Franchise Ranking (Treliving Era)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

So you think that winning the Stanley Cup can be based absolutely on 100% luck....

I think he was talking about giving points for having terrible terrible seasons ... and then winning the draft lottery

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

A bit off topic but ties to the overall discussion about GMs...since Darryl Sutter was fired as GM the Flames and our amateur scouting under Tod Button have been a top 5 drafting team in the NHL from 2011-2022.

Looking at hockeyprospecting.com's way of classifying these things:

Stars Drafted:
Winnipeg: 5
Colorado: 4
Calgary: 4 (Monahan, Gaudreau, Fox, Tkachuk)
Edmonton: 4
Toronto: 4

NHLer Drafted:
Edmonton: 13
Carolina: 13
Buffalo: 13
Calgary: 12
Tampa Bay: 11

And they've done that while having the 24th most picks in the draft during that time (67), and no top 3 picks.

So really kudos to TOD Button and his staff. Hopefully we see this continue and guys like Pelletier, Zary, Wolf, and Coronato get a look soon.

On the sad side of things though if you look at "Superstars" Drafted the Flames have by far the most with 3 out of 26 superstars, and 2 of only 8 superstars taken outside the first round. Unfortunately those three are Gaudreau, Tkachuk, and Fox - so none play in this organization anymore.

Our scouting is our best organizational asset. And we are one of the organizations that trades the most picks. It really is something to behold.

[Two Fivenagame]

Probably too late but I was wondering how the salary cap could factor into this ranking. For example, how many teams in the ranking have spent to the cap each year?

Just curious about those franchises with success while spending less vs those that spend to the cap with little success.

I understand if it's too complicated.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Two Fivenagame

Probably too late but I was wondering how the salary cap could factor into this ranking. For example, how many teams in the ranking have spent to the cap each year?

Just curious about those franchises with success while spending less vs those that spend to the cap with little success.

I understand if it's too complicated.

It's kind of moot at this point since everyone spends to the cap unless intentionally tanking (and even many of those teams are at the cap)

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Our scouting is our best organizational asset. And we are one of the organizations that trades the most picks. It really is something to behold.

So our team should be accumulating picks.

Aside from last season, and ‘Ferklund,’ watching the draft and the development our prospects has provided me the most enjoyment as a Flames fan the last 10-12 years.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You want to reward the ability to tank?

You think past Sabres GMs have been astute geniuses?

An outcome in which you acquire Rasmus Rahlin, Jack Eichel, Sam Reinhart, or Owen Power is better than an outcome where you flexed your Travis Hamonic acquisition.

Barely missing the playoffs is by far the wordt outcome in a season.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

An outcome in which you acquire Rasmus Rahlin, Jack Eichel, Sam Reinhart, or Owen Power is better than an outcome where you flexed your Travis Hamonic acquisition.

Barely missing the playoffs is by far the wordt outcome in a season.

So hang around the bottom of the standings, hope you win a lottery, and hope you time it for a top end player?

No thanks.

It's about wins and always should be. The guys in the middle are fighting to avoid the bottom and move into the top.

Lots of GMs with high draft picks get fired.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So hang around the bottom of the standings, hope you win a lottery, and hope you time it for a top end player?

No thanks.

It's about wins and always should be. The guys in the middle are fighting to avoid the bottom and move into the top.

Lots of GMs with high draft picks get fired.

And they're accomplishing what exactly?

The teams that hang around the middle - Calgary, Minnesota, Philadelphia etc are not the teams earning any real playoff success by doing so.

As for getting fired, that's unfortunate, but behind most championship teams was a bottom-out season. It's how the Blackhawks got Kane, how the Penguins got Crosby/Malkin/MAF, how the Capitals got Ovechkin/Backstrom, how the Lightning got Hedman/Stamkos, and how the Avalanche got MacKinnon/Makar. Those seasons were far more beneficial in the long run than the seasons they missed the playoffs but "fought to avoid the bottom".

And yes, despite the Oilers' futility at times, that has translated into more playoff success - McDavid has led his team to the WCF. Treliving has not.

Your playoff team point distribution is fine. But as soon as a team misses the playoffs, the most desired outcome DOES flip. Finishing 17th place is NOT a better outcome than finishing 32nd

If the Flames miss the playoffs this year, we will be lamenting not being in the running for Bedard, Michkov et al

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

And they're accomplishing what exactly?

