What's a rebuild anyway?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Itse

Hmmm, I'd replace "certainly" with "marginally". 10th is closer to the middle than the top, and while again there is no one definition of a rebuild, if you count a third of the league as rebuilding then I think it starts to water down the concept quite a bit.

That said, move the window one year forward and we're hopefully looking at a much clearer picture.

A third is probably about right but within that you have teams in different stages of that.

This article from the Athletic that plots where each team is in the cycle is helpful because it does think about re-building in a binary way, but rather the full cycle of building and contending.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/659...tiers-2025-26/

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Love stuff like this.

So this sent me down a rabbit hole.

I took a trade value chart, and then compared value by picks taken for every team over the last three years compared to the value they would have had if they just picked in their position by standings and didn't add, trade away, move up or move down.

Clearly the greater value is at the top of the draft and terrible teams have had more value.

And winning the lottery is huge as the value differential is huge. The Islanders added just under 1200 "points" by moving up in the lottery last year.

So luck is still involved.

The Flames had the 14th highest expected draft points based on their standing in the three seasons (15th, 25th and 14th), but ended up 10th in draft points because of the accumulation of draft capital adding 347 in value.

The worst is Florida (-756 points)

Rank by Differential

1. Chicago
2. Islanders
3. Utah

all three of those won lotteries for big point differentials. Chicago added extra picks as well.

4. Nashville
5. Philly
6. San Jose (adding picks)
7. Detroit
8. Calgary
9. St. Louis
10. Washington

Calgary certainly in that rebuilding group.

Source(s)

I have been thinking to do this but too lazy to, and for the last 3 drafts where Flames were re…something (build , vamp, tool, biggel)

To me this is where I have the biggest issue . They are somewhere around 10th in draft Capital . Which isn’t good for a team entering their rebuild and who has been jettisoning their UFAs

We’re kind of the worse rebuilding team for draft capital. And that was after trading several higher end UFAs .


We also have only added 1 remotely impactful prospect in those deals (Bruz) and we’re not drafting high to begin with

So we’re not adding enough capital , aren’t adding higher impact prospects , and aren’t finishing poorly enough ourselves.

And that’s a problem. And a problem extra late firsts don’t solve (on their own)

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Inferno

I don't think trading Andersson is going to make the team cave. They've known all year unless he or the Flames give in to the other's demands he's being traded. For them it's just a matter of when and who takes his spot. I think Kadri being traded would be a bigger blow to the rest of the team and signal that management has given up on the season.

Trading him also might motivate the team like it did when Giordano's season was done in 2015 and we all thought the team would cave. I'm not saying it's going to propel them all the way to a playoff spot. But their will might not change as much as people think.

They’ve known all year but there’s a difference between knowing and then finally removing that player from the locker room. Once rasmus is moved, it’ll trigger Kadri, Coleman and perhaps Weegar to reconsider their fit in Calgary and whether they are interested in two to three years of basement hockey.

Hopefully, the Andersson deal gets sorted out over the holidays and they trade him just after the freeze. That’ll give kadri and the team plenty of time over the Olympic break to the trade deadline to make a decision and hopefully another team steps up with a big offer for him.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

Once rasmus is moved, it’ll trigger Kadri, Coleman and perhaps Weegar to reconsider their fit in Calgary and whether they are interested in two to three years of basement hockey.

Maybe, maybe not. They're already experiencing basement hockey and knew to start the season he would be leaving.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Source(s)

I have been thinking to do this but too lazy to, and for the last 3 drafts where Flames were re…something (build , vamp, tool, biggel)

To me this is where I have the biggest issue . They are somewhere around 10th in draft Capital . Which isn’t good for a team entering their rebuild and who has been jettisoning their UFAs

We’re kind of the worse rebuilding team for draft capital. And that was after trading several higher end UFAs .


We also have only added 1 remotely impactful prospect in those deals (Bruz) and we’re not drafting high to begin with

So we’re not adding enough capital , aren’t adding higher impact prospects , and aren’t finishing poorly enough ourselves.

And that’s a problem. And a problem late firsts don’t solve (on their own)

Patience. We're still on the way down. After this year, we'll pass more teams, and after next year we'll be fully in the top 5 (just like the teams that are ahead of us in the rebuild cycle are now)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Hmmm, I'd replace "certainly" with "marginally". 10th is closer to the middle than the top, and while again there is no one definition of a rebuild, if you count a third of the league as rebuilding then I think it starts to water down the concept quite a bit.

