[News] Conroy, Maloney, Nonis and Pascall all extended 2 years

[Robbob]

One of the things for me that clearly shows it is a rebuild is the number of picks the Flames have had with Conroy. 2024 they 6 picks in the first 3 round, 5 in 2025, and they are sitting at 5 for the 2026 draft without the potential trades this year. As it stands 17 players in the first 3 rounds when teams typically would have 9.

If that isn't a rebuild by draft picks I don't know what is. That high pick will happen this year. I think they have stocked up so many picks the issue in the next couple years will be trying to find places for everyone to develop.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

So, the terminology is all silly. I've seen so many people shift from 'they will never rebuild' to 'they've been rebuilding for 2 years'.

If there's no agreed upon definition, rebuilding/re-tooling/rebiggling means nothing.

When I say rebuild, I generally am defining it as something along the lines of:

"the process of turning over a roster's construction through the draft, with a foundation built on players selected at the top of the draft, as well as the trading of existing veteran assets to gain additional prospects and picks while prioritizing young players and their development at the NHL level".

I'd also say this is somewhat close to the Flames understanding of the term 'rebuild' based on what we've heard about their lack of desire to draft at the top.

I don't think the Flames have been rebuilding for 2 years, and I think it's disingenous to say they have been when the organization themselves have (through various methods) said they are not rebuilding/haven't been able to say rebuilding. In Conroy's first season, he managed assets wiselely, but pretty much all of his trades included a 'now' piece alongside a 'future' piece, that's not "rebuilding" that's what people have been correctly quantifying as "re-tooling on the fly". I think it's fair to stick with that classification over the last two years. Summarized as: Improved organizational asset management, with a desire to get younger.

I'd also say while they're younger, they are not 'young' as they the the 13th youngest team in the league this season.

To come around and say they've been rebuilding for 2 years is just an attempt to change the narrative around what they have been doing for 2 years. They've been 're-tooling on the fly'.

lol no. It’s because everybody, even you, is just making up whatever the hell they want “rebuild.”

We’re at the “it’s only a rebuild if it comes from the Rébauld region of France” stage here where people are just finding reasons to not call it a rebuild.

“It’s only a rebuild if they pick in the top four.”
“It’s only a rebuild if they trade away 2 of the following 3 players.”
“It’s only a rebuild if they come out and deliver a signed letter telling us it’s a rebuild.”

Like, come on guys.

That’s a lot stranger than people who go from “they’ll never tank” to “actually if you look at the evidence it’s pretty clear they’re rebuilding.” Evaluating the information and changing your opinion based on the evidence is a totally normal, good thing to do.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They picked 18th and 32nd (and got two very good players).

How do you know this? They haven't played an NHL game yet.

They could end up being some of the best players in the NHL or never become regular NHLers. You never know at this stage.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A. They have been drafting higher than most other teams. You have just admitted that much in your post.

B. Yes, some teams have drafted higher in one or two of those years. They are rebuilding too. And some started before Calgary did.

C. Rebuilds don’t always start by hitting rock bottom. Plus Calgary had an unexpectedly good year last season - they were predicted to be a top 5 drafter.

To refute point A, the last 3 years we have drafted 16th, 9th, and 18th with our top pick. That is an average of between pick 14 and 15

We are even in the mushy middle for high draft picks lol. Better than half the league and worse than half the league.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol no. It’s because everybody, even you, is just making up whatever the hell they want “rebuild.”

We’re at the “it’s only a rebuild if it comes from the Rébauld region of France” stage here where people are just finding reasons to not call it a rebuild.

“It’s only a rebuild if they pick in the top four.”
“It’s only a rebuild if they trade away 2 of the following 3 players.”
“It’s only a rebuild if they come out and deliver a signed letter telling us it’s a rebuild.”

Like, come on guys.

That’s a lot stranger than people who go from “they’ll never tank” to “actually if you look at the evidence it’s pretty clear they’re rebuilding.” Evaluating the information and changing your opinion based on the evidence is a totally normal, good thing to do.

