Difference between rebuild and business as usual

[CliffFletcher]

Since this fanbase has finally woken up to the prospect of a rebuild, it might be useful if we come to some understanding of what a rebuild is.

Some are claiming that carefully drafting and developing homegrown talent and feeding it into the roster is rebuilding. That turning over second tier players with free agents is a renewal. Well, that may be a fresh strategy for the Calgary Flames franchise, but it's business as usual for 80 per cent of the teams in the NHL. Everyone drafts and develops players. Everyone fills out their roster with free agents. Everyone has several prospects who look like they could be NHL calibre talents.

No, a rebuild is where you exchange depreciating assets for appreciating assets. It's where you set a horizon in the future - typically 3-6 seasons - where you want to maximize your strength, and you're willing to accept a loss of short-term assets to increase that long-term potential. In a rebuild, all assets that have peaked or are declining are on the table. And no, that strategy wasn't invented by the Oilers. It has been employed by many franchises in all leagues that are built through a draft.

Not all fans are going to like, or agree with, a strategy of short-term pain for long-term gain. Not all fans think it's worthwhile for the Flames to rebuild. And that's okay. Just don't call business a usual a rebuild. Because building through the draft with the normal allotment of draft picks is business as usual for NHL teams.

[Huntingwhale]

In this city, a rebuild is pretty ''black and white''. According to most, a rebuild is not a rebuild in Calgary until Kipper and Iggy are traded.

[Icon]

And a rebuild won't happen at this point in the season.

- they will want to give the current roster as much time as possible to succeed before admitting failure.

- traditionally teams pay a lot more at the deadline than during the season.

- it's easier to sell a rebuild to your fanbase when there's statistical proof of needing it (well out of a playoff spot)


All that said, I'd be just fine if they started it now; it's been overdue for a few years.

[Husky]

I think the Flames can still be successful if they move out Kipper and Iginla at the deadline if each player can return a top 6 forward/or top 4D and a nice pick. The year after move out Cammalleri and Tanguay for similar (but lessor packages).

The Flames have decent depth and coaching.

[neo45]

The next 20 or so games are going to play a huge factor in the future of the Flames. I could support selling off the veterans in a shortened season, taking advantage of a pretty good draft, and being aggressive players in free agency going after the likes of Ryane Clowe and Stephen Weiss.

I could also support the Flames trying to make the playoffs with what they have. Even if they come up short, it is entirely possible to pick up a great player at #14 (Max Domi?) and going for boom/bust potential in the later rounds like the Flames have been doing. They could still be aggressive in FA like last offseason, but not as aggressive as if they trade some veterans at the deadline. The difficult question is what to do with Iginla if he won't sign an extension before the deadline, especially if the Flames are still just 4 points out of a playoff spot.

Either way players like Babchuk and Comeau, who won't be here next year anyways, should be traded at the deadline for whatever you can get for them.

[Icon]

If the Flames aren't buyers at the deadline (which they shouldn't be)... you can realistically say the earliest they'll be competitive again will be in at least 2 years (probably 3 or 4).

The only guys on the roster currently signed for that season:
Baertschi
Hudler
Tanguay
Glencross
Wideman
Giordano
Reinhart
Ferland

It's reasonable to say the following RFAs will still be here:
Backlund
Byron
Brodie
Ortio
Horak
Bouma

Plus you will have these guys fighting for spots on new ELCs:
Granlund
Gaudreau
Jankowski
Arnold
Sieloff
Wotherspoon
Ramage
and a handful of other prospects who could surprise in that year or the couple years following.

If you're rebuilding, anyone not on this list should be strongly considered to be traded for assets anytime between now & then. If you're realistic in that you won't be competitive again until some of these younger guys have their feet wet, accepting some growing pains is necessary.

Where the problem lies, is since the Flames have been a "cap team" for so long, if the fans/owners/etc see the team not using all their money to try to buy some of the best players in the league, the poop will hit the fan. So that's likely holding them back from doing a full fire sale for picks & prospects.

