Difference between rebuild and business as usual

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Not sure why you would say this. The subject of a re-build for this organization has been around for years - and perhaps the biggest debate on this site. As one would expect you've had a variety of opinions on weather this is the way to go, but there's been fair representation on all sides. I think as time has gone on more people have been clamouring for a re-build, but to suggest that the concept is foreign "among Flames fans" feels like an unnecessary shot at the fan base.

When the subject of a rebuilt comes up, the only franchise Flames fans who are doubtful bring up is the Oilers. I don't see a lot of awareness on this site of the many franchises in the NHL and elsewhere that have carried out rebuilds.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When the subject of a rebuilt comes up, the only franchise Flames fans who are doubtful bring up is the Oilers. I don't see a lot of awareness on this site of the many franchises in the NHL and elsewhere that have carried out rebuilds.

You're right, there's also the Islanders, Jackets, and Panthers
In all serious though, I don't think there are really any people left on this board that think the Flames are doing just fine and don't need to make any changes. The debate at this point is how deep the cuts should be, and how long would it be to make any discernible improvement. The Oilers example is brought up because it's a prime example of how bad it can be if there isn't a solid management group at the helm of a "scorched earth" rebuild. I think Feaster and co. have done a good job of revamping the drafting and development programs, and I think we are currently primed for a short term rebuild. With a shortened season in a good draft year with key injuries already this is the perfect opportunity for an Ottawa style turnaround. I don't think our turnaround will be as quick as theirs (we just don't have the same quality of prospects) but it could certainly be quicker than the Oilers.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I sure as heck hope not.

Going to take a few years to see whether or not the new regime is better at it than the least few regime's.

Sounds a lot like 'hope and pray.' instead of 'be proactive'.

[Icon]

What I'm still worried about at this point is one more year of "let's see if we can make it happen", and shipping out some more prospects/picks at or before the deadline and grabbing another 32-35 year old on decline.

If that happens, that turns the possibility of a "short turnaround" into a really long one.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Good drafting and development.

....and not just with very high "lotto" picks, but you need to find and develop some gems in the later rounds.

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.

[afc wimbledon]

What a weird thread this is, the idea that you can rebuild the team by tradiing Iginla and Kipper is long gone, this was a plan for 2 or 3 seasons ago, at about the same time Dion was traded.

Right now the Flames are in the death spiral towards a few top five picks, the only thing trading Kipper and Iginla does at this stage is speed up the fall to the bottom (not that that isn't worth doing mind you), the Flames are not able to rebuild anymore in the classic sense, they do not have the assets to trade.

The best hope for the Flames is a lucky pick or two in the next few years as they get lower towards the top 5 that will complement the 1st or second pick when it comes,if this all sounds a bit grim sorry but I cannot see any thing else at this juncture, I do not think any team can be succesfull without several high (top 2 or 3) picks and a few lucky lower round 'gems'. Thus far the Flames have none of these and arestill a few years away from getting there.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Anyone who thinks the flames are not rebuilding has not been paying attention. But rebuilding need not mean abandoning all interest in winning for years.

Why people have such a hard on to be like the oilers I will never understand. That organization should hang its head in shame for milking their fans with an AHL roster while distracting them with the shiny object of 'building something special'.

Totally unnecessary.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sounds a lot like 'hope and pray.' instead of 'be proactive'.

Huh? What are you talking about?

I'm a fan, how am I supposed to be proactive in the rebuilding of the Flames?

...and there is no way that Flames management is "hoping and praying" things will get better drafting and developing NHL talent. They are the one that should be proactive about it, and they obviously are.

Doesn't guarantee success though, so as a fan I will hope and pray.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by nik-

Jokinen said he wouldn't waive his NTC so they didn't ask him. Or at least it was understood that he wouldn't waive.

Holy crap i totally forgot he was still in the league.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I do not think any team can be succesfull without several high (top 2 or 3) picks and a few lucky lower round 'gems'. Thus far the Flames have none of these and arestill a few years away from getting there.

I'd argue that Baertschi & Gaudreau may be 'gems'.