Its not complicated. The organization said they arent rebuilding and then went the last 16 months with a only one trade. That trade wasn't rebuild related. A fan interpreting that as the Flames are not rebuilding doesn't need to defend the take. They say they are not rebuilding and have done nothing to rebuild in nearly 2 years. They aren't rebuilding is the default take.

The other side of the argument is flimsy and generaly revolve around veteran turnover in Conroy's first year, the Flames not leveraging cap space, and the Flames not moving assets to improve.

• Veterans moved first year: They were nearly all pending UFAs, some of which they attempted to keep. Plus a disgruntled goalie that they had to trade due to having too many goalies. It was also limited to Conroy's first year.
• Cap space not leveraged/Not trying to win now: First, they tried via Conroy's "big swings". Second, they have been inactive, hence they aren't building, rebuilding or otherwise.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Itse

Yeah, it's just the most significant part, the way you acquire top end talent.

Regardless of how significant you think it is it's still just one part of rebuidling. The Flames have been rebuilding since Conroy took over and started moving out veterans and opening up spots for younger players.

Last year trading away players was stalled because of the year they had but they still let older pending UFAs go opening up more spots and also didn't blow cap space trying to chase the playoffs.

The one trade they did make was just as much for the future as it was for the present. Frost and Farabee are guys that unless they get moved in other deals are going to be taking over the roles from guys like Kadri, Coleman, and Backlund when they do move on/retire and the team is ready to take the next step.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol no. It’s because everybody, even you, is just making up whatever the hell they want “rebuild.”

We’re at the “it’s only a rebuild if it comes from the Rébauld region of France” stage here where people are just finding reasons to not call it a rebuild.

“It’s only a rebuild if they pick in the top four.”
“It’s only a rebuild if they trade away 2 of the following 3 players.”
“It’s only a rebuild if they come out and deliver a signed letter telling us it’s a rebuild.”

Like, come on guys.

That’s a lot stranger than people who go from “they’ll never tank” to “actually if you look at the evidence it’s pretty clear they’re rebuilding.” Evaluating the information and changing your opinion based on the evidence is a totally normal, good thing to do.

The definition has come from the organization itself. The Flames have been consistent in what they've been planning to do for the last several years. They have never wanted to and never intended to bottom out. They didn't expect to be this bad this season. Everyone knows they are doing something to restock and get younger -- the question still remains whether they have the appetite to fully bottom out and gain the highest yield from the draft, while getting maximum return for aging assets. If the team continues to play better it'll be pretty interesting to see what they want to do. They are what, 6 points out of a wild card spot? They might see it as plenty of time to get back into the playoff race, which this team has historically (even up to last year) been very hesitant to give up on. But would that be the healthiest thing for the franchise long term is the biggest question.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

To refute point A, the last 3 years we have drafted 16th, 9th, and 18th with our top pick. That is an average of between pick 14 and 15

We are even in the mushy middle for high draft picks lol. Better than half the league and worse than half the league.

And last season they probably expected another top ten pick bare minimum. The results they have right now are a lot closer to my expectations. Last seasons overachieving have people ignoring what was done. The only thing that last season cost was an Andersson trade. They didn’t do anything else to compete.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol no. It’s because everybody, even you, is just making up whatever the hell they want “rebuild.”

We’re at the “it’s only a rebuild if it comes from the Rébauld region of France” stage here where people are just finding reasons to not call it a rebuild.

“It’s only a rebuild if they pick in the top four.”
“It’s only a rebuild if they trade away 2 of the following 3 players.”
“It’s only a rebuild if they come out and deliver a signed letter telling us it’s a rebuild.”

Like, come on guys.

That’s a lot stranger than people who go from “they’ll never tank” to “actually if you look at the evidence it’s pretty clear they’re rebuilding.” Evaluating the information and changing your opinion based on the evidence is a totally normal, good thing to do.