The teams that hang around the middle - Calgary, Minnesota, Philadelphia etc are not the teams earning any real playoff success by doing so.

As for getting fired, that's unfortunate, but behind most championship teama was a bottom-out season. It's how the Blackhawks got Kane, how the Penguins got Crosby/Malkin/MAF, how the Capitals got Ovechkin/Backstrom, how the Lightning got Hedman/Stamkos, and how the Avalanche got MacKinnon/Makar. Those seasons were far more beneficial in the long run than the seasons they missed the playoffs but "fought to avoid the bottom".

And yes, despite the Oilers' futility at times, that has translated into more playoff success - McDavid has led his team to the WCF. Treliving has not.

When things go wrong you certainly hope you end up with a great pick that transforms your franchise.

But aiming for that, or rewarding a franchise for terrible play isn't in my makeup ... nor most I would assume.

We all chuckle at the Oilers near the bottom of wins in the last 20 years etc, don't remember anyone injecting how brilliant they were to suck that bad.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But aiming for that, or rewarding a franchise for terrible play isn't in my makeup ... nor most I would assume.
.

Whether you agree with it or not, the reality is that the NHL rewards it. And a GM's job is to get the highest reward outcome.

So the teams that are actively built to get a top 3-4 pick this year are going to have a better season than any team that barely misses the playoffs. A GM who didn't build a team good enough to make the playoffs but also not bad enough to make itself better long term did the worst job.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Whether you agree with it or not, the reality is that the NHL rewards it.

We are ranking franchises by regular season and playoff success.

If a tanking team got a generational player and moved up in this window they'd be rewarded in the rankings.

If they didn't ... they wouldn't.

Can't believe this is a discussion. You are exhausting.

[Flaming Horse]

What gets me is when you lose guys for nothing because you are just trying to sneak into the playoffs. If you are a team that might get in but will probably do nothing when you get there you need to cash in those ufas at the trade deadline. Good example is Mark Giordano. They ended up getting nothing for him.Unless it is a year like last year when most thought they had a chance to do something big in the playoffs.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flaming Horse

What gets me is when you lose guys for nothing because you are just trying to sneak into the playoffs. If you are a team that might get in but will probably do nothing when you get there you need to cash in those ufas at the trade deadline. Good example is Mark Giordano. They ended up getting nothing for him.Unless it is a year like last year when most thought they had a chance to do something big in the playoffs.

I think 10th place teams that shed big assets for a rental are chasing their tales for sure.

But if you're in a playoff spot I think not trading your UFAs and calling them your rentals is an understandable move.

The Oilers with Roloson, the Flames with Simon, Nieminen and Nilsson are examples of hitting the lottery, but that's rare I agree.

[bluejays]

I'm the opposite of a Treliving apologist, as I've waivered back and forth on him over time. What this data doesn't show is the handicap each market has for attracting players. So places like LA, FLA, NY should have a factor to discount a GMs performance (as they attract talent more easily), while places like CBJ, EDM, CGY, WPG should have a factor to appreciate the difficulty their market brings. Sorry if this has been mentioned. No idea what that factor is, but it would probably be based on how players rank each city.


I do think he's around average as a GM all in all. But I don't think there's a crazy separation from the top GMs to the average ones either. Sometimes you just need a new voice or direction.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Anyone who thinks Treliving is the problem with the Flames is dead wrong IMO

He's not perfect, nobody is, but he's easily the best GM in Canada forced to shovel #### against the tide.

Trades constantly getting blocked by players with NTC's

A future Norris winner and two all-star, prime aged 100+ point wingers force their way out of the org in just a few years. The only other GM that has to deal with that crap on a regular basis is Cheveldayoff.

We're lucky to have him.

Most Canadian organizations have been extremely poorly run. Saying he’s the best of a bad lot is setting expectations too low. It’s like some of you have accepted the Flames will never win another cup because of the obstacles of being a small market team. I have higher aspirations and believe it’s just a matter of finding the GM that can do it. Easier said than done but you won’t find that person by holding on to the GM that’s been just better than the buffoons that ran the other Canadian organizations into the ground.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flaming Horse

What gets me is when you lose guys for nothing because you are just trying to sneak into the playoffs. If you are a team that might get in but will probably do nothing when you get there you need to cash in those ufas at the trade deadline. Good example is Mark Giordano. They ended up getting nothing for him.Unless it is a year like last year when most thought they had a chance to do something big in the playoffs.

