[PGT] Blues win 5-0

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by dino7c

and they didn't rely on tanking...built a team the old fashioned way

Still had 2 top 5 picks however. Erik Johnson and Pietrorangelo. Imagine if they took Toews instead of Johnson?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by dino7c

and they didn't rely on tanking...built a team the old fashioned way

They've had a 1st overall (Erik Johnson, that was turned into Shatenkirk, Stewart and Rattie) and a 4th (Alex Pietrangelo)....something the Flames have never had. They never went full Oiler, but those two high picks are a big reason why they have perhaps the best Dcore in the entire league.

Drafting high is how almost every single cup winner in the last few years has got there. Do you really think the Kings would win the Cup without Doughty? The Hawks without Toews and Kane? The Pens without Crosby or Malkin?

Everybody is always so paranoid about turning into the Oilers, that they forget that in reality, you're much more likely to get better than worse. In the last 10 years, there are only two teams who didn't significantly get better because of a #1 pick...the Oilers and the Islanders (and it would be foolish to say the Isles aren't a better team with Tavares).

Yes, drafting is high is not perfect, but it sure seems like the best formula for success. Until someone suggests one that is more effective, that's the one you go with.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by dino7c

and they didn't rely on tanking...built a team the old fashioned way

tanking is a new thing?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Still had 2 top 5 picks however. Erik Johnson and Pietrorangelo. Imagine if they took Toews instead of Johnson?

well that is not Oiler like tanking...Flames will have 2 top 5 picks

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

tanking is a new thing?

tanking on purpose and being applauded for it by the media and fans is new...I can't remember when being it dead last was something to brag about, Oilers fans did it for 3 straight summers and the media/general population jumped right on board

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Table 5

They've had a 1st overall (Erik Johnson, that was turned into Shatenkirk, Stewart and Rattie) and a 4th (Alex Pietrangelo)....something the Flames have never had. They never went full Oiler, but those two high picks are a big reason why they have perhaps the best Dcore in the entire league.

Drafting high is how almost every single cup winner in the last few years has got there. Do you really think the Kings would win the Cup without Doughty? The Hawks without Toews and Kane? The Pens without Crosby or Malkin?

Everybody is always so paranoid about turning into the Oilers, that they forget that in reality, you're much more likely to get better than worse. In the last 10 years, there are only two teams who didn't significantly get better because of a #1 pick...the Oilers and the Islanders (and it would be foolish to say the Isles aren't a better team with Tavares).

Yes, drafting is high is not perfect, but it sure seems like the best formula for success. Until someone suggests one that is more effective, that's the one you go with.

Crosby was a lottery win had nothing to do with tanking...and no they don't win it without him. Being a poor team gave them a slightly better chance (Flames actually had a decent shot too)

[dino7c]

I am all for the Flames picking high, just saying there is more to it

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by dino7c

tanking on purpose and being applauded for it by the media and fans is new...I can't remember when being it dead last was something to brag about, Oilers fans did it for 3 straight summers and the media/general population jumped right on board

well besides portion of village idiots speaking the loudest...... how do you know they were tanking on purpose?

[$ven27]

Yup, I honestly don't think the Oilers have tanked, they just genuinely suck.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Yup, I honestly don't think the Oilers have tanked, they just genuinely suck.

Exactly

The moves they made, and tried to make, was to get better. They just weren't very good at it. Nobody tried to "tank" on purpose..... thats just some sort of weird idea some people here have developed for some reason, and then for some reason think its some sort of new age thing. There is no "old fashion" way of rebuilding or any crap like that.

[stignasty]

Originally Posted by Table 5

...They never went full Oiler,...

I wish I could thank you more than once for this.

[doozwimp]

[UKflames]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

When did Hartley think McGratton and the other tough guy deserve actual playing time and not 5 minutes a game?

When Burke took charge and traded for Westgarth and told Hartley he needed more toughness in the team.

