What would you guys prefer for the next couple years?

[fallsviewafro*]

There are so many ways to address this first paragraph. I'll list three:

People's viewpoints aren't coloured. No one is taking these first five games as proof that the Flames are going to challenge for the cup. The question was simply if we would be ok with this kind of play and success continuing. Winning a cup aside, people want to see playoff hockey. Anything can happen when you get to the dance.

Looks like you've got your terms confused; having a viewpoint coloured by past experiences does not mean they take something as being absolute proof of a future outcome; it means their thoughts are influenced by said experiences. Furthermore, I never made the assertion that people were assuming we'd be contending for the Cup, so don't put words in my mouth.

In any case If we didn't open with points in our first five games, the word "playoffs" is completely out of our heads and this thread doesn't exist. Of course people are going to be OK with their team continuing to win, because they were winning in the first place, hence why their viewpoints are coloured by this.

People aren't forgetting that our bad finish earned us Monahan. First off, our season last year earned us Monahan, Klimchuk, Poirier and a host of other prospects. Our drafting in previous years has also been good, and our cupboards are fairly well-stocked as things stand right now. Gaining a top player through the draft is a compensation, not a goal that we should strive for every season. If your team is good enough to be successful, they don't need a new face of the franchise. Secondly, it might just be that people are remembering that Edmonton's three years of bad finishes allowed them to draft the best player in the draft in three consecutive drafts. Every year they got to re-sell the rebuild with a brand new young star. People also notice that the team is an absolute shambles in spite of that.

The problem with having full cupboards is that you don't know if what's filling them is any good. I think we have guys that show a lot of promise, but promise doesn't win us anything. I certainly never said striving for a high draft pick is a "goal," either. I'm making the argument that playoffs are an ideal situation. However, when reality sets in and playoffs probably are not in the cards for the Flames, being stuck in 9th is terrible, because it is. Do we want another Jankowski pick after a near-miss on the playoffs? No, we want another Monahan pick, because either way we're not in "the dance," and this way we are better set for the future.

You also can't use the faulty logic of consecutive first overall picks = joke of a franchise. Yes, Edmonton did that. Edmonton also has horrendous ownership, Lowe, a revolving door of coaches, and non-existent D/goaltending. They also picked a man-child centre and two wingers; hardly what you build a franchise around. Any hockey fan who pays attention to the facts outside of "LOL EDMONTON THREE FIRST OVERALL PICKS" knows this.

So, you're arguing that a team that can withstand the loss of Cammalleri, Stajan and Jones and pretty much not even miss a beat would be detrimentally worse without their ultra-green rookie?

Seriously? Stop relying on hyperbolic language, and deal with facts instead:

THU, 3 OCT 2013 FLAMES CAPITALS
5:00 PM FINAL CGY (4) - WSH (5) SO RECAP
Monahan - 1 assist

FRI, 4 OCT 2013 FLAMES BLUE JACKETS
5:00 PM FINAL CGY (4) - CBJ (3) RECAP
Monahan - 1 goal

SUN, 6 OCT 2013 CANUCKS FLAMES
6:00 PM FINAL VAN (5) - CGY (4) OT RECAP
Monahan - 1 goal

WED, 9 OCT 2013 CANADIENS FLAMES
6:00 PM FINAL MTL (2) - CGY (3) RECAP
Monahan - 1 goal

FRI, 11 OCT 2013 DEVILS FLAMES
7:00 PM FINAL NJD (2) - CGY (3)
Monahan - 1 goal

So that's the Flames winning three one-goal games, with Monahan scoring in each of them. He also scored against Vancouver, which helped us earn the loser point. The ONLY game where he didn't score was against Washington, where he "only" got an assist, again helping us with the loser point. Does that clear things up for you? No Monahan = no tie or win. No Monahan = losing record.

Not to mention the fact that Jones played 4 of the 5 games so far, so it's very obvious you're relying on bombastic language to emotionally justify your point instead of actually analyzing the situation at hand. To answer your ridiculous question about a team being worse without their "ultra-green" rookie, yes, they would be worse.

 

[fallsviewafro*]

Forget trading Stempniak. Re-sign him for 4 years and then trade him when he legitimately gets squeezed out.

As for OP, of course I'd rather win. Don't forget that Baertschi was drafted at 13, and in SJ Hertl was drafted at 17. You don't need top 5 picks when you're a well drafting team, and I believe the near future will prove that the Flames are indeed a well drafting team.

I don't disagree with your point, but let's hold off on crowning Hertl a slam-dunk prospect. You know who else scored a hat-trick when he broke into the league? Fabian Brunnstrom.

