Fans are starved for hockey. If they rebuild and have a crappy team, they'll still have enough fans to fill 50% of the arena.
As for nickle and diming in trades, don't they always do that? Wouldn't teams want to get a guy who can put up 100 points at under 7 million? And if they do rebuild, they could retain salary for an even better return. They won't, but they could! If they get prospects and picks, they're paying less salary too.
And if they do rebuild, I wouldn't care if Ward was the coach.
I think it's just the perfect time to rebuild for the future. Better now than ever before IMO and I don't think they'll ever get another chance like this again.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
I get what you are saying, but Calgary was soundly outplayed in all but one of the games against Dallas and if wasn't for Talbot standing on his head for most of that series it wouldn't have even been close.
Dallas was outplayed by Colorado and the only reason they beat them is because Colorado was down to their 3rd string goalie.
So yes they were 11 seconds from going up 3 games to 1 in the series, in actuality it really wasn't that close of a series.
Boston and Washington also had strong rosters that for whatever reason were underperforming. Calgary performs exactly like you'd expect for the roster they have - it's just not good enough.
Add to this, Boston and Washington also had far more opportunity to pull themselves out of their respective situations because they have market appeal that Calgary simply does not.
I know its not a popular opinion and it'll make some people upset but man, next season looks like a perfect year to start a rebuild. The Flames aren't good enough. They have good players on good contracts (who would be amazing support players on great teams), they need to cut costs, there are a few teams like Buffalo who will be desperate for help and would probably overpay for help, there likely won't be ticket revenue next year anyway, if they build a team properly it should be a contender by the time the new arena opens, they'd be selling hope, they can probably get more picks at this year's draft which is deep....
It just makes so much sense to start a rebuild.
I'm fully expecting the Flames to trade away their first for a guy like Kumpner or whatever then overpay an older average at best UFA who does nothing and the team to be in even worse shape a year from now.
Well said. Out of "thanks"
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to klikitiklik For This Useful Post:
I know its not a popular opinion and it'll make some people upset but man, next season looks like a perfect year to start a rebuild. The Flames aren't good enough. They have good players on good contracts (who would be amazing support players on great teams), they need to cut costs, there are a few teams like Buffalo who will be desperate for help and would probably overpay for help, there likely won't be ticket revenue next year anyway, if they build a team properly it should be a contender by the time the new arena opens, they'd be selling hope, they can probably get more picks at this year's draft which is deep....
It just makes so much sense to start a rebuild.
I'm fully expecting the Flames to trade away their first for a guy like Kumpner or whatever then overpay an older average at best UFA who does nothing and the team to be in even worse shape a year from now.
I totally agree with you. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Treliving should sell this to ownership as it would also buy him extra years.
Is there any point in having a competitive team if no one is there to watch it and if you can’t make money on it?
__________________
Calgary Flames, PLEASE GO TO THE NET! AND SHOOT THE PUCK! GENERATING OFFENSE IS NOT DIFFICULT! SKATE HARD, SHOOT HARD, CRASH THE NET HARD!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 868904 For This Useful Post:
He won it as an assistant coach, so just stop. I don't want to see this argument ever used again. There's been enough examples in the league of good assistants flopping as coaches.
I think what people are rightfully pissed off about as there has been no indication anyone has interviewed for the job. I like Tre as the GM for the most part, but he has been horrible at picking coaches and how his process goes in doing so.
I don't think anyone cares what you want, especially when you are being over the top negative about a rumor.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Crown Royal For This Useful Post:
Boston and Washington also had strong rosters that for whatever reason were underperforming. Calgary performs exactly like you'd expect for the roster they have - it's just not good enough.
Add to this, Boston and Washington also had far more opportunity to pull themselves out of their respective situations because they have market appeal that Calgary simply does not.
Flames didn't have that problem when Sutter was here.
Sounds like a perfect time to trade good contracts for bad ones to eat the picks that will be attached from these highly motivated teams.
Almost like one of the best times to rebuild.
Oh well.
Only if the owners are willing to eat those bad salaries. Many aren't. I think we're going to see a lot of teams with close to league minimum payrolls.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Only if the owners are willing to eat those bad salaries. Many aren't. I think we're going to see a lot of teams with close to league minimum payrolls.
The opportunity is in doing something other teams don't want to do.
Out come the mental gymnastics to explain why this is actually good and we just have to wait and see what happens.
There are a lot of people here willing to settle for “okay, I guess.” Success is always just over the horizon, and all we have to do to get there is wait for the other shoe to drop. But it never does.
It’s what binds us together as a fan base.
Yep. There's no need for mental gymnastic. It's suck and it's what losers do.