That said, move the window one year forward and we're hopefully looking at a much clearer picture.

Well 8th in differential without a lottery win is better than that in a 32 team league.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Patience. We're still on the way down. After this year, we'll pass more teams, and after next year we'll be fully in the top 5 (just like the teams that are ahead of us in the rebuild cycle are now)

Don’t tell me — tell management and more importantly the owners

I agree we haven’t hit rock bottom . I dont see anyway we’re competitive for 5 more years pushing this to a 8-10 year rebuild if done correctly

And that’s where people get nervous. The Flames have directly said that is not acceptable .

What happens when inevitability crosses paths with stubbornness ? Poor decisions usually !

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Love stuff like this.

So this sent me down a rabbit hole.

I took a trade value chart, and then compared value by picks taken for every team over the last three years compared to the value they would have had if they just picked in their position by standings and didn't add, trade away, move up or move down.

Clearly the greater value is at the top of the draft and terrible teams have had more value.

And winning the lottery is huge as the value differential is huge. The Islanders added just under 1200 "points" by moving up in the lottery last year.

So luck is still involved.

The Flames had the 14th highest expected draft points based on their standing in the three seasons (15th, 25th and 14th), but ended up 10th in draft points because of the accumulation of draft capital adding 347 in value.

The worst is Florida (-756 points)

Rank by Differential

1. Chicago
2. Islanders
3. Utah

all three of those won lotteries for big point differentials. Chicago added extra picks as well.

4. Nashville
5. Philly
6. San Jose (adding picks)
7. Detroit
8. Calgary
9. St. Louis
10. Washington

Calgary certainly in that rebuilding group.

The Flames also had the 2023 draft in that 3 year cycle where Brad had traded away their 3rd round pick and their 5th round pick so Conroy was starting from a deficit and the Toffoli trade made it slightly better

Suspect if you did the same exercise in July of 2026 the Flames would be top 3 on the list. 5 picks as of right now in the first 3 rounds would bump them up significantly alone once you drop the 2023 draft. Any picks or prospects drafted in 24 or 25 that they pick up in trades would also improve their position if the same exercise was done in July of next year.

[FanIn80]

In my mind, a rebuild involves moves that don't try to replace outgoing with incoming. It's a sacrifice of the short term for a better long term.

Bringing in 23-28 year old players is the biggest sign that it isn't a rebuild, as those are "now" players, who are going to be post-prime by the time any top-level drafted (or otherwise aqcuired) prospect get into their prime. It's just a "non-committal rebuild" where you want a new core, but you still want to win now. If you don't have a couple of top-level (1st-line, 1st-pair) players already in your lineup, then all you're really doing is reducing the overall age of your team, without really acheiving anything else.

I like Frost, but is he going to be better than Kadri? No. So what's the value of bringing him in? I like Farabee too, but both of those guys are players you bring in when you already have a Celebrini, Smith, Eklund forward core. They shouldn't spearheading your new core, they should be augmenting it.

The fastest, most reliable way to acquire a new core with high-skill, is via top-three picks in the draft. Top-five is also nice, but there's a falloff from 3 to 5 and another falloff after 5. It's just the way it is. Can you get a Datsyuk in the 4th round? Sure, but how many times has that happened, compared to a top-three pick?

The other thing a non-committal rebuild does, is it ensures you never draft in the top-three without winning the lottery. Two to three years of literally not caring about winning games is all it takes, if ownership is on board. Sell anything of value for absolutely nothing that will help your team win games in the short term. There are only two priorities in a rebuild: draft as high as you can, as many times as you can... and hitting the cap floor. That's it. Literally anything other than that is just a distraction.

Will some fans not like all the losing and not really understand the bigger picture? Of course, but luckily for everyone involved, they also happen to be the first ones to come screaming back again once the team starts winning. In the meantime, the rest of the fans will love being entertained by a Celebrini/Bedard/McKenna/etc and the other top-of-the-draft pieces that become our new core.

