Calgary Flames General Manager Ranking - #3

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Calling the Hamonic trade a fiasco is way too strong. It ended up being an overpayment, but the Flames have had several solid years from a middle pairing, tough-as-nails, great character defenseman on a very, very affordable contract. Too many higher end picks for that, but it's not the end of the world either.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Calling the Hamonic trade a fiasco is way too strong. It ended up being an overpayment, but the Flames have had several solid years from a middle pairing, tough-as-nails, great character defenseman on a very, very affordable contract. Too many higher end picks for that, but it's not the end of the world either.

I see him as totally replaceable. Even when he first got here, I was wondering what they saw in him. When he came onto the scene, he was decent, not sure what happened but the signs were there at the time of the trade. Physical, defensive dmen that handle the puck like a grenade shouldn't be in your top 4. If he was left handed, he probably wasn't even considered. It was a brutal trade. Set us back big time considering similar level dmen were just going to be sitting there in ufa.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[SportsJunky]

Not a fiasco and not brutal in my opinion. An overpay to be sure.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man there's a lot anger in this discussion.

I'm with Jiri, not sure why people have to denigrate, ignore, or generalize any opinions that are counter to their own.

Good to see some hockey passion again though after four months of chaos.

Now the poll ... part of me says run off, but then there aren't a lot of votes in the other camps to change the overall vote. Thoughts?

I didn't denigrate anything. He got 10% of first place votes against Fletcher! Then wins second place in a landslide when you have a GM sitting there who led our team to it's best 5 year stretch since 87-91. Our most memorable year since 89. What has Treliving done? Really? If anything the story isn't yet complete so he almost shouldn't even be there. There's still time to rise above Sutter, but as of now I just don't see it. I see the arguments for BT but I dont feel they are strong enough. It's a results oriented business and Sutter produced better, more consistent results. That's a fact and it would've driven my vote had I bothered. Didnt notice the Fletcher vote until later but when I saw BT dominating Sutter, I didnt bother voting. I love the debate though.

It's funny, Sutter signed some solid deals too, but no one talks about those. Kipper's 6 year contract was great. Phaneuf's deal was good before his hip went. Tanguay. Glencross. Bourque. Bouwmeester. Regehr. Ference. Sarich. Langkow. Huselius. Even Iginla who was basically the best player in hockey was retained for 10 years worth of contracts by Sutter.

When I say free pass, I'm referring to the fact that he recieved 10% of first place votes. You need to give him a free pass to justify that. If you're going to hold Sutter accountable for his faults, BT has those too but they didn't impact the vote. That's what I mean. He gets like 4x the votes for 2nd that Sutter got. That's a free pass. Realistically it should've been way closer when you actually factor in the measurables. Couldn't even snag 3rd spot. I think there is a heavy anti-Sutter bias at play. I will admit I'm biased against Tre but I'm not sure people would admit their anti-Sutter bias.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Not a fiasco and not brutal in my opinion. An overpay to be sure.

Semantics basically. Whatever. I viewed it as a disaster then and now. Hamonic was already in decline when we traded for him. I'm not sure he was ever worth that price, he definately wasn't at the time.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again it's comments like this that I object to
"BT gets pretty close to a free pass for accelerating the rebuild and the hamonic fiasco"

People have specifically outlined those as negatives on his resume (along with bad UFAs) so it's not like people are giving him a free pass, they just see the positive outweighing the negatives.

And there is no doubt that the organization made a massive mistake in not starting to move out the former core (Iginla, Regehr, Kipper) until it was too late to extract value. I think that was likely an ownership mandate largely based on a desire to win a cup with #12.

But yeah it hurt us big time long-term.

But the lack of scouts and farm team to me are largely an excuse for bad drafting. I'm not one to adhere to any draft rankings but he would have done a lot better if he had taken the Kevin Lowe approach and drafted off the THN draft magazine. Guys like Pelech and Chucko were surprise selections where they were picked.

My belief is that Sutter put constraints around the scouting team in terms of the type of player he wanted in the first round - with too much emphasis on size and not nearly enough on skill.

The draft for me is all about upside and skill.

I agree with everything you said.
Ownerships unwillingness to enter a rebuild is often understated. It wasn't until Iggy told them he wasn't re-signing that ownership finally gave the ok to trade him and enter a rebuild. By that then, the Flames had little time, compounded by Iggy's veto of trades, the Flames were really hamstrung.

