[News Roundup] All Is Quiet On the Flames Front - Too Quiet?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Man Im having flashbacks to 15 years ago...New Era and Bingo going head to head. Just need Johnny Flame to complete the scenario!!!!!

And need Cow to enter the fray as the neutral observer.

Awesome.

It's all good as long as we all remember we're just here to have a lively debate.

I wonder what Johnny Drive is up to these days?

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don't think he's attached to them. I think:
- After the Avs series, following a really good regular season, perhaps they wanted to see if the roster learned from that experience
- Last off-season the trade market was extremely challenging

I would have liked to have season more changes to the forward group earlier too - but I also don't want those players traded for spare parts.

The off-season is the pivotal one for BT and the franchise.

I think Treliving saw them as better than they were, I think Sutter see's them as not good enough when compared to other teams. I think he put too much stock in his roster in that respect. Too much faith in the roster when really they are as a whole, were not complete, or good enough.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes.

It would have improved the hockey team. We all saw how soft the club was against the Avs in that series, and this was a very good deal for the Flames to address that weakness.

I just wish it had happened.

Look at the numbers for those two players since.

Losing Brodie was inevitable, at least in this case there would have been a substantial return.

Yeah, I just can’t land there. It is required for you to believe that losing Brodie was inevitable. That’s not even known to be true. What was reported was that Tre asked Brodie to wait until he was done with his top priority, and came back to find Brodie had committed to Toronto, no?

And even in that case, the Flames have a failed trade, and are holding the bag with a loss of Brodie for nothing, an increase in cap, and downgrade in personnel at two key positions

I don’t know. We all tell ourselves what we need, but in this case a failure is a failure.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

So Flames haven't been bad at drafting, they've just been bad at having enough draft picks.
That sounds accurate to me, and a massive mistake by BT.
He was all in with this group and it didn't work.

Agreed ... which brings me back to what I've said all along.

Did you see Monahan and Gaudreau as a combination that you couldn't build a first line around? I thought they were and was shocked how their offfence fell off for two years.

That was his mistake and I can't blame him for thinking the same thing I did.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yeah, I just can’t land there. It is required for you to believe that losing Brodie was inevitable. That’s not even known to be true. What was reported was that Tre asked Brodie to wait until he was done with his top priority, and came back to find Brodie had committed to Toronto, no?

And even in that case, the Flames have a failed trade, and are holding the bag with a loss of Brodie for nothing, an increase in cap, and downgrade in personnel at two key positions

I don’t know. We all tell ourselves what we need, but in this case a failure is a failure.

Addition of Tanev doesn’t register at all for you in this?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Christ Bingo, this is a discussion board. Debate the points and stop your whining. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't jump into the mix. Definitely don't use such flawed measures to make such definitive statements. And don't whine when someone pulls the curtain back.

Christ Lanny ... debate without having to discredit any one with a different opinion.

What definitive statements have I been? I'm always quick to point out what I did, the assumptions in it, and usually point out the flaws too. Always a complete picture.

There is nothing reaching in using games played vs draft capital.

Nothing you've said has altered that. You even suggested teams could put players in early to get games played up, I listed the players that are on the list and none of them are a reach to have played NHL games.

Counting the frequency of events is equal across all players and all teams, they're not used to pad any one team or player. That's just silly.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Addition of Tanev doesn’t register at all for you in this?

Supposed to replace Hamonic role. Was slotted that way most of the year

Upgrade there

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Counting the frequency of events is equal across all players and all teams, they're not used to pad any one team or player. That's just silly.

But it's not Bingo. You have to be able to see just that. The variables are different by the organizational context. In this particular measure some teams just have a complete logjam of talent that means draft picks are not going to get opportunity. Conversely, talent poor teams are going to have players with greater opportunity. And yes, some teams are going to have the appearance of drafting better with this games played measure because they have openings where players will enter early.

Buffalo has already had 13 of 39 drafted players play games since 2015, Los Angeles 12 of 42, New Jersey 20 of 50, Ottawa 14 of 41, Vancouver 12 of 41, Edmonton 10 of 39, Calgary 8 of 37. Ottawa has had 11 of 14 play 30 games or more! The poor players tend to cycle bodies through trying to see what they have. The better teams are much more conservative in this regard. Tampa has seen only 5 of 48 draftees have seen time with the Lightning, but another four of their picks have already found their way into the lineup of with other teams! What is interesting is this is cyclical for most teams, and they will appear to draft poorly when they are good, and then draft way better when they are bad.

