I hate the term "rebuild". If a team is willingly in a "rebuilding" mode that implies that they really screwed up and the current roster that was put together has no hope for any success now or in the future. Usually we only see this when one GM takes over a terrible team from a fired GM. I expect something like this to happen in Columbus where over the next 3 years there will likely be a very large roster turnover. The last GM already started it with Nash.
Successful franchises don't rebuild (ie. burn it down and start all over). Successful franchises are good at asset management and, as a result, don't have to rebuild.
Obviously, that leads to the question "are the Flames at the stage where they have to rebuild" (get rid of all tradeable assets) or are we really talking about asset management? I think trading Iginla and Kiprusoff (which is what people are usually talking about when they use the term "rebuild") isn't burning it to the ground and starting over. Rather, it's trying to get something for a depreciating asset before it becomes worthless. Maybe it's just semantics but I think a real rebuild (eg. Florida Marlins style) is pretty rare.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
|