Craig Conroy and "The Dallas Model"

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Strike ‘don't need’, replace with ‘can't afford’.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. There are two kinds of billionaires, and two corresponding kinds of big businesses. There are those that take risks and establish new markets for new products, and there are those that eliminate risks and consolidate existing industries. Nearly all the Canadian NHL owners made their money the second way, not the first. Risk-aversion is in their blood.

100% this. I always find it ironic that the NHL markets (canadian) that love hockey are seen as markets where you simply can't rebuild properly. "That market will not handle a rebuild, they'll leave and never come back!"

[1qqaaz]

Montreal, Edmonton and Toronto have all had multiple bottom 3 finishes since 2010.
Winnipeg really hasn't needed to bottom out.

The Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary owners are more similar.
Though Calgary has better, wealthier, fans than do Vancouver and Ottawa.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Montreal, Edmonton and Toronto have all had multiple bottom 3 finishes since 2010.

True, but not on purpose.

Remember when the Leafs traded their 1st for Phil Kessel to load up for a big winning season, and then finished second last?

In Montreal it was the old, old story: Team good enough to be middle of the pack with the world's best goalie, terrible without him. This should sound very familiar to Flames fans of a certain vintage.

As for Edmonton, their only plan was to see if they could fit all the clowns in the Volkswagen.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Lazy easy take setting up an arrangement for players to lose.

If building a team was about high picks Edmonton wouldn’t be a joke & the Sabres would have played a playoff game in the last decade.

Having Iginla as a resource is massive. He’s seen more players for a longer period of time who are eligible for the upcoming draft than any other person working in hockey, and it’s not even remotely close.

Between him & Conroy, they know what’s they’re doing.

Neither are losers so they would likely quit the minute they were told losing was ok, and that their playing to win “hubris” wasn’t acceptable.

God, the Edmonton/Buffalo example every time rebuilding is brought up is so lazy. It's been said before but Buffalo is a rare example of a team that tanked and rebuilt through a draft BUT also had major ownership issues coming thru their first rebuild where they wouldn't re-sign guys or spend any more than cap basement teams. That team was going nowhere no matter how they drafted, which pushed them into a second rebuild with now stable ownership.

Edmonton are just completely stupid and had no idea how to pick players or build around good players that they did pick. 90% of management groups in the NHL would have built a perineal contender around McDavid, but it's Edmoton, they figured just pick up Adam Larsson and you're good to go.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

That’s a crap foundation. Hence the crap results with them so far.

Of the players you listed, none of the forwards have proven to be top-line players on top teams.

Markstrom is 34, and quite likely never playing for the Flames again.

Weegar and Andersson are good players, but I’d say it’s unlikely that they’re both top pairing defencemen on a top team. Weegar is #2 in my eyes, and Andersson is a #3 or #4.

It’s not a magic-bean lottery. It’s the NHL entry draft, and it’s where Stanley Cup Champions actually build their foundation.

If you look back at all of the drafts it’s a magic bean lottery. The stars from each year come from all over the place.

[jayswin]

Almost every Stanley Cup winner has built a core through high draft picks, why do we try so hard to handwave this away on CP, all time?

I don't get it. Is it because we think the Flames won't do it so we have to toe the line and pretend there's other ways to become Stanley Cup contenders? Cling to two outliers in like 20 years as how you can win a Cup without sucking/tanking for lots of years?

[Freeway]

Atlanta drafted 2nd overall in 1972 and 1973 because they were (a) an expansion team and (b) quite bad. They got good quickly, partially because they were smart and partially because they *had to* in order to make the team's economics work. (Spoiler: it did not work.)

The Flames didn't draft super-early again until 1992, coming off their first non-playoff year since 1975. After that point, the Canadian dollar plummeted and the sheer economic realities of being a small market Canadian team meant trying to stay competitive just to keep the lights on. (Spoiler: It sorta worked, but the currency equalization plan, expanded revenue sharing and a hard salary cap did more.)


I don't know what my point was, I just think the history is kinda interesting.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Almost every Stanley Cup winner has built a core through high draft picks, why do we try so hard to handwave this away on CP, all time?

I don't get it. Is it because we think the Flames won't do it so we have to toe the line and pretend there's other ways to become Stanley Cup contenders? Cling to two outliers in like 20 years as how you can win a Cup without sucking/tanking for lots of years?

This has been explained many, many times.

Ninety percent of Stanley Cup winners have a top-3 draft pick.
Ninety percent of all teams have a top-3 draft pick.

The outlier is not winning the Cup without a top pick. The outlier is being one of those 10% of teams in the first place.

[Rhett44]

The fact that some people are trying to argue Scorpions point is exactly why we will likely never build a winning team.

A lot of people are really just fine with sneaking into the playoffs and never being a cup threat. This is why Murray Edwards will push for us to be "competitive" fast as well. He knows people will buy tickets for the mushy middle but never good enough for the cup type team.

This isn't just a Calgary issue either, it is a fundamental problem with every Canadian franchise being too impatient. None of them are willing to build the proper team to win a Stanley Cup.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This has been explained many, many times.