Sutter's draft history, along with his trades of Dion, Stralman, Lydman, Ference, Olli Jokinen, both times and multiple first and second round draft picks, left this team in shambles. Sure his teams weren't horrible, but they eroded any foundation for staying competitive moving forward. He left us with few prospects, little cap, and one of the oldest teams in the NHL.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again it's comments like this that I object to
"BT gets pretty close to a free pass for accelerating the rebuild and the hamonic fiasco"

People have specifically outlined those as negatives on his resume (along with bad UFAs) so it's not like people are giving him a free pass, they just see the positive outweighing the negatives.

And there is no doubt that the organization made a massive mistake in not starting to move out the former core (Iginla, Regehr, Kipper) until it was too late to extract value. I think that was likely an ownership mandate largely based on a desire to win a cup with #12.

But yeah it hurt us big time long-term.

But the lack of scouts and farm team to me are largely an excuse for bad drafting. I'm not one to adhere to any draft rankings but he would have done a lot better if he had taken the Kevin Lowe approach and drafted off the THN draft magazine. Guys like Pelech and Chucko were surprise selections where they were picked.

My belief is that Sutter put constraints around the scouting team in terms of the type of player he wanted in the first round - with too much emphasis on size and not nearly enough on skill.

The draft for me is all about upside and skill.

It wasn't that strong of a comment I don't think. How else should I have worded it? "BT gets the benefit of the doubt where Sutter's every fault is scrutinized to no end"?. Maybe there's not enough grey there either. I'm trying, honestly. Sometimes I can be pretty blunt and opinionated. Not meaning to rustle feathers but I do find it astounding BT recieved close to 4x the votes as Sutter when considering team success as a whole. Astounding might not be a strong enough word.

Simple question: Do Sutter's negatives outweigh the positives? Y/N? If the answer is no I dont see how he's not better than BT. BT has as many pros as cons, making him decisively average at best in my eyes. Was Sutter worse than average? His winning % and cup run would say he was a good GM just looking at it's simplest level. 5 straight playoff years. That's pretty good for a team coming out of a 7 year drought. Since 2009, we've made the playoffs three times (or four depending on Winnipeg series). Our long term outlook looks mediocre at the moment. So we have a rebuilt team that is average that is 50/50 to make the playoffs at all and gets absolutely embarrassed by non-Vancouver teams when they do make it. The last 11 years have been an awful time to be a Flames fan and the immediate future doesn't look great.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man there's a lot anger in this discussion.

I'm with Jiri, not sure why people have to denigrate, ignore, or generalize any opinions that are counter to their own.

Good to see some hockey passion again though after four months of chaos.

Now the poll ... part of me says run off, but then there aren't a lot of votes in the other camps to change the overall vote. Thoughts?

I wouldn't run it off. Not sure that voters who think Risebrough, Feaster or Button are better GM's should hold the keys to victory here.

The people have spoken.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

It wasn't that strong of a comment I don't think. How else should I have worded it? "BT gets the benefit of the doubt where Sutter's every fault is scrutinized to no end"?.

This is the same thing. You are minimizing and coloring the position of others to reflect your views.

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Simple question: Do Sutter's negatives outweigh the positives? Y/N? If the answer is no I dont see how he's not better than BT.

My answer is no in terms of the long-term. The one run doesn't make up for the long-term damage caused.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I agree with everything you said.
Ownerships unwillingness to enter a rebuild is often understated. It wasn't until Iggy told them he wasn't re-signing that ownership finally gave the ok to trade him and enter a rebuild. By that then, the Flames had little time, compounded by Iggy's veto of trades, the Flames were really hamstrung.

Sutter's draft history, along with his trades of Dion, Stralman, Lydman, Ference, Olli Jokinen, both times and multiple first round draft picks, left this team in shambles. Sure his teams weren't horrible, but they eroded any foundation for staying competitive moving forward. He left us with few prospects, little cap, and one of the oldest teams in the NHL.

Weird list of players. Dion I agree with. Who cares about Stralman or Lydman? Those were nothing compared to Hamonic. Ference was a good trade that didnt end up working out but everyone was jazzed about it at the time. Same with Joki trade#1.

