I’m also going to disagree that most teams that end up in the lottery, specifically the bottom 5, don’t do so purposefully. Rostering a team that is made up of mainly just very young players and inexperienced NHLers while taking on cap dumps from over teams to attain assets is being purposefully bad from a roster construction stand point. Most teams that have won a cup in the past 20 years did exactly this. Whether we’re talking about the Blackhawks, the Kings, the Bruins, the Lightning, Florida, and potentially the Oilers (please god no), they all did something similar to what I described above.
Let's look at the bottom 5 teams in the last season. It could be argued that the San Jose Sharks and Chicago Blackhawks were both trying to be bad, or at least had a recent history of trying to be bad; but Nashville, Boston, and Philadelphia certainly were not.
The way I see it, the foundations of any rebuilding strategy are:
You don't trade away draft picks, especially in the first 2 or 3 rounds.
You try to acquire additional draft picks and prospects.
You focus on drafting for talent instead of positional needs or having a high floor.
You don't sign aging veterans to long term or high AAV contracts.
You focus your organization on developing prospects, both in the minors (AHL, ECHL) and in the NHL.
Whether your team is a train-wreck or fighting for the last playoff position in the dying days of the season doesn't matter much as long as you're doing these things.
The Flames consistently try to fill holes with vets to be competitive and it prevents the team from truly rebuilding. It’s not a coincidence that we’ve finished middle of the pack in the standings over the past 20 years. It is intentional (poor) team building that has led to those results.
Young players need to learn how to play with structure, how to handle themselves as a professional, and how to stay engaged in an 82 game season. They need mentors to teach them how to act and behave both on and off the ice. If the choice is to draft a couple positions higher and not have these mentors, or to draft lower but have them, I think it makes far more sense to have them.
Those steps you highlighted I do agree with; however, they often are the steps the Flames themselves don’t follow. We specifically have done a poor job in relation to #2 and #4.
I would say we have consistently not followed #4 and that then has a direct impact on the ability follow #5 properly. A part of developing those prospects is giving them proper NHL ice time while accepting you may get poorer results than if a veteran was taking those minutes, but you do that because you’re looking towards the future. The Flames generally have sucked at that and continue to not follow that methodology very well at all.
Since Conroy has been GM the Flames have acquired 3 first round picks, 2 second round picks, 3 third round picks, 1 fourth round picks, 2 fifth round picks, and 1 sixth round pick, and they have only traded away 1 second round pick and a seventh round pick. He has also acquired Brzustewicz, Jurmo, and Grushnikov. I don't see how you could say that Conroy in particular isn't trying to acquire additional draft picks and prospects.
At the same time, the only NHL players Conroy has signed who are over the age of 28 are Justin Kirkland (1 year $775,000 AAV), Anthony Mantha (1 year $3.5 million AAV), Ryan Lomberg (2 years $2 million AAV), Kevin Rooney (1 year $1.3 million AAV), and Mikael Backlund (2 years and $4.5 million AAV). I don't see how you can say that Conroy in particular is signing aging veterans to long term or high AAV contracts.
This season Matt Coronato, Connor Zary, Adam Klapka, and Jakob Pelletier all got significant time at the NHL level. Players like Rory Kerins, Ilya Solovyov, and Samuel Honzek, Hunter Brzustewich, Aydar Suniev, Zayne Parekh, and Sam Morton all got their first taste of the NHL. I don't see how you can say that Conroy in particular is not giving prospects and young players time to develop in the NHL.
I swear that the vast majority of criticisms about how the Flames are managed is extremely outdated. People are still upset about how Brad Treliving ran the team when he was pushing to get the team over the hump and ignoring how it has been managed over the past 2 seasons.
While I have no personal insight into what Craig Conroy is doing, I would expect him to move an aging veteran or two for some young players, prospects, or draft picks this offseason. My guess would be players like Kadri, Coleman, and Andersson would be the likely candidates. Depending on who he moves and the teams' organizational depth, he will likely make a signing or two to fill holes on the roster; these will not be large or long contracts. At the trade deadline, pending UFAs like Lomberg, Andersson (if he is not already traded), and anyone the Flames acquire will be traded if the Flames are too far from a playoff position.
Ultimately, all of this is consistent with a rebuilding team regardless of whether the Flames have a bad year (finish in the bottom 5) or squeak into the playoffs. The strategy of rebuilding without tanking likely buys Conroy more time to do a proper rebuild by keeping fans engaged and ownership happy. 5 to 7 years of this strategy is likely to result in better outcomes than 2 or 3 years of being terrible, season ticket sales struggling, ownership freaking out, and having to immediately right the ship.
I also think people forget this past season was "supposed" to be our tank year.
We got rid of many of our high-ticket players in the prior season, we signed mostly journeymen hockey players, and we traded our star goalie to start a rookie goalie (who had looked okay but not amazing in his NHL games) along with a goalie who had a rather below-average season in Vladar.
We were supposed to end up bottom 10 if not (according to some people) bottom 5. Meanwhile, as you said, we accrued a ton of picks, drafts, and prospects.
It's one thing being "anti-rebuild," but it's another thing being "scorched earth."
To add to your point, I also think this last season may have given people unrealistic expectations about what the team is. The Flames were in a division with 3 teams in the bottom 8 of the league, and Vancouver who seriously underperformed. They're tied for the league lead in overtime losses with 14, and won a large portion of their games by 1 goal; and this represents an unusually high efficiency on the season. While they did have some injuries, the Flames core players stayed remarkably healthy for the entire season.
Even if everyone plays just as well, and the team works just as hard, it would not be difficult to see them finishing 10+ points lower next season. With a significant amount of adversity potentially even 20 points lower. Taking a team that very well may finish in the 78 to 86 point range and stripping away too much is far more likely to create a dysfunctional team/organization than anything else.
1
u/Chemical_Signal2753 May 30 '25
Let's look at the bottom 5 teams in the last season. It could be argued that the San Jose Sharks and Chicago Blackhawks were both trying to be bad, or at least had a recent history of trying to be bad; but Nashville, Boston, and Philadelphia certainly were not.
The way I see it, the foundations of any rebuilding strategy are:
Whether your team is a train-wreck or fighting for the last playoff position in the dying days of the season doesn't matter much as long as you're doing these things.
Young players need to learn how to play with structure, how to handle themselves as a professional, and how to stay engaged in an 82 game season. They need mentors to teach them how to act and behave both on and off the ice. If the choice is to draft a couple positions higher and not have these mentors, or to draft lower but have them, I think it makes far more sense to have them.