Five things: In praise of

Ryan Lambert
April 17 2014 08:15AM

politifact_photos_5th_birthday_candle

1. House cleaning

So the Calgary Flames season ended up being just like the last four: Without the playoffs. Five years without a postseason appearance, and it's starting to look like that five-year stretch in which they did make it, under Darryl Sutter and Jim Playfair and Mike Keenan, was the aberration.

But with that having been said, this is perhaps the first time in a while the Flames actually have some amount of hope for the future. I'm not going to be one of those guys who thinks their performance since January is in any way indicative of the team's chances next year — and certainly I don't think this "speeds up the rebuild" or whatever similar claptrap people have been pushing for the last little while — but nonetheless, this was a season that had a lot of positives on the individual level. Even as the team was largely bereft of them collectively.

So because all I ever hear from the commenters here is crying about how I'm so negative (you know, because there's a lot of great stuff to talk about from a team that's picking in the top-6 at the draft for the second year in a row), I figured I'd outline the ways in which certain Flames players have been impressive to me this season, even as the team as a whole, again, was indefensibly awful.

2. Mark Giordano

This is the obvious place to start because Giordano was nothing short of spectacular in this, his first year as captain. The ongoing issue is that he'll be 31 by the time next season starts, and thus building any plans more than two or three years in the future around his continued effectiveness is an iffy prospect. But for now, wow, what a season.

If I had a PHWA vote, he would have been second in my Norris balloting behind only Zdeno Chara, and that's mainly because he only played 64 games. Maybe with a full season he's not as effective, but what we saw in the three-quarters of it he played was excellent. For anyone to drive play on this Flames team was rare, but for him to do it considering the usage Bob Hartley demanded of him is just remarkable. In much the same way that Chara was often held back from winning more Norris Trophies because Nicklas Lidstrom was the second-best defenseman of all time, Giordano's very legitimate candidacy is restrained by Chara's continued excellence; when all's said and done, Boston's big man will likely be one of the six or seven greatest defensemen of all time, so there's no shame for Giordano in coming up short.

Would that he'd been healthier, from a personal perspective, but his injury helped the Flames finish as low as they did, and that's valuable too.

3. TJ Brodie

You can't mention Giordano's play without mentioning Brodie's because both were fantastic this year, together. That's the amazing thing in all this: Though they didn't spend much time apart (Brodie played 765 minutes without Giordano, and Giordano 360 without Brodie), they were both pretty awful when separated.

Brodie's corsi% dropped to 46.7, and Giordano's to 47.4. Together, though, they demolished the competition for a 56.2 percent corsi share, and the Flames scored 55.2 percent of the goals when they were on the ice together.

It really says a lot about what both bring to the table, and what Brodie's doing at his young age to get there. I'm not sure you can pencil him in as a present and future No. 1 defenseman, but a few more years patrolling the blue line this effectively with Giordano would obviously convince everyone.

The issue with Brodie is the contract, of course. He's an RFA next summer but is obviously up to be extended this July, and Brian Burke (or the next GM) would do well to make him priority No. 1. Get him locked up long-term, for as big money as he wants — because hey, you're nowhere near the ceiling any time soon anyway — and don't let it drag out. "Calgary Flame for life TJ Brodie" has a ring to it that this team would be foolish to ignore.

4. Jiri Hudler

Obviously I was dubious when the Flames signed this contract because it was a symbol, at the time, of everything the team was doing wrong. Here was "going for it," here was "overspending on free agents with dubious individual value," here was "passing off mediocre signings as big ones."

In the two years since, it seems Hudler is exactly the player Jay Feaster thought he was getting, and while that contract isn't a value, it's not a burden either. We can debate whether they should have signed him at all (they shouldn't have) but there's no room for discussion on what he's brought to the team. He has, simply, been very good. Leading scorer on the team this year, probably would have pushed for that title if he'd been healthy last year. One of my primary concerns when they signed him was that his PDO was through the roof, but he's proven that, like Alex Tanguay before him, he's just the kind of player who makes that kind of thing happen when he's on the ice. They're not common, but they exist.

Yes, he's given some pretty choice usage, but he also got the chance to shepherd some good young centers on this team into better positions than originally thought. For example, the guy he played with most frequently was Mikael Backlund, who was just great this year in pretty much every way, and is another guy who needs to be locked up way, way, way long-term for as much money as he wants. The guy he played with second-most?

5. Sean Monahan

No, he shouldn't have been in the NHL this season. It was a waste of an RFA year by any consideration, and therefore poor asset management, for the cynical premise of "selling hope" (which essentially means "getting fans to keep paying to watch an awful team").

With that having been said, though, Monahan was a pretty pleasant surprise in terms of what he brought to the table. He was a negative possession player, because of course he was, and that's despite some easy zone starts and soft competition. But even after that ridiculous hot start, he kept scoring pretty steadily (22 times, in fact). Yeah he had an unsustainable shooting percentage and yeah he'll probably regress in that regard next season, but by the end of this year he didn't look out of place, which I guess is all you can ask for from a guy who shouldn't have been in the league at all this season.

It will be interesting to see what he does next year, especially with whomever the Flames get at No. 4 — who you'd have to think they'll also try to hurry along into the NHL — but for this season, the team should have been expecting a disaster and got a semi-competent NHLer who scored 22 times instead. That's a big positive, and probably bodes well for the future.

686dfac3780611cb7acad6ce5166c6c1
Yer ol' buddy Lambert is handsome and great and everyone loves him. Also you can visit his regular blog at The Two-Line Pass or follow him on Twitter. Lucky you!
Avatar
#51 sb
April 17 2014, 07:30PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
4
props
BurningSensation wrote:

Here's my screed on my why Lambert is always wrong;

- The rebuild didn't start last year, it started when Feaster traded Regehr.

'Rebuilds' to be clear, are when you change the core of your team. Regehr was the first of the core players moved out, and that is then we should start the clock running on the 'rebuild'. Yes, it was 'slow motion', and 'yes' the important pieces to see shipped out were really J-Bo and Iggy, but the process was already well underway.

The other reason to start the clock with Feaster's takeover is because the first thing Feaster did was reset the scouting department and talent aquisition processes. It isn't an accident that Feaster hit on both more and higher end prospects than the team under Sutter did.

- One of Lambert's ongoing hobby horses is that the Flames should actually be trying to be worse than they are, presumably for the chance to draft an Eichel or McDavid at some future point.

This is stupid for a wide variety of reasons;

There is no guarantee that being bad will land you elite talent (see Flordia, Columbus, Edmonton, etc. All of whom have failed to land a franchise caliber talent at the draft - depending on what you think about Taylor Hall). However, being bad will guarantee that your team is psychologically fragile, and creates a culture that finds losing acceptable. It also kills your fan enthusiasm, lowers ticket revenue, and makes the local scribes hungry for the flesh of management.

Even if you manage to get one of the top picks, you could just as easily draft a Thomas Hickey, Cam Barker, Patrick Stefan, etc, as land a cornerstone for a decade. In other words, luck plays a huge part.

Finally, even if you land yourself a cornerstone (say a Kopitar), you still have to build the rest of the team around them, or you end up like the Islanders constantly shuffling mediocre pieces around John Tavares, or the Oilers who seem constantly perplexed by the fact the team needs at least 4 top 4 defensemen to compliment their young core.

- The rebuild may indeed be closer to being 'over' than you think.

