Speculation: Armchair GM 2023-24 Season. If we can't say "Rebuild" what do we call it?

[Yepthatsme]

The question the win now crowd has dodged the whole time is are the Calgary Flames good enough to win the cup with the players in the organization?

It hasn’t been dodged at all, I feel like I’ve stated it multiple times by now. Obviously this team, especially after selling off the UFAs, isn’t currently good enough. We are looking at a top 10 pick as it currently stands. What we do have, is a pretty large gateway to improvement.

For prospects, we currently have Coronato and Pelletier developing and fighting to earn roles. Zary still has plenty of room to grow. Honzek has a long path ahead of him but a lot of upside. We also have players like Suniev and Kerins who may turn into something. We have plenty of wildcards on defense with Poirier, Morin, Brzustewicz, and Kuznetsov with top 4 upside, but a young enough defense corps already with Andersson, Kylington, and Miromanov still on the younger side at 26/27. In net obviously Wolf is Wolf.

For draft picks we have roughly 50% more picks in the top 3 rounds the next 3 years than normal, as well as likely a top 10 pick this year. Plenty of laneway to continue adding to the pipeline, and after two 1sts this year we will be looking at probably a top 10 pipeline in the NHL.

Catton/Helenius/Eiserman/Iginla
Coronato
Pelletier
Honzek
Late 1st
Brzustewicz
Poirier
Morin
Wolf

Most importantly, we have cap space. This roster we are finishing the season at has about 20M we can spend on upgrading it today, with even more if we choose to sell off higher cost players like Mangiapane and Kuzmenko as rentals (around 30M after that). Functional cap space to add replaceable players is huge, and allows us to be major players the next few offseasons.

Not a single person is saying roll it back with some minor tweaks. The anti-tank crowd wants to make huge additions/trades over the next couple years, while still selling off extraneous pieces. We probably aren’t rolling out a contender next year, but some aggressive moves, or re-tooling the roster could bounce us back 2-3x quicker than a rebuild with far more control over our destiny than praying for some lottery luck.

This obviously is super unrealistic, but here’s an example:

Huberdeau-Kadri-Reinhart
Zary-Monahan-Sharangovich
Pelletier-Backlund-Coleman
Hunt-Rooney-Pospisil
Duehr

Skjei-Andersson
Kylington-Weegar
Pachal-Miromanov
Hanley

Markstrom
Wolf

With 10M for Reinhart, 5M for Monahan, 6.5M for Skjei, and 50% retention on both Kuzmenko and Mangiapane, that roster still has 3M in cap space. Without giving up a single asset and even adding to our draft picks. We can even skip adding Monahan, roll a Zary-Rango-Coronato line, and go into the offseason after that with another 14 million in cap space. Once again I want to point out how unrealistic that is but I really want to highlight just how crazy of changes we could make just with our cap space and minor trades, let alone the draft capital and prospect pool we already have.

 

[Backlund]

Nobody is saying what you’re trying to put out there, your views are just getting challenged so instead of looking at the other perspective you’re demonizing it.

Stamkos wasn’t even close to the best forward in the playoffs (neither was Kucherov), and Hedman wasn’t even the best defenseman honestly. Those two weren’t the difference Tampa had over other teams, if that were the case Colorado or Dallas probably would’ve won it all that year with their stud forward/stud defenseman combos. The difference Tampa had was the ability to roll players like Coleman, Killorn, Gourde, Palat, Cirelli and Johnson (while he was still good) out in depth roles, and a pretty insane defense corps of Hedman, Sergachev, McDonagh, Shattenkirk, Cernak, and Bogosion mixed with playoff Vasilevski. Biggest mistake Tampa made was not finding a way to retain McDonagh honestly, his presence on their second pair was a massive part of their success.

A different perspective doesn't change the facts. Even with Kucherov and the others on Tampa that were key contributors they still needed a player drafted at the top of the draft to win a cup just like the overwhelming majority of other teams that won. The other players on the team don't change the fact the high pick was a necessary piece. The other teams that didn't have one and won were able to do so through rare circumstances and luck. Nobody wins with just one player but they also rarely ever win without those players in particular.