Both of you make a point and it emphasizes the problem in the original post that the terminology is silly and all over the place. If you define it as tanking, picking high and collecting as many futures as possible than the Flames have not been rebuilding. If you define it as in the turnover of the players and vets and getting younger then the Flames have been rebuilding but you can argue that Colorado has been re-building the same way since they won the cup. It's a silly term that we are putting too much focus on because every team is technically re-building every year as contracts come up, players age and the salary caps change. Every team faces a ton of turnover ever year.

I think what everyone is arguing about is the plan and the aggressiveness to be bad for a high pick. It doesn't help that the Flames actions and what they communicate around their plan does not align and they refuse to clarify and be upfront about it. The fans keep arguing because everything is up for interpretation and you can make a point for either side based off of things that have happened. The problem is you can't just look at what happened because they seem to shift their plans based on how the team is playing and the confusing communication around the plan gives you no confidence that the choices that were made were because of the plan and not because of an external factor.

We should just ignore the term and keep the discussion on how this team gets to be a competitor. If you look at it from that perspective it is hard to argue against picking high for multiple years vs. the "Dallas" model.

[Calgary Highlander]

Conroy needs to make sure he cuts the legs off this team before the Olympic break. If he had done this last year, we walk away with O'Brien/McQueen + Reschny + Potter from the 2025 draft (assuming the Flames draft Potter with the late first we'd get for Ras).

Kadri and Ras will win the team a lot of points down the stretch.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Regardless of how significant you think it is it's still just one part of rebuidling. The Flames have been rebuilding since Conroy took over and started moving out veterans and opening up spots for younger players.

Last year trading away players was stalled because of the year they had but they still let older pending UFAs go opening up more spots and also didn't blow cap space trying to chase the playoffs.

The one trade they did make was just as much for the future as it was for the present. Frost and Farabee are guys that unless they get moved in other deals are going to be taking over the roles from guys like Kadri, Coleman, and Backlund when they do move on/retire and the team is ready to take the next step.

This is the problem. The vision / plan should not be changing based on results that aren't likely to be sustainable. They "look at the Flames actions" crowd should all agree that the leadership knew it was unsustainable based on them constantly pointing out that the team is obviously tanking by not signing vets and free agents over the last two years. If we know this then the leadership surely knows this too.

Re: Frost and Farabee is also for the future but many people do not agree that this is the best way to "re-build". It feels like trying to shortcut your way back to being competitive. Many people would rather they have kept the draft picks and weaponize the cap space elsewhere than take in younger players who are at or near their potential. Jason Robertson was drafted in the second round if they really are trying to follow the Dallas Model. For the record, I did not mind that trade.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by ST20

Both of you make a point and it emphasizes the problem in the original post that the terminology is silly and all over the place. If you define it as tanking, picking high and collecting as many futures as possible than the Flames have not been rebuilding. If you define it as in the turnover of the players and vets and getting younger then the Flames have been rebuilding but you can argue that Colorado has been re-building the same way since they won the cup. It's a silly term that we are putting too much focus on because every team is technically re-building every year as contracts come up, players age and the salary caps change. Every team faces a ton of turnover ever year.

I think what everyone is arguing about is the plan and the aggressiveness to be bad for a high pick. It doesn't help that the Flames actions and what they communicate around their plan does not align and they refuse to clarify and be upfront about it. The fans keep arguing because everything is up for interpretation and you can make a point for either side based off of things that have happened. The problem is you can't just look at what happened because they seem to shift their plans based on how the team is playing and the confusing communication around the plan gives you no confidence that the choices that were made were because of the plan and not because of an external factor.

We should just ignore the term and keep the discussion on how this team gets to be a competitor. If you look at it from that perspective it is hard to argue against picking high for multiple years vs. the "Dallas" model.

This is helpful. Best way to make sure we pick high for multiple years is the following

1) trade Dustin Wolf, like now. That would send a clear message that they are trying to lose. Trade him for whatever you can get for him. Make it clear to all vets you are dedicated to losing. If this does not work do the same with Coronato.
2) trade Kadri for whatever you can get for him. Trade Ras for whatever you can get for him, trade Coleman for whatever you can get for him.
3) Weegar likely asks out then, you can probably trade him for whatever you can get for him.