Monahan, Gaudreau, Baertschi, Bennett/Draisatl, Brodie, Poirier, Knight, Wotherspoon, Granlund, Klimchuk, Gillies - that is a fantastic looking young core developing, with the majority of them just under the surface of receiving serious ice-time (Monahan and Brodie being the obvious exceptions).

The vets, Stajan, Hudler, Glen-X, Gio, and Cammalleri aren't world beaters, but can do the heavy lifting while the kids develop (someting the Oilers only dream of).

The real key though is between the pipes; Kari Ramo has shown he can deliver league average goaltending. At age 27 he is solidly entering his prime goaltending years. League average goaltending will cover a lot of warts, and with modest improvements over the next two years from the kids the Flames would be VERY close to being a playoff team.

- Ultimtely my distaste for Lambert is simple. He wants us to be like the Oilers and suck tailpipe exhaust for a decade with the hope that we land an 'elite' player to build around.

I want us to be like Detroit. Find gems late in the draft. Develop players for the long rather than the short term. Build down the middle (C and D), etc.

If he can distinguish his 'plan' for how Calgary should proceed from what Tambellini was doing up North the last few years I'd be shocked.

Well put and glad to see others saw the same thing happening over the last three years. BB can see the team has crawled and are starting to walk. Next year he moves them into the hard part, where they will be running to a playoff spot. It will be the forth year of the Rebuild.

Avatar
#52 TRAV
April 17 2014, 07:53PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
11
props

I always look forward to LAmbert's articles because they are fun to read. It's a bit like watching Don Cherry. Lots of things I would classify as "hot air" but I enjoy the show. It's entertaining. ( as is the usual back and forth in the comment section)

An article suggestion for Lambert would be rather than pointing out what the Flames have done wrong I would like to see his path for how they should rebuild. Perhaps 5 things--"Rebuilding the Right way".

I may be in the minority here but I also dislike the name calling. Hate the viewpoints not the person.

Avatar
#53 Burnward
April 17 2014, 11:02PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
5
props

Well, that really escalated quickly.

I think WW stabbed someone with a trident...

Avatar
#54 Walter White
April 17 2014, 11:14PM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
6
props
Burnward wrote:

Well, that really escalated quickly.

I think WW stabbed someone with a trident...

I think young Justin learned a lesson about trying to be the moral authority.......(leave that to the great thinkers like WW Instead.....)

No one is happier than Justin that the next article was posted........

This "banning" thing is getting out of hand too......kind of a "lord of the flies" thing! (Google it Justin.......)

WW

Avatar
#55 Theoforever
April 18 2014, 12:55AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
11
props

@Justin Azevedo

Buy yourself a sense of humour. :) "Jane you ignorant slut" is a timeless classic, if it was good enough for SNL should be ok for FM.

Avatar
#56 Kevin R
April 18 2014, 01:03AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
9
props
BurningSensation wrote:

Here's my screed on my why Lambert is always wrong;

- The rebuild didn't start last year, it started when Feaster traded Regehr.

'Rebuilds' to be clear, are when you change the core of your team. Regehr was the first of the core players moved out, and that is then we should start the clock running on the 'rebuild'. Yes, it was 'slow motion', and 'yes' the important pieces to see shipped out were really J-Bo and Iggy, but the process was already well underway.

The other reason to start the clock with Feaster's takeover is because the first thing Feaster did was reset the scouting department and talent aquisition processes. It isn't an accident that Feaster hit on both more and higher end prospects than the team under Sutter did.

- One of Lambert's ongoing hobby horses is that the Flames should actually be trying to be worse than they are, presumably for the chance to draft an Eichel or McDavid at some future point.

This is stupid for a wide variety of reasons;

There is no guarantee that being bad will land you elite talent (see Flordia, Columbus, Edmonton, etc. All of whom have failed to land a franchise caliber talent at the draft - depending on what you think about Taylor Hall). However, being bad will guarantee that your team is psychologically fragile, and creates a culture that finds losing acceptable. It also kills your fan enthusiasm, lowers ticket revenue, and makes the local scribes hungry for the flesh of management.

Even if you manage to get one of the top picks, you could just as easily draft a Thomas Hickey, Cam Barker, Patrick Stefan, etc, as land a cornerstone for a decade. In other words, luck plays a huge part.

Finally, even if you land yourself a cornerstone (say a Kopitar), you still have to build the rest of the team around them, or you end up like the Islanders constantly shuffling mediocre pieces around John Tavares, or the Oilers who seem constantly perplexed by the fact the team needs at least 4 top 4 defensemen to compliment their young core.

- The rebuild may indeed be closer to being 'over' than you think.

Monahan, Gaudreau, Baertschi, Bennett/Draisatl, Brodie, Poirier, Knight, Wotherspoon, Granlund, Klimchuk, Gillies - that is a fantastic looking young core developing, with the majority of them just under the surface of receiving serious ice-time (Monahan and Brodie being the obvious exceptions).

The vets, Stajan, Hudler, Glen-X, Gio, and Cammalleri aren't world beaters, but can do the heavy lifting while the kids develop (someting the Oilers only dream of).

The real key though is between the pipes; Kari Ramo has shown he can deliver league average goaltending. At age 27 he is solidly entering his prime goaltending years. League average goaltending will cover a lot of warts, and with modest improvements over the next two years from the kids the Flames would be VERY close to being a playoff team.

- Ultimtely my distaste for Lambert is simple. He wants us to be like the Oilers and suck tailpipe exhaust for a decade with the hope that we land an 'elite' player to build around.

I want us to be like Detroit. Find gems late in the draft. Develop players for the long rather than the short term. Build down the middle (C and D), etc.

If he can distinguish his 'plan' for how Calgary should proceed from what Tambellini was doing up North the last few years I'd be shocked.

I really don't agree that the Regehr trade was the beginning of the rebuild. The Regehr trade was the beginning of cleansing of the cap hell we were in. Regehr was simply a casualty of poor Cap management by the Sutter regime & it cost us one of our core players. If Regehr was moved for a pick when we didn't need to unload his salary & Kotalik's salary, then you may have something there. We wound up giving the 2nd rounder in that deal. Hardly a rebuild formula. We got Buffalo's B prospects & no picks. Sorry sir, I agree with a lot of your posts but I cant agree that this trade was ground zero for the start of the rebuild. The clock stands at March 2013 as Ground Zero for Flames.

Avatar
#57 Veggie Dog
April 18 2014, 01:07AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
13
props
Justin Azevedo wrote:

there's more negativity in the comments than in the article itself. I will point out that in 08-09 the flames were sewered by kiprusoff, not keenan.

just so we're clear: implying someone does something negative because they're "american" is racism and next time it's brought up there will be bans. that doesn't fly around here.

thanks for reading.

American is not a race.

Avatar
#58 TheoForever
April 18 2014, 01:38AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
11
props

I agree that Regerh trade was not the start of rebuild. Flames were still operating under win now directive. Many people were calling for a rebuild, but that was unrealistic. Flames structure and prospect pool were not conducive for rebuild. Feaster understood the need for a rebuild but Ken King was happy with soldout building. Iginla was untouchable.

Feaster cleared cap and contract problems, hired scouts, reorganized Flames and improved development system. He changed poisonous and confrontational atmosphere present in the organization and created by Darryl The rebuild starts with Iginla trade .

Btw. The funny thing, common knowledge and running joke around the league was that flames were paying scouts that no longer attended games, it was true and went on for years.

Avatar
#59 Tenbrucelees
April 18 2014, 04:30AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
8
props
BurningSensation wrote:

Here's my screed on my why Lambert is always wrong;

- The rebuild didn't start last year, it started when Feaster traded Regehr.

