Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
I am sort of on the same opinion about Dallas not being a great model, but I find myself on the fence with them.
On one hand, where would they be if they didn't win the lottery and get to draft Heiskanen? He is so good and really helps control the game I feel. Is that something that is repeatable - not tanking but expecting to luck out eventually and draft high?
I haven't bought in to them being a top team in the west this year, but my stance has changed. They didn't look good against Edmonton, granted, but they looked exceptional until then. Getting to the third round in consecutive years is nothing to sneeze at - that takes a quality team. I feel the Flames had some pretty good squads in the last 10 years, and they never came close to the third round.
I think Dallas will improve, however. I bet they will draw interest from UFAs, and few - if any - players will have them on their NTC lists.
The closest team to the Flames in terms of location, metro size, climate, etc, and who has had recent success is Edmonton. However, managing a team like a moron and simply lucking out is not a model. What's the next best comparable for the Flames? Has to be Carolina I think. Yet, this feels a bit 'light'. Carolina has made the playoffs for 7 straight seasons. They have been to the conference finals three times in that span. Yet, it still feels like Calgary is aiming a little low. Carolina always feels like a very good team - but not a great one. It is the team that the great teams in the east beat every year.
I don't think there is a 'model' for Calgary. Winnipeg? Less success than Carolina (though more than Calgary in the last decade). Ottawa is just turning things around - way too early to be a model. Montreal is a bit of a different animal, and I also think it is wildly premature to point at them.
I think what Conroy should do is simply create his own model. It is his job on the line, it is his reputation on the line. He gets to be the maverick leading this organization down a path that he feels is best. I am really curious to see what that path is. I have my own suspicions, but I may be completely wrong. He is definitely focused on drafting - this is the one thing that he keeps stating- that most of his players will come through the draft. Other than that, it is anyone's guess.
|
Only quoting your post because I like it and your comment about own model prompted this thought.
I think, as uncomfortable as it might make us, is that there is far more "reacting" to your individual and unique situation by GMs then any of us care to admit. We talk a lot about models.......... and really like to bucket into two big categories, tear down and re-tool. Now I'm not saying GMs don't have "longer term plans", but I think they respond to their individual situations far more than we think, and I think in all scenarios they are actually trying to get back to "competitive" for weaker teams, and "enhance quickly" for stronger as quickly as possible in most cases.
That's to say, have any teams really truly intentionally "tanked", or has taking for the most part been thrust upon them as they've failed? That was certainly the case with Edmonton for example. Anyone who thinks they intentionally tanked and got McDavid wasn't watching for the past 15 years. Now I'm not saying at points, teams don't accept their fate and embrace the tank for a short period of time, but usually that decision gets made for them is my point.
Anyway, I just think every team approaches things differently and always has, there are not "models" to follow. Every team mostly reacts to the existing asset situation and results, which guides most of the decision making IMO, and how well one executes on those is actually the determining factor on success. Then as mentioned you layer in every team has a unique set of "environmental" challenges the hardest of which belong to the small market Canadian clubs.