Anyway, that's my extremely long-winded opinion on what a rebuild is. If all the other things teams do were also considered a rebuild, then people wouldn't feel the need to create other terms like retool or my new favourite, rebiggle.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

In my mind, a rebuild involves moves that don't try to replace outgoing with incoming. It's a sacrifice of the short term for a better long term.

Bringing in 23-28 year old players is the biggest sign that it isn't a rebuild, as those are "now" players, who are going to be post-prime by the time any top-level drafted (or otherwise aqcuired) prospect get into their prime. It's just a "non-committal rebuild" where you want a new core, but you still want to win now. If you don't have a couple of top-level (1st-line, 1st-pair) players already in your lineup, then all you're really doing is reducing the overall age of your team, without really acheiving anything else.

I like Frost, but is he going to be better than Kadri? No. So what's the value of bringing him in? I like Farabee too, but both of those guys are players you bring in when you already have a Celebrini, Smith, Eklund forward core. They shouldn't spearheading your new core, they should be augmenting it.

The fastest, most reliable way to acquire a new core with high-skill, is via top-three picks in the draft. Top-five is also nice, but there's a falloff from 3 to 5 and another falloff after 5. It's just the way it is. Can you get a Datsyuk in the 4th round? Sure, but how many times has that happened, compared to a top-three pick?

The other thing a non-committal rebuild does, is it ensures you never draft in the top-three without winning the lottery. Two to three years of literally not caring about winning games is all it takes, if ownership is on board. Sell anything of value for absolutely nothing that will help your team win games in the short term. There are only two priorities in a rebuild: draft as high as you can, as many times as you can... and hitting the cap floor. That's it. Literally anything other than that is just a distraction.

Will some fans not like all the losing and not really understand the bigger picture? Of course, but luckily for everyone involved, they also happen to be the first ones to come screaming back again once the team starts winning. In the meantime, the rest of the fans will love being entertained by a Celebrini/Bedard/McKenna/etc and the other top-of-the-draft pieces that become our new core.

Anyway, that's my extremely long-winded opinion on what a rebuild is. If all the other things teams do were also considered a rebuild, then people wouldn't feel the need to create other terms like retool or my new favourite, rebiggle.

Outside of salary dump Kuzmenko and basically the throw in that was Miromanov (doubt the Flames get much more than a 1st and a conditional 2nd for Hanifin) the oldest player the Flames got in any trade was 25 years old (Sharangovich and Frost) or younger. Most rebuilding teams have to try to get some players back both to ice a team and make the salary floor as UFAs generally don’t sign with terrible teams.

[kehatch]

I am firmly in the “not a rebuild” camp, but the debate has become circular because there are legitimate arguments on both sides. Below are the most common arguments.

Common Arguments

1. Trading Veterans

Fact:

• Conroy traded seven veterans in his first year as GM.

It is a rebuild:

• This group included the 1C, 1D, starting goalie, and other players in major roles.

It is not a rebuild:

• All but one of these players were on expiring contracts
• The Flames attempted to re-sign the most important players
• The lone exception was Markstrom, who was disgruntled, and the Flames needed to make room for Wolf.

2. Inactivity

Fact:

• Conroy has made one notable move in the past 17 months.

It is a rebuild:

• The Flames have not used their cap space or assets to improve the team.

It is not a rebuild:

• Conroy attempted to take “big swings” to support both winning now and winning later, but was unable to connect. Evidence that rebuilding on the fly is ineffective as there are too few moves available.

3. Flames Communication

Fact:

• The Flames have consistently stated this is not a rebuild.

It is a rebuild:

• The messaging does not match their actions and is therefore PR-driven.

It is not a rebuild:

• The messaging aligns with the franchise’s historical reluctance to rebuild.
• Players have been told internally this is not a rebuild.
• Other teams have been told the Flames are not listening to offers on key veterans.

Bottom Line

What should not be a circular discussion is: The Flames are still an older team with a roster that is good enough to be middle of the road.


Roster Age Breakdown (by TOI)

Centers

• Average Age (Total TOI): 32
• Average Age (Top 2 TOI): 36
• Under 25 w/ ≥10% TOI: 0

Wingers

• Average Age (Total TOI): 28
• Average Age (Top 4 TOI): 29
• Under 25 w/ ≥10% TOI: 2 (Coronato, Zary)

Defense

• Average Age (Total TOI): 28
• Average Age (Top 4 TOI): 30
• Under 25 w/ ≥10% TOI: 1 (Kuznetsov)

Conclusion
You cannot be an older team with a middle-of-the-road roster, remain largely inactive, and simultaneously claim you are rebuilding.

