What is Success?

[Sylvanfan]

Winning at least 5 cups in a row with a roster comprised mostly of all 4th round or later picks who turned into Superstars that management duped into signing 8 year deals for under a 1 million dollar AAV...but also having multiple high first round picks in every draft to due maximize asset value.

Even than there's a few folks here who would still pout and complain daily. Success can never be achieved.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Hard disagree. There has been plenty of Flames' teams over the past few decades where you could argue they had little success but were fun to watch. Sounds to me like the Iggy era post ' 06. I mean sure, those teams were fun to watch. Fun players and great offence. Cool to see some players get trophy nominations. But most Flames' fans would argue those times were actually a waste of those player's primes and that those teams underachieved greatly and were overall extremely disappointing. Watching your team score a ton of goals gets washed out when you get bumped in round 1...again. At some point, winning rounds makes your team successful.

I think that is an inaccurate representation of the post 06 Flames. We’re those teams that fun to watch? They finished in the bottom for goals scored in some years and in years where the offense would pop the goaltending/defense suffered. Outside of the 05/06 season (low scoring but won the division and Jennings) and the 08/09 season (fun team that coughed up a 13pt division lead in the second half due to injuries) the post lockout Flames were not really good or entertaining.

[Vinny01]

Is the Canucks run from 07-13 successful?

They missed the playoffs in one year (08 finishing 10th) but won the division the other 6 years. They lost in the second round 3 times, the first round twice, and lost in game 7 of the cup finals. They won the Presidents Trophy in back to back years in 11-12. No cups, one appearance past the second round but consistently looking like a threat and winning the division. Hard not to say that was a successful run for them.

The 17- present Leafs have not won the Atlantic (give them credit for the Canadian division) missed the playoffs technically in 2020 as they lost their play-in round in the 8-9 matchup. And lost in the first round in every other year except this where they were swiftly eliminated by the 8 seed in round 2. They were a tire fire before missing the playoffs every year from the lockout on with the exception of the 48 game season in 2013. They have been near the top of the league over the past 5 years. Success for them relative to recent years but overall nothing to show for it.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Ultimately it's the Cup and only the Cup.

Now, since no one wants to feel like a failure for decades straight we have to all pretend that something else qualifies and for the Calgary Flames (at present) that means an entertaining regular season followed by a playoffs where the team progresses past the 1st round. I said at present earlier because the line depends on context.

No. That is not correct. The cup is the most success you can achieve, but it certainly should not be viewed as the only metric of success.

Success is somewhat subjective, but I’d say being a top ten team in any given year would be at the lower end of success to me. Anything above that would be better of course… but i think as an organization you’d have to be somewhat happy with that. Top 5 in a year i think you’d be very happy with.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by VilleN

No. That is not correct. The cup is the most success you can achieve, but it certainly should not be viewed as the only metric of success.

Success is somewhat subjective, but I’d say being a top ten team in any given year would be at the lower end of success to me. Anything above that would be better of course… but i think as an organization you’d have to be somewhat happy with that. Top 5 in a year i think you’d be very happy with.

I'd say success would be undoubtedly exceeding expectations, San Jose doesn't need to win the cup next year to succeed, making the playoffs would be success. Obviously every team will be judged separately but I think if the Flames finish top two in division and win a round next year we can say it was successful and hopefully something to build on

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Take a 3-year window, or a 5-year window. Winning a cup qualifies as success. Failing that, is there anything the team can do in that window where you would deem it a success?

In a 5 year window? I'd say no first round losses, and at least one Stanley Cup final appearance, would have to be considered a success. The ultimate goal wasn't completed, but that's a good run over 5 years.

[PepsiFree]

Isn’t success just achieving whatever goal you set? So, for a team like the Oilers, anything short of a cup is a failure because that’s where they think they are. For a team like Arizona their version of success is not likely going to include a Cup.

The Flames don’t need to succeed for me to be entertained/enjoy the season. But I imagine they’re in the zone where success is the third round of the playoffs or better.

[Aarongavey]

Success for me would be an organization that knows where it is at in the process. If your team is likely going to be better over that 5 year time frame build accordingly. If you have peaked and are on a downward trajectory recognize that as well. I think a team can be successful over 5 years and not really win anything as long as they are setting themselves up for the 5 years after that. Failure would be not recognizing where you are at in the competitive cycle.

[gvitaly]

I guess I would have to divide success based on term.

Short term success would be any hockey that doesn't make me want to turn off my TV when the Flames are trailing after 40.

Medium term success would be resolving the 6 remaining UFA's without signing any of them to long term anchor contracts, and without losing them for nothing.

Long term success would be developing a culture of players that want to win in CGY. Really invest in the scouting staff, development, and then give players an opportunity to make the team every year. Hopefully that would eventually evolve to a team that can make the playoffs every year, and win some rounds similar to Carolina right now.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Locke

I came here for this. Just this.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Is the Canucks run from 07-13 successful?

