Flames fans speak out on team's exit from 5-year deal (QC Online) - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Hoody · 03-15-2009, 04:01 PM

http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=429829#

Hoody

Hoody · 03-15-2009, 04:15 PM

http://qctimes.com/articles/2009/03/...6334145426.txt

Hoody

Yeah_Baby · 03-15-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Hopefully we get another chance at AHL and the parent club will be a little easier to work with for the ownership group.

Good luck with that.

dobbles · 03-15-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Good luck with that.

i notice you skip over the substance of his comment...

Quote:

Calgary never did us any favors by putting a mediocre team on the ice and commenting in the papers that this is a developmental league for them and they were not concerned with wins. Sutter did that on more than one occasion and I, as a fan, do not appreciate the Quad Cities basically being told we don't really matter as long as Calgary gets what they want. A little paraphrasing there, but that is exactly what came across. It's our money out there that supports - or doesn't support - the team. We know you can't win every game and that this team is here to get players ready for the NHL, but please pretend like you care and give us a some competitive teams.

and before you guys start spouting about how many players have made it to the big team and how they can't be that bad, i would like to point out that this years team has not been over .500 for a single day this season.

also before people try to assume i or that guy are blaming calgary and calgary alone for the team failing, thats not the case. what most educated fans realize is that is was indeed just a bigger part of the puzzle. calgary didn't make the team fail, but they certainly didn't seem to do much to help it out.

RedHot25 · 03-15-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dobbles

i notice you skip over the substance of his comment...

Quote:
Calgary never did us any favors by putting a mediocre team on the ice and commenting in the papers that this is a developmental league for them and they were not concerned with wins. Sutter did that on more than one occasion and I, as a fan, do not appreciate the Quad Cities basically being told we don't really matter as long as Calgary gets what they want. A little paraphrasing there,

But isn't that the AHL?

dobbles · 03-15-2009, 06:01 PM

in the simple sense, of course. but as has been discussed various teams but a different level of emphasis on winning at the ahl level. the chicago wolves and manitoba moose are both examples of teams that will bring in a few extra veterans to win extra games. often times these players have no long term plans from the parent club. a team like chicago has deep pockets and can even pay the salary out of their own pockets so the parent club doesn't has as much say.

additionally, theres no need to remind fans and rub it in their face. many times sutter would be in town and the team would be in the midst of a losing streak, playing awful hockey even, and he would spout off how everyone was 'developing' like he hoped. so here he is telling us how happy he is with the team, and yet us local fans are reading it wondering what darn team he is even watching.

Phanuthier · 03-15-2009, 06:35 PM

Sorry guys. Well next year, we're sending you guys Negrin, Aulie and maybe Backlund.

Oh... wait... sorry...

sorry

Hack&Lube · 03-15-2009, 07:51 PM

Unfortunately, for a young team that is only 2 years old, it's going to be a transition team that is for development until it gets more cemented. People everywhere were fooling themselves by thinking you could sell a "level of gameplay" instead of "winning". Nobody cares really about level of gameplay - especially casual fans which make the bulk of your audience. They care about winning and success. It's an emotional thing.

Then again, the Omaha Knights won their conference and were first in the west but even they couldn't draw in the fans and had to move. Hockey is just a tough sell in these markets.

PIMking · 03-15-2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Good luck with that.

jeesh, People dont understand that the better teams in the league (hershey, wilks barre or however you spell it) NHL teams sucked for quite a while so they got some high draft picks and those draft picks will be better than the flames on pure talent. Some teams have it a bit easier (manitoba, Chicago) were the NHL team allows them to get some vets that will make them better.

Also every team has a couple good years and then a couple okay years and a couple bad years because these rookies come in get better and move up. Hamilton won the cup two years ago and this year are horrible. Chicago won it last year and are struggling this year.

Fans just are too pushy for wins right out of the gate. It didn't help that the year before the Flames came here the Knights were one of the best teams in the league. Then McE left to be the back up in Calgary for most of the year leaving two rookie netminders, Boyd left early for Calgary, Nystrom had a short stint, Taritukin bolted for Russia. Thats alot of firepower. Germyn didn't have a great year last year Not bad but not like the year before and this year has been dismal for him. We had one of the youngest teams in the league last year and agian this year if you took that worthless swede and Brown off the roster we would be the youngest agian.

What is real sad that QC was in the top 5 for season ticket holders but couldn't get anyone else to the games and being 28th out of 29 in the league shows for it. There is a good core group of fans (sparkyone, Drunkskunk, Dobbles and I ) being the ones you know on this board.

Its really really sad and I for one am imbarrased to be known as a QC fan for the fact that the rest of the community is just that ignorant.