 

[Yepthatsme]

A different perspective doesn't change the facts. Even with Kucherov and the others on Tampa that were key contributors they still needed a player drafted at the top of the draft to win a cup just like the overwhelming majority of other teams that won. The other players on the team don't change the fact the high pick was a necessary piece. The other teams that didn't have one and won were able to do so through rare circumstances and luck. Nobody wins with just one player but they also rarely ever win without those players in particular.

Well good news then, Calgary is probably picking 6-9 this year. So by your standards since you’re dying on the hill that they only needed the 1 high draft pick and that was apparently the difference, Calgary is done rebuilding after this year! Unless you believe one player probably wasn’t the difference at all and it was probably the other factors that led to Tampa’s cup win much more than just having a high draft pick. But that can’t be true, because that means you’d be arguing in bad faith.

Every single cup winner ever had rare circumstances and luck, that’s why they were the best team out of the 30-32 teams. Nothing honest about getting to that point, you can poke holes in why we can’t emulate every cup winner ever because crazy things had to happen for them to get there.

Vegas: expansion team
Colorado:Kadri randomly playing at a 100 point pace, adding a 10th overall in Nichuskin for nothing. Getting Teows for nothing.
Tampa: Kucherov as a late 2nd, Point as a 2nd, Vasilevski turning into a god every playoffs
St Louis: all time Cinderella run, Binnington had the best stretch of his career as a rookie
Washington: Holtby, Kuznetsov having career years. Trotz getting complete buy in for a single year. Having 1 of the best goal scorers of all time.
Pittsburgh: Got awarded a generational player in a draft the year the NHL didn’t play a game.

Can go on and on. Anyone who pretends there’s one way to build a cup winner is the real idiot.

 

[Yepthatsme]

Fun fact since building through high picks is the only way apparently. Out of the top 7 teams in the NHL currently, only 1 team added their highest scorer through a top 10 draft pick. Out of all the playoff teams, only 4 of the 16 did. It’s 3x more likely that playoff teams added them through other means than through high draft picks. So it’s actually more likely that the Flames add that elite player we need at forward through other means than tanking.

 

[Backlund]

Well good news then, Calgary is probably picking 6-9 this year. So by your standards since you’re dying on the hill that they only needed the 1 high draft pick and that was apparently the difference, Calgary is done rebuilding after this year! Unless you believe one player probably wasn’t the difference at all and it was probably the other factors that led to Tampa’s cup win much more than just having a high draft pick. But that can’t be true, because that means you’d be arguing in bad faith.

Every single cup winner ever had rare circumstances and luck, that’s why they were the best team out of the 30-32 teams. Nothing honest about getting to that point, you can poke holes in why we can’t emulate every cup winner ever because crazy things had to happen for them to get there.

Vegas: expansion team
Colorado:Kadri randomly playing at a 100 point pace, adding a 10th overall in Nichuskin for nothing. Getting Teows for nothing.
Tampa: Kucherov as a late 2nd, Point as a 2nd, Vasilevski turning into a god every playoffs
St Louis: all time Cinderella run, Binnington had the best stretch of his career as a rookie
Washington: Holtby, Kuznetsov having career years. Trotz getting complete buy in for a single year. Having 1 of the best goal scorers of all time.
Pittsburgh: Got awarded a generational player in a draft the year the NHL didn’t play a game.

Can go on and on. Anyone who pretends there’s one way to build a cup winner is the real idiot.

You keep missing the point.

Fun fact since building through high picks is the only way apparently. Out of the top 7 teams in the NHL currently, only 1 team added their highest scorer through a top 10 draft pick. Out of all the playoff teams, only 4 of the 16 did. It’s 3x more likely that playoff teams added them through other means than through high draft picks. So it’s actually more likely that the Flames add that elite player we need at forward through other means than tanking.

That one team is also the only one out of the 7 that has won a cup in the last 10 years.

 

[Yepthatsme]

You keep missing the point.



That one team is also the only one out of the 7 that has won a cup in the last 10 years.

Really easy to say rather than defend, but I’m sure you won’t move goal posts in your rebuttal, again. Also that fact is extremely likely to change after this years playoffs. Almost like parity usually means there are new cup winners year over year.

 

[Bounces R Way]

I just want to see a competitive pro hockey team capable of winning a Stanley Cup. I don't really much care how they go about it. I think a couple years of top 10 picks would be a good place to start but that's only one piece of the puzzle. You need savvy trades and quality FA signings to go along with them and you also need to find good depth in the draft.