One last comment on the Flames games per pick stat, and I hope we agree on this, it really helps those players increase the number of games played when there is no one pushing from below. When the system is weak the competition is limited and the upward pressure is non-existent. It also helps when the market has priced players out of the range of what could replace the younger player's production (and this is good thing for those players and their play) or the cap prevents bringing in other players that may kick a younger player to the curb. Again, more variables that greatly influence these measures.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Staff Hires: Well, the coaching decisions have obviously not been great. I believe that a GM should get to hire his own coach, and though I was disappointed with the Hartley firing, I understood and accepted it. However, there were 3 consecutive poor hires afterwards until Sutter. That's unacceptable. However, there have been other hires as well. I liked the Loob hire - out of the park! I liked the expanded assistant GMs. I liked the overall expansion of the front office - Snow being moved up, Johnson brought-in to work in Analytics. I don't mind Maloney brought in - Arizona I thought was always a well-managed team under the circumstances anyway, outside of the last year or two that Maloney was there when things kind of went sideways. I am very unhappy with the coaching hires overall, as I do feel they wasted the best years of this club. I am mostly fine through very happy with the other hires. Really happy with more scouts, for instance. Seems like pro-scouting hasn't worked out. Happy they brought LaBarbera in last season, though I wish they had brought in someone with a long track record.

I think one of Treliving's weaknesses is who he has surrounded himself with. The coaching fire of Hartley was terrible, and the subsequent hirings were even worse. The goaltending coach hires have been discussed a lot. Is Sigalet any good? Is Lababera any good? Neither of these guys could help Markstrom get back in track in time to save the season. The excuse was there was no practice time to help Markstrom get readjusted, seems pretty lame to me. They couldn't just sit him for a game and use that time to practice?

On the management team level, I don't think it's any better. I'm not sure what Maloney, Conroy and Pascall contribute. I think Pascall is responsible for the AHL team so I guess he has done ok with the development of guys like Mangiapane, but the teams down there haven't won much. I know that is secondary, but getting your prospects use to winning is an important thing.

You would think that with all the experience that Treliving, Maloney and Conroy have, that they would have spotted the problems with Raymond, Brouwer and Neal. Where is the check on Treliving? Are they all just "yes men"?

As for Loob, love the guy as a player but what has he done? Flames have not drafted very well from Sweden or Europe. Andersson was an OHL guy. Kylington is ok. Lindstrom, Feuk look like wasted picks. Lerby looks like he's going home. Jury is out on Kinnvall. I don't think Loob is responsible for the rest of Europe, but whoever is, hasn't done all that well either.

I'd really like to see some of the deadweight AGMs let go and someone brought in to actually check Treliving's moves and be a different voice. You don't need the whole management team to be friends and comfortable with each other. I find this is one of the big problems with Treliving and this organization is that everyone just wants to be friendly and respectful and don't want to step on any toes and anyone who does, say Hartley, gets canned because he doesn't fit into the "culture" of the organization.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not quite.

They have the second lowest cost of draft capital per games played.

Each pick in those years valued using the HockeyGraphs pick value scale. That gives each team a total draft capital.

As I said Calgary is near the bottom in draft capital.

But they're also near the top in games played. (8th)

So with that they're 2nd in bang for buck in draft capital.

I think that says two things ... one they traded away too many picks for a team that was never a contender and two they have done very well drafting given how they've hammered their scouts with pick counts and position.

Was thinking about this some more today. This is from drafts 2015 to 2020? Will be interesting to track this ranking over time as I'd imagine Flames will be moving down in both categories. As others have pointed out, the 2018 draft looks bad and maybe 2017 too. As games played increases for players from those draft years, Flames will look worse over time.

What is certain is that 2015 and 2016 were good draft years for the Flames.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agreed ... which brings me back to what I've said all along.

Did you see Monahan and Gaudreau as a combination that you couldn't build a first line around? I thought they were and was shocked how their offfence fell off for two years.

That was his mistake and I can't blame him for thinking the same thing I did.

For years it has been argued by dozens of CPers, if not more, that Monahan could not be a first line centre on a contending team.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Was thinking about this some more today. This is from drafts 2015 to 2020? Will be interesting to track this ranking over time as I'd imagine Flames will be moving down in both categories. As others have pointed out, the 2018 draft looks bad and maybe 2017 too. As games played increases for players from those draft years, Flames will look worse over time.

What is certain is that 2015 and 2016 were good draft years for the Flames.

2017 and 2018 probably won't move the Flames down because the picks they had were lower valued ones.
And I don't think 2018 looks bad relative to the picks they had. With 5 late round picks there are 3 intriguing prospects: Pospisil, Pettersson and Little Z. I consider both to be long shots still but right now they look like solid picks.

2018 hinges on Juuso but he is an NHLer so by a games played metric he will help that draft look like a relative success for the Flames. What remains to be seen is if he's a bottom pairing guy, top 4 or top 2.
I think Nikolev is still an intriguing prospect and then of course you have the x factor that is Dustin Wolf.

So I don't see how at this stage we can even label them as "bad"

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

2017 and 2018 probably won't move the Flames down because the picks they had were lower valued ones.
And I don't think 2018 looks bad relative to the picks they had. With 5 late round picks there are 3 intriguing prospects: Pospisil, Pettersson and Little Z. I consider both to be long shots still but right now they look like solid picks.

2018 hinges on Juuso but he is an NHLer so by a games played metric he will help that draft look like a relative success for the Flames. What remains to be seen is if he's a bottom pairing guy, top 4 or top 2.
I think Nikolev is still an intriguing prospect and then of course you have the x factor that is Dustin Wolf.

