History of Flames Transition (Rebuild/Retool) Periods

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Speaking of Flames rebuilds/retools, I wrote a large column over at Daily Faceoff today about what the Flames are facing (and how they don't currently have a core):

https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/th...is-years-draft

Nice article. May not have liked the message, but it wasn’t wrong.

Although it would take more than a bit of luck to have a burgeoning powerhouse in 3 years. More like a few lottery wins type of luck. Considering how long it takes the vast majority of prospects, even elite ones, to establish themselves as core players. See McKinnon as an example.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by timun

Yeah, there is no scenario in which Gary Roberts continued playing as a Calgary Flame. He was advised to retire. Again, with hindsight it seems like a sucky move, but 31-year-old-who-was-never-going-to-play-again and 25-year-old-basket-case-goalie for 28-year-old-second-line-centre and 20-year-old-goalie-prospect was a perfectly sound trade at the time.

I'm not putting any blame on Roberts. But the Flames did him a solid. He was their property, they brought him back and then dealt him to where he wanted to go.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by timun

What do you think trading an almost-30-year-old Gary Suter and 28-year-old Paul Ranheim for about-to-turn-26 Zarley Zalapski and 21-year-old Michael Nylander was?

You just have a selective memory and are still butthurt about the team sucking ass for so long. The problem wasn't that the trades made no sense at the time, it's that they didn't pan out.

You bring up some Oilers trades as examples of "targeting younger players with potential" and are very selectively not mentioning some bangers like

• Jari Kurri, Dave Brown and Corey Foster for Scott Mellanby, Craig Berube and Craig Fisher,
• Glenn Anderson, Grant Fuhr and Craig Berube for Vincent Damphousse, Luke Richardson, Scott Thornton and Peter Ing,
• Mark Messier and Jeff Beukeboom for Bernie Nicholls, Steven Rice, Louie DeBrusk and David Shaw,
• Ken Linseman for nothing,
• Martin Rucinsky for Ron Tugnutt and Brad Zavisha,
• Vincent Damphousse and a fourth round pick for Shayne Corson, Brent Gilchrist and Vladimir Vujtek,
• Kevin Lowe for Roman Oksiuta and a third round pick,
• Bernie Nicholls for Zdeno Ciger and Kevin Todd,
• Petr Klima for a third round pick,
• Martin Gelinas and a sixth round pick for Scott Pearson,
• Craig Simpson for Jozef Cierny and a fourth round pick,
• Chris Joseph for Bob Beers,
• Miroslav Satan for Craig Millar and Barrie Moore,
• Mariusz Czerkawski for Dan LaCouture

Etc, etc.


Oh and Bill Guerin is four years older than Jason Arnott, by the way.

You know what... respect your perspective 100%, but it's fair to say I'm not going to agree ever that the Flames made good trades when they cleared out their cup team, either at the time or in retrospect, or even were forced to make bad trades and select the players they did coming back purely due to money. Totally agree it was a huge factor in their decision making but to me, it was an inefficient tear down with very few assets of value coming back, where the talent assessment/pro scouting that took place was inexcusably bad, and to my original post, I think a few trades that were absolutely brutal, giving away legendary players in the history of hockey for almost nothing because they didn't like the way someone was sulking or their negotiating tactics. I'll admit my own bias and perhaps a selective remembrance but probably will never shift that. I loved that team and what followed was hard to take. I didn't like 90% of the deals at the time and I think the results speak for themselves - we traded a powerhouse group of aging HOFers that was in my opinion one of the best teams ever assembled in the last 50 years for a bunch of bums. Waiting too long to trade older guys, money pressure etc are just excuses to me. If even one of those other trades for Suter, MacInnis, Gilmour, Reichel, Roberts, Mullen or Makarov had been timed better or brought in a good young prospect like the Nieuwendyk trade did, the Flames would have been in much better shape in the next era. Was just very very poor asset management to me where they repeatedly traded from a position of weakness after tanking a players value or souring the relationship and then compounded it by targeting players in the returns who were just not very good.

Totally appreciate the level of detail you're getting to here in pulling out specific examples with the Oilers - they didn't do all good either, and in fact they were much more of a tire fire than us before they shifted their approach a bit, the Weight/Salo/Hamrlik era kicked in and they climbed above us. It's not simple or black and white across the board but I hold the guys responsible for the 90s clearout, Riseborough and Fletcher for leaving and robbing the franchise especially - as I feel like Coates was in a tougher spot - responsible and will always consider them a couple of turds haha

[traptor]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Speaking of Flames rebuilds/retools, I wrote a large column over at Daily Faceoff today about what the Flames are facing (and how they don't currently have a core):

https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/th...is-years-draft

I agree with pretty much everything. The flames have no pieces projecting as elite core players in the system outside of Wolf.
I concede that this can change quick. Players have unpredictable breakouts all the time.

It will take a combo of time and luck.

Based on history we're looking atleast another 3 years out of playoffs. But those previous flames rebuild teams already had Gaudreau and Iginla in the system at this point, so were arguably ahead of the rebuild process then the currrent flames find themselves.

