Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutuu
A great question. I'm a big believer that your culture is set from the top. That makes the last 30yrs very significant. After Darryl in 2004, I think there was a brief window where we had a GM that wasn't trying to just keep his job, he was truly trying to win.
BT had a bit of that mandate with the last rebuild, until he didn't and we couldn't rebuild again after our stars left. I also highlight that we're one of a few franchises that had our stars say no.
Bringing it back to my points with AG. He's got great research to counter R44's points. However, every change in direction has these types pop up, and in my experience they go two ways. They bring up excellent contrarian views and present a well thought out plan that equates to a different approach to the problem, or they're just going point by point countering, without presenting an alternative, which is of significantly less value.
My summary of the extremes of the two sides of the problem are, we have team tank that believes we need to acquire top talent with top 5 draft picks, and we have team retool that believes we need to acquire talent through lower draft picks, trade and free agency. For me and a lot of others on both sides the view on the Flames is that they lack young top line talent at the moment. For me the best way to acquire that top line talent in a timely manner is through the draft, then trade, and then through free agency. My logic is:
- Draft: You can draft more than one NHL player per year. Probability says 20% - 40% for the first round and then decreasing from there. If we looked at who scores most of the points in every draft it's concentrated at the top. Not for sure odds.
Trade (two types): First I believe most GMs hug previous prices pretty closely and play around the edges of their teams, so your chance of having a big win in the trade market is significantly lower than the draft. Deals also take a long time, in general from the previous draft to the trade deadline is not uncommon.
Futures trade - where one party sends an established player for picks / prospects. If you're on either side of this trade you're dealing known for unknown. Prices are pretty well established for the different roster positions. Big gains come from the "change of scenery" or the draft pick / prospect playing out.
Player for player - established player for established player - big wins come when you're getting younger, or change of scenery.
Free Agency - with the younger free agent age it has become more appealing, but to land a big name, you need a large over pay, which negates value or you need to be an appealing market from a championship, lifestyle or tax perspective. With that said the number of big win UFA signings over the past couple decades can be counted on your fingers and maybe your toes.
Looking at the above, any approach that doesn't involve picking high in the draft feels like a lower probability of success to me. Over the past 30yrs the team has shifted around their median strategy of "make the playoffs", but ultimately it's been a lot of the same from my view and we haven't committed to either a tank / draft / develop strategy or a ruthless retooling where we send out existing players for new established players. We're just in the middle, with a defense first team, low event, without high end players to market or watch. Now we all have different goals for the team, but fighting for what the Flames have been the last 30yrs, or even the last 3yrs is something I struggle with. |
I cannot think of many teams that have purposely tanked more than the Flames have over the past two years beyond NYR in recent memory. The Rangers literally announced they were tanking. The Rangers did it for two years trading
1) miller and McDonough for a first, a 2nd and a former 1st from 18 months before the trade and a former 2nd from 18 months before the trade and a roster player
2) Nash for a 1st, a former 2nd from 18 months before the trade and two roster players
3) Grabner for a 2nd and a prospect
4) Holden for a 3rd
5) Hayes for a 1st
6) zuccarello for a 2nd and a 3rd.
7) mcQuad for a 4th.
So they traded 8 veteran assets and received 3 firsts, 3 2nds, 2 3rds and a 4th along with 4 prospects.
The non-tanking Flames traded 7 veteran assets over the exact same time period as the tanking Rangers and received
3 firsts
2 seconds
3 thirds
1 fourth
1 fifth
Plus 4 recently drafted prospects
Certainly appears to be very similar to the team that sent out a letter more or less declaring a tank (only time I can remember that ever happening).
So to me if a tanking team and a non tanking team are doing the same thing the wording of what they are doing seems to be semantics.