I thought this was a very revealing line and it is very concerning to me
zzKURUPTzz
This is why the Flames will never be champions đ€Ł
backchecklund
đ«
imaybeacatIRl
Always too good to pick 1st overall, and too bad to win it all. Sometimes you gotta do a rebuild.
I’m not suggesting that we need a rebuild right now, by any means, but c’mon.
SomeJerkOddball
I think it’s the right way to go in terms of the approach to this season. We’ll know by January if that idea needs to be revisited.
forty6andto
Bean is literally a bean counter from oil and gas. Murrays favourite kind of lackey. This guy shouldnât be running CSEC
X-Filer
Hot take. I hate rebuilds. Itâs bad for the sport. Would rather all teams try and be competitive each year instead of basement dwellers losing for picks. In a perfect world everyone tries and the worst loses and gets better through the draft
Wonderful-Ad-5577
Most Mid-team ever, even the Toronto Raptors won a championship before the flames and they held that title for the longest time. There never has been a real re-build and the Calgary Flames will stay âMidâ until that happens.
yeastneast
Surprised Jake Beanâs dad let that slip
iggyisgoat
This team is going nowhere until there’s a new owner
SpursCowboy
We are taking it too seriously. He later on talked about how they almost started a rebuild last summer.
JRP_964
Rebuilds can take a decade though and with guys like Huberdeau and Weeger signed long term I donât see it being viable anytime soon unless they ask to be traded which I doubt theyâll do
Scissors4215
No issue with saying âweâre not going to overreact hereâ. But then to say, âIâm never allowed to use the word rebuildâ shows that no matter how bleak things get, the flames ownership will never allow a proper rebuild. Thatâs why this team is doomed for mediocrity.
DawnOfTheSecondDay48
“We’re not going to overreact here” says organization scared of saying spooky word.
Chemical_Signal2753
I’m not a big fan of “rebuilds” as they are more likely to go wrong than lead to a dominant team. I looked it up a few days ago and most of the first overall draft picks since 2000 have not won a Stanley Cup, and a large portion of those that did didn’t win with the team that drafted them.
While easier said than done, I think teams are far better off looking at their entire system as an investment portfolio. It sounds cold to look at humans this way, but players are simply assets that can lose their value quickly. The goal is to have as few bad assets as possible, and potentially move assets if they hit their peak value.
What Treliving did last season was remarkable but it was also a situation that shouldn’t have been allowed to happen. A player leaving in their prime for nothing has a huge negative impact on the total value of the system. While you handle it in a professional way, and offer a fair contract, when a player is 1 year from their contract expiry you either re-sign them or trade them.
This season the Flames are in this situation with Lindholm, Hanafin, Backlund, Toffoli, Tanev, and Zadorov. It seems counterintuitive for a lot of people but even getting a bad return for these players is better than letting them walk for nothing. Obviously you don’t trade a player for a 7th round pick to avoid losing them in free agency, but if you can get a young player, good prospect, or first round draft pick, it is better to get that return that get 1 more season of a good player.
The other side of things is how you handle free agency. Often the best free agent signings are the players no one is excited about, and this is because they don’t end up having negative value by the end of the contract. Most players that sign for 3 years or less, for $3 million or less per year, are generally not going to excite a fan base; but these players are usually able to fill an important role on a team, don’t decline significantly by the end of their contract, and can be bought out if they do. When you sign a Kadri, Neal, Brouwer, or many other UFAs you’re paying someone for something they did for another team; and they will be a negative value on your balance sheet by the end of their contract.
Once again, easier said than done, but the Flames need to unload some of their liability off of their books. Huberdeau, Weegar, Kadri, Coleman, and (to a lesser extent) Markstrom are huge risks to have negative value by the end of their contracts. Coleman is probably an ideal trade candidate because he is coming off (arguably) his best season, has all the intangibles old school hockey guys love, and is the kind of guy many playoff teams are looking for. Giving Huberdeau, Weegar, Kadri, and Markstrom a season to bounce back hopefully improves their value, and you can evaluate whether you need to free up another player in the future.
Hungry-Raisin-5328
I interpreted it to mean that he can’t use the word because of its association with tanking. Cause teams aren’t technically allowed to tank, are they?
Grindio_X
These guys pretty much show how much of a Mickey Mouse organization the Flames are right now.
infinity_o
This Bean fellows response and the look of utter disappointed acceptance on Maloney’s face is really something.
This org is in trouble.
moirende
I have no idea how to run a team and maximize profits, but it seems to me like the Flames perhaps use a model where they always break even or better on the regular season alone as long as they sell enough season tickets.
I remember back in the Young Guns years where they werenât challenging for a playoff spot never mind going deep, and there were a lot of empty seats⊠getting decent season tickets was easy if you wanted them. In a salary cap era I bet thatâs a sure fire way to take huge losses.
Maybe theyâve crunched the numbers and prefer the near guaranteed revenues that come with being moderately competitive year in and year out vs the boom bust cycle of being top tier for awhile and then going through 5-10 years of a rebuildingâs heavy losses? That way they never lose their shirts and every now and again get a very nice bonus if the Flames luck out and go far. Sure, they donât set the world on fire, but they donât wind up having to sell or relocate when they get tired of losing money, either.
Just a thought anyway.
buddachickentml
YEEEEARS of mediocrity. Is mediocre a better word than rebuild?