We should also be aiming higher then these previous iterations as they had somewhat limited success outside of the 04 run.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Speaking of Flames rebuilds/retools, I wrote a large column over at Daily Faceoff today about what the Flames are facing (and how they don't currently have a core):

https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/th...is-years-draft

I certainly agree with the conclusions. This will likely take a number of years to bounce back. My only quibble is this paragraph:

Most of the other teams in the draft lottery picture this year have blue-chippers at the forefront of their systems. Columbus has Adam Fantilli; Montreal has Juraj Slafkovsky; San Jose has Will Smith; Arizona has Logan Cooley; Anaheim has Leo Carlsson; Chicago has Connor Bedard. The Flames don’t, and they’ll probably have to make a top-three pick to get one. Barring an unexpected lottery win, they won’t pick in that range this year.

Blue-chippers, sure, but they may not be "core" players (apart from Bedard) which is the measuring stick you are using for the Flames. The Flames have never had a top 3 pick, but they have had core players, so they can be obtained through other ways. It will still take time (at least 5 years in my opinion).

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I certainly agree with the conclusions. This will likely take a number of years to bounce back. My only quibble is this paragraph:

Most of the other teams in the draft lottery picture this year have blue-chippers at the forefront of their systems. Columbus has Adam Fantilli; Montreal has Juraj Slafkovsky; San Jose has Will Smith; Arizona has Logan Cooley; Anaheim has Leo Carlsson; Chicago has Connor Bedard. The Flames don’t, and they’ll probably have to make a top-three pick to get one. Barring an unexpected lottery win, they won’t pick in that range this year.

Blue-chippers, sure, but they may not be "core" players (apart from Bedard) which is the measuring stick you are using for the Flames. The Flames have never had a top 3 pick, but they have had core players, so they can be obtained through other ways. It will still take time (at least 5 years in my opinion).

Yeah I feel that. I just think all of those players are far more likely to become core players than anyone in the Flames' system. That's what makes 'em blue-chippers. But that's not to say that nobody the Flames have could become that good — Brzustewicz, Zary, and Wolf all have a chance to be very good. But there's no Hedman, MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Pastrnak, Pettersson, or Bedard here.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I certainly agree with the conclusions. This will likely take a number of years to bounce back. My only quibble is this paragraph:

Most of the other teams in the draft lottery picture this year have blue-chippers at the forefront of their systems. Columbus has Adam Fantilli; Montreal has Juraj Slafkovsky; San Jose has Will Smith; Arizona has Logan Cooley; Anaheim has Leo Carlsson; Chicago has Connor Bedard. The Flames don’t, and they’ll probably have to make a top-three pick to get one. Barring an unexpected lottery win, they won’t pick in that range this year.

Blue-chippers, sure, but they may not be "core" players (apart from Bedard) which is the measuring stick you are using for the Flames. The Flames have never had a top 3 pick, but they have had core players, so they can be obtained through other ways. It will still take time (at least 5 years in my opinion).

It took the Pens 5 years to gather their team through the draft, starting with Ray Whitney 5OA, MAF 1OA, Malkin 2OA, Crosby 1OA and Staal 2OA. After Crosby it still took a year to make it to the POs and two years to go deep, three to win the cup. A 7 year process from the first high pick to the cup. 5 years of top 5 picks (4 of them top 2).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It took the Pens 5 years to gather their team through the draft, starting with Ray Whitney 5OA, MAF 1OA, Malkin 2OA, Crosby 1OA and Staal 2OA. After Crosby it still took a year to make it to the POs and two years to go deep, three to win the cup. A 7 year process from the first high pick to the cup. 5 years of top 5 picks (4 of them top 2).

And that's pretty much the most successful rebuild ever

[FlamesAddiction]

It's often the case when teams are rebuilding with high draft picks, that there is lag as prospects develop. It's pretty apparent that that the team is going to be really good eventually, but they draft a few extra high picks for good measure while things are still progressing. Pittsburgh was a good example of that, as was Colorado. The draft lottery system really over corrects and over compensates bad teams. They have tried to even out the odds a little bit, but not really enough IMO. Often teams with the best odds to win, are in fact the teams that need to win it the least. It's not the lack of good picks holding them back, but just time while the players from the high picks they already have are progressing.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Matty81

You know what... respect your perspective 100%, but it's fair to say I'm not going to agree ever that the Flames made good trades when they cleared out their cup team, either at the time or in retrospect, or even were forced to make bad trades and select the players they did coming back purely due to money.

I was not happy at the time of many of these trades we're talking about, but with the benefit of hindsight and seeing the situation for what it was, I think it's patently obvious that "bad trades" were made because of the monetary situation. To me you can't deny it, denying it is just irrational.

