Is Ownership a part of the problem?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, ownership is not a problem. I don't know what people want? They stay out of the way and people question them. They get involved and people accuse them of meddling. What the heck is it that the ownership can do to keep people happy?

I agree with this. Weren’t people accusing them of getting in the way back ion the Brent Sutter days and not allowing him to run the team how he wanted?

As for not wanting to pay for a coach, who knows? It’s their money. And the fact that the value of the franchise has risen has nothing to do with it since value means nothing as far as their pocketbooks are concerned. Income does. Not that I’ve seen evidence that they won’t pay - they hired both Sutters who would have been expensive, and Peters would have commanded a decent salary. Ward is cheap but that is good news for all the folk that want him fired.

[madmike]

As much as I don’t agree with the non-tanking philosophy, ownership is waaaay better now than it was in the early 90s when they sold pretty much every single decent player they had that was coming up for a new contract. Watching the botched dismantling of the Stanley Cup team is still the most painful stretch I’ve ever been through as a sports fan.

[Red]

Owners are easy to blame because they are faceless billionaires. How many people would be able to pick them all out from a lineup of randoms? I know I wouldn't recognize all of them.

They spend to the cap. It's not their fault our GM doesn't have the cahoons to bring top players or coaches here.

Agree with Browna, they are missing Burke and King. A strong hockey person to set the vision and direction for the team.

[Jiri Hrdina]

If I was an owner I would be completely meddlesome and treat the team like my toy. Fans would hate me. But it would be awesome.

[GreenLantern2814]

They spend to the cap every year and won’t spend $5M for Claude Julien, Gerard Gallant, or anybody who might be considered an elite coach.

They give James Neal and Troy Brouwer what they got, but they won’t hire a conductor for the orchestra.

Why bother?

[ResAlien]

“They spend to the cap” is a bit of a cop out argument. How does ownership compare to consistently successful organizations for non salary spending? That’s where the difference comes in don’t you think?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

They spend to the cap every year and won’t spend $5M for Claude Julien, Gerard Gallant, or anybody who might be considered an elite coach.

They give James Neal and Troy Brouwer what they got, but they won’t hire a conductor for the orchestra.

Why bother?

I wonder if that is really the case?

Maybe Treliving doesn’t want to pay a coach more than he himself is paid (I doubt it). It just doesn’t seem that this organization will spend on long term deals and spend to the cap, they will buy players out and allow for a big front office with 3 AGM’s.

I just don’t believe the 2 notions that they won’t pay for a coach and won’t retain cap on a trade.

[Red]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

“They spend to the cap” is a bit of a cop out argument. How does ownership compare to consistently successful organizations for non salary spending? That’s where the difference comes in don’t you think?

Well doesn't Treliving have 2 or 3 assistant GMs? Seems excessive. do all teams do that?

I honestly don't see a reason to think the owners have a cap on coaches.

I said that in the past. Sutter didnt have these excuses. He had a way of getting the $$$ for coaches and players. The owners trusted the guy eventhough he made a lot of sketchy moves.

I am sure Trelving could do the same in the past. Not sure about now because he has proven himself to be ineffective.

[CSharp]

My view is that ownership is part of the blame when they rushed the rebuild process. The majority of the blame actually goes to the management of the club from when Iggy left to now. Why do I say this? Well, let's look back at the one person they hired to come in and strip the team down and to rebuild. Feaster is a smart man and he knew what his job what was. He did whatever is necessary to strip the team and sell off as much as he can so that he can start the process of rebuilding. He pretty much did that by selling of all the key assets - and yeah, he became a scapegoat and hated for doing that, but it was necessary. The Flames held numerous townhall meetings with the fans and asked what they'd like to see on the ice. A lot of fans wanted to see a faster team regardless of size - something away from Sutter hockey where it was just a north-south game. Fans wanted to see speed and talent. So, Feaster did that with small players. The Flames also tanked and got Monahan and then out of nowhere came Gaudreau - two pretty good promising pieces to the future of the Flames. Flames had Gio and Brodie. So, 4 pieces to build on. Feaster get Hudler and the Flames have a promising first line. Then, what happens? Instead of tanking properly and going down below the Oilers, the Flames decide they want to go out in pride and beat the Oilers. What ended up happening is the Oilers ended up with a point or two below the Flames to end the season and the history as we know is now based on Bennett rather than Draisaitl. Then came the sweepstakes year where everyone, except for the top cup contending teams, vied for the position to get either McJesus or Eichel. Flames came out of the gates flying while division rival like the Kings and Sharks were positioning themselves to get a shot at the lottery. This was the last year in which fully tanking team can truly take advantage of the #1 and #2 overall draft. Instead of taking full advantage of this, the Flames decided to take advantage of going into the playoffs. As we know it now, the Flames got trounced in the second round by the Ducks!

