Barn Burner: The Boys are Back!! (Boomer, Pinder & Warrener)

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But it doesn't guarantee a top-3 pick, and you'd be foolish to trade him for nothing in return.

If Kadri did get traded for future considerations tomorrow, I guarantee CP would have an epic collective meltdown. And they would be right to do so.

I am just saying theoretically if it did guarantee it I would take it. The reason I want him traded asap is because i don't think we can go on a big win streak without him.

Which is why he needs to go (sorry Kadri I have your jersey and you have been great, but time to pack your bags!).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Take out your calculator, and multiple the odds of picking 1st, 2nd and 3rd when you finish last and the odds that player is a star/superstar. Then take out your calculator and multiply the odds of drafting 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th when you finish 4th. Multiply those by the odds a player ends up a star/superstar.

I wonder which is higher!

The question is not which is higher. The question, if you'll remember, is whether the magnitude of that difference is greater than the value of assets acquired for Kadri. And that's only because you start with the assumption that Kadri alone makes the difference between 32nd place and, say, 29th, and that these places in the standings can be forecast with absolute certainty both with and without him.

You leave so many things out of your analysis, it's not even wrong. It does not rise to the level of error.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

If trading Kadri would guarantee us a top 3 pick and we got nothing in return I would still do it. That is how much I value a top 3 pick this year.

But there's no guarantee it would.

You trade Kadri when you get an offer you think is exact or close to what you're looking for.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I am just saying theoretically if it did guarantee it I would take it. The reason I want him traded asap is because i don't think we can go on a big win streak without him.

See, that appears to be the difference between us. I don't think they can go on a big win streak even with him. I think the team loses at most a couple of points in the standings by trading Kadri now as opposed to (say) the Olympic break; maybe three or four points by waiting till the deadline. It's not like they will replace him with an empty uniform and skate 4-on-5 for his shifts.

I think the bigger issue is when they trade Andersson, and even that's not happening until a few teams emerge as possible buyers.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Inferno

But there's no guarantee it would.

You trade Kadri when you get an offer you think is exact or close to what you're looking for.

Oh i fully agree, it was more just used to emphasize the importance of drafting top 3 this year.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Inferno

But there's no guarantee it would.

You trade Kadri when you get an offer you think is exact or close to what you're looking for.

Which is what?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The question is not which is higher. The question, if you'll remember, is whether the magnitude of that difference is greater than the value of assets acquired for Kadri. And that's only because you start with the assumption that Kadri alone makes the difference between 32nd place and, say, 29th, and that these places in the standings can be forecast with absolute certainty both with and without him.

You leave so many things out of your analysis, it's not even wrong. It does not rise to the level of error.

Except I already posted the draft pick value! Did you even look at it? Of course not!

The difference between the 3rd overall pick and 5th overall pick is the 28th overall in pick value

The difference between 1st overall and 4th is 4!!! late firsts!

But maybe Conroy can get a team to give us 5 late firsts if we wait long enough!

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Which is what?

I don't know. I'm not Craig Conroy.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Which is what?

I can't speak for Inferno, but I would be looking for a 1st + a prospect, and if the prospect is a forward, he had better be able to play centre.

I wouldn't take a 1st all by itself at this point in the season, and I certainly wouldn't take any offer that begins with a 2nd or a 3rd. It's doubly certain that I wouldn't take an offer that involves taking out Brad Treliving's trash for him, which is the only thing we've heard of so far that was definitely being offered for any of the Flames' players this month.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Except I already posted the draft pick value! Did you even look at it? Of course not!

I've seen the table before, thank you.

The difference between the 3rd overall pick and 5th overall pick is the 28th overall in pick value

In an average draft, yes. But there are no average drafts. You have to look at the quality of players available in this particular year. I don't know where the scouts think the top tier ends. If they think it's McKenna and then four roughly equal players after him, then the difference between 3rd and 5th is not that important to them. If they think it drops off a tier after the top 3 players, then it is. I don't know, neither do you, and at this point, the scouts themselves don't know because it's early in the year and they are still out there scouting.

