Something that's still bothering me about the ROR debacle and NOW.

[gargamel]

The difference is Kipper. In late February, Kipper was almost ready to return and Feaster expected him to quickly round into form and carry this team. In retrospect, that was the wrong call, but it wasn't unreasonable to think that he'd give us a boost considering that we were managing to play .500 hockey with Irving, MacDonald and Taylor in net. Once it was obvious that Kipper would add to the team's problems rather than make up for them, there was really no choice but to be sellers.

[afc wimbledon]

Well you have two choices really

choice a) they knew exactly how bad the team was and didn't care as long as it looked vaguely respectable, were lying through their teeth knowing the vast guliable unwashed, and half this board would buy into their crap that the team still had a shot.

or b) They are total morons that know less about running a team than the average poster here.

Personally I had always felt it was cynically a) but the debacle of the last few weeks has moved me more towards b), am waiting for Feaster and King to be driven to the dome in a little yellow bus wearing ill fitting hockey helmets before I fully go for it though.

[driveway]

Option A was the 'last shot' which was taken when we'd played 19 of 48 games, or less than half the season.

Now there are only 15 games left in the season. 17 when the decision was made to trade Iginla. In the first case, it is much more reasonable to think that making the playoffs could happen, one more kick at the playoffs can, so to speak.

Now, approaching the trade deadline, it's obvious we're not a playoff team, therefore fire sale.

Yes, we did a 180. But we did a 180 over the course of 27% of the season. In a regular year that would be 22 games or about six weeks.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Dr. Doom

Ok guys,

Amongst all of the “Fire Feaster” discussion (because there is A LOT of it going on), I can’t help but feel extremely bothered about something that I don’t know has been talked about really yet. Leastways I can’t find a discussion on it amongst the various different threads going on. So here goes…

Can someone explain (or try!) to explain to me how this management group goes from point A to point B in a month’s time:

A) Feb. 28th - 3 games under .500, Flames present a 2 year/$10 million offer sheet to Ryan O'Reilly, which (forgetting about the whole waiver debacle for the sake of argument for a moment) would have cost them a 1st and 3rd rounder

B) End of March/beg. Of April – approx. 3 games under .500, we go into full rebuild mode starting with Iginla, Bouwmeester, Kipper talking with Leafs/Hawks, Glencross rumored, Feaster/King essentially saying they are in full swing on deals

I think out of everything Feaster/ownership have managed to muck up, this of all situations confuses the hell out of me and makes me wonder if these guys even know whose driving the bus or where they are going?

Because correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t point A above still go at the “win now” philosophy and point B the full rebuild? If that’s the case did we seriously just take a 180 in a matter of a month??????????????????????

As a long time Flames fan that concerns the hell out of me. How screwed would this franchise still be if we did end up landing ROR? Would they be trying to re-sign Iginla, keeping a win-now mentality with the same useless plugs?

Is it just me or does our franchise seem lost at sea?

Option A wasn't a win now decision and we weren't 3 games under .500, we were one game under .500. ROR is still exactly the kind of guy that would jump start our rebuilding as he is young and still has lots of team control. We were looking probably at our first being a 10-20 overall pick at the time. Now that we are looking at a top 3, it would be a bad choice.

[Dr. Doom]

Originally Posted by Icon

A) If they could have landed O'Reilly, the hope was to still get into the playoffs, our first would have been mid-round or worse, and the Flames felt that O'Reilly was as good or better than who they could have drafted at that position, PLUS, they would have had O'Reilly now, instead of the drafted player in a few years. Yes, the plan here was to still win now.

B) They didn't get O'Reilly, the team continued to lose games and fall in the standings, owners/management could no longer ignore the writing on the wall, and the long overdue rebuild began. Plan is no longer win now.


Not that complicated to me.

Obviously you didn't read my post and don't understand the point I'm trying to make either.

They DIDN'T fall in the standings. And they didn't get ROR.

Between then and now however they went into full rebuild.

The way it comes across they would have had a different approach had they of landed ROR then what they are doing now (full rebuld).

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Ok, I don't think the ROR offer sheet was a great idea, especially with the term that were being offered to him.

But signing a kid who is like 20 years old and already in the NHL is *perfectly consistent* with rebuilding. In fact, it's EXACTLY the kind of thing you should do when you are trying to rebuild.

Turning a 1st round pick into exctly the kind of player you are tryin to get in the 1st round, except that he's already got 2 years of NHL experience, is not a 'win now at the expense of the future' move.

I really don't understand why people don't see that. Its really, really simple.

What it your logic behind claiming that its the opposite of rebuilding? A 19 year old prospect means you're rebuildingm but a 20 year old NHLer means you're only trying to win now?

[malcolmk14]

ROR was a desperate move by a desperate organization for one last kick at it.

[Five-hole]

What many have said: ROR was a move with a look toward the future, with an eye toward winning now (by improving skill and center depth tremendously) and getting better in the future (21/22 year old center with lots of upside).

While we were "picking 6th" at the time we made this play, correct me if I'm wrong, but we had quite a few games in hand on just about everybody in the league and were 3 or maybe 4 points out of like 4th in the conference.

Notwithstanding the waiver fiasco, it was a move that satisfied both camps: win now, get better long term.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by mac_82

I think it was the California road trip March 8-11 that really opened managements eyes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I hear Feaster say he talked to Iginla and Bouwmeester in LA about the possibility of trading them?

Yup, and that was only days after the ROR offer sheet. Feel like Feaster is trying to pull the wool over some of the fans and it might be working.