It's too bad that Feaster really had no control over what happened in the years of the rebuild. If he had full control, he would've gone full throttle with an absolute tank, like what the Sabres have done for year. I know everyone don't like what Edmonton had done for 6 to eight years to get 5 or more first round draft picks, but damn, when you have a chance to get one or even 2 generational players in a lifetime, you damn well do it at any chance you get, especially when the system was flawed and the NHL let every team know that after the McJesus sweepstakes is over, there's no other chance as great as that! Flames totally effed that up big time. Now, we have to deal with Treliving in search for another goalie God to replace the immortal Kiprusoff and tinkering with the defence to no end while neglecting the forwards and keeping Bennett until his value is pretty much worthless. Treliving, is at most, as good as Sutter as a GM. Both like to build from the back end and they get fill-ins for the forward lines. It's frustrating to watch games during the regular season when the team can't score. More often than not, it's the forwards who score, not the d-man and definitely not the goalie. Everyone wants to think only for the playoffs as everyone's thought process is that defence win you championships. Well, I've been watching the NFL a lot lately and that is true for football, but not in a fast game like hockey. It has always been the team who scores the most wins regardless and a team with size up front.

So, who's the blame? Some has to go to the ownership to want to make the playoffs as soon as possible. Some has to go to the marketing and management for wanting to fast track the rebuild by hiring Burke and Treliving to initially look over the shoulders of Fiester. Some has to go to Hartley for winning games when the Flames should not have won. Now, the blame all goes to the Flames management and Treliving for having a totally mediocre team based on a fast track rebuild that's really going nowhere and have wasted the talents of Gio, Monahan, and Gaudreau. There's nothing more worse than rebuilding on weak foundations when everything is fast tracked. It's like trying to fast track re-opening during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and then the governments (think of it as Flames management) have to scramble and re-implement their strategies. I always use the analogy of building a bridge. If you build it properly, it'll last a long time. However, if you fast track that process and build it with mediocre materials and with mediocre workmanship in a short period of time, that bridge will likely fall apart in a short period of time.

I just think the Flames have left a bitter taste with the rebuild process and they've left too many what-if's when they had the best chance to do it correctly and safely for a legacy. Yet, this organization went through the dark ages of the Young Guns and didn't learn from that and are kind of going through that again. What's worse this time around is that they don't really have a franchise player to build upon and not really a good foundation to build around. It's just a bunch of aging and mediocre pieces that will become insignificant through the history of the Flames. It's gonna be a long drought!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Moving on from the question of are the owners the problem, here is what I would do if I was.

I would go to the management team and say what we are doing hasn’t been working and isn’t working. We aren’t on a path to winning a cup. Not even close.

I would ask for a plan that details what that plan to become a contender is. I would not time-box it or place other restrictive guard rails around the ask. I would ask the GM, as part of that plan, to detail what a realistic timeline is.
I would expect the plan to include:
- Details of timeline and milestones along the way so we know if we are tracking to expectation or not.
- Retrospective on why this re-build went wrong, what we learned and how we are applying those learnings going forward. With specifics.

Evaluation of the current roster and prospects
- Who do we think we can extract the most value out of to re-build the asset base in a sustained way
- Evaluation of when we should act to extract this value. Now? At the deadline? In the off-season? I would want this detail for each player that we would consider moving
- Which prospects do we see part of a future contending club
- What roster players are potentially part of that based on current age and upside
-Evaluation of the next 5 drafts to establish when ideally we should be bottoming out and how that aligns to the quality of those drafts. Kids are scouted in their early teens now – this is information that is available. The further out the less certainty, but still an important consideration.