Yeah_Baby · 03-16-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dobbles

in the simple sense, of course. but as has been discussed various teams but a different level of emphasis on winning at the ahl level. the chicago wolves and manitoba moose are both examples of teams that will bring in a few extra veterans to win extra games. often times these players have no long term plans from the parent club. a team like chicago has deep pockets and can even pay the salary out of their own pockets so the parent club doesn't has as much say.

additionally, theres no need to remind fans and rub it in their face. many times sutter would be in town and the team would be in the midst of a losing streak, playing awful hockey even, and he would spout off how everyone was 'developing' like he hoped. so here he is telling us how happy he is with the team, and yet us local fans are reading it wondering what darn team he is even watching.

And how is the prospect depth in Atlanta and Vancouver? I'm sorry if I'm coming across as glib. Losing the team sucks, and I feel for you guys. But (yes I know it's a big but) if the AHL sees itself as a development league that's the trade off. You listed two teams that are not in pure developmental mode. And that's fine. I just simply met that I highly doubt that the quoted fan above will get his wish.

PIMking · 03-16-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

And how is the prospect depth in Atlanta and Vancouver? I'm sorry if I'm coming across as glib. Losing the team sucks, and I feel for you guys. But (yes I know it's a big but) if the AHL sees itself as a development league that's the trade off. You listed two teams that are not in pure developmental mode. And that's fine. I just simply met that I highly doubt that the quoted fan above will get his wish.

Your right! The fact is that these retarted fans see that and expect our broke ass owners to bring in another Kolanos to help the team.

Tilley · 03-16-2009, 12:04 PM

The importance of a high scoring team to attract fans is one of the key reasons why I don't think the QC owners did their homework when they began negotiating with the Flames. Looking at the goals for stats for the Knights, they were among the lowest scoring teams in the AHL both years. If they were expecting a higher scoring team, perhaps they should have held out for another team.

Also, the Knights had one of the worst home records in the league, even the year they won the conference, they set an AHL record for most wins on the road and stunk it up at home. The QC owners should have paid attention and realized this team doesn't win or score at home.

As it has been mentioned previously fans (particularly casual fans) want goals, fights and wins. The QC Flames don't score a lot and don't win a lot. If I'm trying to recruit a team to my town I do a little homework and look at the roster and potential roster players before putting up my money.

dobbles · 03-16-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

And how is the prospect depth in Atlanta and Vancouver? I'm sorry if I'm coming across as glib. Losing the team sucks, and I feel for you guys. But (yes I know it's a big but) if the AHL sees itself as a development league that's the trade off. You listed two teams that are not in pure developmental mode. And that's fine. I just simply met that I highly doubt that the quoted fan above will get his wish.

i think the big disconnect is many people see the player development issue as black and white. i can't count how many times when talking about our lack of good players, that people have instantly went with the 'ahl is for development only' defense. as i have stated, at the fundamental level that is true, but when you really look at the various rosters you see there are huge differences. i seriously doubt there are very many teams that go as far as publicly telling their ahl fan base that they could care less about winning. you guys can love sutter and king all you want, but thats an incredibly stupid thing to say if you want any kind of fan support.

i will be the first to admit that you shouldn't have to build a fan base around winning alone because in the ahl you can go from worst to first and back to worst as players come and go. there is a mentality in the qc that the team should always win thanks to their success in a low league where you can easily outspend all the other teams. additionally, not winning was not the only reason the team was having problems. they could have won 50 games this year and attendance would only be slightly higher in my opinion. (maybe that would have been enough to at least buy the team another year, but who knows...)

personally, i think the solution for this issue is to have the ahl tighten its regulations regarding how many veterans you can have. there are lots of ahl lifers that float to various teams that make it hard for a development team like calgary to compete. maybe they need to allow less veteran players on each team. maybe there has to be some sort of minimum nhl games played in the previous couple seasons. maybe the player actually has to be signed by the parent club. i don't know what the magic solution is, but i think that could go a long way to actually fixing the underlying issue.

lastly i would like to say i think calgary made some poor decisions about players down here. the tremblay signing seemed to be something that might have been done simply to appease local fans, but when you have watt and vandermeer on the team, why sign a 3rd fighter? heck taking it a step further, when you have a young developing tough guy like watt, why even bring in a guy like vandermeer? i realize it very well might have been tied to his brother with you guys, but still. additionally, calgary didn't seem to have any interest in guys like stevenson and kolanos. both of them showed great talent down here last year and were still very serviceable callup type players. kolanos has went up several times for minnesota this year and contributed.

i would like to say that calgary didnt make all bad moves though. the greentree for ramholt trade was brilliant. also they did send down eriksson and while he does make boneheaded plays down here as well, he's still a nhl quality player with a stanley cup ring. the team down here never really marketed that much, but he is another good thing from calgary.

