SIGN IN or REGISTER
USERNAME or EMAIL
PASSWORD

FORGOT YOUR USERNAME OR PASSWORD?

Jump to content


Photo

Meritocracy & The Flames


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14 replies to this topic

#1 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,613 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:02 PM

This is the new mantra of the Flames.

MERITOCRACY
mer·i·toc·ra·cy
[mer-i-tok-ruh-see]
noun, plural mer·i·toc·ra·cies.
1.
an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth.
2.
a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced:
3.
leadership by able and talented persons.


So we have seen some of this in action, especially on the Heat roster.

For example Irving has not earned a lot of starts while with the Heat because he has been outplayed by the other two Goaltenders Taylor and Brust. Meritocracy in action.

This seems on the surface like a good thing but if you are not consistent it can backfire quickly on you.

Continuing with the Irving example:
- Feaster has said that his slow start won't affect his coming to camp and competing for the backup role with Karlsson.
- It appears neither of the 2 Goaltenders who have performed better than Irving on the Heat are even going to get the invite here to compete.( I could be wrong but that is what I have read)

I don't want the whole discussion on Irving and this situation, rather I would prefer you discuss the process of "meritocracy" the Flames are trying to follow.

Irving and his situation does raise some interesting questions though, like how far do you go to implement and follow what you say you want to do?

Do you like this or do you fall into the group who feels the Veterans are the leaders and they deserve the ice time?

Our coach has a history of benching players when they do not perform. This seems to follow the Meritocracy mantra.

but....
What If Iggy starts slow(extended slow start) should we be cutting his ice time so those who are performing can get the ice time?

#2 Kulstad

Kulstad

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 942 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:17 PM

I love the idea of meritocracy. Each player gets the ice time they deserve. However, as with everything in this world, there has to be exceptions to this rule, Iggy and Kipper being the 2 that stand out right away. This doesn't mean that they are exempted from this approach unconditionally, but the absolutely will be (and have to be) held to a modified standard of this.

#3 siliconscout

siliconscout

    Champion of the Big Hit.

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,170 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:16 PM

Why.

If Iggy is not putting up points but Bubba Junior from the Farm or say Jackman is why are we going to ride the horse that isn't in the race.

If Kipper is letting in 2 stinkers a game but Irving is solid giving a chance to win every night why do we dress the Goalie that is less likely to be earning the win?

Granted they (and no player) shouldn't be losing their spot for a bad game or two but if anyone is consistently out performing the player above them in the food chain they should damned well move up. Paycheque size not withstanding.

#4 conundrumed

conundrumed

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,514 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 08:16 PM

If Kipper is letting in 2 stinkers a game but Irving is solid giving a chance to win every night why do we dress the Goalie that is less likely to be earning the win?


Wow. Can't let you walk right off from that statement.
Cripes, it's been 9+ years, is Kiprusoff our guy or isn't he?
Has he not established the goalie he is?
Irving's possibly a better option, even sometimes?
Kipper is as vital as Iggy to this roster, every night.

#5 andymo

andymo

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 446 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 08:48 PM

I think we are on the brink of our contract limit as usual which is why Taylor and Brust might not be considered as back up. I agree they are more worthy at this time and I think we should actively look to reduce the number of contracts on the books in order to avoid this frustrating inflexibilty.

#6 siliconscout

siliconscout

    Champion of the Big Hit.

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,170 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:55 PM

Wow. Can't let you walk right off from that statement.
Cripes, it's been 9+ years, is Kiprusoff our guy or isn't he?
Has he not established the goalie he is?
Irving's possibly a better option, even sometimes?
Kipper is as vital as Iggy to this roster, every night.


Ummm dunno if you actually read the thread cuz if you did I think you missed the point. But just to be clear, of COURSE he's the starter, he doesn't have to try out for it. The job is his.

What I question is that if the idea is that merit defines ice time, IE the better you play the more minutes you get to play then we can't give a free pass to Iggy and Kipper.

If Kipper is putting up numbers then he plays.

That said if Kipper is managing a 90% save pct but Irving or Karlsson is putting up a 96% then at some point he loses the starting job (see Luongo). Do I think that will happen, no not really but if the idea is that you play to play then giving Iggy and Kipper a free pass is a bad idea.