'Rebuilds' to be clear, are when you change the core of your team. Regehr was the first of the core players moved out, and that is then we should start the clock running on the 'rebuild'. Yes, it was 'slow motion', and 'yes' the important pieces to see shipped out were really J-Bo and Iggy, but the process was already well underway.

The other reason to start the clock with Feaster's takeover is because the first thing Feaster did was reset the scouting department and talent aquisition processes. It isn't an accident that Feaster hit on both more and higher end prospects than the team under Sutter did.

- One of Lambert's ongoing hobby horses is that the Flames should actually be trying to be worse than they are, presumably for the chance to draft an Eichel or McDavid at some future point.

This is stupid for a wide variety of reasons;

There is no guarantee that being bad will land you elite talent (see Flordia, Columbus, Edmonton, etc. All of whom have failed to land a franchise caliber talent at the draft - depending on what you think about Taylor Hall). However, being bad will guarantee that your team is psychologically fragile, and creates a culture that finds losing acceptable. It also kills your fan enthusiasm, lowers ticket revenue, and makes the local scribes hungry for the flesh of management.

Even if you manage to get one of the top picks, you could just as easily draft a Thomas Hickey, Cam Barker, Patrick Stefan, etc, as land a cornerstone for a decade. In other words, luck plays a huge part.

Finally, even if you land yourself a cornerstone (say a Kopitar), you still have to build the rest of the team around them, or you end up like the Islanders constantly shuffling mediocre pieces around John Tavares, or the Oilers who seem constantly perplexed by the fact the team needs at least 4 top 4 defensemen to compliment their young core.

- The rebuild may indeed be closer to being 'over' than you think.

Monahan, Gaudreau, Baertschi, Bennett/Draisatl, Brodie, Poirier, Knight, Wotherspoon, Granlund, Klimchuk, Gillies - that is a fantastic looking young core developing, with the majority of them just under the surface of receiving serious ice-time (Monahan and Brodie being the obvious exceptions).

The vets, Stajan, Hudler, Glen-X, Gio, and Cammalleri aren't world beaters, but can do the heavy lifting while the kids develop (someting the Oilers only dream of).

The real key though is between the pipes; Kari Ramo has shown he can deliver league average goaltending. At age 27 he is solidly entering his prime goaltending years. League average goaltending will cover a lot of warts, and with modest improvements over the next two years from the kids the Flames would be VERY close to being a playoff team.

- Ultimtely my distaste for Lambert is simple. He wants us to be like the Oilers and suck tailpipe exhaust for a decade with the hope that we land an 'elite' player to build around.

I want us to be like Detroit. Find gems late in the draft. Develop players for the long rather than the short term. Build down the middle (C and D), etc.

If he can distinguish his 'plan' for how Calgary should proceed from what Tambellini was doing up North the last few years I'd be shocked.

I'm not being funny here but I wouldn't mind seeing Burning sensation or someone similar write a column for this site. I think that a slight problem with FN is that there is a lot of similarity in the views of the writers (although it must be said that Lambert is definitely to the extreme end of the spectrum). Someone who writes well and can be a counterpoint to other writers on some of the fundamental issues would be a welcome addition in my view.

Avatar
#60 coachedpotatoe
April 18 2014, 06:20AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
5
props
BurningSensation wrote:

Here's my screed on my why Lambert is always wrong;

- The rebuild didn't start last year, it started when Feaster traded Regehr.

'Rebuilds' to be clear, are when you change the core of your team. Regehr was the first of the core players moved out, and that is then we should start the clock running on the 'rebuild'. Yes, it was 'slow motion', and 'yes' the important pieces to see shipped out were really J-Bo and Iggy, but the process was already well underway.

The other reason to start the clock with Feaster's takeover is because the first thing Feaster did was reset the scouting department and talent aquisition processes. It isn't an accident that Feaster hit on both more and higher end prospects than the team under Sutter did.

- One of Lambert's ongoing hobby horses is that the Flames should actually be trying to be worse than they are, presumably for the chance to draft an Eichel or McDavid at some future point.

This is stupid for a wide variety of reasons;

There is no guarantee that being bad will land you elite talent (see Flordia, Columbus, Edmonton, etc. All of whom have failed to land a franchise caliber talent at the draft - depending on what you think about Taylor Hall). However, being bad will guarantee that your team is psychologically fragile, and creates a culture that finds losing acceptable. It also kills your fan enthusiasm, lowers ticket revenue, and makes the local scribes hungry for the flesh of management.

Even if you manage to get one of the top picks, you could just as easily draft a Thomas Hickey, Cam Barker, Patrick Stefan, etc, as land a cornerstone for a decade. In other words, luck plays a huge part.

Finally, even if you land yourself a cornerstone (say a Kopitar), you still have to build the rest of the team around them, or you end up like the Islanders constantly shuffling mediocre pieces around John Tavares, or the Oilers who seem constantly perplexed by the fact the team needs at least 4 top 4 defensemen to compliment their young core.

- The rebuild may indeed be closer to being 'over' than you think.

Monahan, Gaudreau, Baertschi, Bennett/Draisatl, Brodie, Poirier, Knight, Wotherspoon, Granlund, Klimchuk, Gillies - that is a fantastic looking young core developing, with the majority of them just under the surface of receiving serious ice-time (Monahan and Brodie being the obvious exceptions).

The vets, Stajan, Hudler, Glen-X, Gio, and Cammalleri aren't world beaters, but can do the heavy lifting while the kids develop (someting the Oilers only dream of).

The real key though is between the pipes; Kari Ramo has shown he can deliver league average goaltending. At age 27 he is solidly entering his prime goaltending years. League average goaltending will cover a lot of warts, and with modest improvements over the next two years from the kids the Flames would be VERY close to being a playoff team.

- Ultimtely my distaste for Lambert is simple. He wants us to be like the Oilers and suck tailpipe exhaust for a decade with the hope that we land an 'elite' player to build around.

I want us to be like Detroit. Find gems late in the draft. Develop players for the long rather than the short term. Build down the middle (C and D), etc.

If he can distinguish his 'plan' for how Calgary should proceed from what Tambellini was doing up North the last few years I'd be shocked.

Burning Sensation: while I agree with almost everything you said I will come Lamberts defense on one point; both Burke and Hartley called the season as the Flames did not make the playoffs and therefore the season was a failure. It also could be considered a failure because we did not finish last overall and win the lottery and have the choice of the draft. However that being said and reading what the various scouts have to say, there seems to be little difference between the top four picks anyways.

Let's also remember that the Red Wings sucked for a long time before they changed their culture and attitude towards development. We have a good start at developing organizational depth but this will take a few more years of good drafting which began under Feaster and will require patience from ownership, management, prospects and fans. It will also require ownership to spend more money on the AHL. Someone mentioned that the Heat lost 45 days of practice time a year by being out West; if they move to any other western city it will mean the same issue and the solution is spend more money on travel via a private charter and renting more practice facilities on the road.

Also to be more like the Red Wings you will also need to change the general way how you play the game. No more top two lines and then 3rd line and a 4th line that plays 4-6 minutes a game. I have and remain an advocate of rolling four lines; something I have never fully explained the why and how it would in my mind and maybe I will do so in the coming weeks.

It might be a good theme for the writers at FN to post how they would go about the rebuild of the organization and their philosophy of how the game should be played.