I think these rebuilds around the league fail primarily because they're poorly planned and usually poorly owned. You can't just draft high a bunch and throw these 21 year olds into a NHL lineup and expect them to lead you to the promised land. The VGK didn't win the Cup by accident. They had a plan, they had a vision, and they executed it. Same with the TBL. Caps and Blues were well run orgs for a decade before finally breaking through with the right coach. These are franchises with purpose, they put competent people in positions where they can find success. That's what this franchise needs, a rudder to get them pointed in the right direction. Purpose. No more bandaids, no more short term fixes, aim higher than just making the playoffs and build something that lasts.

I like Connie and I like what I've seen so far from him, but I worry about relying on internal hires for GM and HC. The one thing I absolutely do not want to see is more of the same.

 

[User1996]

This year definitely not. But their team makeup is a lot more fragile than in previous years which is why I don’t really think they’re much of a contender regardless. But this argument is so fundamentally flawed. They also aren’t a cup contender without Kucherov, or Point, or Vasilevski, or Stamkos, or Hagel etc. Yes they need Hedman, but do you think Hedman (and Stamkos) has been the reason for their success or Kucherov, Point, Vasilevski, Killorn, Gourde, Cirelli, Palat, and the additions they made?

Tampa bay is the way they are not because they got 2 high picks 15 years ago, but because they were the best team in the league by far at identifying talent well above their respective draft slot and their ability to recognize players through trade that would excel on their team. They are a terrible example to use if you’re trying to say you can’t win without high picks, they got there by being the best team on draft day for the better part of a decade.

Look, they insulated their 1C and 1D in Stamkos and Hedman very well with other additions - nobody is denying that. Do I think having those two guys as primary building blocks is the biggest reason they were so good for so long? I would say it’s the single biggest thing they had going their way besides two incredible finds outside the 1st.

Save Kucherov and Point, all those players are really the calibre of which you can add through trade, or FA quite easily - we’ve done it with Coleman, Sharangovich, and could easily do it again with our cap situation this summer. But who are we insulating? Kadri? You certainly can’t win with him as your best offensive piece. Andersson? I don’t think he’s a 1D on a contender either. Especially when he’ll be expected to take on the matchups that Tanev and Hanifin did before.

Stamkos and Hedman calibre players would be near impossible via those routes.

Like, it’s incredibly disingenuous to say getting handed a 1C and 1D isn’t a good case to be made that drafting high allows you to find the talent needed to win.

Like the Flames themselves have been very good drafting outside those high picks as well - Andersson, Kylington, Mangiapane, Zary, Pospisil - and where has that gotten us? Certainly hasn’t gotten us a 1D or 1C that we will need as staples for sustainable success.

Obviously that group is lesser than the Tampa one, but the point remains, even if we were to add Chandler Stephenson, we’re nothing more than a bubble team who has to rely on finding elite talent where they’re not normally found.

 

[FLAMESFAN]

Can go on and on. Anyone who pretends there’s one way to build a cup winner is the real idiot.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing?
The "pro Tank Crowd" is against moving our draftpicks & capspace right when we got it. You are like a little kid that can't be patient and wait till everyone is up before opening your present - you're stomping your feet crying it has to be right now!

Not a single one of us is saying we need to suck ass for 7 years. But IMO sucking ass for the next couple years could set us up for the next decade if we make the right moves in the next couple of months. And by that I mean making a deal similar to what Montreal did with us getting Monahan.

Again, the worst thing we could do is go out right now and sign guys that'll improve us just a bit in the standings. We'll be in the same place as now next year, except not even have our own 1st.
That is what we are against! That is what you refuse to understand!

 

[Kranix]

Imagine thinking Stamkos & Hedman weren't a HUGE part of TB's Cup runs.

They literally won the cup without Stamkos in 2020

 

[FLAMESFAN]

They literally won the cup without Stamkos in 2020

Listen - I do not want to get into a TB arguement...but....That same playoff Hedman was literally the MVP
Stamkos may have missed 1 run, but was still a huge factor in the other 3. Him missing 1 run does not in anyway mean that Stamkos/Hedman were not crucial parts of that Dynasty.

 

[Anglesmith]

No one is saying that you can’t find good players later in the draft. Or that you don’t need to find good players later in the draft to be a successful organization.