[browntrout]

Until this team actually starts trading away vets with term to other organizations, in exchange for prospects that align with their long term plan of that straegizes multiple young players growing at the same time, the team is not rebuilding.

I have seen good asset management from CC, but I have not seen a willingness to give younger players playing time over more vets, that frankly, probably would give them a better chance at winning, but does IMO kinda show that ownership does not want the pain that goes with getting a top 3 pick, it seems to be very business driven, and as a lifelong fan for 50 years now, it's disappointing to to hear.

I watched that team in 89 win the cup..... absolutely @#$&* stacked with hall of fame talent, hockey has changed dramatically since then, elite talent is typically now drafted in the top 5.....for the flames to draft like the did in the 80's, and get lucky on so many mid to late round picks, not happening again in my life time. I think there is a sense of arrogance with ownership that they think they can do this again, I think the thought process is wrong, flawed, and just frankly not going to work in today's NHL, but that's how they think.

There does seem to messaging from executive flames brass that mimics this philosophy, some of their "in actions" and silence does seem to say something to me.

In the end I don't think it matters, year or year, the trend has seen this team decline in the standing, moving forward they project as a team with aging vets, 35-37...is getting towards 'drop of a cliff territory ' Subjectively any nhl analyst would look at this team and be concerned about the talent gap between their young players and vets. Moving forward you can see a team not having enough talent to compete in the NHL.

It's going to be slow death, but can be accelerated by trading all of Coleman, Kadri (retain salary if you have too), and Andersson. I think if ownership was smart, they would recognize the best path forward to business prosperity would to target the under 30 crowd, get them hooked on putting names like Verhoeff or McKenna, or stenburg on the back of their fan jerseys.

Holding on to these 3 players is a mistake, just get decent accents and secure this year's top 3 pick, that is the quickest way back to competing in the NHL playoffs for an extended period of time.
.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I am firmly in the “not a rebuild” camp, but the debate has become circular because there are legitimate arguments on both sides. Below are the most common arguments.

Common Arguments

1. Trading Veterans

Fact:

• Conroy traded seven veterans in his first year as GM.

It is a rebuild:

• This group included the 1C, 1D, starting goalie, and other players in major roles.

It is not a rebuild:

• All but one of these players were on expiring contracts
• The Flames attempted to re-sign the most important players
• The lone exception was Markstrom, who was disgruntled, and the Flames needed to make room for Wolf.

2. Inactivity

Fact:

• Conroy has made one notable move in the past 17 months.

It is a rebuild:

• The Flames have not used their cap space or assets to improve the team.

It is not a rebuild:

• Conroy attempted to take “big swings” to support both winning now and winning later, but was unable to connect. Evidence that rebuilding on the fly is ineffective as there are too few moves available.

3. Flames Communication

Fact:

• The Flames have consistently stated this is not a rebuild.

It is a rebuild:

• The messaging does not match their actions and is therefore PR-driven.

It is not a rebuild:

• The messaging aligns with the franchise’s historical reluctance to rebuild.
• Players have been told internally this is not a rebuild.
• Other teams have been told the Flames are not listening to offers on key veterans.

Bottom Line

What should not be a circular discussion is: The Flames are still an older team with a roster that is good enough to be middle of the road.


Roster Age Breakdown (by TOI)

Centers

• Average Age (Total TOI): 32
• Average Age (Top 2 TOI): 36
• Under 25 w/ ≥10% TOI: 0

Wingers

• Average Age (Total TOI): 28
• Average Age (Top 4 TOI): 29
• Under 25 w/ ≥10% TOI: 2 (Coronato, Zary)

Defense

• Average Age (Total TOI): 28
• Average Age (Top 4 TOI): 30
• Under 25 w/ ≥10% TOI: 1 (Kuznetsov)

Conclusion
You cannot be an older team with a middle-of-the-road roster, remain largely inactive, and simultaneously claim you are rebuilding.

Flames were the 9th youngest team to start the season according to the Athletic and have added two young defensemen, and will be bringing back two other players around age 20.