Avatar
#61 Walter White
April 18 2014, 07:40AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
4
props
Tenbrucelees wrote:

I'm not being funny here but I wouldn't mind seeing Burning sensation or someone similar write a column for this site. I think that a slight problem with FN is that there is a lot of similarity in the views of the writers (although it must be said that Lambert is definitely to the extreme end of the spectrum). Someone who writes well and can be a counterpoint to other writers on some of the fundamental issues would be a welcome addition in my view.

Like the great WW?

WW

Avatar
#62 ChinookArch
April 18 2014, 07:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
10
props
TheoForever wrote:

I agree that Regerh trade was not the start of rebuild. Flames were still operating under win now directive. Many people were calling for a rebuild, but that was unrealistic. Flames structure and prospect pool were not conducive for rebuild. Feaster understood the need for a rebuild but Ken King was happy with soldout building. Iginla was untouchable.

Feaster cleared cap and contract problems, hired scouts, reorganized Flames and improved development system. He changed poisonous and confrontational atmosphere present in the organization and created by Darryl The rebuild starts with Iginla trade .

Btw. The funny thing, common knowledge and running joke around the league was that flames were paying scouts that no longer attended games, it was true and went on for years.

Agreed, the Regehr trade was not the start of a rebuild for the Flames. Yes, Feaster fixed a number of long time issues with the Flames (scouting, the farm system, management, etc.), but those changes simple don't constitute a re-build. A Re-tool maybe.

Feaster himself would not and has not called this trade the start of the rebuild. "It's not a case where we were looking to unload Robyn," Feaster said during Saturday’s second round of the 2011 Entry Draft. "Robyn has been a tremendous hockey player for our club and has been there for a very long time. It's difficult when you move a guy that is a core player." . . . "We have been in salary-cap jail for some time," Feaster said. "This gives us the opportunity to have some room and get a fresh start and, at the same time, to get younger and bring in two younger players. We think both guys are going to play. (http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=567189)

BS may have forgotten that on the same day Regehr was traded, Feaster signed Alex Tanguay to a new 5-year contract. It's fine to characterize these trades as part of a Flames retool phase, a new direction or new philosophy, but calling it the first step of a rebuild is just revisionist history.

On the Tanguay singing Feaster said, "He's going to be with us for a long time," Feaster said of Tanguay. "I think that the guy with the biggest smile today in Calgary ... isn't Alex, it's Jarome Iginla. Because that's one guy that Jarome has made very clear he very much wants back and he wants to be able to play with." http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/41041-Calgary-Flames-trade-Regehr-resign-Tanguay-on-Day-2-of-NHL-draft.html

Avatar
#63 coachedpotatoe
April 18 2014, 08:51AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
0
props

@Walter White

WW: I would love to hear your view of how the organization should proceed. This is an invitation for all of us to do so, we don't really need the columnists for this. By the way I just trolled Oilersnation and they had a site called make the call, it was an interesting read. Maybe we could call ours Be the GM.

Avatar
#64 Alt
April 18 2014, 09:36AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props
TRAV wrote:

I always look forward to LAmbert's articles because they are fun to read. It's a bit like watching Don Cherry. Lots of things I would classify as "hot air" but I enjoy the show. It's entertaining. ( as is the usual back and forth in the comment section)

An article suggestion for Lambert would be rather than pointing out what the Flames have done wrong I would like to see his path for how they should rebuild. Perhaps 5 things--"Rebuilding the Right way".

I may be in the minority here but I also dislike the name calling. Hate the viewpoints not the person.

Do you also dislike the name calling by Yer ol buddy Claptrap Lambert?

Did you also enjoy watching the school bully do his thing, and hated it when someone tuned him in.

Avatar
#65 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 09:40AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
4
props

@coachedpotatoe

@chinookarch

et al.

Go back and look at each of Feaster's moves starting with the Regehr trade.

Yes, it was to get us out of salary cap hell (which was necessary), but every deal Feaster made - every - single - deal - made the Flames younger and or brought back picks.

The two most obvious trades to look at involve 'core' pieces;

Regehr brought us; cap space, Byron, Butler

Bourque brought in; Cammalleri (younger), and Ramo. etc.

But it isn't just his trades that give away what Feaster was doing, all along he was shedding salary, adding youth, and adding draft picks. Roster turnover accelerated markedly under his reign, reaching a sort of peak two years ago when he iced an entirely new 2nd line of players (Hudler, the KHL guy, Sven - who he drafted) to start the season.

Now, do I believe he was under orders to make the playoffs? Yes.

But I also think he was tasked with rebuilding the club 'on the fly', and we are reaping the rewards of his project now.

Avatar
#66 Walter White
April 18 2014, 09:57AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
5
props
Tenbrucelees wrote:

I'm not being funny here but I wouldn't mind seeing Burning sensation or someone similar write a column for this site. I think that a slight problem with FN is that there is a lot of similarity in the views of the writers (although it must be said that Lambert is definitely to the extreme end of the spectrum). Someone who writes well and can be a counterpoint to other writers on some of the fundamental issues would be a welcome addition in my view.

Anyone but "Burning sensation"; I think he is from LETHBRIDGE!!!!!!............................OOOPS, was that "racist" of me? Calling him from LETHBRIDGE??? Kind of like calling someone an "American".....

Sorry, won't happen again!

WW

Avatar
#67 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 10:02AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

@coachedpotatoe

"It also could be considered a failure because we did not finish last overall and win the lottery and have the choice of the draft."

I have to disagree. Finishing last is total, abject, failure.

Getting 'rewarded' with a higher pick because of the lottery is NOT a victory, it's turd polish.

Avatar
#68 Walter White
April 18 2014, 10:10AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
1
props
BurningSensation wrote:

"It also could be considered a failure because we did not finish last overall and win the lottery and have the choice of the draft."

I have to disagree. Finishing last is total, abject, failure.

Getting 'rewarded' with a higher pick because of the lottery is NOT a victory, it's turd polish.

Please quit referring to people from "Poland" as "turd polish"......that is very racist of you!!!

"Finish last" is offensive to people from Finland as well............

You would do well by watching "Anchorman 2" for some sensitivity training......

WW

Avatar
#69 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 10:11AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
7
props
Walter White wrote:

Please quit referring to people from "Poland" as "turd polish"......that is very racist of you!!!

"Finish last" is offensive to people from Finland as well............

You would do well by watching "Anchorman 2" for some sensitivity training......

WW

What this site really needs is an 'ignore' button.

Avatar
#70 Jeff Lebowski
April 18 2014, 10:39AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
10
props

The notion that it is somehow better to have saved 1 RFA compared to the gains Monahan made in his game in his rookie year are...well stupid.

The thinking that had Calgary waited, brought him in the following year and his progression would have AT LEAST been the same (and definitely not worse) are comical.

The author picked that position and clinged to it in face of all the evidence in front of him.

If you counter with weak possession numbers, just stop. You can't use corsi to back up your points if the context and use of corsi is not taken as law or indisputable. It's your theory. You back up your theory with more use of your theory. not admissable. analytics have use, just not yours and not in the context of a first time player. the number does not allow for inexperienced to experienced progression, it treats all players as the same. blah.

Monahan grew this year. 20+ goals as a teenager in the NHL. Rarified air. Take your corsi and shove it, if you think that is not achievement. Were there times when he was outplayed? Yup. Glad for it. Now he knows what to improve upon. Kids learn. Had he been returned to OHL and played well would he have been invited to Worlds? Are you sure? What is certain is he's going now. Why? Because he played great in the NHL. Now his learning continues in an elite competition against men. Savvy experienced, advanced in their games, men. What doors will this open for Monahan? How anyone can argue it was wrong to have him up...1 RFA year compared to superior growth. No wonder the author writes the way he writes.