If Iggy and Kipper are crapping the bed and the rest of the team is flying we are still probably going to lose games, games we could win if we weren't holding them to a different standard.

Again I don't expect either to do so, nor do I think a pure meritocracy is the best way to run a team. But if you are going to run it that way you need to be 100% in.

For the record I think that merit can earn you a line up or a line down for sure but it's got to be over a consistent and long period of time. If 15-20 games in our #3 Centre is our best centre he should be moved up to be #2 if we go another 15-20 and he's still the best man on the ice then he bumps to #1 ... if he caves under the pressure there he drops back down to #2 and likely holds that job though if he completely buckles he can drop as far as 4th for all that matters. It should be easier to lose your job than earn the next step up.

Again yes Iggy and Kipper are vital, and they are our starters but if they are having an "off" year and we are serious about playing post season they need to take a back seat. If the Caps can do it with Ovie in the playoffs we could during the regular season.

Again I don't expect it to happen and this is all theoretical in a Meritocracy based system.

#7 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,613 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:55 PM

I think we are on the brink of our contract limit as usual which is why Taylor and Brust might not be considered as back up. I agree they are more worthy at this time and I think we should actively look to reduce the number of contracts on the books in order to avoid this frustrating inflexibilty.

According to Cap Geek we are at 47 of 50 Contracts. (I don't think there are any changes to the 50 contract limit)

#8 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,613 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:16 PM

I hear you Silicon and agree with a lot of what you say.

It is why I said you have to be consistent with it or that breaks down. I don't see how being able to tell your prospects that if you play well in Abbostford you will earn opportunities with the Flames and then not following up, is any different than our Tim Erixon fiasco. That was his main beef that we likely wouldn't be able to offer him ice time on the Flames.

If you make exceptions, be it for Vets or others, suddenly those opportunities disappear. As silicon pointed out it should also work moving up people between lines and also moving them down lines or off the playing roster too.

I thought the Irving example was a good one as it appears that he is bypassing the Meritocracy. I don't know if the Flames feel last years effort warrented his opportunity here now or if his hold off on re-signing had anything to do with it, but there is no doubt both of the other goaltenders for the Heat have out performed him.

I can also understand maybe neither Brust or Taylor were signed and told they would get that opportunity with the Flames, but early on Troy Ward mentioned a few times in interviews when asked about Irving and his play, would say maybe Flames fans should be thinking Taylor as the backup goalie instead of Irving.

As for Veterans there has to be some leniency. This year especially if they haven't been playing and just working out to keep in shape. I don't think anyone in his right mind would say replace Iggy if he has a slow start with Horack because of his fine play in Abbotsford. My understanding of our new coach is he won't be afraid to bench a star like Iggy or Cammy or Tangs if the stink up the joint with poor play.

#9 Wreckening

Wreckening

    GO TEAM REBUILD

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:43 PM

I agree with DD. There will be some leniency towards the core group but on a very short leash. And I believe Hartley will be true to his word. The best players will be on the ice. I for one would love to see either Taylor or Brust get a fair look because I have very little confidence in Irving.

#10 KidKappa

KidKappa

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:56 PM

Theres a few problems with meritocracy.

1. The downward spiral, if we demote a younger player who isn't playing well they will get less ice time and get even less points, their confidence is ruined and they become a bust.

2. Veterans won't like having their job security up in the air constantly, and it will be harder to sign UFA's.

3. It'll be subjective anyways. Even those ridiculous "advanced stats" don't give you an accurate picture of what a player brings to the team. The merits will be decided by the coach, this "system" isn't any different from what any of the other 29 coaches implement. If the coach is more worried about individual ice time than winning as a team we'll have a problem.

#11 bosn111

bosn111

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:04 AM

This is a good topic to discuss. I know I have not been on in a while as I really have had nothing to say on most topics, this however I would like to discuss.

To begin with the Irving in camp while not Taylor or Brust with respect to meritocracy is as follows:

Ortio = 2 way contract (not coming to camp due to meritocracy?)
Brust = AHL contract
Taylor = AHL contract

Kiprusoff = NHL contract
Karlsson = NHL contract
Irving = NHL contract

Others Goalies not at camp but Flames property:
Ramo
Gillies
Broissoit

We will add to this issue the only 3.5 million in cap space available. Buyout possibilities, Length of current contracts and other issues also crop up.

