Can the Flames become a contender without tanking?

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I mean, Flames were a disallowed goal in 2004 in proving you can, and Oilers (puke) a Dwayne Roloson injury away from proving you can in 2006. So yah, you can win without tanking for a top 5 pick. Just need a bit of luck (in drafting a high end player outside of top 5, which history has shown, is not a big a leap), and the sum of all your parts coming together.

Neither of those teams won. And that was so long ago, the NHL has changed.

You can no longer grind your way to the cup. You need some elite players.

[just_tim]

Originally Posted by Braden

Where did you come up with this list?

Your just going to ignore Marc-André Fleury, Steven Stamkos, Nathan McKinnon? And that's just off the top of my head... I'm sure there's more If you were that thorough.

Damn! …and I thought ChatGTP was infallible! Thanks for the correction.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

It is nearly impossible to win a cup without tanking. I cannot even name a recent cup winner that didn't have at least one top 4 pick.

You can say some of it is random and that you cannot ask the players to tank. While this is true, the current trajectory has us not on track to be a contender any time soon. Unless we start losing.

This has been covered a thousand times - every team has a top 4 pick.

Boston has picked top 4 twice in the last 35 years. And they traded both of those guys away, while they were young. Yet Boston has the winningest record of any team in the cap era, and a cup.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Fans rooting for tanking is one of the most negative trends in sports. I get it the reasons why, but something if fundamentally broken when fans are upset that their team tried to win (e.g. Patriots last win of the season).
Which is why I favor doing something dramatic to increase the randomization of the lottery even further (for non playoff teams) or using reverse standings of some sort (e.g. based on point percentage after teams have been eliminated).
Do something to take tanking off the table as a possible tactic.

I used to be a staunch "never cheer for losses" fan. Thinking you are a bad fan if you cheer for losses.

But in the post lockout NHL, you simply need top-of-the-draft talent to win. Look at all the Cup winners since the lockout for proof. You aren't going to consistently find Johnny Gaudreaus at 104.

The way the league (and most NA leagues) is set up is that if you suck for a period, you draft high. I'm firmly in the camp now of if you don't think your team is a Cup contender, you should shed UFAs, trade for youth, and attempt to draft high. Also, draft non-Canadian goalies.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I mean, Flames were a disallowed goal in 2004 in proving you can, and Oilers (puke) a Dwayne Roloson injury away from proving you can in 2006. So yah, you can win without tanking for a top 5 pick. Just need a bit of luck (in drafting a high end player outside of top 5, which history has shown, is not a big a leap), and the sum of all your parts coming together.

But almost isn't a win. So, no, you really can't.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This has been covered a thousand times - every team has a top 4 pick.

Boston has picked top 4 twice in the last 35 years. And they traded both of those guys away, while they were young. Yet Boston has the winningest record of any team in the cap era, and a cup.

Yes but in obvious hindsight, guys like Chara, Bergeron, Krejci should have gone a lot higher in their drafts. They are the equivalent of top of the draft talent.

[Braden]

Originally Posted by just_tim

Damn! …and I thought ChatGTP was infallible! Thanks for the correction.

Aaron Ekbald (Florida)
Erik Johnson (not by drafted team but Colorado)
Vincent Lecavalier (Tampa)
Mike Modano (Dallas)
Joe Murphy (not with Detroit but with Edmonton)
Denis Potvin (New York Islanders)

List goes on!

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

Neither of those teams won. And that was so long ago, the NHL has changed.

You can no longer grind your way to the cup. You need some elite players.

That's just semantics. I mean, so your whole argument goes out the window if the league got the goal right in game 6? And let's be honest, a healthy Dwayne Roloson was the determining factor for the Oilers (Roloson who's a midround, journeyman goalie), it's not because they lacked a top 5 pick.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This has been covered a thousand times - every team has a top 4 pick.

Boston has picked top 4 twice in the last 35 years. And they traded both of those guys away, while they were young. Yet Boston has the winningest record of any team in the cap era, and a cup.

So your argument is that because possibly the best run organization in the NHL won one cup in the last 25 years... that any other team can do this?

Keep in mind how much talent that team had. Bergeron, Krejki, Marchand, Chara, Lucic in his prime. Oh wait, they also had Seguin the one year they won the cup. And they haven't won since trading him. So your argument is void anyways.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Yes but in obvious hindsight, guys like Chara, Bergeron, Krejci should have gone a lot higher in their drafts. They are the equivalent of top of the draft talent.

LOL. That is literally the argument: can you acquire these types of players without tanking? They are part of the proof that you can.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

But almost isn't a win. So, no, you really can't.

That is a really lazy argument. Being one bounce from a cup is not proof that you couldn't, it is merely a fact that you didn't.