And please Burke supporters don't jump on the "Burke doesn't tell Hartley which players to use" because can you really see Burke trading for a player and then letting the coach sit him in the press box, making Burkes trade look a real waste of time.

[Britflamesfan]

The teams management are now paying for waiting too long to start the rebuild. Had they started this a couple of years ago, they would have got a much better return for Iggy and something for Kippper. Which would have put us in a much better position than we currently are. Nothing for Kipper and rubbish for Iggy complete miss management of the teams assets.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Britflamesfan

The teams management are now paying for waiting too long to start the rebuild. Had they started this a couple of years ago, they would have got a much better return for Iggy and something for Kippper. Which would have put us in a much better position than we currently are. Nothing for Kipper and rubbish for Iggy complete miss management of the teams assets.

While I agree that the return for Iginla would have been higher had he been traded before last season, a couple of things:
· I am still not convinced that Iginla would have conceded to a trade at an earlier point in time. Prior to last season, both he and the Flames management had each other convinced that they could win with the lineup they had. Iginla is as much to blame for the delay in trading him as anyone else involved.
· I don't think Kiprusoff would have agreed to a trade at any point. He is an oddball, and while he was ultra competitive, it always seemed that he had a different set of priorities, and didn't seem to care much about proving anything to anyone by winning a championship. In the end, we have no idea about either player, but I think it is a bit short sighted to pine for what could have been, when there is virtually no evidence to suggest that things would have been any different.

[UKflames]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

While I agree that the return for Iginla would have been higher had he been traded before last season, a couple of things:
· I am still not convinced that Iginla would have conceded to a trade at an earlier point in time. Prior to last season, both he and the Flames management had each other convinced that they could win with the lineup they had. Iginla is as much to blame for the delay in trading him as anyone else involved.
· I don't think Kiprusoff would have agreed to a trade at any point. He is an oddball, and while he was ultra competitive, it always seemed that he had a different set of priorities, and didn't seem to care much about proving anything to anyone by winning a championship. In the end, we have no idea about either player, but I think it is a bit short sighted to pine for what could have been, when there is virtually no evidence to suggest that things would have been any different.

Don't let the Feaster bashers read this, they will tar and feather you.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

While I agree that the return for Iginla would have been higher had he been traded before last season, a couple of things:
· I am still not convinced that Iginla would have conceded to a trade at an earlier point in time. Prior to last season, both he and the Flames management had each other convinced that they could win with the lineup they had. Iginla is as much to blame for the delay in trading him as anyone else involved.
· I don't think Kiprusoff would have agreed to a trade at any point. He is an oddball, and while he was ultra competitive, it always seemed that he had a different set of priorities, and didn't seem to care much about proving anything to anyone by winning a championship. In the end, we have no idea about either player, but I think it is a bit short sighted to pine for what could have been, when there is virtually no evidence to suggest that things would have been any different.

While true, IMO an important part of the GM's job is talking players into doing what the team needs them to do.

I'm just speculating, but I somehow doubt it would have been such a hard sell for Iggy anyway. I'm not at all convinced that Iggy was that motivated in Calgary the last couple of seasons, as his effort level was IMO all over the place. I'm sure he really wanted to win it here, but Iggy knows his hockey, I'm sure he had a fairly realistic picture of his actual chances, which were pretty close to zero

As to Kipper, if you talked to him earlier, he would have been in a completely different situation. He had many millions of dollars to look forward to and some good years left in him. While I agree that Kipper was/is an oddball, athletes are competitive and want to win championships.

Basicly I see it like this: if you can't talk an athlete into taking a better chance to win a championship, odds are you're not that great at handling people.

[UKflames]

Originally Posted by Itse

While true, IMO an important part of the GM's job is talking players into doing what the team needs them to do.

I'm just speculating, but I somehow doubt it would have been such a hard sell for Iggy anyway. I'm not at all convinced that Iggy was that motivated in Calgary the last couple of seasons, as his effort level was IMO all over the place. I'm sure he really wanted to win it here, but Iggy knows his hockey, I'm sure he had a fairly realistic picture of his actual chances, which were pretty close to zero

As to Kipper, if you talked to him earlier, he would have been in a completely different situation. He had many millions of dollars to look forward to and some good years left in him. While I agree that Kipper was/is an oddball, athletes are competitive and want to win championships.