We are saying that this team lacks talent and might as well bottom out and pick up a few high end young players for the next few years instead of signing Chandler Stevenson to chase 8th (and realistically finish 10th to 12th the west). Load up on picks to increase the odds of finding the next Kucherov/Poubt/Hintz/Robertson.

The Flames just don’t have those players in their system, and I say this as a huge homer.

The question the win now crowd has dodged the whole time is are the Calgary Flames good enough to win the cup with the players in the organization?

Don’t talk about Dallas or Tampa. I want to know if you honestly believe this team can win a cup.

The bolded question is one that is not really a good predictor of success. Teams win all the time in cases where the answer would be no shortly prior (Washington and St. Louis come to mind immediately). And beyond just Cup winners there are contenders every year that no one saw as contenders immediately prior. But much more than that the answer is basically always going to be yes for all teams right after their rebuild "ends" because of the overvaluing of potential. And those yes answers are more often than not incorrect.

That said, there's a pretty raging debate going on about stuff in this thread and I'm not sure it's clear to me what the two arguments actually are, but I should state my outlook a bit more clearly I think: the Flames do need to add new talent to the team as they build this back up; however, having a competitive bubble team because of the talent already in the squad still allows for this and keeps them closer to success than selling anything with a pulse to try to finish last.

I have no problem with hoping the Flames get tough breaks down the stretch and lose. But over a full season next year, I think people generally underappreciate how far you have to deplete the talent on the team in order to chase last place. It means that Zary, Pelletier, Coronato etc. are bad players, or veterans have nothing left while their contracts aren't going anywhere, Wolf is a bust, etc. And that reality means we're at the start of a decade long build where nearly everything has to go right in order to prevent it taking another decade.

Now on the other hand, there is the rebuild that the Flames did back in 2013. They didn't force it, they kept around guys at every age tier who could help them, they let the team be only as bad as it naturally was due to the aging out of the core, and... they did build a contending team. The window was shortened by some key departures, but we had several playoff years, a couple division titles and a conference title. That was fun to cheer for. Now think about what could have been if that 4th overall pick was a Marner or a Makar.

The expectation is to win the Cup less than once every three decades. I think it's entirely fair to consider how you want to spend those three decades in between. Both outright tanking and focusing on asset management alone are approaches where you need most of your moves to go right in order to succeed. But one has a much, much lower floor and comes with several years of painfully unfun viewing with no guarantee of ROI.

So my view is that the Flames use where they are to dictate how they position themselves in the market (which they've been doing), they don't force themselves to the bottom by getting rid of talented guys who can help in the coming years, they take the draft picks they end up with and trust that over time you will collect those blue chip guys.

 

[Anglesmith]

Listen - I do not want to get into a TB arguement...but....That same playoff Hedman was literally the MVP
Stamkos may have missed 1 run, but was still a huge factor in the other 3. Him missing 1 run does not in anyway mean that Stamkos/Hedman were not crucial parts of that Dynasty.

The Lightning winning the Cup without Stamkos absolutely proves that Stamkos was not crucial to the team. Similarly, the Bruins winning without Bergeron proves that he was not crucial to the team. The teams that are good enough to win the Cup tend to be good enough that no one player is crucial.

When a team is built in a way where it all hinges on a few players, you get teams that everyone thinks can win it all, but they fail over and over when the chips are down. There are a couple examples in Canada.

 

[Yepthatsme]

Look, they insulated their 1C and 1D in Stamkos and Hedman very well with other additions - nobody is denying that. Do I think having those two guys as primary building blocks is the biggest reason they were so good for so long? I would say it’s the single biggest thing they had going their way besides two incredible finds outside the 1st.

Save Kucherov and Point, all those players are really the calibre of which you can add through trade, or FA quite easily - we’ve done it with Coleman, Sharangovich, and could easily do it again with our cap situation this summer. But who are we insulating? Kadri? You certainly can’t win with him as your best offensive piece. Andersson? I don’t think he’s a 1D on a contender either. Especially when he’ll be expected to take on the matchups that Tanev and Hanifin did before.

Stamkos and Hedman calibre players would be near impossible via those routes.

Like, it’s incredibly disingenuous to say getting handed a 1C and 1D isn’t a good case to be made that drafting high allows you to find the talent needed to win.