Ninety percent of Stanley Cup winners have a top-3 draft pick.
Ninety percent of all teams have a top-3 draft pick.

The outlier is not winning the Cup without a top pick. The outlier is being one of those 10% of teams in the first place.

Top simple and narrow on the metrics. Not about one pick, it's about struggling on ice for a few years leading to multiple high picks and many first and second round picks while selling off due to said suckage.

The chances lf being a contender while not taking your medicine and suckg for a few years is so low.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I don't think it takes much deliberation to tie the Flames' unwillingness to be truly bad with the way they handled coming out of the late 1990s.

Expansion was a major factor in the 90s.

In 1992, the Flames missed the playoffs for the first time since moving to Calgary. They had the 4th-worst record among the non-playoff teams, but they picked 6th overall because Tampa and Ottawa were given the top 2 picks. Also, San Jose was one of the worst expansion teams ever. Take the three expansion teams out of the mix and the Flames are picking 3rd overall.

Then, the next time the Flames missed the playoffs was 1997, beginning a 7-year stretch outside the postseason. That was the last year before the next round of expansion.

In 1998, they dropped from 5th to 6th because of Nashville. In 1999, they dropped from 8th to 9th because of Atlanta. In 2000, they went from 7th to 9th because of the additions of Minnesota and Columbus.

If you take those 4 expansion teams out of the 2000 draft, the Flames could have taken Scott Hartnell 5th overall, rather than Krahn 9th.



In the 90s, the league expanded by 9 teams in less than a decade. Those expansion teams were usually really bad for multiple years. They basically clogged up the top of the draft for years.

[jayswin]

There's a reason why gm's/owners are now talking about "the Dallas model" in their circles. Because everyone wants to shortcut and be contending without sucking.

It's great and I can see why it excites them, but at the end of the day what they're really pointing to is ONE incredible draft year that probably won't be duplicated for another decade or two in terms of star players drafted.

Really to get what dallas got most teams would need 3 - 4 years of finishing nice and low.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Top simple and narrow on the metrics. Not about one pick, it's about struggling on ice for a few years leading to multiple high picks and many first and second round picks while selling off due to said suckage.

That's true. But by the same token, just because you failed to draft in the top 3 during those years does not mean you didn't go through that struggle.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by getbak

In the 90s, the league expanded by 9 teams in less than a decade. Those expansion teams were usually really bad for multiple years. They basically clogged up the top of the draft for years.

Very true.

In 1992-93, the Sharks and the expansion Senators both finished with 24 points. Nobody was going to out-suck those teams.

If you weren't a recent expansion team, your chances of picking top 3 in that period were very bad.

[howard_the_duck]

The Dallas model of drafting and development yes. But their state taxes always makes them an extremely attractive market for UFA without having to wildly overpay.

If the flames take the approach of acquiring top 50 picks and using those picks, giving their amateur scouts more at bats then great. But the Duchene’s of the world aren’t coming for that contract, which gives a big shot in the arm.

At the end of the day this is still a small market Canadian team. So go draft and develop, but any expectations we play in the same realm with UFA attractiveness as Dallas, we’re in for a disappointment.

[Erick Estrada]

The Dallas model isn't repeatable as they really had a lot of luck and amazing scouting to amas all the talent they have without drafting top 10. No team would do a scorched earth rebuild if what the Stars did was repeatable. The Flames can try but chances of failure are high.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

The fact that some people are trying to argue Scorpions point is exactly why we will likely never build a winning team.

A lot of people are really just fine with sneaking into the playoffs and never being a cup threat. This is why Murray Edwards will push for us to be "competitive" fast as well. He knows people will buy tickets for the mushy middle but never good enough for the cup type team.

This isn't just a Calgary issue either, it is a fundamental problem with every Canadian franchise being too impatient. None of them are willing to build the proper team to win a Stanley Cup.

Yep there's a reason American teams hoist the cup every year and that's because those markets had owners that could handle the tough times of rebuilding.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The Dallas model isn't repeatable as they really had a lot of luck and amazing scouting to amas all the talent they have without drafting top 10. No team would do a scorched earth rebuild if what the Stars did was repeatable. The Flames can try but chances of failure are high.

I guess the other question is does the full rebuild actually work?

Teams go this path, and some have very limited success.

[The Cobra]

If Calgary picks 3 elite players in the 2024 draft, yes the rebuild will be quicker.

But remember that Robertson played 3 more seasons prior to being a regular for Dallas.

It’s not like even elite draft picks are immediate stars.

Those hoping for a 2-3 year turnaround are likely going to be disappointed even with great drafting.

Calgary has many picks coming up, but not a large number of truly elite picks. They will need to hit on multiple picks past the first round to be a decent team in even 4-5 years. Luckily they seem to have some ability to do that.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yep there's a reason American teams hoist the cup every year and that's because those markets had owners that could handle the tough times of rebuilding.

Or, players like tax free states, some don't want to play in Canada ( crazy media effect). States has a major advantage.....

Reduced travel, (i.e. Tampa & Florida series)