That should be the logical plan that Team Tank should be pushing each and every day.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Its not complicated. The organization said they arent rebuilding and then went the last 16 months with a only one trade. That trade wasn't rebuild related. A fan interpreting that as the Flames are not rebuilding doesn't need to defend the take. They say they are not rebuilding and have done nothing to rebuild in nearly 2 years. They aren't rebuilding is the default take.

The other side of the argument is flimsy and generaly revolve around veteran turnover in Conroy's first year, the Flames not leveraging cap space, and the Flames not moving assets to improve.

• Veterans moved first year: They were nearly all pending UFAs, some of which they attempted to keep. Plus a disgruntled goalie that they had to trade due to having too many goalies. It was also limited to Conroy's first year.
• Cap space not leveraged/Not trying to win now: First, they tried via Conroy's "big swings". Second, they have been inactive, hence they aren't building, rebuilding or otherwise.

First off I'm not going to tell anyone what they have to call it.

But I think a rebuild can be defined by what they don't do ... not only what they do achieve.

Not spending to the cap and leaving a huge amount ($20M) open in back to back summers of not adding anyone.

Not adding at the deadline when they were in a playoff spot with all kinds of draft capital at their disposal.

Thats says "not trying to improve", and in doing that to me they are rebuilding (but happy to call it retooling if it calms the collective nerves)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

How do you know this? They haven't played an NHL game yet.

They could end up being some of the best players in the NHL or never become regular NHLers. You never know at this stage.

Says the guy who insists that by picking top 3 there's a pretty much automatic elite talent.

How I know they are good? I don't "know'. But by looking at the Reschny thread, by looking at what Potter is doing, compared to NHL players of the past, a person can make a good guess.

How do you know McKenna will be good?

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Bingo

First off I'm not going to tell anyone what they have to call it.

But I think a rebuild can be defined by what they don't do ... not only what they do achieve.

Not spending to the cap and leaving a huge amount ($20M) open in back to back summers of not adding anyone.

Not adding at the deadline when they were in a playoff spot with all kinds of draft capital at their disposal.

Thats says "not trying to improve", and in doing that to me they are rebuilding (but happy to call it retooling if it calms the collective nerves)

Rebuilding implies building. Which implies action. The Flames have done nearly nothing except internal house keeping.

The biggest concern that I have isn't that the Flames are building to win now. Its that refusing to pick a lane has limited their options to such a degree that they have been inactive.

Conroy deserves credit for not spending cap and assets to try and win short term. But allowing last years success to dictate a direction of no direction is not in the long term interest of this hockey team. It is certainly not an active and intentional rebuild.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

This is helpful. Best way to make sure we pick high for multiple years is the following

1) trade Dustin Wolf, like now. That would send a clear message that they are trying to lose. Trade him for whatever you can get for him. Make it clear to all vets you are dedicated to losing. If this does not work do the same with Coronato.
2) trade Kadri for whatever you can get for him. Trade Ras for whatever you can get for him, trade Coleman for whatever you can get for him.
3) Weegar likely asks out then, you can probably trade him for whatever you can get for him.

That should be the logical plan that Team Tank should be pushing each and every day.

I think you missed the point of my post. I am just saying there is a wide spectrum of "re-building" and even I want the team to be more aggressive in getting high draft picks it doesn't mean I want them to blow up the entire team. The point was already made by many that you cannot draft higher than 1 or get better odds from being last by a large margin.

But since you immediately jumped to the extremes in the process you outlined...

Why would they trade away really young good pieces when they are already losing and are on target for a top draft pick this year?