The meritocracy for Brust and Taylor is that they are getting full opportunity to showcase their abilities in the AHL in order to MAYBE get a 2 way contract and a shot at the backup position in the fall. Both Irving (RFA) and Karlsson (UFA) are up for contract renewals after this season. They are playing for these contract renewals, or should be, and thus with the contracts they are on will be competing based on merit for the backup role.

Because of many of the issues pointed out with the goalie situation and others not discussed, a pure meritocracy is not possible.

When it comes to the cap era, there are definitely issues which need to be considered. Under the new CBA (proposed) it has been said that teams will no longer be able to hide cap dollars by burying players in the NHL who do not perform. Any 1 way NHL contracts will automatically count against the cap. Due to this particular reason, meritocracy can only work so far. You can easily cut a player's ice time but that does not mean you can sign another contract and bring another guy up to replace him while burying him in the minors. The team needs to ensure cap and contract compliance the whole time.

Merit is also based on different factors. The same as different players are given contracts for different reasons, play various roles and have different expectations on them to start the season. For this reason, as has been pointed out, meritocracy is based on subjective material. If Jackman plays a physical, tough, grinder type game for 6 minutes a game and scores 5 goals in the first 10 games, should he be put on the 2nd line when Hudler is playing an up-tempo, smart game for 11 minutes a game but not scoring? Do you send Iginla to the 4th line after 30 games because he only has 8 goals to Jackman's 10, Stempniak's 12 and Hudler's 15? The simple answer is no. Iginla will bounce back and needs the extra ice time to allow him to do so. You might change the ice time a little to make the first line essentially the 2nd line to reduce the pressure on the top line (See the OMG line while the top line struggled last season), but you will not see high demotions. Players will be kept in their roles with some time of play adjustments done well in order to reward solid play, restrict due to poor play (effort based for some, reduce some pressure for others).

With the cap dropping from 70.2 to 64.3 (5.9 million dollar negative change next season), along with the proposed 2 free buyouts, the long term aspects of meritocracy come into play this season. Iginla, Cervenka, Comeau, Backlund, Babchuk, Butler, Brodie, Karlsson, Irving, Nemisz, Lamb, Cameron, Wahl, Aliu, Carson, Byron, Bancks, Patterson, Breen, Walter, Kolanos and Piskula are all up for contract renewals in the summer while players like Ferland, Gaudreau and Granlund are pushing for North American Professional roster spots. I left Bouma off this list as his season is finished due to injury so he cannot be looked at based on "merit".

Players who have contracts which are not up for renewal but can be considered to be "under the microscope" would include Stajan, Bouwmeester, Tanguay, Cammalleri, Glencross, Stempniak and Sarich. Hudler and Wideman stay off this list due to recent acquisition. They will be under more scrutiny next season. I also left off lower contracts as those are simple to deal with if need be and they are limited in role and length anyways.

With a very short (48 game) season, there is 1 more issue which needs to be looked at. This issue revolves around what to do with the players discussed in the above issue if the team as a whole is not being successful at winning games? What if the Flames are well out of the playoffs early with no signs of future success? Do they give ice time based on merit? Do they try to showcase the above players to other teams for possible trades? Do they provide ice time to younger players to test them out while benching the older, not-meritting players? How does this issue get resolved based on a meritocracy? The basic answer of a meritocracy would be to say that the non-performers get benched or have their play cut in favour of those who have earned it. In this case however, those players under the microscope are not getting any easier to trade. It is a simple choice for those whose contracts expire after the season as you can simply let them walk without renewing contracts, but those with at least 1 more year under contract become an issue. You can look at various factors for each of these players, but ultimately a decision needs to be made. Trade vs. buyout vs. live with one more year becomes the issue. Meritocracy becomes far more difficult in this case.

Based on the information I just put out there, the concept of meritocracy becomes very convoluted. Who chooses the baseline for merit? are all players equal at the start of the season? At what point do you adjust the team based on merit for the good of the team? What does the future look like?

Meritocracy is a wonderful word to use and of course an ideal situation. In the world of professional sports with all of the conditions which go along with being in a cap environment, meritocracy is much harder to put into action than it is to discuss.

#12 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,780 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:30 AM

People like Feaster like their catch phrases. Every team claims to award time and spots on merit. But as others have said the definition varies and it is entirely subjective.

