Brad Treliving needs to go

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

History.

We're talking about during the Iginla era, and how long they've held off from starting the rebuild, or some other time? These are different scenarios.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Joborule

We're talking about during the Iginla era, and how long they've held off from starting the rebuild, or some other time? These are different scenarios.

It's still the only evidence we have for how the owners have handled the question of rebuilding: extremely reluctant at the outset, and then abruptly impatient at the first glimmer of success. The MO fits like a glove.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There’s no short-term fix for this team. Unless the goal is just to get into the playoffs and hope for a cinderella run, the job of rebuilding the asset-base and talent will take 3+ years.

I'm not a fan of sinking the team for lottery picks because of the large possibility that it could be an underwhelming player like a Yakupov as much as it could be a matthews. And you could easily not get that top player after a #### year because a team down the list wins the lottery and bumps you. Then you have a putrid year and you don't get rewarded for it.

However I believe they can retool effectively with the assets they have and continue to build the prospect base on the fly, but Brad appears to be reluctant to even do that.

It's letting your biggest assets expire and walk that leads to the eventual NEED to tear down completely.

We could avoid bottoming out with wise asset management in the next calendar year or so. If any core guys aren't rejuvenated under Sutter it is time to part ways and get the needed pieces in return to help the team.

[CGY12]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I'm not a fan of sinking the team for lottery picks because of the large possibility that it could be an underwhelming player like a Yakupov as much as it could be a matthews. And you could easily not get that top player after a #### year because a team down the list wins the lottery and bumps you. Then you have a putrid year and you don't get rewarded for it.

However I believe they can retool effectively with the assets they have and continue to build the prospect base on the fly, but Brad appears to be reluctant to even do that.

It's letting your biggest assets expire and walk that leads to the eventual NEED to tear down completely.

We could avoid bottoming out with wise asset management in the next calendar year or so. If any core guys aren't rejuvenated under Sutter it is time to part ways and get the needed pieces in return to help the team.

Which will plummet their value even more than what it is now. The Flames have a terrible habit of holding on to assets till its value basically bottoms out. The organization seems to have a philosophy that virtually involves no risk and you can't build a winner like that.

If Sutter can get all these guys to elevate their game and replenish their value and stock around the league, management should be smart enough to assess and determine who to keep and who to move while stock is high, they've had the same core long enough to understand everything you need to know about each player.

If Backlund gets it going move him, if Monahan gets it going move him, if Giordano gets it going move him, etc. Obviously easier said than done but thats the only way to retool on the fly if the organization is hell bent on not going through a rebuild.

[Hackey]

Rebuilding on the fly is a pipe dream in my opinion. Highly doubt we're trading Gaudreau or Monahan for better players. Highly doubt we're landing a superstar in the middle of the 1st round. All those moves could provide depth but highly unlikely to net you superstars.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Rebuilding on the fly is a pipe dream in my opinion. Highly doubt we're trading Gaudreau or Monahan for better players. Highly doubt we're landing a superstar in the middle of the 1st round. All those moves could provide depth but highly unlikely to net you superstars.

If you do it correctly you are trading your players for elite prospects or high picks or you are doing it wrong and it will not work.

I think of the Duchesne for Makar outcome and Stone for Brannstrom (sp?) type of deals.

I swear Flames could have traded Tkachuk for 3 OA and drafted Stutzle.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by blender

If you do it correctly you are trading your players for elite prospects or high picks or you are doing it wrong and it will not work.

I think of the Duchesne for Makar outcome and Stone for Brannstrom (sp?) type of deals.

I swear Flames could have traded Tkachuk for 3 OA and drafted Stutzle.

IDK about that one

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by blender

If you do it correctly you are trading your players for elite prospects or high picks or you are doing it wrong and it will not work.

I think of the Duchesne for Makar outcome and Stone for Brannstrom (sp?) type of deals.

I swear Flames could have traded Tkachuk for 3 OA and drafted Stutzle.