I know there will always be outliers with guys like Weber getting drafted 2nd round, or Giroux getting picked late first after piles of garbage, but there's a big difference between a top-5 pick and a trade-down-for-Jankowski pick. I'm comfortable having a better shot at (hopefully) better guys if it means we finish with out of the playoffs with 80 points instead of out of the playoffs with 90 points.

 

[fallsviewafro*]

I'd like to give this a bump after the reality check of our last game vs SJ.

Playoffs?

 

[TylerSVT*]

I'd like to give this a bump after the reality check of our last game vs SJ.

Playoffs?

This season was always a write-off. Next year likely as well.

I dont care if we lose every game, as long as the guys play hard and battle and the young guys develop. We wont rebuild this team in a year.

 

[Lunatik]

I'd like to give this a bump after the reality check of our last game vs SJ.

Playoffs?

You still have to try and compete like you are a playoff team. That is all anyone is saying. I don't think anyone expects wins this year, but they want to see us work harder than our opponent and put the effort forward needed to win.

If that is in place, as the talent increases, so will the wins.

 

[Anglesmith]

I'd like to give this a bump after the reality check of our last game vs SJ.

Playoffs?

Wait, you mean the game against the top team in the league where we generated a good number of chances to tie the game at two, then an even better number of chances to tie the game at four, and only really let the game slip away because of special teams and lack of discipline, which are unfixable issues? Yeah, based on that one game, there's no way we can beat three out of seven other teams in our division.

 

[fallsviewafro*]

Wait, you mean the game against the top team in the league where we generated a good number of chances to tie the game at two, then an even better number of chances to tie the game at four, and only really let the game slip away because of special teams and lack of discipline, which are unfixable issues? Yeah, based on that one game, there's no way we can beat three out of seven other teams in our division.

Listen, I appreciate your optimism, but I think it's very safe to say we'll be the punching bags of the Pacific division along with Edmonton. And even if we aren't, guess what - we still play games against the rest of the league too. We squeaked out a few lucky ones and have now gotten punished by better teams. That IS reality setting in, sorry. Small sample sizes work both ways - it justified this thread being started when we won a few, and now it justifies my sentiments about the playoffs, so its a perfectly fair comment on my part. Fact: we got a hot start because we won one-goal games on account of of PPG rookie performances. Tell me what those are: outlying rarities, or a norm to be expected?

It's a complete cop-out to go off on some sarcastic rant about how "oh but we had a good number of chances to tie the game at 2, and then more chances to tie it again, but we lost because of special teams and lack of discipline, but we'll improve." Sure, that can improve... just as the teams we're facing are going to improve also. Like I said, I'm all for optimism, but if we want a solid chance at the playoffs we're going to have to beat teams along the calibre of LA, ANA, and SJS regularly. I'd love for the Flames to prove me wrong, but its delusional to think we're going to improve enough to top these teams consistently on anything other than an off night for them.

Last thing: you may want to drop the sarcasm bit and focus on actually constructing a sound argument instead. See my previous reply to you above if you want a reminder of what happens when logic and facts meet baseless hyperbolic claims.

 

[TheHudlinator]

- at anyone who takes 1 game win or lose to mean we are playoff team or not.

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

Listen, I appreciate your optimism, but I think it's very safe to say we'll be the punching bags of the Pacific division along with Edmonton. And even if we aren't, guess what - we still play games against the rest of the league too. We squeaked out a few lucky ones and have now gotten punished by better teams. That IS reality setting in, sorry. Small sample sizes work both ways - it justified this thread being started when we won a few, and now it justifies my sentiments about the playoffs, so its a perfectly fair comment on my part. Fact: we got a hot start because we won one-goal games on account of of PPG rookie performances. Tell me what those are: outlying rarities, or a norm to be expected?

It's a complete cop-out to go off on some sarcastic rant about how "oh but we had a good number of chances to tie the game at 2, and then more chances to tie it again, but we lost because of special teams and lack of discipline, but we'll improve." Sure, that can improve... just as the teams we're facing are going to improve also. Like I said, I'm all for optimism, but if we want a solid chance at the playoffs we're going to have to beat teams along the calibre of LA, ANA, and SJS regularly. I'd love for the Flames to prove me wrong, but its delusional to think we're going to improve enough to top these teams consistently on anything other than an off night for them.

Last thing: you may want to drop the sarcasm bit and focus on actually constructing a sound argument instead. See my previous reply to you above if you want a reminder of what happens when logic and facts meet baseless hyperbolic claims.

Oh no we are going to suck! Blow up the team before it is too late!