That he proved to himself that he can score consistently in this league is something that can not be taken away. It's a building block from which he will keep ascending.

The author was wrong initially, wrong throughout the season and wrong again now in 'thinking' he knew better. He doesn't. In fact, there is very little he knows.

Avatar
#71 TheoForever
April 18 2014, 10:42AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
0
props

I often agree with BurningSensation but here... Example: Hitler rebuilds German economy and military vs Feaster rebuilds flames org. (not WW2) Hitler annexes Sudetenland vs Feaster trades Regerh (not WW2) Hitler attacks Poland vs Feaster trades Iginla (start of WW2 and Flames rebuild)

Avatar
#72 Kevin R
April 18 2014, 10:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
6
props
BurningSensation wrote:

@chinookarch

et al.

Go back and look at each of Feaster's moves starting with the Regehr trade.

Yes, it was to get us out of salary cap hell (which was necessary), but every deal Feaster made - every - single - deal - made the Flames younger and or brought back picks.

The two most obvious trades to look at involve 'core' pieces;

Regehr brought us; cap space, Byron, Butler

Bourque brought in; Cammalleri (younger), and Ramo. etc.

But it isn't just his trades that give away what Feaster was doing, all along he was shedding salary, adding youth, and adding draft picks. Roster turnover accelerated markedly under his reign, reaching a sort of peak two years ago when he iced an entirely new 2nd line of players (Hudler, the KHL guy, Sven - who he drafted) to start the season.

Now, do I believe he was under orders to make the playoffs? Yes.

But I also think he was tasked with rebuilding the club 'on the fly', and we are reaping the rewards of his project now.

Again I have to disagree. There is a big difference between tear down/rebuild & retool on the fly. The retool accomplished what Feaster had said, getting younger & shedding salary. In fact, that is the only way it can be done & accomplish both objectives, so don't misconstrue that for rebuild. Now if Feaster was on the same mission as you say, rebuild on the fly, why in God's name wouldn't he of traded JBO to Detroit for Nyquist & Tatar as per Bob Mackenzie of the Detroit deal on the table? He at that point knew that the retool was not going to work & the "official" rebuild was to jettison the core players. Getting 1st round picks was all he fixated on. If Mackenzie found out that offer was on the table, I am sure Burke did as well & became on of the reasons he let him go. I think Porrier is going to be a good one, but OMG, Nyquist & Tatar. FFS! That's how you speed up a rebuild.

Avatar
#73 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 11:06AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
1
props
TheoForever wrote:

I often agree with BurningSensation but here... Example: Hitler rebuilds German economy and military vs Feaster rebuilds flames org. (not WW2) Hitler annexes Sudetenland vs Feaster trades Regerh (not WW2) Hitler attacks Poland vs Feaster trades Iginla (start of WW2 and Flames rebuild)

I think part of the problem is that the word 'rebuild' is defined rather arbitrarily.

For me, a 'rebuild' is taking place when you are changing the core of your team.

Lets take a look at Edmonton. How many 'rebuilds' have they been through the last 10 years? 1? 2? 3? I recall when the new 'core' was goiing to be; Cogliano, Gagner, and Nilsson. Now, two of those three are gone (Gagner is on his way out), and the ' new-new core' is The Nuge, Hall, Eberle, Yak and Jultz. What we can all agree on though is that for the last decade the Oilers have appeared to be 'rebuilding' (the 6? coaches in 7 years is also a giveaway).

Here's the thing, under Sutter I think we can all agree the team was NOT rebuilding. They consistently added vets, dealt away draft picks, and rarely broke in rookies.

Under Feaster, we have the reverse. They consistently dealt away vets, added draft picks and broke in a bunch of rookies.

If Sutter is NOT a rebuild, and Feaster is doing the polar opposite of what Sutter was doing, logic would suggest Feaster was doing a rebuild.

Part of the problem in reaching a definition, is that the popular sense of what rebuild looks like is the Edmonton template. Deliberate, and prolonged losing with the (unstated) goal of adding elite talent at the draft.

Except that ignores what teams like Ottawa, Detroit, San Jose, and Philly do. Sure, they may bottom out once a decade and pick in the top 5, but it isn't something they do year after year after year to 'rebuild' their team.

In particular, consider Ottawa. They first 'built' their expansion team around spare parts like Dusty Rhodes, and Norm Macivor. Then they added Alfredsson and Hossa at the draft, and built the team around them. Eventually they added Spezza at the draft, traded Hossa for Heatley and a new (much more powerful) team emerged in Ottawa. Then they moved on from Heatley, added Karlsson at the draft, and yet another new Sens team took form.

In each instance where they added or removed a major core piece you could argue (and I would) that the team was 'rebuilding'.

There is no reason (at all) that a team can't change it's core and still be trying to win. One of the biggest problems I have with Lambert is that he is stuck in this notion that a 'rebuild' HAS to be the kind Edmonton does - when it seems clear to me that what Edmonton is doing is actually the worst possible thing to do.

Avatar
#74 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 11:21AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
2
props
Kevin R wrote:

Again I have to disagree. There is a big difference between tear down/rebuild & retool on the fly. The retool accomplished what Feaster had said, getting younger & shedding salary. In fact, that is the only way it can be done & accomplish both objectives, so don't misconstrue that for rebuild. Now if Feaster was on the same mission as you say, rebuild on the fly, why in God's name wouldn't he of traded JBO to Detroit for Nyquist & Tatar as per Bob Mackenzie of the Detroit deal on the table? He at that point knew that the retool was not going to work & the "official" rebuild was to jettison the core players. Getting 1st round picks was all he fixated on. If Mackenzie found out that offer was on the table, I am sure Burke did as well & became on of the reasons he let him go. I think Porrier is going to be a good one, but OMG, Nyquist & Tatar. FFS! That's how you speed up a rebuild.

Ok, first things first, that rumoured Detroit deal (as I recall) was; Jarnkrok, Ouellet and a 2nd, not Tatar and Nyqvist.

Second, defining a 'rebuid' is a philosophical problem not unlike the famous 'Boat' problem.

You have a boat. Over time, you effect repairs on it, and gradually replace those parts that wear out or are no longer up to grade. Eventually you realize that every single plank on the boat is different from the original boat you started with.

The philosophical problem is 'is it the same boat', but in our case it is, 'when did the rebuild of the boat start'?

Look at it this way, when Feaster was brought on board the Flames core was;

Iggy, Kipper, J-Bo, and Regehr.

When Feaster left all four of those players were gone.

In their place are a raft of prospects and young players; Monahan, Granlund, JG, Sven, Wotherspoon, Knight, Poirier, Klimchuk, etc. Players who we all hope will grow to become our 'new core' - and ALL of whom were procured under Feaster. In fact, the only players likely to be part of our new core that aren't Feaster related are those we pick this year (5 picks in the first 3 rounds - most of which come from Feaster deals).

So tell me again how Feaster didn't 'rebuild' the Flames, and just 'retooled' them.

Avatar
#75 ChinookArch
April 18 2014, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
8
props

@BurningSensation

In the end your at least right about the problem being the word rebuild. For me re-tooling is moving a team in the same direction, but changing a few parts over a longer time (regardless of how big or small the part is). Re-building is a true overhaul, and understanding that the team will be worse before it gets better.