This team is as bad as the Av's. O'Reilly getting near a point a game average did not help the Av's. So how would he have made the flames a playoff team?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by driveway

Option A was the 'last shot' which was taken when we'd played 19 of 48 games, or less than half the season.

Now there are only 15 games left in the season. 17 when the decision was made to trade Iginla. In the first case, it is much more reasonable to think that making the playoffs could happen, one more kick at the playoffs can, so to speak.

Now, approaching the trade deadline, it's obvious we're not a playoff team, therefore fire sale.

Yes, we did a 180. But we did a 180 over the course of 27% of the season. In a regular year that would be 22 games or about six weeks.

It's been obvious since game 5 that this wasn't a playoff team, hell it's been obvious for four years now that this team was nowhere close to contending. Why you'd dump off a high pick for an overpaid second line centre is bordering on delusionally negligent. The lesson is that has this rebuild been fully swallowed down by management or are we going to try more tricks to 'jump start' it or to "re-tool?"

I'm specifically fearing the team doing something like what the Islanders did in 2008 or moves a half too clever because they think they know what they're doing.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Option A wasn't a win now decision and we weren't 3 games under .500, we were one game under .500. ROR is still exactly the kind of guy that would jump start our rebuilding as he is young and still has lots of team control. We were looking probably at our first being a 10-20 overall pick at the time. Now that we are looking at a top 3, it would be a bad choice.

at the time of the offer, we were picking 6th.

one can speculate whether that would have gone up or down or stayed even...(Colorado, for example has gone to the bottom of the standing since RoR entered the lineup - tho that doesn't mean it was causal, it certainly also doesn't mean Calgary absolutely would have been better with RoR in the line up)

[Stay Golden]

Blessing in disguise it was meant to fall through for a reason besides the potential lost draft picks.
This has yet to played for the out for the Flames until after the 2013 draft.

[Dr. Doom]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

Ok, I don't think the ROR offer sheet was a great idea, especially with the term that were being offered to him.

But signing a kid who is like 20 years old and already in the NHL is *perfectly consistent* with rebuilding. In fact, it's EXACTLY the kind of thing you should do when you are trying to rebuild.

Turning a 1st round pick into exctly the kind of player you are tryin to get in the 1st round, except that he's already got 2 years of NHL experience, is not a 'win now at the expense of the future' move.

I really don't understand why people don't see that. Its really, really simple.

What it your logic behind claiming that its the opposite of rebuilding? A 19 year old prospect means you're rebuildingm but a 20 year old NHLer means you're only trying to win now?

My logic is this:

If they DID land ROR, this rebuild wouldn't have happened. And I'm confident about that because of history, and because we'd be so close to the playoffs with this new shiny toy that they'd want to go for it again. We'll never know but deep down we should all know.

[Nsd1]

I think the ROR thing was a last ditch effort to get Iginla to re-sign here. But they screwed it up. They realized that they could lose Iggy for nothing and asked him where he wanted to be traded. Then they realized that if Iginlas gone, the other vets will most likely not want to play here anymore and declared open season on all 27+ year old players.

Whether or not we got the best return for the two guys already traded is debatable and everyone has an opinion on who's actually running the team and who should be running the team but none of that matters. The main thing here is that Ownership has FINALLY seen the writing on the wall and is moving in a positive direction.

Also the 3 games under . 500 thing is misleading. At times 8th and 15th were within 5 points of each other but when everyone's getting points every night, it's difficult to leapfrog the teams in front of you.

[drPepper1]

You know what really grinds my gears?

We only have 3 first round picks and need to get 27 more by Wednesday

[puckluck2]

Could you imagine the hysteria if Colorado had not matched? Would probably have cost us a top 3 pick.

That would have been terrible no offence to O'Reilly but those top 3 picks have the potential to be franchise players.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

Ok, I don't think the ROR offer sheet was a great idea, especially with the term that were being offered to him.

But signing a kid who is like 20 years old and already in the NHL is *perfectly consistent* with rebuilding. In fact, it's EXACTLY the kind of thing you should do when you are trying to rebuild.

Turning a 1st round pick into exctly the kind of player you are tryin to get in the 1st round, except that he's already got 2 years of NHL experience, is not a 'win now at the expense of the future' move.

I really don't understand why people don't see that. Its really, really simple.

What it your logic behind claiming that its the opposite of rebuilding? A 19 year old prospect means you're rebuildingm but a 20 year old NHLer means you're only trying to win now?

No it isn't. Trading a high first round selection flies in the face of rebuilding. What happened when Toronto did that? They were stuck spinning tires for years.

If you can get ROR for some of your more expendable assets(say you have a glut of solid d prospects, a late first or 2nd round to spare) then you do it. But for your own, high selection? You absolutely do not do that.

And it meant we were trying to win-now, because we'd have kept out team in-tact(potentially losing Iggy for nothing) and tried to scrape our way into the playoffs again. He's a good chip going forward, yes, but the major advantage of him over the draft pick is what he offers NOW, even though that pick could be much better than him, especially if it's any of the top 4 guys - and Colorado would have had two of those.

[FAN]

I really hope next year's marketing isn't focused on selling the message that "Hey the team might suck now but come our high first round draft pick and the future of your Calgary Flames franchise play".

[blankall]

Originally Posted by driveway

Yes, we did a 180. But we did a 180 over the course of 27% of the season. In a regular year that would be 22 games or about six weeks.

Was not a 180.

We are going with a plan to tank for a top 5 pick, as oppossed to acquiring ROR, who has roughly the same value as a top 5 pick.

We are going with a 10 degree turn to the left, not a 180.

[North East Goon]

On that California road trip, I remember hearing all the ownership plus sponsors of the club were all in attendance for those games. They must really not liked what they saw.