Can the Flames become a contender without tanking?

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

But you can't trade Rasmus for a poor value just to try to move down the standings. At least I don't think that's the right approach.

It also doesn't cost the Flames a first. It costs them an earlier first. Which right now the gap is 7 spots in the draft.

Not suggesting that, it just happens to be another reason doing it makes sense for asset management purposes. Still need to get the right deal for Rasmus.

And you're correct re draft pick, though that is still quite material especially in the first round IMO.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Not suggesting that, it just happens to be another reason doing it makes sense for asset management purposes. Still need to get the right deal for Rasmus.

And you're correct re draft pick, though that is still quite material especially in the first round IMO.

An earlier pick is always better but right now it's 19 v. 25. That could expand either way of course. But I don't think that's very material.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I'm not sure it is because it promotes taking. If I were the head of a league and I observed that fans are cheering against their team and are angry when they win, I would say to myself that something is not working riht.

How many fans really do that? A few uber-fans and draft nerds. Most fans paying to go to a game or being wined and dined by corporate clients are cheering for a win on the night.

If the league isn’t interested in addressing more impactful issues that undermine fan confidence, like the tax disparity and the fact half of players in the league have NTCs, I don’t see why they’d do something dramatic like substantially change the playoff format to address the problem of some fans of a handful of teams booing wins in the last few games of the season.

[Jason14h]

You can win the cup without tanking if you can sign Chara in FA or have a goalie steal the cup (like St.L did , and Kipper almost did for the Flames)

And in the new NHL with more scoring and potent PPs I’m not sure a goalie can steal the cup anymore

[Paulie Walnuts]

Having elite goaltending is a nice to have, and I rather have it than not but it's not necessary to win the cup.

Having elite forwards and D is required, especially a Bonafide stud #1C.

It was Bob and Stuart Skinner in the Finals last year, while an elite Shesterkin was watching.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

An earlier pick is always better but right now it's 19 v. 25. That could expand either way of course. But I don't think that's very material.

Even if that were the case, that difference is worth at least a 2nd.

And they aren't currently set to draft 19th, their set to draft 15th.

But the point is that the gap could be as high as 21 (11 vs 32).

And it's not just that, but also that it could be reversed, and improved further, if they can get into the bottom 10. It would then be at least 16 (if FLA stays at 25), and could be more than 22. Not guaranteed that the Flames fall to the bottom 10 by trading Andersson, but it significantly improves their chances.

The difference between a top 10 pick and a late first (25-32) is very substantial - probably in the neighbourhood of 2 late firsts - i.e. it would likely take 3 late firsts to get someone to give up their top 10 pick. At an absolute minimum, it would take 2 firsts.

So at a minimum, you've gained a 1st (if successful). And it is very unlikely that the difference between a January return and a March return is greater than a 1st. As I have said, there likely is no difference.

[Ashes]

I think there's a slim chance that the Flames could become a contender without tanking, but it'll require selling off assets every year for the next 2-3 years while still pushing for playoffs and leaning heavily on young players being promoted from the AHL. Players on short term deals, players 30+ who still have value. Similar to last year. That way we are constantly adding more bullets to the chamber come the draft, and hopefully if the 2024 draft is any indication.. our scouting staff can find us some gems outside of the top-10.

However, I still believe without any doubt that the more sure-fire way of molding the Flames into a contender is by tanking for at least one year and getting our hands on a stud #1 center and/or D-man. Having truly elite talent in the premier positions is increasingly important come playoff time for matchups, plus it even helps convince other top players to accept trades to your team. Will the Flames go this route? Nah probably not. But here's hoping that if we ever finish between say 5-10 over the next few years that we finally get some lottery luck.

I hope the Flames do become a contender again in the next 5-10 years though becuase the mushy middle strategy of get in and see what happens is just so overplayed at this point. We have the goalie of the future, now lets see how much elite talent we can accumulate at FW and D over the next 1-2 seasons and maybe just maybe we can become a true contender.

[Igottago]

To me it comes down to having a couple of great, elite level players. The gamebreakers that win you games on their backs. And the most likely way of acquiring those players is by drafting top 5, if not top 3.
Yes, anything is possible -- but you need to play the highest odds strategy, not the outlying path. The NHL has structured the league in a way that some period of misery results in the best yield of elite young talent. Its just the way it is, we don't have to like it.

To his credit Conroy went way further down the tear down path than I thought he was going to. He can't help it if the team is better than they should be. And I also think they could actually be worse next season, this is only the beginning of the rebuild process.