With the above in mind, Trading Regehr to free up cap space, and then re-signing Tanguay for more salary and tenure is definitely a Retool.

Avatar
#76 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 11:48AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
0
props

@ChinookArch

Using your own definition, "For me re-tooling is moving a team in the same direction, but changing a few parts over a longer time (regardless of how big or small the part is). Re-building is a true overhaul, and understanding that the team will be worse before it gets better.", I'd argue that the direction the Flames took under Feaster was obviously different from the direction under Sutter.

I'd also argue then (on your definition) that the Flames are not rebuilding at all, but simply retooling.

There does not appear to me to be any appetite among Flames brass or ownership to do a full 'tear-down' of the team with the intent of wandering in the wilderness for a half decade or more trying to 'rebuild' from scratch. Thank goodness. That way lies madness.

IMO, the 'rebuild' started when Feaster ejected Regehr from the core, and embarked upon changing the core of the team. Everything since the Regehr trade looks like evidence to me of a team rebuilding.

You (and others, I am having trouble keeping track) have mentioned the Tanguay signing as evidence they weren't rebuilding.

But re-signing an asset (even an older one) to a reasonable deal is neutral, it is not 'adding a vet for a playoff push', but it is also not 'dumping a vet for cap space/prospects/picks'. It preserved Tanguay as an asset, an asset that was later transformed into the (much younger and healthier) David Jones, so I wouldn;t look at the re-signing of an existing FA as indicative of anything.

But I would look at what Tanguay was traded for as a sign of what the Flames are doing.

Avatar
#77 ChinookArch
April 18 2014, 12:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
4
props

@BurningSensation

Before and after the Regehr trade, Feaster said it was re-tooling and vehemently objected to using the word Re-Build.

Tanguay was signed for Iginla's benefit (and a playoff push). Iginla made it clear he didn't want to be part of a rebuild many times before and after Regehr was traded.

It's impossible to push and pull at the same time. The Flames were pushing for a playoff appearance when the re-upped Tanguay, in an effort to make the playoffs, otherwise they let him walk or provide a much smaller term to him. Signing him long term was a reflection that they wanted him around long term. In the end, Feaster had to make a bad trade to unload that ugly contract.

The Rebuild truly began with the Iginla trade.

Avatar
#78 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 12:15PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@ChinookArch

"It's impossible to push and pull at the same time. The Flames were pushing for a playoff appearance when the re-upped Tanguay, in an effort to make the playoffs, otherwise they let him walk or provide a much smaller term to him."

I think this is the rub, as I do believe you can rebuild/retool at the same time as you try to make the playoffs. Lots of existing examples of teams that change their core over time and still remain competitive.

When Iggy was dealt, he was the LAST of the core to be traded away. Feaster had already moved (or allowed to retire) the other members of the group.

Look, every team changes year over year, even the Cup winning teams. As such, it is fair to say that ALL teams 'retool' year over year. What distinguishes a 'retool' from a 'rebuild' is whether or not the core players are being moved. If you are only moving pieces at the margins, you are retooling. If you are flipping a core player (for anything) you are 'rebuilding'.

If you are trading all your vets, and expecting your teenagers to lead you to the promised land you are doing a 'scorched Earth rebuild', and are likely living in Edmonton.

My disagreement with you is over when a retool is a rebuild - which is fair enough. My disagreement with Lambert is that he consistently pushes for the Edmonton style 'rebuild' under the assumption (which is in error) that this is how teams are supposed to 'rebuild'.

Avatar
#79 Kevin R
April 18 2014, 12:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
5
props
BurningSensation wrote:

Ok, first things first, that rumoured Detroit deal (as I recall) was; Jarnkrok, Ouellet and a 2nd, not Tatar and Nyqvist.

Second, defining a 'rebuid' is a philosophical problem not unlike the famous 'Boat' problem.

You have a boat. Over time, you effect repairs on it, and gradually replace those parts that wear out or are no longer up to grade. Eventually you realize that every single plank on the boat is different from the original boat you started with.

The philosophical problem is 'is it the same boat', but in our case it is, 'when did the rebuild of the boat start'?

Look at it this way, when Feaster was brought on board the Flames core was;

Iggy, Kipper, J-Bo, and Regehr.

When Feaster left all four of those players were gone.

In their place are a raft of prospects and young players; Monahan, Granlund, JG, Sven, Wotherspoon, Knight, Poirier, Klimchuk, etc. Players who we all hope will grow to become our 'new core' - and ALL of whom were procured under Feaster. In fact, the only players likely to be part of our new core that aren't Feaster related are those we pick this year (5 picks in the first 3 rounds - most of which come from Feaster deals).

So tell me again how Feaster didn't 'rebuild' the Flames, and just 'retooled' them.

Teams trade core players & not rebuild. Just because Feaster traded one of our cores in Regehr was not in the name of a rebuild. There are many reasons why teams trade core players, case in point Philly trading Carter & Richards. Not sure I would categorize that as a rebuild. It was shaking up a core that may have gone stale or something was wrong.

Give me a break, you cant equate the Regehr trade 2 years earlier with the wrecking ball Feaster did at the 2013 TDL. You trying to say that was Feasters master plan? Poppycock.

Also, the Nyquist & Tatar deal was confirmed by Bob Mackenzie & you can say what rumours you want, but the man wouldn't say that on the hockey panel if there wasn't any validity to it. I put a lot more credibility in that source. The players mentioned above, Poirier & Klimchuk were a result of the "actual rebuild". The other players & Monahan were ours & results of good drafting, not rebuilding, so don't go there. Take out Porrier ( we cant assume he would have been there for the Iggy 1st rounder we got) & then inject Nyquist & Tatar & we got ourselves a pretty nice NHL ready forward group going into next year. In fact, if that were to have happened, I would agree with you that Feaster was rolling out his retool plan from the Regehr trade & the pending UFA status to Iggy & retirement of Kipper were inevitable.

Avatar
#80 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 12:42PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

Teams trade core players & not rebuild. Just because Feaster traded one of our cores in Regehr was not in the name of a rebuild. There are many reasons why teams trade core players, case in point Philly trading Carter & Richards. Not sure I would categorize that as a rebuild. It was shaking up a core that may have gone stale or something was wrong.

Give me a break, you cant equate the Regehr trade 2 years earlier with the wrecking ball Feaster did at the 2013 TDL. You trying to say that was Feasters master plan? Poppycock.

Also, the Nyquist & Tatar deal was confirmed by Bob Mackenzie & you can say what rumours you want, but the man wouldn't say that on the hockey panel if there wasn't any validity to it. I put a lot more credibility in that source. The players mentioned above, Poirier & Klimchuk were a result of the "actual rebuild". The other players & Monahan were ours & results of good drafting, not rebuilding, so don't go there. Take out Porrier ( we cant assume he would have been there for the Iggy 1st rounder we got) & then inject Nyquist & Tatar & we got ourselves a pretty nice NHL ready forward group going into next year. In fact, if that were to have happened, I would agree with you that Feaster was rolling out his retool plan from the Regehr trade & the pending UFA status to Iggy & retirement of Kipper were inevitable.

That is exactly what I am saying. So long as the Flames were competitive for a playoff spot J-Bo and Iggy wanted to be a part of it. The moment in 2013 that the Flames were clearly not going to make it to the big dance Feaster (some will say 'finally') went to them and got permission to deal them (NMCs and al).