You should have seen CalgaryPuck after the Troy Bouwer signing. It was like the Olympics.
If it really is Ward, this better be Treliving's last coach. He doesn't deserve anymore chances.
Yes. And Gaudreau should be with linemates that keep the opponent honest. Lucic isn't a bad option here, actually. I've also said Bennett should be centering a Gaudreau line. If the opponent wants to hack at Gaudreau, they will need to drop the gloves. Bennett won't be able to finish like Monahan, but he'll create a lot more space in the offensive zone.
Monahan and Lindholm simply aren't the guys for that job. Don't mind them being together, though.
Both Bennett and Dube have good zone entry skills. Dube has outside speed and Bennett has good stick handling skills and will run over opposing players if necessary or just for fun. I think Johnny would have far more breathing space with those two.
I think that, when it comes to evaluating coaches, we (fans) tend to convolve different attributes into a single decision point: good coach / bad coach, which makes evaluation really difficult. I think it would be helpful to separate things into 3 major issues (keeping it relatively simple), to help focus the decision:
1) ability to run the bench, manage the team
2) systems
3) adaptability
Managing the bench, and the players’ egos, is probably the most important quality. I thought Gulutzan was actually a really smart systems guy, but he was completely incapable of running the bench and managing the team. Conversely, I look at a guy like Vinneault, and he appears to be in complete command of his bench all the time. I don’t think there is one right way here – a coach can be an ass, or a ‘player’s coach – but the bottom line is that they command the respect of their players, and get the most out of them.
I think points 2 and 3 are inter-related, but they help define the style of the coach. Trotz is the gold standard of a ‘systems coach’. His defensive systems are so strong that he can apparently apply them to any roster and be successful. He doesn’t need to be particularly adaptable.
Hartley was an example of a guy that was pretty good at 1 and 2 – he ruled the bench with the iron fist, my-way-or-you-don’t-play strategy (which has a pretty short shelf life) and he had a pretty solid system, though I hated his defensive collapse approach.
Adaptability is, IMO, the most desirable quality, but is also the rarest. Laviolette seems like a good example. Scotty Bowman was very adaptable, but also had rosters that could handle any system. Ideally, you would like to have a coach with a strong system, but also some ability to adapt. And of course, a roster that is capable of adapting.
Which brings us to an important point – the type of coach you need depends on the type of roster you have. If you have a fairly one-dimensional roster, you need a coach whose system suits the style that you can be successful with. Conversely, a well-rounded and veteran lineup can handle any system, and an adaptable coach is optimal. Washington is a good example of that – they are going to make any good coach look good. As are Dallas (though they also need a good motivator)
The problem the Flames have, IMO, and the reason that the coaching issue is so significant and challenging, is that their roster requires a particular type of coach. First, they appear to need a strong bench manager to keep them focused, but even more importantly, they have a rather one-dimensional roster that requires a certain style (a high-tempo transition game) to be successful. What they DON’T need is a systems coach that is going to demand they play a certain way (other than the transition game). An example of this type of failure is Babcock in Toronto. Babcock is a good coach - he has proven that – but he tried to apply his systems to a one-dimensional Leaf team that was incapable of finding success that way.
Bringing this back to Ward and the Flames, he seems to be able to manage the bench (so far, anyway), but my concern is that his (apparent) style of dump and chase isn’t suited for the roster. When your best player, and your top line, are rendered completely ineffective by your style of play, you have little chance of success. Maybe he is a great coach, I don’t know, and I don’t think we’ve had enough time to be sure. But I do believe that his systems don’t fit the roster.
If Treliving does in fact retain Ward, then IMO he has painted himself into a corner and this is his last stand and one of two things has to happen:
1) Ward shows an ability to adapt his style to fit the team and the team has success (and my assessment of him was way off)
2) Treliving changes the makeup of the team and moves out Gaudreau and others for players that are better suited to Ward’s style (unlikely, IMO, but I would welcome it)
If neither of these things happen, and the Flames continue to spin their wheels, then I believe Treliving has pushed in his last chip and he is done.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Not too surprised if this happens. I don't think it's the best option to improve the team but with covid and payroll reductions there wasn't much chance they were going to open the bank for a proven coach.
I'm hopeful Ward has some new pieces to put into place for next year and we will see what he can get out of them.
I think that, when it comes to evaluating coaches, we (fans) tend to convolve different attributes into a single decision point: good coach / bad coach, which makes evaluation really difficult. I think it would be helpful to separate things into 3 major issues (keeping it relatively simple), to help focus the decision:
1) ability to run the bench, manage the team
2) systems
3) adaptability
Managing the bench, and the players’ egos, is probably the most important quality. I thought Gulutzan was actually a really smart systems guy, but he was completely incapable of running the bench and managing the team. Conversely, I look at a guy like Vinneault, and he appears to be in complete command of his bench all the time. I don’t think there is one right way here – a coach can be an ass, or a ‘player’s coach – but the bottom line is that they command the respect of their players, and get the most out of them.
