What is the main problem with the on ice product?

[bubbsy]

This team is built to have 1 scoring line that generates most of the offence. 3 checking lines that play a sutter style of puck pressure, don't give up chances and win the possession in the majority of their shifts. Top 10 goaltending in the league, if not top5. The defence is avg at best, when looking at the names there.

So, the 3 checking lines are not sticking to their role,and the goaltending has been average.

That is the problem I see with the product right now.

[EVERLAST]

Darryl all but admitted in one of his last interviews that if this team as a team doesn't invest fully in the systems in place they have a hard time winning.

He came right out and said this team DOESN'T have a game breaker that can immediately change the outcome of a game .

Pretty telling when your coach says this all without throwing a certain GM under the bus.

Tre and Co aren't getting it done and I imagine some of the covid excuses are legit but at the end of the day those are just excuses .

The schedule is going to be a battle and this year it just continues to be a complete poop show with postponed games , headscratching decisions on when , where and why they justify this game and not others .....what a mucking fess.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Except that Sutter has said stuff like virtually everywhere he's coached. This idea that he is throwing BT under the bus is over-stated. This is Darryl being Darryl. It's his way of reminding his team that they aren't going to win on talent alone.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

Darryl all but admitted in one of his last interviews that if this team as a team doesn't invest fully in the systems in place they have a hard time winning.

He came right out and said this team DOESN'T have a game breaker that can immediately change the outcome of a game .

Pretty telling when your coach says this all without throwing a certain GM under the bus.

Tre and Co aren't getting it done and I imagine some of the covid excuses are legit but at the end of the day those are just excuses .

The schedule is going to be a battle and this year it just continues to be a complete poop show with postponed games , headscratching decisions on when , where and why they justify this game and not others .....what a mucking fess.

I strongly believe sutter would say these things regardless of who is on the roster. Not having a McDavid, mackinnon, etc, probably just makes it easier for him to drill the message into the team and the fans. Each player has to buy in, check at both ends of the ice, regardless of which line you're on, what your salary is.

As such, as much as I am not a treliving fan, I don't read into sutter's comments as any kind of statement being made towards the gm.

[Dude Where's Makar?]

This team desperately needs a play driving center and RHS scoring RW to ice a proper second line.

Mangiapane has shown he is a top 6 LW, but Backlund and Monahan aren't getting that job done.

Hertl, Gourde, Giroux would all solve that problem, but this team can't be trading away massive hauls without extensions in place.

I think until this team has two scoring lines it's going to be hard to go far in the playoffs.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Except that Sutter has said stuff like virtually everywhere he's coached. This idea that he is throwing BT under the bus is over-stated. This is Darryl being Darryl. It's his way of reminding his team that they aren't going to win on talent alone.

I think Treliving is also very aware of the roster challenges of this team, hence why they hired Sutter to begin with. He is a coach known to squeeze whatever he can out of every player. He's not a coach known for depending on star players to carry all the weight.

I am not giving Treliving a full pass on the current roster deficiencies, but as others have pointed out, being a GM in a smaller NHL market, in the west, and a Canadian market, is a lot harder than being a GM in places Florida, Tampa, L.A., New York, and even Toronto. Canadian taxes, climate, NMCs/NTCs, and travel issues, all make his job difficult when it comes to acquiring or luring players.

The NHL can't address all of these issues, but I think they can do some things to help even the playing field. For one, have more restrictions on NMCs/NTCs. In my opinion, these are becoming a huge issue for about 1/3 of the teams. All of the other professional sports leagues have limitations on these, but I digress.

[dissentowner]

They need another top 6 C. Both Backlund and Monahan have been pretty terrible this year. If both those guys played at their former abilities we would be a top contender.

[TheSquatch]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Except that Sutter has said stuff like virtually everywhere he's coached. This idea that he is throwing BT under the bus is over-stated. This is Darryl being Darryl. It's his way of reminding his team that they aren't going to win on talent alone.

It's also his way of saying "Well the problem isn't the coach, the coach is asking for XYZ and not getting it."

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

They need another top 6 C. Both Backlund and Monahan have been pretty terrible this year. If both those guys played at their former abilities we would be a top contender.

If we had 2017 Backlund and 2018 Monahan things would be pretty good right now.

Replacing Backlund with Kadri in 2020 would've been very ideal...

Too bad we missed that train.

[Mattman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The NHL can't address all of these issues, but I think they can do some things to help even the playing field. For one, have more restrictions on NMCs/NTCs. In my opinion, these are becoming a huge issue for about 1/3 of the teams. All of the other professional sports leagues have limitations on these, but I digress.

I'm curious what those limitations are actually, this is my first time ever hearing about limitations for NMC and NTC.

Of course, this will sound like whining and moaning about disadvantages, but I would have to agree. Canada (apart from Toronto) seems like it's just a different environment when it comes to hockey, fanbases, and the product put on ice.

[klikitiklik]

The problem with the on ice product is that there are too many teams in the league and not enough NHL level players. The product is too diluted. The league needs to lose about 6 franchises.

