the series.

Chicago won the first two games of that series?

[Mathgod]

Though I feel like I'm repeating this for the millionth time, I'll say it again. The team's opening 9 games was a gauntlet from hell, and that part of the schedule is behind them. It gets easier from here (aside from a road trip to the SE). The team will be able to make up a lot of ground due to the hardest part of the schedule already being behind them.

Any analysis that does not take this fact into account, is incomplete and flawed imo.

You can't just look at the record right now and say hey look, the team's true colors are showing.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Chicago won the first two games of that series?

My mistake. It was game 1 that they were unlucky to lose. Could have been up 1-0 in that series.