The difference between 1st overall and 4th is 4!!! late firsts!

Neither you nor Conroy nor anyone else can make the Flames draft 1st overall, and you know it.

As for the difference between 3rd and 5th, if you think giving Kadri away now will make the team CERTAIN to finish last, and keeping him till the deadline makes them CERTAIN to finish no lower than 30th, the onus is on you to show your work. You have not even begun to do this. You have merely ignored the question and shouted louder about the value of picks.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I mean Murray runs shops with high morale, engaged employees, and constant positive job reviews all over the internet?

Or we're witnessing a cut-throat, over-reaching, owner doing his thing - the same thing we've seen across his other businesses, for decades.

RCR, and their lack of ANY capital investment in ~60 years of total ownership, and rarely any news stories about lack of sufficient OPEX for infrastructure.

Caveat; not withstanding; YYC civic arena negotiations, CNRL perpetual layoffs, and low engagement scores, RCR's material reduction in grooming, tenured employee attrition, Kicking Horse gondola hanger-arms, Quebec coming to to the rescue from Murray's lack of maintenance at Mt St Anne, terrain park abolishment (industry leading LOL), thank F.*&!K Charlie bought back the jewel.

the Athletic, ranked our teams' owner as one of the worst.

How does this not resonate?

Agree mostly, but CNRL doesn't lay off generally. Its widely known that they just make it so miserable that you quit.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

If trading Kadri would guarantee us a top 3 pick and we got nothing in return I would still do it. That is how much I value a top 3 pick this year.

Yeah, but it doesn't.

And how many victories this year would have been losses but for Kadri? I can't think of a single one.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Flames are currently in last. But they could go on a run of .500 hockey and finish 26th, get bumped by the lottery and draft 7th or 8th. And next season they’ll be worse with both off the roster. There’s better odds of drafting top 5 in the 2026 and 2027 drafts with them gone.

And both Kadri and Coleman will get a better return if a team’s getting them for multiple years. 2-3 playoffs > 1.

They aren't going on that kind of a run. And I don't beleive the return is better for two seasons of those players. Lots of teams don't want to encumber a roster spot for two years.

The Flames are a bottom three team with or without those guys.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Fact: The Flames ownership and upper management have never once formally acknowledged a rebuild or even used the word rebuild in any way other than to deny that a rebuild is happening.

Fact: Both the Flames ownership and upper management have, just within the last two weeks, publicly stated that there is no interest in anything other than keeping the pieces we have, adding to them and finding a way to start winning games.

Fact: At the season ticket event ("Bonfire") during training camp, Huska, Conroy and Maloney each talked about the plan for this season, which was to continue from where they left off last season with the goal of making the playoffs.

Fact: Any vets that have been traded in recent years have been at the request of the players themselves. Either by demanding a trade or by telling management they had no intention of re-signing. A few of the players were even kept around until the very last possible minute, and were only traded when all efforts to convince them to stay had failed.

Fact: When those above trades took place, the focus was on brining back a young reclamation project who could take the departing player's place, and continue the goal of trying to make the playoffs. Contrast that with other teams who are rebuilding, who intentionally traded away their vets (at the teams' decision) and did so with the focus of getting the best draft capital they could acquire - often by taking on post-prime players on bad contracts as part of the deal to maximize the return of draft capital.

Fact: The teams referenced above have either bought out some of those contracts or pushed those post-prime players down to the bottom of their lineups in favour of playing and developing the new, younger core they have drafted.

Fact: Those teams have employed coaching staffs that are focused on developing their new cores at the NHL level, with winning games taking a backseat to player development - which has often resulted in consecutive years of drafting in the top three, and adding even more top-tier talent to their cores.