I think points 2 and 3 are inter-related, but they help define the style of the coach. Trotz is the gold standard of a ‘systems coach’. His defensive systems are so strong that he can apparently apply them to any roster and be successful. He doesn’t need to be particularly adaptable.
Hartley was an example of a guy that was pretty good at 1 and 2 – he ruled the bench with the iron fist, my-way-or-you-don’t-play strategy (which has a pretty short shelf life) and he had a pretty solid system, though I hated his defensive collapse approach.
Adaptability is, IMO, the most desirable quality, but is also the rarest. Laviolette seems like a good example. Scotty Bowman was very adaptable, but also had rosters that could handle any system. Ideally, you would like to have a coach with a strong system, but also some ability to adapt. And of course, a roster that is capable of adapting.
Which brings us to an important point – the type of coach you need depends on the type of roster you have. If you have a fairly one-dimensional roster, you need a coach whose system suits the style that you can be successful with. Conversely, a well-rounded and veteran lineup can handle any system, and an adaptable coach is optimal. Washington is a good example of that – they are going to make any good coach look good. As are Dallas (though they also need a good motivator)
The problem the Flames have, IMO, and the reason that the coaching issue is so significant and challenging, is that their roster requires a particular type of coach. First, they appear to need a strong bench manager to keep them focused, but even more importantly, they have a rather one-dimensional roster that requires a certain style (a high-tempo transition game) to be successful. What they DON’T need is a systems coach that is going to demand they play a certain way (other than the transition game). An example of this type of failure is Babcock in Toronto. Babcock is a good coach - he has proven that – but he tried to apply his systems to a one-dimensional Leaf team that was incapable of finding success that way.
Bringing this back to Ward and the Flames, he seems to be able to manage the bench (so far, anyway), but my concern is that his (apparent) style of dump and chase isn’t suited for the roster. When your best player, and your top line, are rendered completely ineffective by your style of play, you have little chance of success. Maybe he is a great coach, I don’t know, and I don’t think we’ve had enough time to be sure. But I do believe that his systems don’t fit the roster.
If Treliving does in fact retain Ward, then IMO he has painted himself into a corner and this is his last stand and one of two things has to happen:
1) Ward shows an ability to adapt his style to fit the team and the team has success (and my assessment of him was way off)
2) Treliving changes the makeup of the team and moves out Gaudreau and others for players that are better suited to Ward’s style (unlikely, IMO, but I would welcome it)
If neither of these things happen, and the Flames continue to spin their wheels, then I believe Treliving has pushed in his last chip and he is done.
Good post, but in regards to the bold, it's been stated multiple times that Ward wasn't going to make drastic changes to the system in-season. So only management and Ward really know what system he wants to actually employ.
Good post, but in regards to the bold, it's been stated multiple times that Ward wasn't going to make drastic changes to the system in-season. So only management and Ward really know what system he wants to actually employ.
which is why I said this:
1) Ward shows an ability to adapt his style to fit the team and the team has success (and my assessment of him was way off)
Really, ownership foots the bill so if they want to keep Tree and Ward, it is their decision. But as a long-time fan, I would be so disappointed this core never had a chance with a top quality coach. We don't know if this is the right combination of players because the coaches and players are constantly on a learning curve. No consistency in coaches, systems and players.
Always the "next great coach." Always the "process" which, being charitable, has maybe worked 50% of the time.
I either said it in another thread or earlier in this one, but if they go with Ward it sends a couple of messages...
I guess these are all possible messages sent, but a much more obvious one to me is that this is on the players, and it is up to them to sort it out. For a team tbat has had three head coaches in three years, I think there is also room for an insistence upon maintaining stability here. It is simply not practical to swap out the coach every year.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I guess these are all possible messages sent, but a much more obvious one to me is that this is on the players, and it is up to them to sort it out. For a team tbat has had three head coaches in three years, I think there is also room for an insistence upon maintaining stability here. It is simply not practical to swap out the coach every year.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Yes, but if he is putting it on them to adapt to Ward's style, and they can't, then the failure is his, more than it is theirs.
Yes, but if he is putting it on them to adapt to Ward's style, and they can't, then the failure is his, more than it is theirs.
I totally agree, but I also think as you posted that there are a number of unanswered questions with Ward, and I get why he might get a full season to answer them. This is not my choice, but I don't think it is necessarily a bad one.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