- Overview of resources required including:
o Key positions including net-new roles requires and salaries required for each
o Overview of current scouting staff – amateur and pro. This would include specific summaries of which players they scouted, decisions and recommendations made, and if those proved to be positive and negative. This should be used to turn over anyone without a track record of being a strong talent evaluator
o Cap required by year

Plan for ensuring that when we are ready to contend we have maximum cap flexibility, or at least have maintained reasonable flexibility
o Other resources to be identified including if we are investing enough in scouting and analytics. Where can we fund more to create an advantage?
o Overview of key talent in front offices that we can try to recruit to supplement or replace the current management team.

I would then evaluate on the basis of the plan delivered if BT is the right guy or not.

I don't want the owners to be the guys deciding whether the GM's plan is a good one or not. They aren't hockey guys.

I think there needs to be a POHO that oversees the management of the team and represents ownership for that purpose.

[Enoch Root]

There are four things I want from ownership:

1) be committed to spending to the cap
2) be committed to spending on management and giving it whatever resources it needs to be successful
3) be committed to having the franchise be a good civic citizen
4) do not meddle in the operations of the team

They are great at 3 of those things. We have no idea about the 4th (#2), but based on the other 3, I would guess that isn't a problem either.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There are four things I want from ownership:

1) be committed to spending to the cap
2) be committed to spending on management and giving it whatever resources it needs to be successful
3) be committed to having the franchise be a good civic citizen
4) do not meddle in the operations of the team

They are great at 3 of those things. We have no idea about the 4th (#2), but based on the other 3, I would guess that isn't a problem either.

Yeah that's my view too.

The only thing I would say was troublesome in the last twenty years was their alleged refusal to rebuild when the writing was on the wall. That wasted a lot of years and hampered asset management terribly.

But even that, like the refuse to spend on coaching suggestion, is hearsay.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If I was an owner I would be completely meddlesome and treat the team like my toy. Fans would hate me. But it would be awesome.

I would like to think that I would let my GM make all the decisions but I can see why some owners would meddle. If I was the Flames owner I would probably walk into the GM's office today and tell him if he has the green light to replace the coach if he wants. You could argue that's meddling but maybe it's pretty typical for owners to check in at times like this and ask the GM what he plans to do about the predicament.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't want the owners to be the guys deciding whether the GM's plan is a good one or not. They aren't hockey guys.

I think there needs to be a POHO that oversees the management of the team and represents ownership for that purpose.

Yeah that's fair. I just wasn't sure if it is Bean that asks for that or who within the current structure.

[djsFlames]

IF they are limiting the head coach budget to the extent that it's keeping us out of the running for a high profile or seasoned veteran coach, then yes ownership is a part of the problem.

That's only if. Not sure as to the actual answer.

[Toonage]

Wasn't part of Tre's deal that he basically acts as his own POHO (meaning he reports directly to ownership and it will remain that way) and thats why the role itself was removed after Burke left?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Wasn't part of Tre's deal that he basically acts as his own POHO (meaning he reports directly to ownership and it will remain that way) and thats why the role itself was removed after Burke left?

Pretty much.

That was pretty public after the Treliving couldn't reach Ken King to complete the Bishop trade prior to the draft.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Pretty much.



That was pretty public after the Treliving couldn't reach Ken King to complete the Bishop trade prior to the draft.

Which, unfortunately, means ownership actually has to care enough about the on ice product to make a change. I'd guess that means nothing will happen too quickly.

[Classic_Sniper]

Ownership is fine. They let this team spend to the cap, they let Brad Treliving buy out the crap contracts he has signed, they’ve okayed several coaches to be fired and paid their dismissals. It could be worse. Would you any of you prefer a cheap, meddlesome owner like Eugene Melnyk instead?

All this criticism because it’s perceived that they’re not willing to pay for a top coach is such a joke. They’re already overpaying for every coach they hire because they’re already paying the rest of previous fired coach’s contract. So the notion that the ownership is a problem is foolish. They’ve been more than fair to us Flames fans.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Pretty much.

That was pretty public after the Treliving couldn't reach Ken King to complete the Bishop trade prior to the draft.

The GM shouldn't need approval from the POHO for individual transactions - that is his job

The POHO's job should be to oversee management, and oversee the GM's plan, from a big picture perspective.