Fact: The Flames have done none of those things, and often go into each training camp promising to come out with drafted players playing prominent roles, only for the obvious to actually happen: too many vets with multi year contracts taking up all the lineup spots, with young players used sporadically in and out of the lineup depending on injuries etc. Even then, the vets at the bottom of the lineup are often move up to fill holes, and the young call ups take their spots in the bottom six.

Fact: The Flames made a big deal of publicly celebrating Gridin and Parekh making the opening night roster, but those of us who have been around this organization for a long time knew that Gridin only "made it" because Huberdeau and Pospisil were hurt. We also knew that Parekh only made the team because the sending him back to junior would have made him unavailable to the Flames for the entire season, and he wasn't allowed to play in the minors. To none of us' surprise, he opened the season in the pressbox, and was used very sporadically in limited roles - because this team is not focused on developing Parekh at the NHL level, they are focused on winning games, making the playoffs and being a contender.

People are going to argue against all of these facts, and in spite of the owners telling us there is no rebuild, upper management telling us there is no rebuild, the roster and lineup decisions made by the team telling us there is no rebuild... they're going to adamantly deny all of it and say there is a rebuild. I don't know why those people insist on that course of action, when it's in everyone's best interest to let this organization know we want actual changes, not more of the same "changes" that we see year after year, where the names and faces are exchanged but the methods and the results are always the same.

Yes, there are a lot of us who are happy right now when we lose games. It's not because we hate the team or because we're anarchists hoping for destruction. It's because this is a very big draft coming up, and every loss is like the hockey gods stepping in and taking things out of the hands of the organization and forcing a top 3 pick on us - because we know this team will do everything they can to screw things up if left to their devices. For years we wanted to trade guys out, but the team refused until the players forced them to trade them. We would still be watching a team of Lindholm, Hanifin, Markstrom, etc today if that didn't happen. So losses are worth celebrating, because each one that happens brings us closer and closer to finally getting game-breaking top-tier offensive threat that we desperately need.


For the record, I like Conroy and I like Huska. Unfortunately, their orders are very clearly "keep your players and win hockey games." Which means boring, low-event hockey because we don't have the skill for any other way to compete, and middle of the pack finishes preventing us from getting any skill. That's why I keep saying nothing's going to change until ownership relents and allows for a rebuild to happen. In the meantime, losing games forces us to draft in the top three, and that's about all we can ever hope for.

The bolded are not, in fact, facts.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The bolded are not, in fact, facts.

Fact

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I don't doubt Edwards reach, and that Bingo isn't even once-removed.

Am I reading this right?

So you're suggesting I'm a puppet or bought and paid for?

New bell ringer for insult level, you should be proud.

Maybe don't go through life looking for weak reasons to to denigrate those that have opposing opinions to your rumble stripped views.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Once removed, being they'd have a mutual contact, and I'd hedge my mortgage on that.

When can I get the keys?

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Am I reading this right?

So you're suggesting I'm a puppet or bought and paid for?

New bell ringer for insult level, you should be proud.

Maybe don't go through life looking for weak reasons to to denigrate those that have opposing opinions to your rumble stripped views.

Its a stupid accusation, I would not dignify it by responding to it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Am I reading this right?

So you're suggesting I'm a puppet or bought and paid for?

It's getting ridiculous.

The people who are determined to be unhappy even when their goals of a bottom place finish are being met are so upset that anyone questions their notion that management is working against that goal (despite the actual lack of any concrete steps to improve in the standings) that such opinions are thought of as being management mouthpieces. At the same time as they hang on almost meaningless snippets from actual management connected people.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's getting ridiculous.

The people who are determined to be unhappy even when their goals of a bottom place finish are being met are so upset that anyone questions their notion that management is working against that goal (despite the actual lack of any concrete steps to improve in the standings) that such opinions are thought of as being management mouthpieces. At the same time as they hang on almost meaningless snippets from actual management connected people.

One person implied this about Bingo. Stop painting with such a broad brush, it's tiresome.

If you want to argue with what someone says, quote them.