Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.
Why irony?
I’m saying the null hypothesis applies here. I’m not the one putting forward some universal theory of winning. Somebody wins every year and you can try to find some post hoc grand unifying theory, but absent robust data it doesn’t mean squat.
|
It's not a 'universal theory of winning', it's a theory of having a chance at winning. The only way to win a cup is with elite talent. The mechanisms to get elite talent in the NHL are: draft it, trade for it, or sign it as a UFA.
We've established that Calgary isn't a desirable UFA destination, and that's ok, because the truth is the UFA market provides way more cap anchors than useful elite players. Trading for it is really hard, as true elite players don't change hands very often and the best way to trade for elite players is with your own potentially elite prospects and high draft picks.
The best chance at elite players is drafting at the very top of the draft. The second best way is drafting a lot of times to increase the chances of hitting elite players later in the draft.
So for a team that isn't a highly desirable location, the only logical way to win a cup is to draft frequently and as high as possible. And probably over a long period of time before you get enough pieces to be a contender.
The alternative to this has been the Flames strategy over the last two decades, which is sign UFAs, make trades that don't move the needle and draft less than average because they're constantly moving picks to shore up immediate needs. This way leads to making the playoffs 50% of the time and getting bounced early when they do make it.
The only way forward that could lead to a cup is drafting and developing over a long period of time. In my opinion of course. I just don't believe that the pattern they've been following for the entire salary cap era ever has a chance at winning a cup, or even coming close.