As for the Detroit deal, I'll say this. Yes, I think Mackenzie is awesome and wouldn't put something out that he didn't think was true. But I didn't see a tweet, post, or interview where he said what you say he did (whereas I did see Jrnkrok/Ouellet and a 2nd as being the likely offer). I also didn't see anything official from either team about the proposed deal looks like, except that the Flames were fixed on getting a first in any deal for J-Bo. Any way you cut it, you can't make a mountain out of one proposed deal that fell through.

So, I'll repeat myself, the Flames started under Feaster as one of the oldest teams in the league with a veteran heavy lineup, and an aging core of Iggy, J-Bo, Regehr, Bourque, and Kipprusoff.

By the time Feaster left they were all gone, and in their place was a raft of young prospects and players for the team to build around.

Pretty much the definition of a rebuild.

Avatar
#81 JJ
April 18 2014, 01:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
7
props

@BurningSensation

I don't think anyone is trying to argue with you that Feaster didn't leave the team in a rebuilding state. It's your assertion that the rebuild started in 2011 that doesn't make sense. If we were rebuilding Feaster would not have given Buffalo a 2nd to take Kotalik off out hands so that we could re-sign a 32 year Tanguay and throw 9 years and 60ish million at a 31 year old Brad Richards a week later. Normally I don't like to comment on stuff that didn't happen, but I think it was pretty common knowledge that we outbid the Rangers for him and he choose them for personal reasons. The Regehr trade was clearly a salary dump done to try and give the team cap flexibility to win in whatever window they thought they had left with Iggy, JBo, and Kipper.

Not really sure the Bourque trade works as evidence of rebuilding either. Cammy is only 1 year younger and we gave up another 2nd and a prospect in the deal. Looks like another move trying to get them in the playoffs in 2012 (although he gets props for losing a bad contract in Bourque).

Anyways, agree with most of your original post but you're missing a huge distinction in the types of moves Feaster was making pre and post 2013

Avatar
#82 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 01:45PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
1
props
JJ wrote:

I don't think anyone is trying to argue with you that Feaster didn't leave the team in a rebuilding state. It's your assertion that the rebuild started in 2011 that doesn't make sense. If we were rebuilding Feaster would not have given Buffalo a 2nd to take Kotalik off out hands so that we could re-sign a 32 year Tanguay and throw 9 years and 60ish million at a 31 year old Brad Richards a week later. Normally I don't like to comment on stuff that didn't happen, but I think it was pretty common knowledge that we outbid the Rangers for him and he choose them for personal reasons. The Regehr trade was clearly a salary dump done to try and give the team cap flexibility to win in whatever window they thought they had left with Iggy, JBo, and Kipper.

Not really sure the Bourque trade works as evidence of rebuilding either. Cammy is only 1 year younger and we gave up another 2nd and a prospect in the deal. Looks like another move trying to get them in the playoffs in 2012 (although he gets props for losing a bad contract in Bourque).

Anyways, agree with most of your original post but you're missing a huge distinction in the types of moves Feaster was making pre and post 2013

Someone above (coachedpotatoe?) suggested that a team 'can't suck and blow at the same time', but I believe that is exactly what Feaster was tasked with.

His job (as impossible as it was) was to get the Flames into the playoffs AND to rebuild the franchise.

Remember that Sutter had all but destroyed our farm system (it's a telling point that of all Sutter's picks TJ Brodie is the only one still around, ,though Ferland may yet make an apperance), and that there was a HUGE gap on the team for players in the 22-27 age range (most of our team was older). Also recall that we were in the worst cap-hell any NHL team has ever been in (so bad we couldn't ice a full lineup some nights).

So, Feaster made some moves, and in each and every case the players we got back were younger than those we gave up. Yes, the Regehr deal was about cap-space (and about getting cheap youngsters Butler and Byron), but it was also a signal that major changes were taking place under Feaster, the kinds of changes Sutter was never going to make.

I argued (and did so at the time, here on this site) that we were in a 'slow-motion rebuild', where Feaster would change the core while remaining competitive for a playoff spot. I stand by that.

Dating the start of the rebuild to when the last of the core are moved out misses the previous 3.5 years of work Feaster had done rebuilding the team.

Avatar
#83 coachedpotatoe
April 18 2014, 02:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

"It also could be considered a failure because we did not finish last overall and win the lottery and have the choice of the draft."

I have to disagree. Finishing last is total, abject, failure.

Getting 'rewarded' with a higher pick because of the lottery is NOT a victory, it's turd polish.

I think I did a poor job of explaining what I meant, so I will try and do a better job this time. As you recall I was trying to support Lambert's position about the season being a total failure (both Hartley and Burke said that missing the playoffs was a failure); Lambert's position I believe is that not winning the lottery is a failure, my response was meant to imply that I don't see a big difference between 1-4 in the draft based upon what the various scouting services and experts say, so for me it's not big deal. Any of those top 3 forwards help to move the organization forward as would Ekbald. I actually saw lots of progress this year and like the direction of the organization. Most of what you have said I agree with. Officially the rebuild began with the Iggy trade, the work for preparing the rebuild began with the trade to Buffalo and much of that work was done at the draft table, If you look at the prospects in this organization how many came directly from trades versus how many came from the draft(yes some of the picks came from trades but the choice of whom to pick came from within)and the scouts and Management did a very good job over those few years.

Avatar
#84 suba steve
April 18 2014, 02:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
5
props

@BurningSensation

Backlund was also a Sutter era pick, though not a typical "Sutter style" pick.

Also Arnold and Bouma.

Avatar
#85 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 02:18PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props
suba steve wrote:

Backlund was also a Sutter era pick, though not a typical "Sutter style" pick.

Also Arnold and Bouma.

Yeah, as soon as I posted it I thought of Backlund. Nice catch on Arnold (who I thought was a Feaster pick, but isn't) and Bouma.

Avatar
#86 BurningSensation
April 18 2014, 02:22PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
1
props
coachedpotatoe wrote:

I think I did a poor job of explaining what I meant, so I will try and do a better job this time. As you recall I was trying to support Lambert's position about the season being a total failure (both Hartley and Burke said that missing the playoffs was a failure); Lambert's position I believe is that not winning the lottery is a failure, my response was meant to imply that I don't see a big difference between 1-4 in the draft based upon what the various scouting services and experts say, so for me it's not big deal. Any of those top 3 forwards help to move the organization forward as would Ekbald. I actually saw lots of progress this year and like the direction of the organization. Most of what you have said I agree with. Officially the rebuild began with the Iggy trade, the work for preparing the rebuild began with the trade to Buffalo and much of that work was done at the draft table, If you look at the prospects in this organization how many came directly from trades versus how many came from the draft(yes some of the picks came from trades but the choice of whom to pick came from within)and the scouts and Management did a very good job over those few years.

I'm not sure I disagree with much of the above, other than 'officially the rebuild began...'.

It's that specific point I find so irritating. Feaster literally cleaned house in his four years at the helm, but the 'official' version suggests that it was only a rebuild when the last of the core was dealt.

Drives me nuts.

Avatar
#87 suba steve
April 18 2014, 02:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
4
props

I think it is likely that Feaster looked into the possibility of a full rebuild early in his tenure, but ownership wasn't in that frame of mind yet. So he continued to try to "go for it" with the Richards offer and Tangs re-sign. But he did not move a lot of draft picks, and his revised scouting staff began the re-build at the draft.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter when the re-build began. The only time I need to know for sure is, what date/time is the Cup parade?