You write things like "waiting too long to trade older guys," and to that I say: you don't know it was "too long" until the aftermath anyway. I'll copy what I said elsewhere in a thread about the Kraken expansion draft:

Originally Posted by timun

The obsession with "getting a return" for players is asinine and hilarious to me. Every player becomes a hot potato that you don't want to end up with, but somehow you have to bring yourself to ice a roster. I suppose it is inherently true that it is better to "sell high", but if you look at it from a reductionist point of view it becomes absurd. Like in retrospect Treliving ought to have traded most of the team away two years ago, including Giordano. Sutter should have traded Iginla in 2008. Cliff Fletcher should have traded Lanny McDonald in '83; by '86 at the very latest, anyway.

To say,

If even one of those other trades for Suter, MacInnis, Gilmour, Reichel, Roberts, Mullen or Makarov had been timed better or brought in a good young prospect like the Nieuwendyk trade did, the Flames would have been in much better shape in the next era.

... is a facile conclusion. "If they'd just got more for those players things would have been better off!" No kidding. I already wrote about how the Mullen trade was dumb, Makarov was a toxic asset they should have cut bait with a year earlier, and Roberts was for all intents and purposes worthless. The Gilmour trade was obviously one of the worst ever, it's indefensible. However, the others you seem to have a problem evaluating with hindsight because, again, you're being selective in your memory. You keep thinking of trades as one-for-one, which they categorically were not, and that's honestly the most annoying thing about the points you're trying to make.

You keep thinking of things in terms of "the Suter trade sucked because Zarley Zalapski was a 'journeyman bum'," but it wasn't a trade for just Zalapski: it was a trade for far and away the best forward at the 1992 World Juniors (Michael Nylander) too. You keep thinking "the Roberts trade sucked because Andrew Cassels was a 'journeyman bum'," but it wasn't just Roberts-for-Cassels: it was a trade for J-S Giguere. If those weren't trades for "good young prospects", then WTF is?

Totally appreciate the level of detail you're getting to here in pulling out specific examples with the Oilers - they didn't do all good either, and in fact they were much more of a tire fire than us before they shifted their approach a bit, the Weight/Salo/Hamrlik era kicked in and they climbed above us. It's not simple or black and white across the board but I hold the guys responsible for the 90s clearout, Riseborough and Fletcher for leaving and robbing the franchise especially - as I feel like Coates was in a tougher spot - responsible and will always consider them a couple of turds haha

Risebrough certainly bungled things, and Fletcher did too, and it didn't help that Fletcher notoriously fleeced the Flames for Gilmour et al. Coates I also think gets a bum rap, as he's the one who was most constrained.

The one GM who I think was unforgivably dumb, even at the time and with the benefit of hindsight, was Craig Button.

Trading Giguere was his first move. He was afraid he was going to lose Giguere in the expansion draft in 2000, but should have just left Housley, Albelin, and... I dunno, Andrei Nazarov and Bill Lindsay left unprotected, and protected both Brathwaite and Giguere. Instead he had to go out and get a backup for Brathwaite and wasted money and a roster spot on a mostly washed-up Mike Vernon.

Second move he ever made was buying out Marty St-Louis. It's well known that St-Louis signed with the Lightning as a free agent, but what people forget is that Al Coates picked up St-Louis's option year on his contract, paying him through 2000-01. Button didn't just "let him go": he bought him out, he was that desperate to get rid of him. ####ing idiot!

Then, of course, the cardinal sin two years later: trading Marc Savard to the Thrashers for Ruslan Zainullin because Savard and Greg Gilbert didn't get along, and then only eight games later FIRING GILBERT ANYWAY.

The little turd on top of the crap sandwich that was Craig Button's GM tenure was his last trade: reacquiring Dean McAmmond from the Avalanche for a draft pick, at the 2003 trade deadline. The idea of bringing McAmmond back wasn't a bad one—after all he was still a pretty good forward and had chemistry with Iginla and Craig Conroy—but Button was such a doofus he forgot that he wasn't actually allowed to reacquire McAmmond that season. The rule at the time was that if you traded a player away within a month before the waiver draft (i.e., during training camp and just before the regular season started) you couldn't reacquire said player until the season afterward. McAmmond was traded with Jeff Shantz and Derek Morris to the Avalanche for Chris Drury and Stephane Yelle on October 1st, 2002: three days before the waiver draft, eight days before the regular season began. The trade to reacquire McAmmond went through, but the Flames weren't allowed to let McAmmond play in the last 13 games of the season. Idiot!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm not putting any blame on Roberts. But the Flames did him a solid. He was their property, they brought him back and then dealt him to where he wanted to go.

He was absolutely useless to them if they kept him. They did themselves a solid by getting value for him in a trade.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

He was absolutely useless to them if they kept him. They did themselves a solid by getting value for him in a trade.

Sure, but they obliged his destination requests. And he wasn't useless. He was afraid he'd have a hard time on travel days. So he'd have been in breach if refused to play. The new physio was actually way better than anticipated though, and his career was sustained for years.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Sure, but they obliged his destination requests. And he wasn't useless. He was afraid he'd have a hard time on travel days. So he'd have been in breach if refused to play. The new physio was actually way better than anticipated though, and his career was sustained for years.

His doctors advised him to retire rather than play in the Western Conference. That's useless to the Flames.