Basicly I see it like this: if you can't talk an athlete into taking a better chance to win a championship, odds are you're not that great at handling people.

Let me flip that around for you, how about Iginla really wanted to leave for a chance at a SC, and said he was willing to do so, but ownership don't want him to leave so they convinced him to stay. The tell him they are going to spend to the cap and give him a chance to win it in Calgary, and they won't trade him anyway, not yet.

You can twist it any way you like as we don't know the real truth either way.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Itse

While true, IMO an important part of the GM's job is talking players into doing what the team needs them to do.

I'm just speculating, but I somehow doubt it would have been such a hard sell for Iggy anyway. I'm not at all convinced that Iggy was that motivated in Calgary the last couple of seasons, as his effort level was IMO all over the place. I'm sure he really wanted to win it here, but Iggy knows his hockey, I'm sure he had a fairly realistic picture of his actual chances, which were pretty close to zero

As to Kipper, if you talked to him earlier, he would have been in a completely different situation. He had many millions of dollars to look forward to and some good years left in him. While I agree that Kipper was/is an oddball, athletes are competitive and want to win championships.

Basicly I see it like this: if you can't talk an athlete into taking a better chance to win a championship, odds are you're not that great at handling people.

That may be the GM's job for some players, but Iginla was obviously a special case. He was close with Murray Edwards, and there was absolutely no way that Edwards was going to OK the start of movement plans for Iginla anytime prior.

It wasn't just that Feaster couldn't do it because of ability, but rather that he couldn't do it out of restriction. There was no way Iginla was leaving before last season, no matter who the GM was.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Itse

...I'm just speculating, but I somehow doubt it would have been such a hard sell for Iggy anyway. I'm not at all convinced that Iggy was that motivated in Calgary the last couple of seasons, as his effort level was IMO all over the place. I'm sure he really wanted to win it here, but Iggy knows his hockey, I'm sure he had a fairly realistic picture of his actual chances, which were pretty close to zero.

Of course, we are all speculating on this point, but during his entire tenure with the Flames up until last year, he gave NO INDICATION—NONE—that he had any interest in pursuing a championship elsewhere. And this was amid regular discussion and postulations in the media that the Flames would need to trade him in the short term.

Having said that, I do take some issue with your characterisation of Iginla as a particularly insightful and astute observer and student of the game. Quite frankly, I don't see it. There were many, MANY times in interviews and public forums that he would go on record about a particular game, or about how the Flames were playing that left me unimpressed by him as one who thinks the game at a higher-than-average level. This is not to disparage Iginla. He is an amazing player, and a smart guy, but like most star players, most of what he does is instinctive to the point that I do not believe he even needs to consider the "how" of what he does—or what his teams do—to play well. Like most star players, he is probably too close to the game to be ale to effectively evaluate the mechanics of what makes a successful team from an overview. Like most players, I tend to take with a grain of salt ANY high-level NHL player's beliefs about how to build a great team. There is a good reason why the best thinkers in the game happen to more commonly be those players who weren't actually very good at playing. Holland, Poille, Chiarelli, Babcock and Tippett all played the game at various levels, but none of them was ever close to the level of an NHL star.

Originally Posted by Itse

As to Kipper, if you talked to him earlier, he would have been in a completely different situation. He had many millions of dollars to look forward to and some good years left in him. While I agree that Kipper was/is an oddball, athletes are competitive and want to win championships.

Am I to take this to mean that you have talked to Kiprusoff in the past, and he has confirmed as much?

Originally Posted by Itse

Basicly I see it like this: if you can't talk an athlete into taking a better chance to win a championship, odds are you're not that great at handling people.

Am I to take this to mean that unless a GM is able to convince his players to accept a trade, then he is "not that great at handling people"?