They missed the playoffs in one year (08 finishing 10th) but won the division the other 6 years. They lost in the second round 3 times, the first round twice, and lost in game 7 of the cup finals. They won the Presidents Trophy in back to back years in 11-12. No cups, one appearance past the second round but consistently looking like a threat and winning the division. Hard not to say that was a successful run for them.

The 17- present Leafs have not won the Atlantic (give them credit for the Canadian division) missed the playoffs technically in 2020 as they lost their play-in round in the 8-9 matchup. And lost in the first round in every other year except this where they were swiftly eliminated by the 8 seed in round 2. They were a tire fire before missing the playoffs every year from the lockout on with the exception of the 48 game season in 2013. They have been near the top of the league over the past 5 years. Success for them relative to recent years but overall nothing to show for it.

That iteration of the Canucks was definitely successful. They were a top tier team and were one win away from it all.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Hackey

That iteration of the Canucks was definitely successful. They were a top tier team and were one win away from it all.

Yeah, that was a special team they had.

[Itse]

The average is 1 cup per 32 years, 1 cup final appearance in 16, 1 conference final in 8, 1 second round exit in 4 years and making the playoffs every other year.

Anything above that is success, anything below that is failure. A good 5 year stretch should include at least a conference final appearance.

The Flames have been a failure.

[Goriders]

I think resigning Lindholm and making the playoffs would be success for this year. Winning a round would be gravy. Especially if they dump Hanifin and Backlund.

[Hot_Flatus]

For the Flames, success would be just making the playoffs 3-4 years in a row, which would ideally lead to a couple of series wins. The up and down boom/bust cycle is exhausting as a fan.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is pretty much 1:1 true when we beat the Oilers.

[blankall]

Success is really just about moving the organization in the right way. At this stage, I'm not ready to write off the team. The stars like Huberdeau and Kadri could rebound and the prospects like Pelletier, Zary, etc.. could step up to drastically move the team in the right direction and open a competitive window.

In this scenario, even if there's an early playoff exit if everything is moving in the right direction, that's success.

Conversely, the team could be absolutely garbage next year, in which case the right direction changes to a rebuild and recouping assets.

[CSharp]

Success is like having a 2004 season but with the core players on this team wanting out being sold for 1st round picks at trade deadline. Then, out of nowhere, they barely make the playoffs with pretty much a full roster from their Wrangler team promoted - going all the way and winning the Cup. This is the bitter sweet symphony for those who want out!

[Bandwagon Surfer]

I am pretty easy, to me success is a team I can cheer for.

To me that is:

1. Be respectable enough to cheer for.
   This comes down to not hiring bad people because at the end of the day my family comes first.
   For example: I have daughters so I will not cheer for a team who hires rapists or their enablers. I have LGBTQ family members so I will not cheer for people who think they were born invalid or their existence is a deviant lifestyle.
2. Entertaining on ice product.
   This is either a good enough team that they have an objectively good shot (eg non-flame fan gamblers give them good odds to make the semi-finals).
   Or a rebuilding team which is competently building towards a good team (eg has and executes a cohesive plan, consistently improving, interesting prospects).

Life is short to obsess over winning, I just want to be entertained.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Hard disagree. There has been plenty of Flames' teams over the past few decades where you could argue they had little success but were fun to watch. Sounds to me like the Iggy era post ' 06. I mean sure, those teams were fun to watch. Fun players and great offence. Cool to see some players get trophy nominations. But most Flames' fans would argue those times were actually a waste of those player's primes and that those teams underachieved greatly and were overall extremely disappointing. Watching your team score a ton of goals gets washed out when you get bumped in round 1...again. At some point, winning rounds makes your team successful.

I view a franchise as the LVK as extremely successful. Multiple division titles, multiple rounds won, multiple WCF appearances, multiple finals' appearances. Not really any stand out super star, but a team that knows how to play as a unit. Just gunning for a team that's fun to watch, and that's all, sets the bar quite low. I'm tired of this franchise setting the bar low. If that's the case, might as well have a run 'n' gun team and score as many goals as possible and pray your goalie stands on it's head.

Winning is entertaining. If we can somewhat the model the LVK franchise since their inception, I would greatly consider that as successful.

I think people really miss how screwed we got in our last rebuild in retrospect. You could have had this team if Fox didn't no show and Monahan and Ferland didn't breakdown at extremely young ages.

All these guys would be in their prime at the same time. Gaudreau and Tkachuk as your star forwards. Hamilton and Fox as Norris level defenseman. Potentially Andersson and Brodie as a 2nd paid. Bennett and Ferland as your 20 goal gritty players, Mangiapane and Dube as secondary scoring. Backlund past his prime but as the shut down centre

You'd still need a goalie and to fill up the bottom of the roster. But they basically drafted/traded for the team all the pro-rebuilders want but are now in this spot while all these guys who remained healthy are still in their primes.

Lots of people have in their mind:
1) Trade everyone away
2) Draft well
3) Become elite and have a decade on the top

But in reality - drafting well is a crapshoot and even if you do nail it - you have to get lucky and have the guys all want to be here and stay healthy.

So in conclusion - success for me as a fan - have a team that has meaningful games that I want to watch. If I was the GM or owner - I'd have different definitions of success.