Every team lost a player for nothing
If they had moved gio then they may have lost Kylington instead

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Most Canadian organizations have been extremely poorly run. Saying he’s the best of a bad lot is setting expectations too low. It’s like some of you have accepted the Flames will never win another cup because of the obstacles of being a small market team. I have higher aspirations and believe it’s just a matter of finding the GM that can do it. Easier said than done but you won’t find that person by holding on to the GM that’s been just better than the buffoons that ran the other Canadian organizations into the ground.

I think the biggest mistake Canadian owners make is their assumption that Canadians won't accept rebuilds.

It's the non traditional hockey markets that could be dead and buried on the other side of a rebuild, traditional markets get it. Trust that.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think the biggest mistake Canadian owners make is their assumption that Canadians won't accept rebuilds.

It's the non traditional hockey markets that could be dead and buried on the other side of a rebuild, traditional markets get it. Trust that.

Agreed. Fans will still show up to some degree, though I supposed TV contract and ad revenue pressure is there, combined with owner finances/other buinesses, so I do appreciate it's not that simple but I do find Canadian ownership wants to push the limits to going for it by not doing it right. They think putting pressure to quicken rebuilds works, when it's never done right. I imagine hockey is much like the corporate environment where it has a bunch of yes men and it cascades down.

[really?]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So hang around the bottom of the standings, hope you win a lottery, and hope you time it for a top end player?

No thanks.

It's about wins and always should be. The guys in the middle are fighting to avoid the bottom and move into the top.

Lots of GMs with high draft picks get fired.

Is it about wins or winning? Not really arguing your point, but some folks aren't satisfied with simply being competitive, they have a desire to lead the pack, not merely run at the back end of the lead pack. History (2-3 decades) doesn't suggest this organization falls into that group of folks that have a burning desire to lead the pack.

I really believe Treliving is a good manager and one of his best attributes is giving value and consideration to his players as people, not merely cogs. Unfortunately, I see the Flames at a crossroads. If you spend more of the future to obtain assets to fortify the ranks this year, you reward this roster by potentially bolstering their chances, but..... Huberdeau, Kadri and Weegar are locked into this franchise for the next 7-8 years and if there are no cost controlled, dynamic, younger players coming on board the last 4-5 years of that period could be pretty dismal for those guys, as players age out of the apex of their productivity. If I'm in their shoes I'm in the camp that suggests we will find the answers in the room, and support management in retaining and acquiring youth.

The Flames have done an admirable job of avoiding the bottom, and have certainly never been the butt of some jokes like a few other organizations, but there is a difference between winning games and being an actual contender. Perhaps the team can cobble together an effort to win the cup over the next 2-3 years, but if they spend future resources to chase that goal, they will likely plummet in respect to their franchise ranking.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by really?

Is it about wins or winning? Not really arguing your point, but some folks aren't satisfied with simply being competitive, they have a desire to lead the pack, not merely run at the back end of the lead pack. History (2-3 decades) doesn't suggest this organization falls into that group of folks that have a burning desire to lead the pack.

I really believe Treliving is a good manager and one of his best attributes is giving value and consideration to his players as people, not merely cogs. Unfortunately, I see the Flames at a crossroads. If you spend more of the future to obtain assets to fortify the ranks this year, you reward this roster by potentially bolstering their chances, but..... Huberdeau, Kadri and Weegar are locked into this franchise for the next 7-8 years and if there are no cost controlled, dynamic, younger players coming on board the last 4-5 years of that period could be pretty dismal for those guys, as players age out of the apex of their productivity. If I'm in their shoes I'm in the camp that suggests we will find the answers in the room, and support management in retaining and acquiring youth.

The Flames have done an admirable job of avoiding the bottom, and have certainly never been the butt of some jokes like a few other organizations, but there is a difference between winning games and being an actual contender. Perhaps the team can cobble together an effort to win the cup over the next 2-3 years, but if they spend future resources to chase that goal, they will likely plummet in respect to their franchise ranking.

Right but I didn't call this best run franchise, or smartest franchise ... I ranked them by on ice success. That has to be win percentage and playoff longevity doesn't it?

Really shouldn't have been an argument.

I guess some wanted the Flames lower and with that found a reason to nullify their middling by suggesting it's worse.