That said, this team sat Stajan, Sarich, and other high paid players in favor of players like Horak and Smith. They sat Irving while Brust and Taylor played. They have proven they are serious about applying merit at whatever standard they set.

#13 conundrumed

conundrumed

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,514 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:51 AM

Ummm dunno if you actually read the thread cuz if you did I think you missed the point. But just to be clear, of COURSE he's the starter, he doesn't have to try out for it. The job is his.

What I question is that if the idea is that merit defines ice time, IE the better you play the more minutes you get to play then we can't give a free pass to Iggy and Kipper.

If Kipper is putting up numbers then he plays.

That said if Kipper is managing a 90% save pct but Irving or Karlsson is putting up a 96% then at some point he loses the starting job (see Luongo). Do I think that will happen, no not really but if the idea is that you play to play then giving Iggy and Kipper a free pass is a bad idea.

If Iggy and Kipper are crapping the bed and the rest of the team is flying we are still probably going to lose games, games we could win if we weren't holding them to a different standard.

Again I don't expect either to do so, nor do I think a pure meritocracy is the best way to run a team. But if you are going to run it that way you need to be 100% in.

For the record I think that merit can earn you a line up or a line down for sure but it's got to be over a consistent and long period of time.


I can buy that as theoretical.
Unfortunately merit leads me back to Nystrom getting promoted for scoring a hattrick in the same vein bosn is using Jackman as an example. I know Nystrom was short-term.
What happens imho is you're removing the player from where he's having success and elevating his responsibilities, which is going to remove the success he's having.
We've had problems with properly utilizing guys before, and I think meritocracy gives you scrambled eggs.
We must manage and coach roles and responsibilities for a change, not continually scramble the lineup with no consistency. It's been a problem with a lack of adhesiveness.
If you're going to promote the Bourque's and Glencross' from 10-12/game to 16-18/game, don't be surprised when inconsistency arrives, because it invariably does.
In time, when they pot you a 25-30 goal season, they get a raise and a rise in expectations.
But now Bourque looks like he should be back at 10/gm + PK, his original role, but the expectations are for him to be a goal-scorer, and that's what he's being paid for.
It's on the brink of killing his career.
Lombo was a great 3C + PK for us, now he's loosely penciled on TO's 4th LW, after failed attempts by many to make him a #2C.
I think you have to manage what you have, not what you want them to be. Our weak top 6 never gave us much option beyond meritocracy before. But if Cervenka, Hudler and Bart ease that pressure, hopefully it'll be a step towards consistent forward lines without having to worry about the top 6 so much. I think you have to let guys work through their struggles, especially guys that have proven that they will.

#14 Wreckening

Wreckening

    GO TEAM REBUILD

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:47 AM

So both karlsson and Irving were placed on waivers today. Does this mean Taylor or Brust are going to get a shot? Personally I hope it's Taylor. It looks like meritocracy does reign in the Flames organization.

#15 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,780 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:52 AM

So both karlsson and Irving were placed on waivers today. Does this mean Taylor or Brust are going to get a shot? Personally I hope it's Taylor. It looks like meritocracy does reign in the Flames organization.


Those players being on waivers does not mean that neither is making the team. The Flames have to be down to 23 players by tomorrow afternoon. It takes 24-hours to clear waivers. If players are not put on waivers today then they are stuck on the 23 man roster past the deadline.

By putting these guys on waivers one, neither, or both can be assigned to the AHL tomorrow. It is certainly possible that Taylor or Brust are given an NHL contract and called up. But these two being on waivers is happening regardless unless the Flames had already made a decision on Karlsson vs. Irving.

#16 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,613 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:02 PM

We the posters have been asking lots of questions about the Flames intentions and these two backups. It appears to me they do not intend to carry 3 goalies on the Flames this season and I suspect Kipper will get most of the starts.

That means they will likely want to send 1 of them down to Abbotsford. Today Kipper has the day off. I think that the decision will be made on who stays up here today. (assuming they both clear waivers.) Maybe who backs up Kipper isn't that big a deal to the Flames and they don't care if either one is claimed.

I look at both about equal. Both only managed 1 win last year. Both had similar stats. Karlsson was slightly disappointing last season just before he got hurt. Irving has been disappointing this season barely managing to earn starts on the Heat.

As much as I would like to see Brust or Taylor up here I do not think it will happen or was ever intended.