 

[fallsviewafro*]

Oh no we are going to suck! Blow up the team before it is too late!

Monahan + Baertschi for two firsts

 

[Anglesmith]

Last thing: you may want to drop the sarcasm bit and focus on actually constructing a sound argument instead. See my previous reply to you above if you want a reminder of what happens when logic and facts meet baseless hyperbolic claims.

How delightfully condescending. I get that it's the trendy thing to show off your pessimism like some sort of badge of honour, but frankly I get tired of it. Since the rebuild started, I've always been a strong critic of all posts which say things like "we'll be drafting top three" or "we're not going to make the playoffs," and my last post is just more of that resentment showing through. I definitely have a huge problem with people posting opinions as fact, or conflating probability and reality and so let me just state that plainly here before going on.

I think it's pretty rich that you accuse me of falling back on sarcasm instead of forming an argument. My argument was clear in my post. We were very competitive in this last game, and we could have won the game. If we can compete with the Sharks, we can hang with anybody. If we can hang with anybody, we can win against anybody. If that much is true, there is no way that we can close the possibility of making the playoffs.

Meanwhile, you have posted this beautifully verbose diatribe on how I'm wrong and you're right, and I'm left searching for any kind of, as you say, sound argument:

Listen, I appreciate your optimism, but I think it's very safe to say we'll be the punching bags of the Pacific division along with Edmonton. And even if we aren't, guess what - we still play games against the rest of the league too. We squeaked out a few lucky ones and have now gotten punished by better teams. That IS reality setting in, sorry. Small sample sizes work both ways - it justified this thread being started when we won a few, and now it justifies my sentiments about the playoffs, so its a perfectly fair comment on my part.

So although we'd like to think that our level of play which got us to our current record was reality, it's not, because you said so. There are no logical arguments in this paragraph. I'd also like to point out that I argue against sentiments such as the premise of the OP of this thread (due to reading too much into a small sample size), and I'm only arguing against your unwillingness of consider the possibility of making the playoffs at this point. Not the fact that what you say might turn out to be the truth, just the fact that you think that our game against the Sharks is more representative of the team than the seven games we've played as a whole, and in turn that it is conclusive proof that we won't make the playoffs.

But seriously, are phrases like "That IS reality setting in, sorry" what I should consider a 'sound argument?'

It's a complete cop-out to go off on some sarcastic rant about how "oh but we had a good number of chances to tie the game at 2, and then more chances to tie it again, but we lost because of special teams and lack of discipline, but we'll improve." Sure, that can improve... just as the teams we're facing are going to improve also. Like I said, I'm all for optimism, but if we want a solid chance at the playoffs we're going to have to beat teams along the calibre of LA, ANA, and SJS regularly. I'd love for the Flames to prove me wrong, but its delusional to think we're going to improve enough to top these teams consistently on anything other than an off night for them.

Finally, some logical discussion. I hope we can move on. I would say that a team like San Jose is fairly due for some regression more than anything else. The Ducks will have their slumps as well throughout the course of the year. What I'm talking about, though, is that the Flames showed very specific flaws in their game which are very much fixable. That applies moreso to discipline than penalty-killing, because as we have seen in past years, special teams can't be fixed with the simple flick of a switch.

In addition, you mention that the Flames will be playing their division quite a bit. We've played three divisional games so far this year, with tonight marking our fourth. Coming into the season, it looked like a formidable division for sure, and it's certainly played out that way, with our record against them at 0-2-1. We should have had a win against Vancouver, and we could have had a win in Anaheim or San Jose. I'm not saying that if we play them again we will probably win. I'm just saying that we've shown it is far from a foregone conclusion.

Speaking of Vancouver, they have gone 0-2 against San Jose, with two fairly convincing 4-1 defeats. Are their playoff dreams over now, too? I don't think so. But at the end of the day, what's the difference? If it's perfectly valid to use factors such as the Canucks' roster, or their standing in previous seasons, or their play in other games where they won as a means to predict their end-of-season standing, then I think it is also perfectly valid, for a team such as the Flames which has undergone a major roster upheaval, to say that we don't really know anything about how this team is going to perform down the stretch, and that all we have to go on is how they've played so far this year. And to me, their level of play through the first 7 games could project to more victories than anyone could expect. Or it couldn't. Just keep an open mind.

 

[Pizza the Hutt]

Monahan + Baertschi for two firsts

Not a bad idea if we can get Reinhart and Mcdavid, who we could then flip for another THREE firsts and sweep the top spots of 2016-17-18, ensuring we land Mathias Emilio, whom some are already referring to as the greatest player to be born in the 21st century:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VckSnkJs5qA