[the-rasta-masta]

I still don't think the Oilers can be considered a classic rebuild. What depreciating assets did they trade away? Smyth? As recently as 2009 we saw the Oilers trade a 2nd round pick for a 31 year old Ales Kotalik. What about signing Khabibulin? Accidental rebuild maybe, but I think they were just bad enough for consecutive years that people are starting to think it was their plan all along.

Have there been any examples of teams rebuilding in the sense of what many are asking the Flames to do? Chicago and Pittsburgh? Again, my memory is fuzzy but I feel that was just pure luck of having a few bad years in a row. I can't remember them trading away any big pieces/franchise players for draft picks. You could say Boston maybe, but then again they got killed in the Joe Thornton trade. The only time I can remember teams trading away potential franchises stars have been the Florida's and Atlanta's of the league, and I really don't think that has worked out for them too well.

[FlamesAddiction]

I have nothing against rebuilding, but you do that in the offseason, or at least wait until the trade deadline to make the moves.

You aren't going to get the best deals in terms of future assets only 10 games into the season - even in a short season. No team is going to put all their chips in for rentals this early.

Anyone who expects management to make rebuilding types of transactions in the immediate future will be disappointed because it either isn't going to happen, or we won't get great value. It's very defeatist to start talking about it this early into a season.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Well, I think the rebuild has started a few years ago - and it started 'correctly'. The Flames rebuilt their hockey ops department. Without proper scouting and development, outside of your high-end top 5 picks, you will have a good chance of bombing in the rebuild.

Calgary has done a much better job in drafting of late, and I would feel much more comfortable if they decide to pull the plug and do a 'traditional rebuild' now.

I also differ in the assertion that Calgary is not rebuilding, but rather just going about 'business as usual'. There are only kinds of teams in the NHL - rebuilding teams, and contending teams. Incompetence keeps teams 'contending' when they can't. Calgary kept unloading the future for the now for a bit too long. That has been the biggest problem. The pressure to win in a Canadian market is really big, but in the last couple of years, this has changed with the Oilers, Montreal and the return of the Jets.

I do see it as the Flames rebuilding - and they have started with the off-ice product (drafting, development and professional scouts, as well as other key areas in the hockey ops department: i.e. Chris Snow).

They are transitioning from an 'old core' to a new one (though not enough of a core yet, for sure, but at least they are removing the onus of success from their oldest players, to younger ones).

Flames are just doing this rebuild in a way that they remain competitive and interesting. Can they do it correctly? Obviously the posters who are against this type of rebuild say "No". I don't think that will ever happen - I do think Iginla and Kipper will both be traded this year. However, hardly a 'traditional rebuild'. Is it just those two players that signal a rebuild? How deep does it go?

Babchuk and Comeau (especially) will not bring us much if at all on the trade market.

It will be interesting to see how deep the Flames go with trading players for futures. Barring some miracle run into the postseason, I do think that is what will happen.

[Icon]

^ the one problem with a slow rebuild like this, is the young guys picking-up bad habits/mentality from the old guys. Not saying that's definitely what's happening with the Flames, but its definitely something that could be an issue for them (and could be why we see them lapse to the "boring old Flames" gameplay style now & then).

[FAN]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I still don't think the Oilers can be considered a classic rebuild. What depreciating assets did they trade away? Smyth? As recently as 2009 we saw the Oilers trade a 2nd round pick for a 31 year old Ales Kotalik. What about signing Khabibulin? Accidental rebuild maybe, but I think they were just bad enough for consecutive years that people are starting to think it was their plan all along.

The Oilers' current rebuild is in no way accidental. They tried to retool for years and tried acquiring a big name to help them much in the same way Feaster tried to sign Richards, until reality hit them. I only looked up Tambellini's moves and the Oilers did make the Visnovsky for Whitney trade, Erik Cole netted a 2nd, Grebeshkov netted a 2nd, Staios got them our 3rd , draft bust Riley Nash for a 2nd, Penner for Theubert, a 1st round, and a 3rd, Cogliano for a 2nd. At the end of the day, they had three 2nd round picks the year they drafted Taylor Hall, two 1st round picks the year they drafted RNH along with multiple 3rds and 4ths. That's not to mention a willingness to give their young players prime offensive roles.