"Sure, his teams weren't horrible" yep they sure weren't. They actually made the playoffs each year, won a division and went on a SC run.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again it's comments like this that I object to
"BT gets pretty close to a free pass for accelerating the rebuild and the hamonic fiasco"

People have specifically outlined those as negatives on his resume (along with bad UFAs) so it's not like people are giving him a free pass, they just see the positive outweighing the negatives.

And there is no doubt that the organization made a massive mistake in not starting to move out the former core (Iginla, Regehr, Kipper) until it was too late to extract value. I think that was likely an ownership mandate largely based on a desire to win a cup with #12.

But yeah it hurt us big time long-term.

But the lack of scouts and farm team to me are largely an excuse for bad drafting. I'm not one to adhere to any draft rankings but he would have done a lot better if he had taken the Kevin Lowe approach and drafted off the THN draft magazine. Guys like Pelech and Chucko were surprise selections where they were picked.

My belief is that Sutter put constraints around the scouting team in terms of the type of player he wanted in the first round - with too much emphasis on size and not nearly enough on skill.

The draft for me is all about upside and skill.

I know you don't like extreme opinions, and I see the view that there was "no doubt" the Flames made a "massive mistake" as an example. That is closer to hyperbole and subjectivity than rational objectivity IMO.

Iginla is a franchise icon. Can you think of other organizations that have traded their best player in history at or near their peak in order to build a long term contender?

I just can't think of where it happens in actual fact. Gretzky? That's not why that trade was made. Phil Esposito? Maybe that's an example, but he also wanted out given his reducing role. Thornton? He was unhappy in Boston and there were contract issues.

If it was such a massive mistake, maybe there are some obvious examples of winning franchises that have been built this way that I'm just not thinking of.

I don't see the current team following this model. As a bubble team this team, you have Brodie and Hamonic as expiring assets. Are there plans to trade Backlund or Gio while they still have value?

Anyway I don't see the debate as personal or mean spirited. I have tried to present some raw data but understand that people can apply their own filters to it.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Weird list of players. Dion I agree with. Who cares about Stralman or Lydman? Those were nothing compared to Hamonic. Ference was a good trade that didnt end up working out but everyone was jazzed about it at the time. Same with Joki trade#1.

"Sure, his teams weren't horrible" yep they sure weren't. They actually made the playoffs each year, won a division and went on a SC run.

Lydman went on to play 558 games after the Flames including 49 playoff games.
Stralman played 730 additional games, including 104 playoff games.

For a team short on quality players and assets, that's not great.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

This is the same thing. You are minimizing and coloring the position of others to reflect your views.







My answer is no in terms of the long-term. The one run doesn't make up for the long-term damage caused.

It is how I see it. I feel like Sutter is overlooked and underappreciated. BT gets the benefit of the doubt because the team is young and he still has time. I'm not trying to minimize anything, it's just how I am analyzing the data. Wins and losses. Periods of success. Cup runs. This is what ultimately defines a GM. How he leaves it for the next guy doesnt matter as much as how much success he had. Every team has a cyclical life, we will see how Brad leaves it for the next guy but the way he trades picks indicates to me we are heading down a familiar path. Ownership plays a role in all this too.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I know you don't like extreme opinions, and I see the view that there was "no doubt" the Flames made a "massive mistake" as an example. That is closer to hyperbole and subjectivity than rational objectivity IMO.

It's not about not liking extreme opinions. What I don't like is when people minimize, over simplify or exaggerate opposing views in ways that don't reflect the actual debate that is happening or the views being expressed. I don't think that's healthy debate.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Iginla is a franchise icon. Can you think of other organizations that have traded their best player in history at or near their peak in order to build a long term contender?

Yeah i get it, but even if they had done it a year earlier I think they could have extracted more value.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Lydman went on to play 558 games after the Flames including 49 playoff games.

Stralman played 730 additional games, including 104 playoff games.



For a team short on quality players and assets, that's not great.

At the time Lydman and Stralman weren't as valued and were going to be forced into bottom pairing roles likely. Keep Lydman and he doesn't get Hamrlik. Keep Stralman and he likely doesn't blossom the same way behind that top 4.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Weird list of players. Dion I agree with. Who cares about Stralman or Lydman? Those were nothing compared to Hamonic. Ference was a good trade that didnt end up working out but everyone was jazzed about it at the time. Same with Joki trade#1.

"Sure, his teams weren't horrible" yep they sure weren't. They actually made the playoffs each year, won a division and went on a SC run.

