Difference between rebuild and business as usual

[JayP]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

At some point, all of those teams had a greater than normal number of picks, and/or higher draft picks, than most other teams. Because if you're relying on the standard number of picks, and drafting 8th-12th every season, then your plan is to draft and develop way, way better than your peers. Which isn't so much a plan as a hope. The idea of a rebuild is to stack the young asset acquisition deck in your favour. Multiple first and second round picks. Top-five picks. Etc.

That's the key here. Without having more draft picks (or prospects) than your competitors, how do you expect that to be a realistic rebuilding strategy?

Essentially we're starting from behind based on our current roster (old and crappy) and our thin prospect base (decent high end, but not a lot of depth). So not only are we "re-building" by expecting to outdraft 29 other competent organizations, but we're going to have to outdraft them enough to make up for our current situation. It's a farce. Having faith in your scouting staff is one thing, but you can't just assume they're significantly better than the guys other teams are employing. Especially when you consider that we're still in the lower half of the league in terms of scouts employed.

You don't necessarily need lottery picks to rebuild effectively (although it certainly doesn't hurt). You do, however, need additional throws at the dart board that other teams don't have to set yourself apart somehow.

[CaramonLS]

What pick did the B's use to pick Kessel?

Seems like a pretty consistent formula developing Jiri...

[CaramonLS]

Good scouting also seems to be a constant for these teams... Yet our scouting director also seems to be a constant for the Flames.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

What pick did the B's use to pick Kessel?

Seems like a pretty consistent formula developing Jiri...

Sure but ultimately how important was what they got from that trade to their cup team. Seguin had a role but not a huge one. Frankly the benefits of that trade are to be realized moreso in the future, not for their cup.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Good scouting also seems to be a constant for these teams... Yet our scouting director also seems to be a constant for the Flames.

On this point we agree - though it seems like in practice, if not in title, Weisbrod has more control over final player selection that Button now.

Why Button has survived a series of GMs is actually quite impressive, or just flat out strange depending on how you look at it. Particularly given the organization's track record in recent years under his watch.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Again, I think I was pretty clear that I am all for trading vets for picks right now. All I am saying is that past results of this strategy rarely result in a quick turnaround.

Again Chicago is a good example of that - they had lots of extra picks over and over again for a 15 year period before it finally came togehter for them. So listing the successful picks and saying it paid off for them is cherry-picking.

AGAIN, NOT SAYING IT'S A BAD STRATEGY. However, I AM suggesting that anyone who thinks dumping Iginla, CAmmalleri, Kiprusoof etc and going into this draft with tons of picks, and BOOM, we will have done an instant rebuild is being overly optimistic

It is not cherry picking. Look at St. Louis, Chicago, LA, Pittsburgh, Phil, Wash, Boston...over the past 10 years. Look at Florida over the last 2 years...they are trying to emulate those teams and their success in gathering multiple picks over a number of years.

[sven]

Lol for realz????

I would hope that Calgary fan base would be smart to know what a rebuild is and after 3 losing seasons, I don't know if I can go through another 3-5 years of losing....

[sven]

Originally Posted by timbit

Multiple draft picks seems to be a constant.

I agree with this. Rounds 3 and onwards tend to be more of a crap shoot.
With more bullets, there are more opportunities to hit something.

People praise Det for their drafting. However, Datsyuk was picked in the 6th round in 98 when Det used their SECOND 6th round pick that year. They picked a guy named Deleeuw with their FIRST 6th round pick.

Of course scouting needs to be good but I think sometimes facts like this are overlooked.

If Det thought Datsyuk was goiong to be THIS good, they would have obviously used their 1st 6th round pick or better yet, their 1st round pick to draft Datsyuk.

Clearly, having more bullets in the chamber helped

[JayP]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Doesn’t that prove what I’m saying – it’s about execution
Championship teams get there by outperforming everyone else when it comes to acquiring players by the draft, trade and free agency.