There just isn't enough high level talent to go around. Our lineup is playing about 8 or more AHL level players.

How many AHL players are starting in the Oilers lineup right now?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Mattman

[/B]

I'm curious what those limitations are actually, this is my first time ever hearing about limitations for NMC and NTC.

Of course, this will sound like whining and moaning about disadvantages, but I would have to agree. Canada (apart from Toronto) seems like it's just a different environment when it comes to hockey, fanbases, and the product put on ice.

I believe in the NBA, a player has had to have been with their current team for at least 4 seasons before signing a new contract is eligible for a NMC/NTC. It's a way for a player that has made a life somewhere to get security and be rewarded for their loyalty. In essence, it was something implemented so the player couldn't be moved from the place they want to be. In the NHL, I think there is a subtle difference. In some cases, the above is true, but in many cases (I would wager most), it's more of a tool to control where they go, which is something they should be doing in free agency.

Here is a write-up on the MLB system and how some of the same concerns have been raised, so it isn't just an NHL situation:

https://calltothepen.com/2016/08/25/...damaging-game/

MLB uses the 10/5 Rule.

Any player with 10 years in the league, and at least 5 years with their current team, gets a veto on being traded.


According to Capfriendly, there were 179 active NHL players last season with some form of NTC or NMC. That averages out to about 6 players per team. For comparison, in the NBA, there were no players with true NTCs, but 19 players that had trade veto powers based on their tenure and/or contract status. It's such a drastic difference.

[GioforPM]

It strikes me that there are a lot less trades in the NBA (though I follow it hardly at all) and a lot more big UFAs.

[Steve Bozek]

Part of the Flames’ continuing mediocrity problem is the lack of high first round draft picks, which have the most likelihood of developing into top 6 forwards or first pairing defencemen. Most of the Flames success in acquiring those players has come from trades or luck with late round picks.
Looking at our main western rivals since 1979, in comparison to the Flames 1 top 5 and 8 picks in the top 6-10: Edmonton had 8 top 5, and 11 in the 6-10 order; Vancouver had 9 top 5, and 14 6-10 picks; LA had 11 top 5, and 6 6-10; and the 2 iterations of Winnipeg Jets have had a total of 5 top 5 and 8 in the 6-10.
I haven’t looked beyond these teams, but I suspect if one did, the Flames would come out near the bottom of the league in top 10 picks.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

Part of the Flames’ continuing mediocrity problem is the lack of high first round draft picks, which have the most likelihood of developing into top 6 forwards or first pairing defencemen. Most of the Flames success in acquiring those players has come from trades or luck with late round picks.
Looking at our main western rivals since 1979, in comparison to the Flames 1 top 5 and 8 picks in the top 6-10: Edmonton had 8 top 5, and 11 in the 6-10 order; Vancouver had 9 top 5, and 14 6-10 picks; LA had 11 top 5, and 6 6-10; and the 2 iterations of Winnipeg Jets have had a total of 5 top 5 and 8 in the 6-10.
I haven’t looked beyond these teams, but I suspect if one did, the Flames would come out near the bottom of the league in top 10 picks.

You are probably downplaying it by going back to 79. If you have, say a 10-15 year sampling )since that's about how far back you'd go to see the present effects) , the Flames have had 3 top 10 picks (and never a top 3 - and just one 4th). The Oilers have had 12, including 4 firsts, a third and a 4th. The Canucks have had 7 top 10 picks. The Jets have had 8. The Kings have had 6 (mind you 3 are in the last 3 years and haven't impacted yet). The Ducks have only had 5 and again 3 are in the last 3 years.

[Voodooman]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Detroit has consistency and issues with on ice coaching. Backlund is exactly who they should target, but it's always a question of perspective, and whether they can steal him at a reasonable rate from Calgary. I would ask for 1M retention.

I'd retain $1.5M to get Backlund gone. You can replace his PK and defensive zone skills with someone at $1.5 - 2M, and you're still $2M ahead of the game. He's total deadweight offensively, and you can't pay $5.3M for that in this league. Well, you can't pay 3 guys each that much, and Backlund's the only one of the Flames trio you might get someone to pick up.

I'm OK with Looch, the effort is there, and it's only one more season. As for Mony, that seems more injury related, so you just have to ride it out for the final year, and part ways. But Backlund you might be able to shed now.

[SeanCharles]

Too much dead weight in the forward ranks.

I honestly wouldn’t be upset if anyone outside of Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Lindholm and Mangiapane weren’t on the team next season.

I still really like Lucic and Coleman but the cap hits compared to offensive production need to be considered. I wouldn’t say either is a disappointment per se but highly priced leftshot wingers is not what this team needs more of.

Backlund and Monahan have fallen off a cliff and Dube hasn’t developed into a consistent NHLer yet, hard to say if he ever will.

Basically anyone outside of Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Lindholm and Mangiapane is either overpriced and/or under performing.

I still have hope for Coleman but if we want to retain Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Mangiapane and Kylington we need to offload some of these other contracts.