Like the Flames themselves have been very good drafting outside those high picks as well - Andersson, Kylington, Mangiapane, Zary, Pospisil - and where has that gotten us? Certainly hasn’t gotten us a 1D or 1C that we will need as staples for sustainable success.

Obviously that group is lesser than the Tampa one, but the point remains, even if we were to add Chandler Stephenson, we’re nothing more than a bubble team who has to rely on finding elite talent where they’re not normally found.

If you think Stamkos was their 1C for any of their runs you are not as informed on this topic as you think you are. As for saying 1D is hard to get through any other routes, only 3 Norris winner in the salary cap era are top 10 picks. Only 7 of the current 16 playoff teams used top 10 picks to get their TOI leader amongst their defenseman. Once again and I can’t believe I have to keep saying this, if you’re a playoff team it’s more likely that you got your 1D through other means, just like your leading point scorer.

 

[FLAMESFAN]

The Lightning winning the Cup without Stamkos absolutely proves that Stamkos was not crucial to the team. Similarly, the Bruins winning without Bergeron proves that he was not crucial to the team. The teams that are good enough to win the Cup tend to be good enough that no one player is crucial.

When a team is built in a way where it all hinges on a few players, you get teams that everyone thinks can win it all, but they fail over and over when the chips are down. There are a couple examples in Canada.

Again, I'd rather not be pulled into this arguement, but the flaw in your point is that we are talking about multiple runs, not a single one. Missing 1 run doesn't mean that the player wasn't a really important (maybe crucial is too much) player for the other runs. In TB's case we're talking 4 finals.
I think it's lunacy to say that neither Stamkos nor Hedman were important players for those runs.

However, I think anyone would agree that a good contender needs to have a great supporting cast.

 

[Yepthatsme]

Isn't that exactly what you are doing?
The "pro Tank Crowd" is against moving our draftpicks & capspace right when we got it. You are like a little kid that can't be patient and wait till everyone is up before opening your present - you're stomping your feet crying it has to be right now!

Not a single one of us is saying we need to suck ass for 7 years. But IMO sucking ass for the next couple years could set us up for the next decade if we make the right moves in the next couple of months. And by that I mean making a deal similar to what Montreal did with us getting Monahan.

Again, the worst thing we could do is go out right now and sign guys that'll improve us just a bit in the standings. We'll be in the same place as now next year, except not even have our own 1st.
That is what we are against! That is what you refuse to understand!

To get bad enough that you pick top 5 multiple seasons, the average build back from that is 7-12 years before becoming a consistent playoff team. Look at the bottom 5 teams currently. This is year 6 for Anaheim already, and they still look atrocious. Year 12 for Arizona, year 5 for San Jose, and Columbus is Columbus. Chicago is only in year 3, got a generational player, and somehow still looking like they’ll be there for a long time. You can’t just be amongst the worst teams for a year or two then bounce back. This averages out to almost a decade long commitment what you’re suggesting, it’s just ignorant to state other wise.

I completely understand, it’s just blatantly wrong. The whole crowd saying it’s impossible to add to a point that gets us past being mediocre without first being terrible is just demonstrably false. Neither side wants to be mediocre, one side just recognizes there’s multiple ways to do it while the other keeps saying “why do you want us to be a bubble team?!” over and over.

 

[Yepthatsme]

Everyone handwaved Vegas, but they are following the exact model I’m referencing. Yes they had their Cinderella run, but next season were a 93 point team and their leading scorer was in the 50s for points. They werent young and were looking destined to just be meh. What they had though was excess draft capital, prospects, and cap space like us. They aggresively chased Stone, then Pacioretty in the offseason. Chased Pietrangelo and others in free agency. Then brought in their big fish in Eichel, and won a cup in his second healthy season.

So yes, once again, you can add players through other methods than just high draft picks to turn a franchise around.

 

[Mobiandi]

Pointing at Vegas is as futile as trying to follow in the footsteps of the '04 Flames

Do people seriously think that Seattle isn't actively trying to be like Vegas? They're still going to be in the wilderness for a long time. The circumstances behind Vegas' rise were once-in-a-lifetime.