The Kings drafted their elite #1 goalie in the middle rounds. They draft Kopitar around a bunch of other guys that are busts. They drafted guys like Simmonds who they then turned into Mike Richards. They filled needs via free agency with reasonable offers to guys that contributed – Mitchell and Scuderi.

The Bruins made great deals (Kessel), made great decisions with free agents (Chara), and even found a #1 goalie in Europe (Thomas). They drafted impact players in the late 1st and other rounds (Lucic, Krejci, Bergeron, Marchand). Again – they out-executed their competition.

Same with the Blues – combination of hitting on high picks, but moreso making great use of late 1sts to get guys like Berglund, Perron, Backes, Tarasenko, etc.

Go back further to the Devils and Wings – and they simply outperformed other teams at the draft, in trades and with free agents.

It’s about execution.

Look at the number of high picks those teams had.

The Blues alone had 10 first round picks from 2005-2010. That's 4 additional first rounders over that time span. And they had 2 additional 2nd round picks as well. The Kings had 2 extra 1st rounders and 2 extra 2nd rounder in that time frame. Those teams had three and four drafts respectively where they picked 9+ players.

Outperforming other teams at the draft is the key. It's just pretty hard to expect to do so when you're picking 7 times a year at best.

[JiriHrdina]

So is that the crux of it - that the key to success is having multiple picks in the 1st and 2nd round. Not being a jerk - just trying to get to the heart of the argument. Is that the belief by some here - that - that factor is the big one?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by timbit

It is not cherry picking. Look at St. Louis, Chicago, LA, Pittsburgh, Phil, Wash, Boston...over the past 10 years. Look at Florida over the last 2 years...they are trying to emulate those teams and their success in gathering multiple picks over a number of years.

It actually was cherry-picking because he listed the good picks over a very long history, ignoring the fact that Chicago's rebuild failed for almost 2 decades, despite multiple instances of loading up on picks.

My point (which I do not expect anyone who wants a rebuild to listen to) is that quick fixes, with a load-up of picks, pretty much never work.

However, drafting IS a numbers game and the more picks you have, the more good players you should end up with, OVER TIME.

There is a difference, even if it's a subtle one. Maybe it has to do with the fact that a scouting staff, by sheer limitations of it's size and capacity, can only cover so many prospects. But that fact of the matter is that it is extremely rare to nail multiple quality palyers from one draft. It almost never happens.

It takes time and a number of years. That is all I am saying.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JayP

Look at the number of high picks those teams had.

The Blues alone had 10 first round picks from 2005-2010. That's 4 additional first rounders over that time span. And they had 2 additional 2nd round picks as well. The Kings had 2 extra 1st rounders and 2 extra 2nd rounder in that time frame. Those teams had three and four drafts respectively where they picked 9+ players.

Outperforming other teams at the draft is the key. It's just pretty hard to expect to do so when you're picking 7 times a year at best.

THAT'S the difference - they had extra picks over a multi-year period.

It seems to be difficult (as in virtually never happens) to load up a whole bunch of picks in one year and nail it.

It seems that acquiring an extra pick or two each year for multiple years is a far more effective strategy.

Again, maybe it is due to limitations of scouting staffs.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Doesn’t that prove what I’m saying – it’s about execution
Championship teams get there by outperforming everyone else when it comes to acquiring players by the draft, trade and free agency.

The Kings drafted their elite #1 goalie in the middle rounds. They draft Kopitar around a bunch of other guys that are busts. They drafted guys like Simmonds who they then turned into Mike Richards. They filled needs via free agency with reasonable offers to guys that contributed – Mitchell and Scuderi.

You're illustrating my point.

They drafted Simmonds with their second pick in the 2nd round of that year. They drafted Dwight King with their second of 2 picks in the fourth round (Alec Martinez being the first).

They drafted impact players in the late 1st and other rounds (Lucic, Krejci, Bergeron, Marchand). Again – they out-executed their competition.

Multiple picks in the first 60 players.

Same with the Blues – combination of hitting on high picks, but moreso making great use of late 1sts to get guys like Berglund, Perron, Backes, Tarasenko, etc.

Multiple first rounders, 12 in the last 8 drafts and only 2 of them have been higher than #13.