The Duchene deal was not supposed to yield the #4 pick in the draft. At the time of the deal it was widely expected that the pick would fall somewhere toward the bottom-third, after the Senators had just come off of a surprise appearance in the ECF. Also, Brannstrom is a good player, but hardly a burgeoning superstar.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by blender

If you do it correctly you are trading your players for elite prospects or high picks or you are doing it wrong and it will not work.

I think of the Duchesne for Makar outcome and Stone for Brannstrom (sp?) type of deals.

I swear Flames could have traded Tkachuk for 3 OA and drafted Stutzle.

Based on what? Your imagination? Because Brady and Matt are brothers? That’s cute.

Seriously doubt it. Stutzle is an grade A cost controlled asset. Why would the Senators trade that for a guy who could very well walk in 3 years?

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by blender

If you do it correctly you are trading your players for elite prospects or high picks or you are doing it wrong and it will not work.

I think of the Duchesne for Makar outcome and Stone for Brannstrom (sp?) type of deals.

I swear Flames could have traded Tkachuk for 3 OA and drafted Stutzle.

We trade our best two players so we're basically guaranteed to be a mid pack team at best and then we hope and pray the team we traded them to falls off a clip so maybe we get a high pick and then hope it pans out? Sounds like a horrendous plan and more of the half ass commitment that has this team where it is.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by blender

If you do it correctly you are trading your players for elite prospects or high picks or you are doing it wrong and it will not work.

I think of the Duchesne for Makar outcome and Stone for Brannstrom (sp?) type of deals.

I swear Flames could have traded Tkachuk for 3 OA and drafted Stutzle.

Karlsson for Stutzle and Duchene for Makar were huge unexpected bonuses for the Avs and Sens.

The Sens and Sharks were deep in round 3 of the playoffs the year before their pick was in play. The Avs and Sens both benefited from the meltdown of the Sens and Sharks.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There’s no short-term fix for this team. Unless the goal is just to get into the playoffs and hope for a cinderella run, the job of rebuilding the asset-base and talent will take 3+ years.

It seems like the bolded is, and will always be the goal.

Originally Posted by bubbsy

It's an interesting conundrum. From a schedule perspective, I think it will be a very bad look to enter the new arena (2024 season?) at the bottoming out stage of a rebuild.

With big time decisions needing to be made as early as this offseason regarding Gaudreau (last year before UFA), Tkachuk (last year before RFA), Giordano (last year before UFA), not to mention Monahan decision the year after. then you add the expansion draft and the frozen cap teams are facing, this offseason is just extremely hard to even predict.

The likely outcome from staying the course is something like NAS is experiencing now (ie. presuming we re-up Gaudreau/Monahan/Tkachuk...good chance they start to look like Johansen/Duchene type value)...

Originally Posted by Hackey

We trade our best two players so we're basically guaranteed to be a mid pack team at best and then we hope and pray the team we traded them to falls off a clip so maybe we get a high pick and then hope it pans out? Sounds like a horrendous plan and more of the half ass commitment that has this team where it is.

If we keep our best two players what are we likely to be anything better than a mid-pack team anyways?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There’s no short-term fix for this team. Unless the goal is just to get into the playoffs and hope for a cinderella run, the job of rebuilding the asset-base and talent will take 3+ years.

The problem is that there's good evidence you can get a cinderella run, like Dallas, St. Louis, Vegas, San Jose, NJD, LA...

All those teams had pretty magical PO runs from lower rankings (well, except Vegas and they were an expansion team).

[Vinny01]

This Flames team is by far the best built for a Cinderella run as any team since the last time Sutter was here. They have the coach and goalie to go deep.

I know a lot of people got really down on this team but I am of the belief this is a good team who improved in net and vastly improved their coaching which were 2 issues with this team since Treliving has been here for the most part.

I am optimistic in game 20-30 with Sutter so games 46-56 of this season we will be talking about the Flames being the team no one in Canada wants to face in round 1

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The problem is that there's good evidence you can get a cinderella run, like Dallas, St. Louis, Vegas, San Jose, NJD, LA...