Avatar
#88 coachedpotatoe
April 18 2014, 02:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
BurningSensation wrote:

I'm not sure I disagree with much of the above, other than 'officially the rebuild began...'.

It's that specific point I find so irritating. Feaster literally cleaned house in his four years at the helm, but the 'official' version suggests that it was only a rebuild when the last of the core was dealt.

Drives me nuts.

I think that in many ways it about terminology not actual difference of opinions. You used the repairing the boat analogy but I think it's more like a reno project(like the one I'm avoiding in my half bathroom)you start with replacing the sink and eventually you have redone the whole bathroom. Not what you meant to do but what was done anyways. I think Feaster did have his eye on the future when he made the trade to Buffalo but the people above him still only wanted the sink changed. For me it's not something to get to frustrated with.

What bothers me is that I am not sure Feaster and crew get enough credit for the direction this club is on and the fact that it might not take as long to become legitimately competitive again. There is a chance that this team with the right additional moves could be back in the playoff race next year and if nothing major is done in two years.Not the that many predicted.

Avatar
#89 dotfras
April 18 2014, 02:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
4
props

How good does that Bourque/2nd(**Fucale)/Holland for Cam/Ramo/5th(Culkin) look in retrospect!? Even if Feaster wasn't intentionally rebuilding at that point, the man did good on that one.

Does anyone really think Monahan would have benefitted another year in the OHL? Is there any evidence to support players who go back an extra year & it's benefit? I'd be interested in seeing that side of the argument from a statistical point of view.

Avatar
#90 coachedpotatoe
April 18 2014, 03:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props
BurningSensation wrote:

Yeah, as soon as I posted it I thought of Backlund. Nice catch on Arnold (who I thought was a Feaster pick, but isn't) and Bouma.

Currently there are 8 of Sutters draft picks in the Flames organization. I don't think any of them are between 27-30 which is area on this team that is missing, veteran skilled forwards entering their prime.

Avatar
#91 TRAV
April 18 2014, 03:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
5
props
Alt wrote:

Do you also dislike the name calling by Yer ol buddy Claptrap Lambert?

Did you also enjoy watching the school bully do his thing, and hated it when someone tuned him in.

Hmm your response puzzles me a little bit. I have found Lambert to be negative and sometimes misguided in his assessments but I don't recall him making personal attacks on people. (It's possible I am mistaken). I really don't mind him articulating how awful he thinks the flames are and how terrible he thinks management is. Mostly I view it as a ploy to get a rise out of readers. While I disagree about his opinions on the hockey team I don't think that this justifies me degrading him as a person. Those are his views on a hockey club. In the scope of things while t may not agree with him or I may not care for his style of writing I'm not sure it gives me license to attack his character etc.. Nonetheless it is a blog and I respect that people have a certain amount of freedom to do as they like. I'm just saying that I prefer attacks on hockey opinions not people.

Mr.Lambert and I have never met and so no we are not ol buddies...

Avatar
#92 TheoForever
April 18 2014, 03:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

@dotfras

Habs picked Fucale with our pick. I remember idiots at HFB saying stupid things like Flames had a bad draft because they didn't pick that goalie and failed to take Shinkaruk. They knew nothing about our goalie prospects and were repeating nonsense.

Avatar
#93 dotfras
April 18 2014, 03:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@TheoForever

Oh whoops, don't know why I had that confused.

Still a great move by Feaster.

And re: Shinkaruk - he was highly touted but glad we didn't take him. Poirier had a great year while Shinkaruk lost a huge chunk of his year to a Hip Injury/Subsequent Surgery.

Avatar
#94 Michael R
April 18 2014, 06:06PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props

@BurningSensation

"a team 'can't suck and blow at the same time"

Cmon I think we all know the Oilers have shown us that it is VERY possible to suck and blow at the same time ;)

"Also recall that we were in the worst cap-hell any NHL team has ever been in (so bad we couldn't ice a full lineup some nights)"

That was a good 2 years before the Regehr trade and likely had no impact on it.

"I argued (and did so at the time, here on this site) that we were in a 'slow-motion rebuild', where Feaster would change the core while remaining competitive for a playoff spot. I stand by that.

Dating the start of the rebuild to when the last of the core are moved out misses the previous 3.5 years of work Feaster had done rebuilding the team."

Not sure where you're getting 3.5 years from unless you're including the Phaneuf trade under Sutter in your "rebuild". If you were arguing that the Regehr trade was a positive rebuilding move you woulda been the only one

http://flamesnation.ca/2011/6/24/robyn-regehr-traded-for-real-this-time/page/1#comments

The reaction is pretty hilarious

But yeah as others have pointed out, you're making it sound like Feaster gradually moved out pieces of the core over time, adding picks and prospects. Not really. Cap troubles forced him to move one, then he shuffled around secondary players for the next two years. Finally, when the bottom really fell out on the flames last year he FINALLY got permission to start a true rebuild and moved (or attempted to move) the flames remaining core players Iginla, Bouwmeester, Kipper and Comeau (jk lol).

But I agree with Suba Steve...who cares when it started, I'm waaaay more interested in when the rebuild finishes!

Avatar
#95 Alt
April 18 2014, 09:04PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props
TRAV wrote:

Hmm your response puzzles me a little bit. I have found Lambert to be negative and sometimes misguided in his assessments but I don't recall him making personal attacks on people. (It's possible I am mistaken). I really don't mind him articulating how awful he thinks the flames are and how terrible he thinks management is. Mostly I view it as a ploy to get a rise out of readers. While I disagree about his opinions on the hockey team I don't think that this justifies me degrading him as a person. Those are his views on a hockey club. In the scope of things while t may not agree with him or I may not care for his style of writing I'm not sure it gives me license to attack his character etc.. Nonetheless it is a blog and I respect that people have a certain amount of freedom to do as they like. I'm just saying that I prefer attacks on hockey opinions not people.

Mr.Lambert and I have never met and so no we are not ol buddies...

You are absolutely right Trav.Got to stop reading his posts.

Avatar
#96 Justin Azevedo
April 19 2014, 06:35PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
3
props
Walter White wrote:

I think young Justin learned a lesson about trying to be the moral authority.......(leave that to the great thinkers like WW Instead.....)

No one is happier than Justin that the next article was posted........

This "banning" thing is getting out of hand too......kind of a "lord of the flies" thing! (Google it Justin.......)

WW

lol give me a break, bud. I am the moral authority, whether you like it or not. this is our site, so you play by our rules - or else, yeah, the banhammer comes down.

Avatar
#97 suba steve
April 20 2014, 08:32AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props
Justin Azevedo wrote:

lol give me a break, bud. I am the moral authority, whether you like it or not. this is our site, so you play by our rules - or else, yeah, the banhammer comes down.

I agree with WW on this one, you're wielding this banhammer pretty freely the last little while, or at least threatening to. Disappointing to see in a site that a lot of us have come to enjoy. But if you're actually thinking like you are posting, then the little bit of power that you wield may be going to your head. Enjoy "your site", after you've banned all the readers/posters that make it worth visiting.

Avatar
#98 Justin Azevedo
April 20 2014, 09:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
5
props

@suba steve

I've been threatening banhammer because things are getting out of hand. clean up the comments, turn down the groupthink, and I'll have to come around less. weekend open thread is the perfect example. if you are coming to the site for the comments, you should go to a message board - the primary focus here is the articles because we spend a lot of time writing stuff and we hope that people will be respectful of our work. I don't think that's asking a lot. having people come into comment sections and attack me personally doesn't make me feel good.

Comments are closed for this article.