If you can't see the difference, that's on you (but I am pretty sure you can)

[Poe969]

I've been a fan of tanking for as long as it's been a thing. Years ago, others on here would get mad and say that tanking would create a losing culture, and that playing for pride is better for the team in the long run.

One could argue that had the team tanked and got better draft picks, the Flames would have won a cup by now.

It's fine to argue against tanking, but doing what they've been doing hasn't worked either. So what should they do? Keep trying to "just make the playoffs because anything can happen" has not worked and doesn't work.

You need to build a contender from the ground up, get as many picks as you can, and hope some become stars. Your chances of picks becoming stars increases with higher picks, why not cheer for getting a higher pick? What not want them to trade players for more picks/prospects that gives them a better chance of getting a star and makes them play worse and increasing their chance of getting a better pick?

[Vinny01]

We always talk about tanking and picking high to build a contender but trades are equally as important to successful cup winning teams.

Florida last year for as much as we talk about Barkov and Ekblad it was Tkachuk, Reinhart, Bennett and others that were just as key to that win.

Vegas is not a fair sample because of expansion but obviously Eichel, and Stone were huge trade acquisitions.

Colorado has Toews and Kadri

Tampa had done a great job at drafting but key trade pieces like Coleman, Goodrow, Hagel were low cap hit, high caliber players that helped get them over the top

The Blues remade much of their roster prior to 2019 with RoR being a huge trade piece

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That is a really lazy argument. Being one bounce from a cup is not proof that you couldn't, it is merely a fact that you didn't.

If you can't see the difference, that's on you (but I am pretty sure you can)

No, you are arguing a logical fallacy here.

If they were 1 bounce away from winning, they were 100 bounces away from getting blown out.

You can't weigh one bounce over the 10s of thousands that occur every game.

You don't even know if, even if they allowed that goal, the Lightning wouldn't have scored again and won the game regardless.

You're deluding yourself.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That is a really lazy argument. Being one bounce from a cup is not proof that you couldn't, it is merely a fact that you didn't.

If you can't see the difference, that's on you (but I am pretty sure you can)

I hate when people bring up a once in a lifetime Flames team that made the finals as proof you don't need to tank.

The NHL was a completely different game pre lockout. And yes, with arguably the best coach ever, and with arguably the best goalie run ever, and also with Iginla, who is regarded as one of the best players of his generation.... we managed to almost win a cup. One year. And never got close again.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

So your argument is that because possibly the best run organization in the NHL won one cup in the last 25 years... that any other team can do this?

Keep in mind how much talent that team had. Bergeron, Krejki, Marchand, Chara, Lucic in his prime. Oh wait, they also had Seguin the one year they won the cup. And they haven't won since trading him. So your argument is void anyways.

My argument is literally that you should focus on controlling what you can control: draft well, develop well, and mange your assets well. Like - let me think - Boston for example.

Of course they had talent. All good teams have talent. In fact ALL teams have talent. The debate is whether you can build a good team without tanking. And they most certainly have. And they didn't just build a good team, they remained an excellent team for decades.

But yes, you should try and use Seguin, their one top 4 pick in the last 25 years, a guy who was not at all a factor in their cup win, a guy who was 19, and contributed a whopping 22 points the year they won, and only played 13 playoff games, as proof of your point. Okay then.

[Geeoff]

I do think Conroy came into the season thinking the team would do worse than they have. No major UFA acquisitions, lowest payroll in the league and they traded the 1G in the offseason.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

No, you are arguing a logical fallacy here.

If they were 1 bounce away from winning, they were 100 bounces away from getting blown out.

You can't weigh one bounce over the 10s of thousands that occur every game.

You don't even know if, even if they allowed that goal, the Lightning wouldn't have scored again and won the game regardless.

You're deluding yourself.

I am not deluding myself. I am not arguing that they should have been awarded the cup.

I am saying that the difference between being the cup champ and not being the cup champ, often comes down to a single bounce. So arguing that the team that didn't win thus COULDN'T win, is the fallacy. You simply can't draw that conclusion and use it as proof of an argument. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I hate when people bring up a once in a lifetime Flames team that made the finals as proof you don't need to tank.

The NHL was a completely different game pre lockout. And yes, with arguably the best coach ever, and with arguably the best goalie run ever, and also with Iginla, who is regarded as one of the best players of his generation.... we managed to almost win a cup. One year. And never got close again.

Well, you're also dismissing Boston. And if anyone presents any other examples, you'll dismiss them too.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am not deluding myself. I am not arguing that they should have been awarded the cup.

I am saying that the difference between being the cup champ and not being the cup champ, often comes down to a single bounce. So arguing that the team that didn't win thus COULDN'T win, is the fallacy. You simply can't draw that conclusion and use it as proof of an argument. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong.

And the Flames were one bounce away from losing in the first round during their cup run.