All those teams had pretty magical PO runs from lower rankings (well, except Vegas and they were an expansion team).

Exactly. Cinderella runs happen fairly often.

And to the people that say that the Flames' goal is to just make the playoffs, I think that is inaccurate, as it implies that is all they are looking to achieve.. I would suggest that their goal is to make the playoffs at a minimum. I think it should go without saying that they would prefer to be as good as possible, and better than 8th.

the counter argument to that of course, is that if you are making - or trying to make - the playoffs every year, you are almost never going to get the really high draft picks. So there is definitely some counter-productivity to it on some levels.

[JohnnyB]

It's easy to be down on the team's top-end talent when playing against McDavid so many times in a season, but the Flames as a group overall have a pretty good collection of players. The rw is an obvious gap, but overall I think this group of players could make a decent show of it in the playoffs under Sutter. Had Sutter been coaching last year and Markstrom been in net, I doubt Dallas would have been conference champs.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

It's easy to be down on the team's top-end talent when playing against McDavid so many times in a season, but the Flames as a group overall have a pretty good collection of players. The rw is an obvious gap, but overall I think this group of players could make a decent show of it in the playoffs under Sutter. Had Sutter been coaching last year and Markstrom been in net, I doubt Dallas would have been conference champs.

“Pretty good” is an apt description and also a condemnation.

[blender]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Based on what? Your imagination? Because Brady and Matt are brothers? That’s cute.

Seriously doubt it. Stutzle is an grade A cost controlled asset. Why would the Senators trade that for a guy who could very well walk in 3 years?

Its OK to be skeptical; there are plenty of reasons why that trade might not have been agreeable for Ottawa. Nevertheless, the value isn't so far off. Notwithstanding some spotty play this season on a Flames team defined by it, Matthew is considered by many to be one of the best young players in hockey. Keep in mind that at last years draft He still had 2 full seasons on his contract and Stutzle was only a pick; there wasn't even a guarantee that he was available at 3. Now that the draft has passed, sure, I agree no chance Ottawa does that deal today, but it certainly could have been the basis for a deal at the time.

Regardless, my original comment in response to Hackey was that trading for high picks/young potential is the right way to do a re-tool.

We all know that the Duchesne and Karlsson returns were better than anticipated, but that's the gamble you need to take if you are attempting such a maneuver, especially in a league with such parity and a draft lottery.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by blender

Its OK to be skeptical; there are plenty of reasons why that trade might not have been agreeable for Ottawa. Nevertheless, the value isn't so far off. Notwithstanding some spotty play this season on a Flames team defined by it, Matthew is considered by many to be one of the best young players in hockey. Keep in mind that at last years draft He still had 2 full seasons on his contract and Stutzle was only a pick; there wasn't even a guarantee that he was available at 3. Now that the draft has passed, sure, I agree no chance Ottawa does that deal today, but it certainly could have been the basis for a deal at the time.

Regardless, my original comment in response to Hackey was that trading for high picks/young potential is the right way to do a re-tool.

We all know that the Duchesne and Karlsson returns were better than anticipated, but that's the gamble you need to take if you are attempting such a maneuver, especially in a league with such parity and a draft lottery.

I agree with you in principle.

Another way to state my opinion is that Matt Tkachuk doesn't seem to fit the trajectory Ottawa is on. I don't think they would have interest in Matt Tkachuk, or at least not at that cost.

Nor do I think the Flames would want to move Tkachuk for a entry level player. The message seems to be quite clear from the Flames end, they want to compete. Trading, arguably, their best winger who is only 23 doesn't make sense.

At the end of the day, I don't think either team would want that trade, specifically.

[Erick Estrada]

The Senators don't like to pay big money to players. The reality is that a few years down the road once they negotiate with Brady they will probably shop him once they see his demands so why would they be interested in Matthew at $9 million a season and a year away from asking for that kind of money over 8 years?