Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
If finishing last means you have a deeply ingrained terrible culture, how did the Avs turn theirs around so fast?
Finishing bottom 3 =/= tanking. A team can finish bottom three simply because it doesn't have much talent. Finishing in the bottom of the league probably means you have poor management - at least over the long term. It can also mean you have management that has exchanged short-term assets for long-term assets as part of a long-term strategy. Finishing at bottom of the league is incidental to that sort of asset strategy.
|
I think the Avs were fairly lucky. How has Edmonton not been able to turn their culture around? It is still a big risk.
Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating that the Flames make a push to try and get themselves into the playoffs soon. That is actually one thing that scares me about Burke somewhat (and was VERY relieved when he stated that he expects this team to have a high draft pick next year). I think the worst case scenario a team can do in this situation is rush their rebuild (for instance, I don't think Toronto's core will win a championship).
I hope we win the lottery and grab the first over-all pick. I am not even against finishing last in the league - as long as it doesn't come through tanking and having that 'losing' culture ingrained like it is in Edmonton. Lose at a higher clip with exactly how the Flames are losing most of their games now? Sure. No problem with that. Lose by getting more blow-outs and so on? I think it is detrimental to the development of the guys on the team now.
If this team was mostly still veteran-laden, I wouldn't be as opposed to it - but having guys like Monahan, Backlund, Brodie, Bouma and whatever call-ups and so on get exposed to that type of environment - I really think it is detrimental to their development.
Flames are working hard every game (well, most anyways!), and for them to finish lower than the Oilers or Buffalo would require the 'plug to be pulled' on that effort completely, which I think would be more detrimental than bettering their draft position by what will probably be two spots (and no more than 3).
Back on topic regarding prospects:
I don't think Reinhart slips past Florida.
One thing I really love about Reinhart, is that he is a RH shot, and has played RW in international tournaments before (A position that is arguably the weakest on the Flames is RW). I believe his first season on the Ice he played wing on his Max's line (IIRC).
Not that Reinhart is small (6'1), but guys like Dal Colle and Ritchie are bigger, and perhaps from that standpoint, you would figure Florida would have a preference for the bigger player slotted in their natural position? Reinhart is definitely a step above Dal Colle, and he is two steps ahead of Ritchie. Florida is NOT Edmonton - they have loads of size already, especially down the middle (Barkov 6'3", Bjugstad 6'6"), their only winger that is sub 6' is Bergenheim at 5'11".
If I was Florida, I would have to think VERY highly of Dal Colle to prefer him over Reinhart. Barkov to me is a 1st line center. Bjugdstad could be a 2nd liner, but could be a third liner. Huberdeau is a winger, not a center. If I was Florida, I would take the very best player possible, and relax knowing I can switch that player to wing if need be.
This is basically the reason that Reinhart becomes that much more attractive to me for the Flames. If he doesn't work out in center (not that he wouldn't) or if the Flames suddenly find themselves with better options, he would make for a heck of a RW prospect.