It wasn't so much the players, but the circumstances around the trades and/or the return.
Lydman- Sutter traded because he didn't like him because he thought he was exaggeration his injury during the playoff run and got little return.
Stalman was a coup I thought coming from Toronto, then he turns around and trades him for virtually nothing.
Ference, agreed to a home town discount, only to have Sutter turn around and deal him. it was a sore spot with Ference, a popular guy in the room and likely eroded trust any of the players had in Sutter. Not to mention he was part of a trade that brought in a guy they knew was never going to sign an extension since he made it clear he wanted to play closer to his family in the States.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I didn't denigrate anything. He got 10% of first place votes against Fletcher! Then wins second place in a landslide when you have a GM sitting there who led our team to it's best 5 year stretch since 87-91. Our most memorable year since 89. What has Treliving done? Really? If anything the story isn't yet complete so he almost shouldn't even be there. There's still time to rise above Sutter, but as of now I just don't see it. I see the arguments for BT but I dont feel they are strong enough. It's a results oriented business and Sutter produced better, more consistent results. That's a fact and it would've driven my vote had I bothered. Didnt notice the Fletcher vote until later but when I saw BT dominating Sutter, I didnt bother voting. I love the debate though.

It's funny, Sutter signed some solid deals too, but no one talks about those. Kipper's 6 year contract was great. Phaneuf's deal was good before his hip went. Tanguay. Glencross. Bourque. Bouwmeester. Regehr. Ference. Sarich. Langkow. Huselius. Even Iginla who was basically the best player in hockey was retained for 10 years worth of contracts by Sutter.

When I say free pass, I'm referring to the fact that he recieved 10% of first place votes. You need to give him a free pass to justify that. If you're going to hold Sutter accountable for his faults, BT has those too but they didn't impact the vote. That's what I mean. He gets like 4x the votes for 2nd that Sutter got. That's a free pass. Realistically it should've been way closer when you actually factor in the measurables. Couldn't even snag 3rd spot. I think there is a heavy anti-Sutter bias at play. I will admit I'm biased against Tre but I'm not sure people would admit their anti-Sutter bias.

You telling others what and what isn't a free pass, and what can and can't be justified, which is literally my point. You don't have to agree, in fact it's great that people don't. But you don't get to tell someone that differs with you that their opinion can't be justified, as clearly they were or they wouldn't have voted the way they did.

I won't justify Treliving one, as I didn't vote him there.

But there are so many variables in this one person can't just decide what the right answer is. Fletcher, remember, was the manager during a period of time in the NHL where budgets, salaries and caps were non-existent. That's a way easier time period to lead af franchise.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Weird list of players. Dion I agree with. Who cares about Stralman or Lydman? Those were nothing compared to Hamonic. Ference was a good trade that didnt end up working out but everyone was jazzed about it at the time. Same with Joki trade#1...

The biggest problem with the Ference trade was that Stuart was guaranteed to walk away at the end of the season. Ference was dealt for short-term rental, which I consider to be a bad deal.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I agree with everything you said.
Ownerships unwillingness to enter a rebuild is often understated. It wasn't until Iggy told them he wasn't re-signing that ownership finally gave the ok to trade him and enter a rebuild. By that then, the Flames had little time, compounded by Iggy's veto of trades, the Flames were really hamstrung.

Sutter's draft history, along with his trades of Dion, Stralman, Lydman, Ference, Olli Jokinen, both times and multiple first and second round draft picks, left this team in shambles. Sure his teams weren't horrible, but they eroded any foundation for staying competitive moving forward. He left us with few prospects, little cap, and one of the oldest teams in the NHL.

Well, he left Feaster a perfectly good Iginla, Regehr and Bouwmeester to trade. Should have been able to get something out of those assets.

(Did you guys see that some people have actually voted for Feaster as second best, third best, etc?)

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by getbak

That's not really true. 2006 was the only year the Flames' first round pick was after 20th overall because of the team's performance. 2005 was also outside the top-20, but that was because of bad lottery luck.

...
(and lotsa other good stuff)

Good post, getbak, thanks for the refresher. Sutter did trade down a lot in the first round

If I had said top 10 or 15, my post would have been darn near perfect, and the same point stands. Top 10 picks he was 1/1, 100%. Mid rounders was all else he had available. Still due to on ice success

I should ninja edit it !