Worst team in the league - Are we "OK" with it?

[UKflames]

I'm actually ok with the way that CC has ordered this rebuild. He has spent that last few drafts using lots of picks getting the supporting cast of skilled players together ready for when we draft that elite player, or two. Once we draft near to the top of the draft, this year and/or next, we are all set and ready to start moving upwards.

To me this is the opposite of what a lot of teams do. They tank, get the elite first or second OA pick, and then spend the next few years trying to get those skilled players to surround that high pick, like Chicago currently. This can waste most of their cheap ELC years.

A down year will suck to watch, but long term the plan seems to be going along nicely.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I disagree with most things on here - replies are in bold:

Originally Posted by boogerz

If we look at current rebuilds in the league, the Sharks are in year five, the Ducks are in year six, the Hawks are in year five, and the Sabres are in a second decade. All of these teams are still 3-5 years away from being contenders.
The years on some of the teams are a little off, but not far from it for most of them.

Spending one year as the worst team in the league is one thing, but doing a whole rebuild and spending a decade in the basement...Flames fans aren't ready for that.
Are you sure about this? What is the alternative? Sign UFAs (that typically Calgary has a harder time signing) and then trade futures for win-now players? Will Calgary Fans accept higher ticket prices to watch a team that is just inside the playoffs some years, and just outside the playoffs other years?

Even the Young Guns era that almost ended in franchise relocation wasn't as long as a rebuild...it only lasted seven seasons before the '04 cinderella run.
The economic climate had a lot more to do with this than the 'rebuild'. It wasn't a rebuild. It was the dismantling of a Stanley Cup Championship Team that Calgary couldn't afford to keep any longer. The dollar dropped, and within a few short years, it felt like Calgary had suddenly become a glorified AHL team. There was no hope for the future any longer. We all knew that the best case scenario was that any player that became good would end up playing for a richer team somewhere else, and the worst case scenario was that they were going to relocate, and it was only a matter of time since there was no way to compete. It was completely different than the climate in which the Flames rebuilt in 2012-13.

Except for the Hawks, the aforementioned teams can rebuild because they have relatively small fanbases that don't care, whereas we are rabid fans. The Flames' Dome attendance hasn't recovered to pre-Covid levels and is tracking for the fourth consecutive year of declining average attendance per game. Even the GDT threads and FAN 960 post-game show callers so far this season are more bipolar than normal. People will not be okay with watching rebuild-quality hockey for a decade. The players also won't be okay with it...the fiery veterans needed to bolster a roster (e.g. Kadri) don't want to play for bottom feeders.
The Flames haven't declared a rebuild. Again, what should be done to attract fans? I argue by not rebuilding, the team will just end up as middle-of-the-pack team again, and fans will recognize this. You don't want apathy to set-in in the 2nd or 3rd year of the new building. Also, again, it will not take a decade if the Flames are successful, but the alternative might last a decade or longer too. There is no guaranteed way back into 'success'. What the vets want or don't want is irrelevant. Kadri is 35. If he wants off the team, then so be it. He isn't a part of the solution moving forward regardless of the direction the Flames take. Few - if any - of the Vets are at this point.

Personally, I don't think a total rebuild is the way to go. For a Canadian team that needs to be able to compete each year in spite of being an undesirable FA destination, I like the Winnipeg model...draft well, hire decent/good coaches, play with a cohesive and consistent style and identity, and make good trades. They might not be favorites for the cup and they tend to underperform once the playoffs arrive, but at least they have a good probability of making deep runs every year.
Are you sure that the Winnipeg model is the one you wish to go by? Never rebuilt?
https://champsorchumps.us/team/nhl/winnipeg-jets
They certainly went through are rebuild in Atlanta, and when they arrived in Winnipeg, they were in the middle of a rebuild still. I don't think this is the example of not rebuilding. This was the example of rebuilding, but then staying patient for a long time without spending futures on getting them over the hump. They most certainly were a rebuilding organization in Atlanta and into Winnipeg, however.


Whether Murray Edwards is willing to invest in quality coaching and GMing is another question. Except for Sutter, he has never ever been willing to pay for a good and proven coach. Also, no shade at Conroy, but there is a difference between an okay-ish GM and the best in the league (e.g. Nill, Cheveldayoff, or Zito)

Are you sure that Edwards isn't willing to pay for a qualified coach, or is that perhaps the GMs are picking the wrong coaches, or that top coaches (like top players) don't want to come here?

The Flames have had coaches on the payroll that have been fired. Hartley was one of the NHL's more highly paid coaches too. Edwards extended Sutter, and then agreed to terminate Sutter. If he was such a cheap ass, I would find it weird that he wouldn't just tell Maloney and Conroy to just 'deal with it'. Flames have also hired some more expensive Associate coaches lately (ex-coaches with experience).

I also think it is incredibly weird how this fan-base keeps thinking that Edwards is willing to spend 80+ million on payroll, plus bring in expensive AGMs, promote Maloney into President (pay rise), but for some strange reason be unwilling to throw another 1-3 million a good coach. Do you really believe that Edwards (and the rest of the ownership group) have some weird stance against spending on coaching, and find coaches to be worth only so much? I don't.

Edwards tried to hire Shanahan to be the President, and was turned down not over money, but because he knew he could get the Leafs' gig. He turned around and went and hired Brian Burke. I can't imagine that was cheap.


There is NO WAY that the owners are 'cheaping out' on coaching. They would have to be absolute morons to think that way, right? This logic has to really die from these forums. It just doesn't make any sense to believe this.
.