Quote:
Originally Posted by FAN
A lot of people assume that somehow a team finishing 9th or 8th and losing in the first round will result in a team trading away futures to improve the present. Not every GM is like Jay Feaster and most teams don't go for an Edmonton style rebuild. Benning is too new to predict, but the Canucks started the process of retooling on the fly a couple of years ago. Even here, if Burke and Treliving were here earlier, the team might not even trade Bouwmeester. The only reason this team would have traded Iginla was because he wanted a chance at the Cup. In other words, the Detroit model is still the most frequently followed model. It's about making the playoffs every year, playing an exciting brand of hockey, and drafting and patiently developing your own players. We've been lucky having been in a position to draft Monahan and Bennett but that wasn't necessary if we managed to draft and develop better. I mean you don't even need to go too far. What if instead of drafting Nemisz and Wahl we drafted Carlson and Stepan? What if the next year instead of drafting Erixon and Howse we drafted Ryan O'Reilly and Cody Eakin?
|
Preaching to the choir here.
Competent and well-managed teams should never have to 'tear it down'. They should be a well drafting team that makes shrewd trades and shrewd FA signings to remain competitive every year. That is the 'ideal', of course.
With that being said, very few teams are able to replicate this. The Detroit model is no longer really working - I don't classify them as a top team any longer. Also, how many cup winners since the lockout haven't had a top 5 pick? I think it is only Detroit.
Edmonton cut way too deeply, and mismanaged everything. They are not the poster team for a rebuild - they are the poster team for mismanagement. Buffalo didn't cut as deeply as Edmonton did, and they managed to sign some decent FA talent to not guarantee themselves last place (though definitely not a competitive team). Edmonton is NOT what should be looked at as a 'rebuild' - it is what should be looked at as an embarrassment.
Vancouver (IMO) is probably not ready for a rebuild. I can't comment on their development program as I have no clue about it. Their drafting is suspect. Unless they have made changes in that area (philosophical and with more bodies who are experienced), then they will fail if they attempted it now I would guess.
I like Calgary's rebuild because the 'rebuild' started years ago under Darryl. He greatly expanded the scouting department and actually put in place a development program. You could see the drafting start trending up (though it was slow - but the philosophy evolved into 'high hockey IQ and character' as required traits along with skill and size - and people forget that Sutter drafted smaller and highly skilled players that never amounted to much, so it wasn't just a fixation on size).
Feaster entered into stage two - stopped trading picks, and added more scouting staff. Sutter kept trading picks (IMO), especially 2nd rounders, due to the pressure of 'winning now' and probably realizing how terrible the drafting was anyways. Those picks were probably more valuable organizational as trade assets than actual drafting assets at the time.
The biggest reason why Edmonton's rebuild has completely sucked is because they have had a terrible drafting and development program there. That is why it fell apart. That is why you see budget teams (for the most part - there are exceptions) unable to draft well even though they seemingly have high picks every year. They can't afford to have an expanded scouting staff.
I wonder if Calgary decided to enter into a 'traditional rebuild' in 2010, if they would have been any good (aside from a weaker series of top picks). They were just beginning to become a better drafting team, and the return on a number of players would have been substantially better. I am not sure in the long run if it would be better, as scouting is probably the most important element of a rebuild.
I 100% agree that teams shouldn't have to enter into a traditional rebuild if they are well-managed. However, even the Detroit model seems to have stopped being effective. Do you think they are a contender? A team doesn't have to be as awful and for as long as Edmonton has. People argue they burned it to the ground - but they didn't. They didn't replace their most critical areas before the rebuild started - management and scouting staff (though they have made moves in both areas since then, but seem to have no vision or philosophy other than what THN throws out at the draft).
Buffalo and Calgary are 'doing it right' in my opinion in terms of rebuilding - though nothing is proven until it is completed. They both have owners willing to spend to the cap, and competent scouting and development departments. It did not have to come to this, but at least they were both 'ready' for a traditional rebuild.
Vancouver I don't think is, and that is why I want them to either burn it to the ground (which they simply won't - not every team is 'Edmonton Stupid'), or remain a 7th to 8th seed playoff team that gets annihilated in the first round. I don't think their scouting department is competent enough to find good enough talent regularly at where they draft at to maintain being a quality team.
Edit: Also, I think every team in the NHL is continually rebuilding - LA is in the process of rebuilding. Teams that are not able to supplement through the draft and through solid trades/FA signings will crash down. In essence, everyone is rebuilding, but the degree (or aggressiveness) to which it happens is a variable depending on a variety of factors.