Also, your order is wrong. Why would you trade away young pieces before vets? You'd see what you can get for the vets first and trade away the ones where you can get a good haul of futures. I wouldn't trade away all unless the futures package is hard to ignore. If somehow the flames are still winning their way to the mushy middle after all of this then maybe you start looking at Wolf and young pieces but at the same time if they are still miraculously winning with no vets then maybe you have a core and some of these pieces have developed into superstars and now you have first round picks to build around a core of super stars.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by ST20

I think you missed the point of my post. I am just saying there is a wide spectrum of "re-building" and even I want the team to be more aggressive in getting high draft picks it doesn't mean I want them to blow up the entire team. The point was already made by many that you cannot draft higher than 1 or get better odds from being last by a large margin.

But since you immediately jumped to the extremes in the process you outlined...

Why would they trade away really young good pieces when they are already losing and are on target for a top draft pick this year?

Also, your order is wrong. Why would you trade away young pieces before vets? You'd see what you can get for the vets first and trade away the ones where you can get a good haul of futures. I wouldn't trade away all unless the futures package is hard to ignore. If somehow the flames are still winning their way to the mushy middle after all of this then maybe you start looking at Wolf and young pieces but at the same time if they are still miraculously winning with no vets then maybe you have a core and some of these pieces have developed into superstars and now you have first round picks to build around a core of super stars.

You need to make a statement about how badly you want to tank. You said it is hard to argue that a steady accumulation of assets, what you called the Dallas model, was less desirable than high picks. If you want high picks really go for high picks. Don’t do it half assed. Trading a goalie who is closer to 30 than he is to his draft day would be a good way to really drive home that message.

To your final point, if they are still winning that would be an abject failure for the argument that you need multiple top 3 picks to actually rebuild. Fact is they have been rebuilding for 3 years, now that Team Tank has finally admitted that (spent a lot of time arguing they were not rebuilding and were trying to actually compete) the argument has shifted to how is the right way to rebuild.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Whose own pick was 32nd? That was the Panthers’ pick that they got in the Tkachuk trade. The Flames’ pick was sent to the Habs (and onwards to NYI) in the Monny deal. They didn’t have their own pick in the draft last season.

This is why their unexpected success last season hurt them far less than it would have this season or the next. Losing a mid 1st round pick in a weaker draft was the best possible outcome. The worst case scenario would have been if they ended up with the 10th pick last draft, retained it due to the conditions on the trade, and lost this year’s 1st round pick instead.

People need to remember that the loss of the 1st round pick from the last draft was on Treliving, before there was any reason to rebuild because the Flames were 1st in the Pacific and 3rd in the Western Conference the season before he made the trade. I still don’t understand why the Flames didn’t put Monahan on LTIR, he could have had his surgery and recovery, and the Flames could have left him there until they could figure out how to make the cap work, as many other teams were doing at the time.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by ST20

This is the problem. The vision / plan should not be changing based on results that aren't likely to be sustainable.

Conroy's vision has always been to get younger so the team can compete in the future but he also wants the players to play to win and not be ok with losing. He hasn't swayed away from that since taking over.

As I've already pointed out, there's multiple parts to rebuilding. He could have still traded Andersson but there were also reports that the offers were bad not only for him but for the pending UFAs. He also wasn't having the best season so it would have been selling low when there was no urgent need to trade him.

He could have tried to trade Kadri to Colorado but we've already heard this season that Kadri would prefer to not go back to the US if it comes down to being traded so there's a good chance he probably blocks it anyway with full control.

He also could have brought in some rentals at the deadline but didn't and gave that opportunity to the younger players that helped put the team in that position. Gaining that experience was benificial to their development which will help with the rebuild.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

This is why their unexpected success last season hurt them far less than it would have this season or the next. Losing a mid 1st round pick in a weaker draft was the best possible outcome. The worst case scenario would have been if they ended up with the 10th pick last draft, retained it due to the conditions on the trade, and lost this year’s 1st round pick instead.

People need to remember that the loss of the 1st round pick from the last draft was on Treliving, before there was any reason to rebuild because the Flames were 1st in the Pacific and 3rd in the Western Conference the season before he made the trade.

There were no conditions where the Flames could have lost their 1st round pick this year. They always were going to have this years pick.