When we see one or more of the expected group traded I'm guessing they're in the top 4-5 league wide.

The big key is the push ... Parekh stumbled, but we've seen Kuznetsov, Brust and Honzek all play critical roles.

Oh and another circular argument ... many don't see only one player traded that was on an expiring contract. I see 3.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Flames were the 9th youngest team to start the season according to the Athletic and have added two young defensemen, and will be bringing back two other players around age 20.

When we see one or more of the expected group traded I'm guessing they're in the top 4-5 league wide.

The big key is the push ... Parekh stumbled, but we've seen Kuznetsov, Brust and Honzek all play critical roles.

Oh and another circular argument ... many don't see only one player traded that was on an expiring contract. I see 3.

9 out of 32 is not a young team, and when you look at the age of players by role and ice time we are one of the older teams in the NHL.

Yes, we have a few young players. So does every team.

You mentioned Kuznetsov. We put him on waivers to keep a bunch of vets on the roster and are really fortunate we didn't lose him. Plus, he only got a chance due to injuries.

The 3 players not on expiring deals is a deliberate excercise in semantics that in absolutely no way contradicts the point that was being made. Its an example of the excuse making that happens here to try and ignore the Flames reluctance to rebuild. A reluctance that the organization self admits to.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by kehatch

9 out of 32 is not a young team, and when you look at the age of players by role and ice time we are one of the older teams in the NHL.

Yes, we have a few young players. So does every team.

You mentioned Kuznetsov. We put him on waivers to keep a bunch of vets on the roster and are really fortunate we didn't lose him. Plus, he only got a chance due to injuries.

The 3 players not on expiring deals is a deliberate excercise in semantics that in absolutely no way contradicts the point that was being made. Its an example of the excuse making that happens here to try and ignore the Flames reluctance to rebuild. A reluctance that the organization self admits to.

lol stop. Your long term obsession with trying to make this narrative work around the team is so awkward to read, especially when you mix in comments about “excuse making that happens here.” They have an average age of 27.12 right now, 7th youngest in the league. Younger than Anaheim, and .3 older than San Jose. They’ll move into the 5 youngest teams with the trades coming up.

Take in new information, adjust your position. It’s OK that you’re wrong, nobody cares, you don’t lose made up internet points. As long as you don’t work too hard to make it feel like you’re still right like you’re doing now, nobody is going to remember that you had a bad take.

[Locke]

A rebiggle can embiggen even the smallest team!

[traptor]

You can all call to whatever you want to call to but unless they start getting some of the talent that is typically only found at the top of the draft then its going to be a failed rebuild.




I just can't help but think our current trajectory for this interation is putting us on the same path, if not slightly worse, then the Gaudreau and iginla eras.


We have some good pieces, but I dont see the real foundational pieces yet and we're 4 years out of playoffs.

[browntrout]

Originally Posted by traptor

You can all call to whatever you want to call to but unless they start getting some of the talent that is typically only found at the top of the draft then its going to be a failed rebuild.




I just can't help but think our current trajectory for this interation is putting us on the same path, if not slightly worse, then the Gaudreau and iginla eras.


We have some good pieces, but I do think see the real foundational pieces yet and were 4 years out of playoffs.

I think you see this team competitive in about 5-6 years and that's if they get their top line talent they are missing....if that's 2-3 years from now, I think you see mediocrity continue for another 6 years plus, alot of the really good teams now, Detroit, Anaheim, Edmonton, Florida, etc struggled for a good decade before really becoming a competitive team.

[Enoch Root]

'Average' can be very deceiving, and usually requires digging a little deeper.

If you have 10 35 years olds, and 10 21 year olds, your average age is 28

If you have 15 30 year olds, and 5 20 year olds, your average age is 27.5

But those two teams are VERY different in what is going to happen going forward. The first one has a bunch of old players that are about to be replaced, and will be very young very soon. The second has a core that isn't going anywhere, and that is late prime and going to get older and older.

The Flames are similar to the first example - their average age is middle of the pack, but that's because there are 4 or 5 guys in their mid 30s. Those guys are about to be replaced by 20 year olds.

It is obtuse and disingenuous to ignore that this team is getting younger and younger. I mean, you have to REALLY not want to see it.