Yeah_Baby · 03-16-2009, 12:15 PM

I admit I haven't really followed Watt's development lately, but maybe they want JD to have a little more upside then being just a 'tough guy'.

PIMking · 03-16-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I admit I haven't really followed Watt's development lately, but maybe they want JD to have a little more upside then being just a 'tough guy'.

Hell for awhile he was outscoring Frenchy in vegas. His role is different up here. I think he has better stickhandling and a shot then some of the other guys *cough* chucko *cough* but hes just one of those physical type of guys who can lay the wood on someone.

His role is different here and he plays his role very well.

He needs to take some boxing lessons if he wants to win more fights.

there was only a couple of fights I would say he won and the rest are those stupid wrestling matches.

dobbles · 03-16-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I admit I haven't really followed Watt's development lately, but maybe they want JD to have a little more upside then being just a 'tough guy'.

you very well may be right. it just seemed to me that there could have been better personnel decisions that would have helped both us and you guys out. i think the fact that tremblay had basically zero impact here before being loaned out for the rest of the year showed that it was kind of a waste of a signing for us. it was just fairly depressing to see other teams pick up guys like kolanos, stevenson, jason krog, darren haydar, etc... and our big pickups were vandermeer and tremblay.

and i look at it this way, with 3 point games, all but 7 teams are currently at or above .500. qc hasn't managed to break .500 for even a day this entire season. its hard to motivate fans to come and see that.

QuadCityImages · 03-16-2009, 01:44 PM

I think the problems all go back to last year. The rollout of the team wasn't great, causing early attendance to be lower than it should have. Then the team started losing constantly, so it was hard to get fans to the games. When fans did go, they sat in an empty arena. No matter how exciting the game is, or how excited and enthusiastic the crowd is, if you're sitting there with 7,000 empty seats, it doesn't have a great atmosphere. Casual fans were turned off by this, increasing problems. It really became a vicious cycle in my opinion. I can't tell you for sure what started it, or how to keep it from happening again if we get a new team.

Everyone (including me) likes to point out the River Bandits' (minor league baseball team) awesome attendance turnaround. They had basically the opposite cycle. People were excited about lower ticket prices and returning to the River Bandits name, so early attendance was good. The crowds were excited and enthusiastic, so people had a good time regardless of the result on the field. The owners added more promotions, bringing in even more people, causing games to be packed and even more exciting. The year's attendance increased by something like 60%, despite some flooding issues.

One of the differences in these 2 scenarios is that the River Bandits have an incentive to fill the seats, even at low prices, because they get the concession and souvenir revenue. As far as I know, the Flames get nothing from concession sales, so having 8,000 fans paying $5 isn't really any better on paper than 4,000 fans paying $10. However, sitting in an arena with 8,000 people is a hell of a lot more fun than one with 4,000... or 2,000.

So I guess my point is that big crowds cause big crowds.

Coach · 03-16-2009, 03:48 PM

Most people in that article seem to blame the fact that the marketing was bad. Is this true Dobbles/PIMKing? Is it really bad enough that people ACTUALLY arent aware that this team is even there? If that's the case, that isnt the Calgary Flames problem. That's just bad ownership

dobbles · 03-16-2009, 06:10 PM

matty - it is that bad. i can count on my hand the number of people i have run into in 2 years that have a flames tshirt or hat or something. (aside from the games obviousy!)

i have also ran into so many people that aren't sure who the flames are. a lot of people think the flames caused the mallards to leave. and a lot of people really do think the mallards were better players because of their championships.

the funny part to me is that in these various discussions on the newspaper websites and such, you have a lot of people blaming the owners and defending the staff, and an equal amount blaming the staff and defending the owners. personally, i see it as both groups doing a poor job. but like has been said many times, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Flamesguy_SJ · 03-16-2009, 06:33 PM

I definitely feel for the folks in both QC and Omaha for losing the Baby Flames; it certainly wasn't very fun losing them from Saint John, either.

I don't really know the solution either. When the Flames won their Cup in 2001, the team consisted of "lifers" like Rick Mrozik, Mike Martin, Chris St. Croix, Martin Brochu, and obviously had great success. The next two seasons saw guys like Darcy Verot, Rob Murray, Jamie Wright, and others, and they were the only two seasons Saint John didn't make the playoffs (those were the first two seasons that 10 teams from each conference made the playoffs, too).

Around here, the team was definitely marketed using "level of play" as opposed to on-ice success. There were plenty of people always clamouring for a junior team, because the games were supposedly more entertaining and people invested more in them because there would be continuity from season to season. Now that we actually have a junior team, people are realizing that there's a world of difference between teenagers still learning the game and 20-somethings trying to fine-tune their game for The Show.