[deleted]
[removed]
TheAnimal89
Personally I donât wanna see a rebuild because I donât actually think they work very well full tear downs seem to have a 50/50 chance if plunging your team into 10 years of hell
22 Comments
I thought this was a very revealing line and it is very concerning to me
This is why the Flames will never be champions đ€Ł
đ«
Always too good to pick 1st overall, and too bad to win it all. Sometimes you gotta do a rebuild.
I’m not suggesting that we need a rebuild right now, by any means, but c’mon.
I think it’s the right way to go in terms of the approach to this season. We’ll know by January if that idea needs to be revisited.
Bean is literally a bean counter from oil and gas. Murrays favourite kind of lackey. This guy shouldnât be running CSEC
Hot take. I hate rebuilds. Itâs bad for the sport. Would rather all teams try and be competitive each year instead of basement dwellers losing for picks. In a perfect world everyone tries and the worst loses and gets better through the draft
Most Mid-team ever, even the Toronto Raptors won a championship before the flames and they held that title for the longest time. There never has been a real re-build and the Calgary Flames will stay âMidâ until that happens.
Surprised Jake Beanâs dad let that slip
This team is going nowhere until there’s a new owner
We are taking it too seriously. He later on talked about how they almost started a rebuild last summer.
Rebuilds can take a decade though and with guys like Huberdeau and Weeger signed long term I donât see it being viable anytime soon unless they ask to be traded which I doubt theyâll do
No issue with saying âweâre not going to overreact hereâ. But then to say, âIâm never allowed to use the word rebuildâ shows that no matter how bleak things get, the flames ownership will never allow a proper rebuild. Thatâs why this team is doomed for mediocrity.
“We’re not going to overreact here” says organization scared of saying spooky word.
I’m not a big fan of “rebuilds” as they are more likely to go wrong than lead to a dominant team. I looked it up a few days ago and most of the first overall draft picks since 2000 have not won a Stanley Cup, and a large portion of those that did didn’t win with the team that drafted them.
While easier said than done, I think teams are far better off looking at their entire system as an investment portfolio. It sounds cold to look at humans this way, but players are simply assets that can lose their value quickly. The goal is to have as few bad assets as possible, and potentially move assets if they hit their peak value.
What Treliving did last season was remarkable but it was also a situation that shouldn’t have been allowed to happen. A player leaving in their prime for nothing has a huge negative impact on the total value of the system. While you handle it in a professional way, and offer a fair contract, when a player is 1 year from their contract expiry you either re-sign them or trade them.
This season the Flames are in this situation with Lindholm, Hanafin, Backlund, Toffoli, Tanev, and Zadorov. It seems counterintuitive for a lot of people but even getting a bad return for these players is better than letting them walk for nothing. Obviously you don’t trade a player for a 7th round pick to avoid losing them in free agency, but if you can get a young player, good prospect, or first round draft pick, it is better to get that return that get 1 more season of a good player.
The other side of things is how you handle free agency. Often the best free agent signings are the players no one is excited about, and this is because they don’t end up having negative value by the end of the contract. Most players that sign for 3 years or less, for $3 million or less per year, are generally not going to excite a fan base; but these players are usually able to fill an important role on a team, don’t decline significantly by the end of their contract, and can be bought out if they do. When you sign a Kadri, Neal, Brouwer, or many other UFAs you’re paying someone for something they did for another team; and they will be a negative value on your balance sheet by the end of their contract.
Once again, easier said than done, but the Flames need to unload some of their liability off of their books. Huberdeau, Weegar, Kadri, Coleman, and (to a lesser extent) Markstrom are huge risks to have negative value by the end of their contracts. Coleman is probably an ideal trade candidate because he is coming off (arguably) his best season, has all the intangibles old school hockey guys love, and is the kind of guy many playoff teams are looking for. Giving Huberdeau, Weegar, Kadri, and Markstrom a season to bounce back hopefully improves their value, and you can evaluate whether you need to free up another player in the future.
I interpreted it to mean that he can’t use the word because of its association with tanking. Cause teams aren’t technically allowed to tank, are they?
These guys pretty much show how much of a Mickey Mouse organization the Flames are right now.
This Bean fellows response and the look of utter disappointed acceptance on Maloney’s face is really something.
This org is in trouble.
I have no idea how to run a team and maximize profits, but it seems to me like the Flames perhaps use a model where they always break even or better on the regular season alone as long as they sell enough season tickets.
I remember back in the Young Guns years where they werenât challenging for a playoff spot never mind going deep, and there were a lot of empty seats⊠getting decent season tickets was easy if you wanted them. In a salary cap era I bet thatâs a sure fire way to take huge losses.
Maybe theyâve crunched the numbers and prefer the near guaranteed revenues that come with being moderately competitive year in and year out vs the boom bust cycle of being top tier for awhile and then going through 5-10 years of a rebuildingâs heavy losses? That way they never lose their shirts and every now and again get a very nice bonus if the Flames luck out and go far. Sure, they donât set the world on fire, but they donât wind up having to sell or relocate when they get tired of losing money, either.
Just a thought anyway.
YEEEEARS of mediocrity. Is mediocre a better word than rebuild?
[removed]
Personally I donât wanna see a rebuild because I donât actually think they work very well full tear downs seem to have a 50/50 chance if plunging your team into 10 years of hell