They got paid by the Panthers to take two players which made up 2/3 of their top line in their first cup run. That is the most ridiculously lucky transaction since Erat for Forsberg. Then years later, one of them wins the Conn Smythe against them

 

[FLAMESFAN]

To get bad enough that you pick top 5 multiple seasons, the average build back from that is 7-12 years before becoming a consistent playoff team. Look at the bottom 5 teams currently. This is year 6 for Anaheim already, and they still look atrocious. Year 12 for Arizona, year 5 for San Jose, and Columbus is Columbus. Chicago is only in year 3, got a generational player, and somehow still looking like they’ll be there for a long time. You can’t just be amongst the worst teams for a year or two then bounce back. This averages out to almost a decade long commitment what you’re suggesting, it’s just ignorant to state other wise.

I completely understand, it’s just blatantly wrong. The whole crowd saying it’s impossible to add to a point that gets us past being mediocre without first being terrible is just demonstrably false. Neither side wants to be mediocre, one side just recognizes there’s multiple ways to do it while the other keeps saying “why do you want us to be a bubble team?!” over and over.

You say that 1 side recognizes there are multiple ways to rebuild, while being adamant that tanking is not one of them. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

Again, I don't think any of us are asking for a Chi/SJ/Ana tank job. At least I'm not.
I don't think its farfetched to naturally suck next year & finish around 5th. Continue to sell off expiring deals and collect more picks. The following year to be closer to that 10th range.
Collect a few really good prospects, and by the time we have the new arena the team will be back on track to contend for the playoffs.

I have said it many times, but will say it again. You have proposed we trade picks and sign FA's to make a run at the playoffs next season. I feel that would be worst thing we could do at this stage. especially considering we'll likely have to send Montreal our 1st pick.

 

[User1996]

If you think Stamkos was their 1C for any of their runs you are not as informed on this topic as you think you are. As for saying 1D is hard to get through any other routes, only 3 Norris winner in the salary cap era are top 10 picks. Only 7 of the current 16 playoff teams used top 10 picks to get their TOI leader amongst their defenseman. Once again and I can’t believe I have to keep saying this, if you’re a playoff team it’s more likely that you got your 1D through other means, just like your leading point scorer.

Your entire argument is so convoluted. First you imply that high draft picks are not needed as key pieces of your team, now they are, but it just doesn’t matter how you acquire them?

The fact is, all of these contending teams (with a few exceptions) have top 5 pick talents, most often multiple, that are key, key pieces of their team that they’d be basement dwellers without.

Don’t accuse others of moving the goal posts if you’re just going to do the same.

 

[Yepthatsme]

You say that 1 side recognizes there are multiple ways to rebuild, while being adamant that tanking is not one of them. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

Again, I don't think any of us are asking for a Chi/SJ/Ana tank job. At least I'm not.
I don't think its farfetched to naturally suck next year & finish around 5th. Continue to sell off expiring deals and collect more picks. The following year to be closer to that 10th range.
Collect a few really good prospects, and by the time we have the new arena the team will be back on track to contend for the playoffs.

I have said it many times, but will say it again. You have proposed we trade picks and sign FA's to make a run at the playoffs next season. I feel that would be worst thing we could do at this stage. especially considering we'll likely have to send Montreal our 1st pick.

…obviously tanking can work? Cup teams and dynasties have been built on the back of it in every league that has one. Where have I ever said tanking doesn’t work? Tanking is a long and arduous process though which continuously gets minimized even in your post right now, and isn’t nearly as sure fire as people are trying to claim. The irony in calling me a hypocrit while everyone keeps uttering excuses of why we can’t end up like the plethora of teams who build without being terrible, while also ignoring the sheer quantity of failed rebuilds is something.

If we are bad enough to finish around 5th worst naturally, it will be a painful process getting out of those depths. Look at the state of pretty much every bottom 5 team currently and in the past. Examples are extremely few and far between of teams that just dipped their toe in to being that bad.

Also what pieces do we have to sell off for picks left. Mangiapane will get something extremely minor, and Kuzmenko may get something nice with a bounce back season at the deadline but after this deadline I doubt it’d be a 1st. After that it starts to really hurt with Rango, then what’s left are pretty much Andersson, Coleman, Backlund, and Markstrom. Trading 1 or 2 of those 3 pretty much guarantees a long stay in the basement.

If we lose our pick next year, it was probably in the late teens early 20s. We would gain Florida’s pick, which has a good chance at being in the exact same range after the tumultuous offseason they have ahead of them. Even if it that’s 6-8 picks behind ours, we still have had 5 1sts in a 3 year stretch. Our prospect pool isn’t at the point where it desperately needs a player in the late teens instead of mid 20s as the most likely scenario, it’s actually one of the stronger pipelines in the league today currently.