I strongly believe this team needs to draft top 5 at least once if not twice during this rebuild to really end up in a place of realistic contention. Who knows if it will happen. But without that its a hail mary to end up with a truly elite franchise centre or something along those lines.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How many fans really do that? A few uber-fans and draft nerds. Most fans paying to go to a game or being wined and dined by corporate clients are cheering for a win on the night.

If the league isn’t interested in addressing more impactful issues that undermine fan confidence, like the tax disparity and the fact half of players in the league have NTCs, I don’t see why they’d do something dramatic like substantially change the playoff format to address the problem of some fans of a handful of teams booing wins in the last few games of the season.

Oh I have low confidence that the league will do anything about it.
But it is becoming an increasing issue. Again - look at the Patriots from this past weekend.

There is a better way of doing it. That's my point.
I don't hold much hope that it will ever change materially.

The NHL should also expand the number of teams in the playoffs and they won't even do that.

[Calgary4LIfe]

The first thing an organization must do is get their ducks in a row, whether they go tanking or rebuilding. You will fail if you are not good at drafting and development BEFORE the rebuild commences.


I think the second thing that makes tanking a failure is being forced into one. I think you end up in the desert for a lot longer of a timeframe, and quite often at the same time, you have waited too long to tank AND you are not very good at drafting and development.


People who want to tank will point at Pittsburgh, Chicago and Colorado as good models. People who don't like tanking point at Buffalo. I don't think Edmonton tanked - they just sucked as a cap team, so there is a difference there. I do think tanking works. I also don't think it is the only way.


This year, I don't think is a year that a team SHOULD tank. If you are going to tank, it better be for a very good young player. Next year and the year after are really the years in which a team 'should' tank (hello Pittsburgh - seems they are talking about being sellers and taking cap space on already?). I think there are seasons that are better for tanking, and seasons that are worse for it. I think you also have to gauge what other prospects are in the number 2,3 and 4 slots, as you don't want to go through the pains of a tank, finish last or second-last, and then get pushed down two slots and end up with a 2nd line player or a 2nd pairing defender at best.


Do I want the Flames to tank? Nope. Not at all, actually. What I want them to do is continue doing what I THINK that they are doing - allowing the team to simply bottom-out, and prioritize building through the draft. It is more like the 2013 rebuild, really. Anyone want to say that Calgary didn't rebuild then? Look a the players that were retained. I argue that they were in a much better position then - Gaudreau already drafted, Giordano and Brodie at (or approaching) their primes, Backlund approaching his prime, plus some other pieces. They kept Wideman around who went on to have one hell of a 2014-15 season too. Even though Baertschi eventually failed, he was a highly thought of prospect then. Certainly Ferland was an invaluable - if short-lived - piece of the future puzzle.



The problem with that rebuild - with the benefit of hindsight - is that there was an impatience to start competing. It created a drain on future picks. Bad money was always on the books with misidentified UFA targets, too many years looking for stable goaltending, subpar coaches, and simply not enough talent. The best iteration of that era was the 2nd year of Sutter's return as coach, where that team did look dominant, and looked dominant as a playoff team. However, there were holes on that squad.


This time around, I just hope that with Conroy getting a front-row seat to what transpired, that he will take a more patient approach. He seems to have that approach right now as he has on more than one occasion stated how important it is to draft and that most of the future team will come from the draft, and he also has stated that this "will take a few seasons". So here's hoping that Conroy doesn't feel the pressure to add to a team that isn't really ready to be added and supplanted yet.



I take personal pride in the fact that Calgary has never tanked. I really do. However, I am fine if they do decide to tank, and end up with a talent like McKenna to entertain us for the next decade +. This is an entertainment business, right? My favourite player from the last era on Calgary has to have been Gaudreau, it was his ability to get us out of our seats that made me love him the most. He made Calgary exciting, and fun to watch. He made the Flames entertaining.



This year I am personally not so fixated on tanking. If the Flames pick high, that's great. Misa would be a fantastic core "franchise-level" player to watch and with with in Calgary. Martone - even though he isn't a C - would be fantastic. Schaefer? But what about Parehk? Why not both?!? Talent is talent, and this team just needs to find an injection of talent at every position. If not for an injury to Tkaczuk and a terrible trade away in Savard, that team would have been an absolute powerhouse. Even without a franchise-level #1 C, that team went to the SCF and were a phantom goal away from winning the cup.