So I don't see how at this stage we can even label them as "bad"

I guess we’ll see. I think it’s likely the Flames get very few, if any, NHL games out of the 2018 draft. Don’t know how that wouldn’t move them down using the criteria Bingo outlined.

With Juuso I think you’re referring to 2017 draft. Yeah really remains to be seen how great a pick that is.

2019 is all still TBD. All those picks still have potential.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Supposed to replace Hamonic role. Was slotted that way most of the year

Upgrade there

Tanev and Brodie play the same roles on their current teams. Shutdown D.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

But it's not Bingo. You have to be able to see just that. The variables are different by the organizational context. In this particular measure some teams just have a complete logjam of talent that means draft picks are not going to get opportunity. Conversely, talent poor teams are going to have players with greater opportunity. And yes, some teams are going to have the appearance of drafting better with this games played measure because they have openings where players will enter early.

Buffalo has already had 13 of 39 drafted players play games since 2015, Los Angeles 12 of 42, New Jersey 20 of 50, Ottawa 14 of 41, Vancouver 12 of 41, Edmonton 10 of 39, Calgary 8 of 37. Ottawa has had 11 of 14 play 30 games or more! The poor players tend to cycle bodies through trying to see what they have. The better teams are much more conservative in this regard. Tampa has seen only 5 of 48 draftees have seen time with the Lightning, but another four of their picks have already found their way into the lineup of with other teams! What is interesting is this is cyclical for most teams, and they will appear to draft poorly when they are good, and then draft way better when they are bad.

One last comment on the Flames games per pick stat, and I hope we agree on this, it really helps those players increase the number of games played when there is no one pushing from below. When the system is weak the competition is limited and the upward pressure is non-existent. It also helps when the market has priced players out of the range of what could replace the younger player's production (and this is good thing for those players and their play) or the cap prevents bringing in other players that may kick a younger player to the curb. Again, more variables that greatly influence these measures.

Right but that's how stats work.

You find an objective measure and apply it to all participants.

I've not once placed more or less value on the games played by Calgary players versus other teams. If you start to dig into that you starting adding subjective views to an objective measure and it goes out the window.

The Flames have great gp vs draft capital figures. Full stop. No debate in that.

And if you dig in the players aren't just fourth liners. So there is quality too.

So back to the bottom line that you refuse to see ... Calgary has done well drafting in the Treliving timeframe with the picks they've had. Shame they didn't have more picks .... the real attack on Treliving that should and could be made.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

For years it has been argued by dozens of CPers, if not more, that Monahan could not be a first line centre on a contending team.

Some for sure.

All? Nope.

And all of the anti - Treliving posters now? Doubt it.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Addition of Tanev doesn’t register at all for you in this?

That’s what I said. We got his cap space which turned into Tanev. I think Tanev is better than Brodie.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Tanev and Brodie play the same roles on their current teams. Shutdown D.

That’s nice.

What I was talking about was slotting, and the bigger picture, those players in the context of Treliving’s work. Last year the Flames had top 4
Gio - Brodie
Hanifin - Hamonic

This year they started with
Gio - Andersson
Hanifin - Tanev

So we have

Tanev > Hamonic, which is nice
Brodie >>> Andersson. He wasn’t ready

Now assuming you decide to keep Brodie, and you had 4 actual top 4 D slotted correctly, it could have been:
Gio - Brodie
Hanifin - Tanev

That’d be a really good top 4

Under Sutter, recently, Tanev was moved to partner with Gio and shelter Andersson.

Treliving paid Andersson in the neighbourhood of both Brodie and Tanev and he was slotted top pair. Didn’t work, and as a harmful byproduct, it neutralized Gio

Bad read of where the team was at and what it needed.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Some for sure.

All? Nope.

And all of the anti - Treliving posters now? Doubt it.

Anti-Tre? People are pro team it's not personal against Treliving.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

That’s nice.

What I was talking about was slotting, and the bigger picture, those players in the context of Treliving’s work. Last year the Flames had top 4
Gio - Brodie
Hanifin - Hamonic

This year they started with
Gio - Andersson
Hanifin - Tanev

So we have

Tanev > Hamonic, which is nice
Brodie >>> Andersson. He wasn’t ready

Now assuming you decide to keep Brodie, and you had 4 actual top 4 D slotted correctly, it could have been:
Gio - Brodie
Hanifin - Tanev

That’d be a really good top 4

Under Sutter, recently, Tanev was moved to partner with Gio and shelter Andersson.

Treliving paid Andersson in the neighbourhood of both Brodie and Tanev and he was slotted top pair. Didn’t work, and as a harmful byproduct, it neutralized Gio

Bad read of where the team was at and what it needed.

Treliving paid Andersson for prime years coming ahead. The kid is still young. That’s how long term contracts work, and it’s a mistake to judge them in year one. And IMO Hanifin-Tanev was the top pairing to start the year. A pretty successful pairing at that.