tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post1243504884908836142..comments2008-04-30T08:22:02.146-06:00Cucumbersliceshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525653363146168135noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-86567166743857433222008-04-30T08:22:00.000-06:002008-04-30T08:22:00.000-06:00"OK is not OK." This is the summation of my problem with the Flames post season. Sure, they exceeded expectations, but why were expectations so low on such a star studded roster?<BR/><BR/>I think you perfectly summed up the bulk of the Flames problems and my personal issues with the Franchise.therealdealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05825358966465275254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-18123256289166113452008-04-29T16:27:00.000-06:002008-04-29T16:27:00.000-06:00I'm in the "don't disagree with a word" camp, and you wonder how long it's going to be before Ken King thinks the same thing. Calgary seems to have what Toronto fans dream of, which is a GM who has complete control over hockey operations. But King's mistake has been to come out in public and basically say that Sutter is the god of hockey and can do no wrong. Everybody needs to feel like they should look over their shoulder at some point.duncanhttp://flamesblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-77815702928108741322008-04-29T11:39:00.000-06:002008-04-29T11:39:00.000-06:00<I>I know you and I have discussed this before, but this is exactly it.</I><BR/><BR/>Yup. I used that <A HREF="http://fiveholefanatics.blogspot.com/2007/10/taratukhin-speaks-out.html" REL="nofollow">previous post</A>/your comment as a kind of jumping off point for this one (and Im linking to it now to prove that the criticisms here aren't exclusively the progeny of hindsight).MetroGnomehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15679878875910837307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-42487502690573818862008-04-29T10:17:00.000-06:002008-04-29T10:17:00.000-06:00<I>You pay for the experience but the BEST he can do is play up to the value of his contract. Rookies are riskier in terms of the range and variance of their performance, but the gamble is accompanied by the attendant reward of a guy out-performing his salary. Which is gold in a capped environment.</I><BR/><BR/>I know you and I have discussed this before, but this is exactly it. Sutter's risk adverse propensity to stock the lineup with either guys he's coached previously, or "what you see is what you get" veterans is severely limiting this team's upside and is the principal reason why this team has gone out in the first round the last few seasons.<BR/><BR/>At some point Sutter is going to have to stop doing this and start taking some risks, because I don't think there will ever be a team that wins the Stanley Cup from now going forward that won't have a good handful of guys outplaying their contracts. <BR/><BR/>If Sutter's goal is to make sure that the team gets in the playoffs every year, then he has the right formula. If his goal is to win the Stanley Cup, then for God's sake, he has to start to take some chances on younger, less proven players, because he has to give the team exposure to the possibility that a good portion of the roster will be paid less than what they produce. That's never going to happen with guys like Smyth, Primeau, Amonte ect.McLeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09165834242136713347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-22969305460578172152008-04-28T20:58:00.000-06:002008-04-28T20:58:00.000-06:00Another outstanding analysis. Keep up the good work.<BR/><BR/>I really hope we can see Giordano in Flames colours next season.<BR/><BR/>The question I've been asking myself for the past few days is "what can be done to make this team better next year?" On paper, the core players should be enough to build around, but we haven't see that the past 3 seasons. <BR/><BR/>It seems like a gamble on cheap prospects (a la Edmonton or Nashville) on the 3rd and 4th lines could be a difference maker. Certainly expensive vets and former Sutter boys hasn't been. In that respect, perhaps the lack of injuries this year contributed to the stagnation -- no reason to test out a rookie when the roster is effectively full.benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14052893515400949938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-75070238947593124162008-04-28T17:22:00.000-06:002008-04-28T17:22:00.000-06:00I definitely agree with the sentiment... too many bad-value-vets and not enough good-value-young'uns... but I think it's a little overtly negative. Hind-sight is 20/20, but several of the specific flops you mentioned were well received when first announced:<BR/><BR/>- Zyuzin - don't disagree with how that ended up, but at the time the consensus was he was adequate replacement for the oft-injured Leopold, especially since Sutter had used him to land Tanguay<BR/><BR/>- Lundmark - that was a flyer that only cost us a 4th rounder, produced 10 points in his first 12 games, then was part of the package that brought back Conroy<BR/><BR/>- Aucoin - that was a gamble when it happened admittedly. And he didn't play over his contract for sure. But he did perform at about 75% of what Hamrlik did, which is also about the same % of what Hamrlik got paid this year.<BR/><BR/>- Kobasew - was I the only one who was more than willing to give up on him as a prospect and hoping he was traded before it was too late to get something?<BR/><BR/>- McCarty - we all thought that was pretty cool when he stole one of the infamous grind line guys from Detroit didn't we? It was just unfortunate it was the one that had the personal problems.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, my point is, most of those moves weren't catastrophic failures by themselves, and several of them seemed good at the time, so its important to not be too unfairly critical of Sutter's tenure. Each was just a bit off the mark... but, yes the sum of them all has certainly left us in a mediocre place, and too cap-cuffed to do much about it. And taken as a whole, the worrisome pattern of getting older, slower, and more expensive each season is undeniable. This off-season will be make or break for Sutter as GM. He's weaved some magic before...<BR/><BR/>Of course, if Kipper doesn't bounce back next year, we won't be worrying about our mediocrity anyway. Just remember, we all thought it was a great signing at the time!Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-75939222747105725832008-04-28T16:46:00.000-06:002008-04-28T16:46:00.000-06:00i wish the Flames organization would read this, and some of what you have posted over the season.awildermodehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12674503785441637778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-64096902905671552552008-04-28T16:14:00.000-06:002008-04-28T16:14:00.000-06:00Well-said, MG. <BR/><BR/>Looking forward to the next installment.Earl Sleekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15843720035500316419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-35827134103054329672008-04-28T16:06:00.000-06:002008-04-28T16:06:00.000-06:00High praise guys. Thanks.MetroGnomehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15679878875910837307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-28105314131437203072008-04-28T15:52:00.000-06:002008-04-28T15:52:00.000-06:00*Very* nicely done. Don't think I disagree with a word.Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13894292220067087783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16918358.post-35995173325991161432008-04-28T15:13:00.000-06:002008-04-28T15:13:00.000-06:00uh, yeah.<BR/>exactly.walkinvisiblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08874510508773958406noreply@blogger.com