Point is, I think there are years that are better for tanking and ending up with a 'generational' talent, and there are years that aren't as conducive. I think a lot of teams that tank do so because they have no other options - they pivoted too late after their inflection point.


This is an area where I wish Calgary gets better in. There have been two inflection points (IMO) in Calgary in the last 15 years:


1) 2010. That team turned from a contender into a bubble team (a bubble team that failed to make the playoffs). Imagine the complete overhaul that could have been done within a couple of seasons if a rebuild was undertaken then? Iginla, Regehr, Kipper, Phaneuf, etc. A few seasons later, it felt like Feaster pulled the rug from under Sutter's feet, and took over. We assumed that the rebuild would commence, but instead it was another year of going for it, throwing a valuable asset in Regehr in order to make enough cap room to sign Richards. Another year of depreciated assets.


2) Gaudreau leaving Calgary. Don't get me wrong - I wanted a rebuild to commence immediately when this was announced, as I felt that Calgary was already missing enough high-end talent to really compete for the cup. As Maloney disclosed, a rebuild was in the cards that off-season. Then Florida offered up by far the best package at the time, and it allowed the Flames to compete still. Out goes Monahan and a 1st, in comes Kadri, and this team was finally flush at centre. I was 100% onboard with competing at this stage though, even if I hated the Monahan trade. In hindsight, the Flames should have flipped the 5.7M dollar, 115pt Huberdeau and Weegar, and sold off the vets. 40 goal Lindholm would have returned even more.



It isn't all doom and gloom. It isn't like the Flames became San Jose for years trying to scrape up some wins and doing everything they could to remain competitive. I think what is happening here is that Conroy will allow the team to bottom-out - NOT TANK - but just allow the team to simply bottom-out, pick in the top 5 a few times, and the team will rise again. Calgary is flush with good young prospects. They just need fantastic young prospects to add to that really good base. I don't think they need to tank to get there.


However.. McKenna and Dupont (so far) seem like worthwhile gambles to try and tank for. Who is #2,3,4 and 5 next season shaping up to be? That counts too, because if Pittsburgh decides to tank, they are the best in the business at doing so. Edmonton loses McDavid? They are the best in the business at winning lotteries. That has to be weighed.



The only thing I don't want to see is a series of trades to improve Calgary's roster right now. If there is a good deal to be made in bringing in a good C for a good price, sure. I imagine it would be a hockey trade, and it would be cutting off an arm to buy a leg, so the difference in the standings will be the same, if that makes sense. I do not want futures to be involved here, or at least not much of a dent into them. Drafting and developing should be the focus, and allowing the team to simply bottom out naturally instead of fighting against the current should be the path.


I think in the future, if the Flames were to pivot more quickly, they can avoid having to rebuild, but that's tough. It is hard to 'give up' on a core, even if the core is old. You don't see many teams doing this.



The model that I hope that Conroy takes is actually the Winnipeg model. Just focus on drafting and development like they did for so long. They are not perfect, and I do think that they are just borderline contenders at best (just not quite there, but a good strong team most years), but the patience that was shown on drafting and development vs making 'win now' moves too early - that's what I want the Flames to emulate as a 'model', for the most part. Not a perfect model, but a good model nonetheless in terms of focusing on drafting and development when they were clearly not a destination for players.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Even if that were the case, that difference is worth at least a 2nd.

And they aren't currently set to draft 19th, their set to draft 15th.

But the point is that the gap could be as high as 21 (11 vs 32).

And it's not just that, but also that it could be reversed, and improved further, if they can get into the bottom 10. It would then be at least 16 (if FLA stays at 25), and could be more than 22. Not guaranteed that the Flames fall to the bottom 10 by trading Andersson, but it significantly improves their chances.

The difference between a top 10 pick and a late first (25-32) is very substantial - probably in the neighbourhood of 2 late firsts - i.e. it would likely take 3 late firsts to get someone to give up their top 10 pick. At an absolute minimum, it would take 2 firsts.

So at a minimum, you've gained a 1st (if successful). And it is very unlikely that the difference between a January return and a March return is greater than a 1st. As I have said, there likely is no difference.

What are you using for the standings. By points percentage they would be drafting 18th. How are you going 15th? Not saying you are wrong, just want to take the right view with it.

I understand your other points. We've debated it. I don't think now is the right time to trade Andersson because there will be broader demand later. But neither of us know what offers are out there and what offers will be out there.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What are you using for the standings. By points percentage they would be drafting 18th. How are you going 15th? Not saying you are wrong, just want to take the right view with it.