One thing that’s never addressed here. So you want to be horrible for the next year or 2, then start bouncing back. In 4 years, Kadri will be 37, Huberdeau 34, and Weegar 34. So in your absolutely ideal situation, you want us to hope to start becoming a playoff team and contender right when our biggest contracts are starting to regress heavily all with 2-4 years of term left? I hope all these extremely talented players we draft don’t expect raises after their ELCs.

 

[Yepthatsme]

Your entire argument is so convoluted. First you imply that high draft picks are not needed as key pieces of your team, now they are, but it just doesn’t matter how you acquire them?

The fact is, all of these contending teams (with a few exceptions) have top 5 pick talents, most often multiple, that are key, key pieces of their team that they’d be basement dwellers without.

Don’t accuse others of moving the goal posts if you’re just going to do the same.

I’m sorry, are you trying to imply I at any point said you don’t need good players to win cups? I’m honestly confused at what you’re trying to claim, the irony once again in claiming a convoluted argument then typing your second sentence is humorous. Are you saying I said you do need high draft picks after all, or just that I said you need high quality players that have the value of high draft picks after at some point I implied that you don’t need good players to win, moving my goal posts in the process? All that in reply to a post about how the majority of Norris winners and playoff team’s 1Ds weren’t high draft picks?

Generally confused to what 2 of your 3 paragraphs were trying to claim.

 

[Kranix]

Pointing at Vegas is as futile as trying to follow in the footsteps of the '04 Flames

Do people seriously think that Seattle isn't actively trying to be like Vegas? They're still going to be in the wilderness for a long time. The circumstances behind Vegas' rise were once-in-a-lifetime.

There's only 5 players left from their original squad, maybe one (Theodore) is a foundational player, and they've traded five of their 1st round-drafted players since 2017. That's the kind of aggressive turnover of players and picks that Ron Francis isn't capable of, and few teams in the league are willing to put into practice.

 

[FLAMESFAN]

@Yepthatsme, how about we save the masses from this spinning disagreement, and just agree that we are currently at a crossroads and can go in either direction?
I really don't have the patience or desire to keep going in circles with you.

 

[Volica]

Something worth considering, which I will probably guess most people will gloss over depending on which side of the argument you're on; is the tone star players can set, and the team cycles they can be important parts of.

So you take Steven Stamkos for example, as he's been used in this thread already. This is his 16th year in the NHL. He's a star franchise caliber guy (in terms of his prime).

What you get from him:
In his first 5 years in the league, you manage to carve out a deep run with your old-heads nearly a decade removed from their last cup run. Stamkos plays a huge role in that gap as you rebuild post Vinny/Marty departures.
Then you get him as a 24 year old, being a part of what is really the start of Tampa's ascension into an annual contender. He's their MVP on the road to finals appearance. Kucherov is in the league, but he's not a superstar, and in fact in the season Stamkos misses, Tampa misses the playoffs.

So you draft a guy #1, and you get him for five distinct team cycles:

1. Last hurrah of the by-gone era (where the old guys are leaving).
2. Rebuild phase where he brings 50-60 goals a year and keeps the fans engaged.
3. Super-star on a team on the rise.
4. Star on an annual cup contender.
5. Player in the late stages of his career that is still contributing, albeit no longer a top 5 player on his roster.

This is what the big draft picks are for.

Yes, there are teams like the Bruins, Rangers or Knights that kick this trend, but something most people don't want to acknowledge are the advantages those teams get in terms of players wanting to play there. Where are the Rangers if Fox doesn't demand to play there, or Panarin doesn't decide that's where he wants to go? B
ruins? There's a fundamental switch that happens in that organization around 2006/07; where they go from breaking 100 points twice in a decade to annual powerhouse. Want to guess what changed around there? It coincides with a giant top defenceman in the NHL joining their club in FA.

Flames don't have free agents lining up to come here that'll change the game. We overpay for guys to come, and that's just what it is. We need a culture reset, a team reset. We need a guy that people go 'that's his team'. Considering we can't get those in FA, considering we can't get Americans to stay here past their contracts; I think it's pretty clear how Calgary will take the next steps.