It’s about execution.

It's about giving yourself the best chance of success. The Best Odds.

[timbit]

All rounds count Jiri...but primarily the top 4 rounds. Heck it wasn't all that long ago that the Flames traded a 3rd rd pick for Jason Wiemer. Didn't seem like much? Brad Richards was chosen with that pick.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It actually was cherry-picking because he listed the good picks over a very long history, ignoring the fact that Chicago's rebuild failed for almost 2 decades, despite multiple instances of loading up on picks.

My point (which I do not expect anyone who wants a rebuild to listen to) is that quick fixes, with a load-up of picks, pretty much never work.

However, drafting IS a numbers game and the more picks you have, the more good players you should end up with, OVER TIME.

There is a difference, even if it's a subtle one. Maybe it has to do with the fact that a scouting staff, by sheer limitations of it's size and capacity, can only cover so many prospects. But that fact of the matter is that it is extremely rare to nail multiple quality palyers from one draft. It almost never happens.

It takes time and a number of years. That is all I am saying.

When do you think the Flames should start this process or did you have a short term solution?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So is that the crux of it - that the key to success is having multiple picks in the 1st and 2nd round. Not being a jerk - just trying to get to the heart of the argument. Is that the belief by some here - that - that factor is the big one?

There is no 'key to success' but it is clear under the current CBA no team can build a winner through trades.

On some level a team has to draft and develop at least 50 percent of its top 2 lines and D

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So is that the crux of it - that the key to success is having multiple picks in the 1st and 2nd round. Not being a jerk - just trying to get to the heart of the argument. Is that the belief by some here - that - that factor is the big one?

It is the quickest and best way to give yourself the greatest odds of success.

While ultimately a failure in terms of cup success, the Washington Capitals rebuild was wildly successful and I'd take their last 5 years of heartbreak in April and May vs. the last 5 years of heartbreak in December, January and February.

Nothing is surefire. You need to position your franchise with the greatest possibility of success and then the chips land where they may.

[Torch]

Enoch, Would it be a Rebuild if you traded Iggy and Kipper, cammy,comeau, begin.?
I like the new Guys, the youth. Swap out some forwards.
Would that be a rebuild or Retool?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by sven

I agree with this. Rounds 3 and onwards tend to be more of a crap shoot.
With more bullets, there are more opportunities to hit something.

People praise Det for their drafting. However, Datsyuk was picked in the 6th round in 98 when Det used their SECOND 6th round pick that year. They picked a guy named Deleeuw with their FIRST 6th round pick.

Of course scouting needs to be good but I think sometimes facts like this are overlooked.

If Det thought Datsyuk was goiong to be THIS good, they would have obviously used their 1st 6th round pick or better yet, their 1st round pick to draft Datsyuk.

Clearly, having more bullets in the chamber helped

I think people completely miss the mark when they use Detroit as an example of great drafting.

Detroit hit 3 home runs (Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk) and Datsyuk wasn't a diamond in the riugh, he was a Russian and at that time, no one thought they would come over to play. Everyone knew he was a talent.

Since then, what has Detroit done in the draft? Answer: they draft about as well as everyone else.

What Detroit DOES demonstate is that the key to building a great team is to have those 2 or 3 superstars that you can build around. Lidstrom and Datsyuk make the players around them better and make all of management's decisions look better.

Draft me a Lidstrom with a 3rd round pick and I will build you a winner.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It is the quickest and best way to give yourself the greatest odds of success.

While ultimately a failure in terms of cup success, the Washington Capitals rebuild was wildly successful and I'd take their last 5 years of heartbreak in April and May vs. the last 5 years of heartbreak in December, January and February.

Nothing is surefire. You need to position your franchise with the greatest possibility of success and then the chips land where they may.

Agreed - it is a combination of that and execution I suppose.
I'd be interested in seeing, if you looked back at the post-lock out cup winner (and regular season winners to give a larger sample size), look at both their success rate and quantity of picks - to try and see the impact of both items.

Someone good at the maths can maybe do it.