I don't believe that a rebuild necessitates the trading of Iginla or Kipper. It would certainly speed up a rebuild. The guys the team should look towards trading are 2nd and 3rd tier veterans who can net a decent prospect or draft pick in return and players with expensive long-term contracts. If the team needs to fill a hole with a veteran, the team can easily acquire or sign a veteran on a bad short-term contract to help with the rebuild. It's really more in the mindset. If the Flames are rebuilding you slot Sven into your top 6 and have him learn through trial by fire. You accept the fact that the team will suffer growing pains.

[Husky]

Originally Posted by Icon

^ the one problem with a slow rebuild like this, is the young guys picking-up bad habits/mentality from the old guys. Not saying that's definitely what's happening with the Flames, but its definitely something that could be an issue for them (and could be why we see them lapse to the "boring old Flames" gameplay style now & then).

On the flip side I can argue the young guys need veterans around to tech them unlike the Oilers. Typically successful prospects do well and develop because of strong veterans.

[JiriHrdina]

I think there are many different approaches and many ways to build a good team in the NHL. What matters is how that plan is executed.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by FAN

That's not to mention a willingness to give their young players prime offensive roles.

Main difference right there.

Of course it's easier to give them prime offensive roles when they're prime offensive prospects, and they also don't have much else as far as guys to play those lines instead of the youth.

The Flames can't employ the same tactic with the current roster because we simply have too many veteran forwards in the way, and not enough prime offensive prospects to play in the top 6 in their place. Adding Backlund & Baertschi to the top 6 was a move in the right direction. Just need more guys like them, which we have... in a couple years.

[Poe969]

Only if those vets have an element of success. If you have vets who have won cups and/or long playoff runs teaching the rookies it's good. If you have vets who have won a couple of individual awards and that's it, than it's not a good situation.

I would say that Iggy isn't as good of a mentor as he used to be and other than him I don't consider any of our vets to be that good of an influance on any rookies

[Enoch Root]

So a rebuild is only a rebuild if its done exactly the way the OP wants it to be done.

Got it.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think there are many different approaches and many ways to build a good team in the NHL. What matters is how that plan is executed.

This is thrown out there alot. There are many different ways to skin a cat, so I would challenge you to name different ways to rebuild.

[ComixZone]

I don't really care about defining it as a rebuild or not - but the fact is, we're in one and it isn't due to any sort of plan.

We're tied for worst in the West - and our team was trying to win. Maintaining the status quo would be beyond moronic and it would be nothing but bad management.

Trading Iginla or Kiprusoff, or both, would help this team become better - likely as early as next season. Watching Feaster and Flames management stand idly by and proclaim that the answers are in the dressing room as one more trade deadline comes and goes would likely push me into a apathy induced coma.

[nik-]

It's barely even a rebuild at this point. Trade Iginla for a nice D prospect and a 1st and I bet we barely see any change on the ice. There will be a drop, but it won't be that bad. You can still ice a competitive team and accelerate the prospect pool buildup.

It will also take this cloud off of this team, because when a franchise is so focused on one player and that player is legitimately declining, it's bad news.

[FlamesAddiction]

Ideally, if your GM is a good steward and can maintain steady and selective turnover, they may never have to rebuild, see the Wings or Devils who have been competetive past what many people consider the natural cycle of rebuilding. Then consider that many rebuilding teams have to do it more than once before they get it right.

Not that I am against rebuilding after this season (depending on the end results), but I don't believe that it is always an inescapable part of the cycle. It basically indicates failure in some measure (sometimes caused by chance, and sometimes by bad management).

edit: I'll also say this... just either do it or don't do it. I'm am just tired of half-measures and being inbetween places. I will vomit if I hear the term "re-tooling" one more time.