Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
My take on rebuilding is there is "no such thing"
Seriously, what is "rebuilding"?
Take your pick
1) Florida,NYI,,etc. multiple top picks and they still suck
2) Pittsburgh, suck so bad for years that you almost loose your team. get lucky in getting 2 generation talents,win a cup but because of the cap and because of those contracts you can't build another winner.
3) Chicago (see number 2)
4) Edmonton, disaster waiting to happen, by the time this team starts to win the cap will tear all those #1's apart.(this team is the perfect example that it takes more than offensive talent to win)
Fact is under a cap system dynasty's are a thing of the distant past so why bother "rebuilding" and piss off the fans? I for one wouldn't pay a cent to go watch a last place team, I pay my extra $$ for entertainment, support is one thing but paying $300.00 a game to watch a team get a good draft pick is borderline ######ation!
Retool, try to stay competive for the fans and hope for a good run. (examples... LA from last year, Boston, Detroit, Anahelm and Carolina since the cap system)
|
I mostly agree with this.
I think that one of the things the OP was trying to say was that you often see '5 year plans' and there have been many such plans over the years in all of the major sports (and the implication, I pressume, being that the Flames should do similar).
However, I think it is much easier to create a 5 year plan in football or baseball, where individual players are very much pieces in a larger puzzle.
For instance, I know that I need linebackers that can run 4.4, or defensive linemen that are at least 6'6" so they can block passes and run a 4.6 so they can get around linemen.
I know that I need 2 right handers and 2 left handers. I know that I need X number of RBIs, etc.
So I can determine how long it will take, and what it will cost, to acquire those assets.
Hockey is far more dynamic. You can say 'I need a 1st line C, and I need a top D', but that's about it and that is pretty vague. Also, it is almost impossible to predict who will become that, or what any individual player is going to be in 5 years.
What is Baertschi going to be in 5 years? Or even 3? Is he a 40 goal scorer? A decent 2nd liner? We won't know until he gets there. So what piece have we added?
And therein lies the problem. Even when you think you acquire a piece, within 2 years that player is probably no longer the player they were (maybe better maybe worse).
And if you can't predict what pieces you'll have, you can't build a puzzle.
Instead, you need an organizational philosophy and you need to stick with it.
Sutter's was to acquire veteran talent, whether through free agency, or to trade picks to acquire it.
I believe the best franchises acquire their talent though a commitment to the draft and then trade pieces away that they don't think fit their mold for more picks, in a constant restocking of assets. (Then, during those rare periods where it all comes together, you can trade assets for missing pieces).
IMO, the best examples of this philosophy are Philadelphia nad Boston (some would say Detroit). People talk about them having quick rebuilds - there are no quick rebuilds, they simply had bad years. But they are constantly willing to trade pieces that they didn't think fit their team mold or philosophy, to continue to acquire more assets through the draft.
To me, that is how a franchise should be run. There is no set blueprint for rebuilds and I don't think a well run franchise should ever have to talk about rebuilds.
I want to see the Flames commit to the draft, better scouting, and better development (and I think they have to some extent, though they are still throwing away too many picks).
I want to see them commit to more of a 'perpetual strategy' (for lack of a better word) than their 'win now' strategy. By that, I don't think a team should ever be trading picks and prospects for veterans (until those years when it comes together and you have a real shot - it shouldn't be happening every year like it happens here).