I understand your other points. We've debated it. I don't think now is the right time to trade Andersson because there will be broader demand later. But neither of us know what offers are out there and what offers will be out there.

Because the 16 teams that don't make the playoffs go 1-16. They currently aren't in the playoffs

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What are you using for the standings. By points percentage they would be drafting 18th. How are you going 15th? Not saying you are wrong, just want to take the right view with it.

I understand your other points. We've debated it. I don't think now is the right time to trade Andersson because there will be broader demand later. But neither of us know what offers are out there and what offers will be out there.

No we don't. The only thing we know is that getting into the bottom 10 is a huge boost to the draft capital.

And the sooner Andersson is traded (if he is traded at all), the more likely it is that we might get into the the bottom 10.

Nothing is certain, but a bottom 10 pick alone might be worth moving Andersson?

Would Parekh be a good return for Andersson? I would say absolutely it would be. Getting into the bottom 10 means another Parekh-ish asset.

How much different do you think the return would be now, vs later? Highly unlikely that the delta is that great, or even remotely close.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

My annual call to bring on the wonder wheel.

Pro sports, especially hockey, are dooming themselves with promoting tanking.
32 teams pick once each spot every 32 years.

Don’t reward incompetence. Certainly don’t reward deliberate incompetence. The fact that top picks are so much better identified and impactful is more reason not to give them to willful ####ting yourself.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Oh I have low confidence that the league will do anything about it.
But it is becoming an increasing issue. Again - look at the Patriots from this past weekend.

There is a better way of doing it. That's my point.
I don't hold much hope that it will ever change materially.

The NHL should also expand the number of teams in the playoffs and they won't even do that.

Why?

Just get rid of rewarding teams for losing.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Because the 16 teams that don't make the playoffs go 1-16. They currently aren't in the playoffs

Ah right. Duh.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No we don't. The only thing we know is that getting into the bottom 10 is a huge boost to the draft capital.

And the sooner Andersson is traded (if he is traded at all), the more likely it is that we might get into the the bottom 10.

Nothing is certain, but a bottom 10 pick alone might be worth moving Andersson?

Would Parekh be a good return for Andersson? I would say absolutely it would be. Getting into the bottom 10 means another Parekh-ish asset.

How much different do you think the return would be now, vs later? Highly unlikely that the delta is that great, or even remotely close.

Right now I'm not sure there is even a deal to be made. At least a good one. So I think the delta could be significant. You just don't have enough teams in "buy mod" including for cap reasons.

It's the same math we've discussed, just a matter of how one estimates it:

What is the incremental probability of falling to 10 or below from trading Andersson v. the incremental trade value you get from trading him later?

How one answers that is the key. And it seems we likely have different answers to that question.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Why?

Just get rid of rewarding teams for losing.

Because they haven't expanded the playoffs even as they continue to expand.
Used to be 16/21 (far too easy) now it's 16/32.

You have teams out of the playoffs way too long. that's not good.

I like concepts like play-in games, abbreviated first rounds, etc. I understand there are downsides to those, but overall you create more excitement from more of your fan base.

The loser point has never bothered me. At all. I view it as a complete nothing burger.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No we don't. The only thing we know is that getting into the bottom 10 is a huge boost to the draft capital.

And the sooner Andersson is traded (if he is traded at all), the more likely it is that we might get into the the bottom 10.

Nothing is certain, but a bottom 10 pick alone might be worth moving Andersson?

Would Parekh be a good return for Andersson? I would say absolutely it would be. Getting into the bottom 10 means another Parekh-ish asset.

How much different do you think the return would be now, vs later? Highly unlikely that the delta is that great, or even remotely close.

Desnoyers, Eklund, Hensler, Spence, Myrtka slight drop for Mqueen, Frondell, o’brian are all in that 10 range.

I would be giddy if Frondell or mqueen dropped if we had the ten pick.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Because they haven't expanded the playoffs even as they continue to expand.
Used to be 16/21 (far too easy) now it's 16/32.

You have teams out of the playoffs way too long. that's not good.

I like concepts like play-in games, abbreviated first rounds, etc. I understand there are downsides to those, but overall you create more excitement from more of your fan base.

The loser point has never bothered me. At all. I view it as a complete nothing burger.

Like the NBA?

Don't like making the 1st round 5 games, 7 games or nothing. Don't mind a play in tournament like the NBA but you could get a losing team making it into the playoffs like the NBA eastern conference was for a long time.