But I'll agree the prime time to move some of the old guard for the best return has passed. It doesn't mean the Flames should just give up on any return and ride out those contracts tho.

ie: if trading someone a couple years ago would have been a 1st and a blue-chip prospect, and now it's a 2nd and a decent prospect, you still do it... instead of just riding it out in mediocrity. Same goes for guys who would have got less a couple years ago, and get slightly less now. Still worth it if the trade makes the team better in a couple years.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Icon

What I'm still worried about at this point is one more year of "let's see if we can make it happen", and shipping out some more prospects/picks at or before the deadline and grabbing another 32-35 year old on decline.

If that happens, that turns the possibility of a "short turnaround" into a really long one.

short turnaround? they've been 4 years in the wilderness already with no end in sight

[Phil Russell]

I think it is pretty obvious at this point that a rebuild is needed and it may have begun already, who knows exactly, and whether it is a rebuild or retool or whatever is semantics. Who cares what they call it.

What I can't comprehend is why ownership feels so afraid of the rebuild. I have never bought into this argument that the fans will not accept a rebuild, that it will not be tolerated in the Calgary market. If Calgary fans have shown anything over the last half-dozen or so years it is an incredible loyalty to the team and a tremendous capacity to put up with crap hockey, lots of losses, and no playoffs. Rink is still full. It will be full, as well, during a full rebuild. Interest will remain high during a rebuild.

Maybe more so. I am tuning in right now to watch the new guys and the young guys. I am more interested in the games right now because Irving is in net and because I am interested in seeing Cervenka and Hudler emerge as the top forward pairing. I can't wait for the full on rebuild. I love Iginla but I can't wait for him to move on, for the Flames to cash in on him, for a new identity to be crafted (and no, those two sentiments are not mutually exclusive). Same with Kipper. Same with others.

Could a rebuild really be worse than having, at best, an average, at worst, outright disappointing veteran-laden team year after year?

[Enoch Root]

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.

First of all, let me say that I agree with this.

But I would also like to point out that in practice, recent history is spotty at best.

As an example, look at Chicago (as they are a team that most would agree have rebuilt successfully):

2006: 6 picks in the top 100, only Toews, a lottery pick, to show for it
2007: 5 picks int eh top 100, only Kane #1 overall to show for it
2010: 6 picks in the top 100, nothing of consequence to show for it
2011: 6 picks in the top 100, too early to tell but Saad, and we'll see how McNeil and Danault turn out

I have rummaged through the draft history looking for examples of teams loading up picks and how it turned out, and it is actually pretty shocking how poorly it usually turns out.

Again, not saying I am against it, because I am not - I want the Flames to move some vets this year and load up. Just saying.

Just goes to show that, before you start loading up draft picks, you need to ahve your scouting and development systems where they need to be.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

short turnaround? they've been 4 years in the wilderness already with no end in sight

no need for the melodromatics.

They have an aging core with contracts expiring this year / next year. They have an albeit slow infusion of some younger & more exciting players into the lineup (Backlund, Baertschi, Brodie, Cervenka, Horak, Bouma), with some promising prospects gearing up for the NHL in the next couple years.

At this stage, the turnaround could indeed be short. And it could be accelerated by moving out some of the vets a bit quicker than their contracts will do naturally in the next couple seasons.

I agree that this could have been accelerated a few years ago, but by no means is there no end in sight. A natural rebuild is already slated for a couple years from now, based on the contracts the Flames have alone. So it's just a matter of who's brought in to fill those roles, and when.

[djsFlames]

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).

Iginla, Tanguay (cup winner), Sarich (cup winner), Hudler (cup winner), Kipper, Cammy and his personal success in the league offensively. These are bad guys for young guys to learn from? Sure they may skate a bit slower now and be not quite what they were, but what they can teach could be invaluable to the Svens of the organization. The kids in Edmonton wish they could learn from some of these kinds of guys. Other than Smyth, Horcoff, they've been left out to fend and learn for themselves, partly why I think their growth and success is being hampered. No quality mentors up there.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

First of all, let me say that I agree with this.

But I would also like to point out that in practice, recent history is spotty at best.

As an example, look at Chicago (as they are a team that most would agree have rebuilt successfully):

2006: 6 picks in the top 100, only Toews, a lottery pick, to show for it
2007: 5 picks int eh top 100, only Kane #1 overall to show for it
2010: 6 picks in the top 100, nothing of consequence to show for it
2011: 6 picks in the top 100, too early to tell but Saad, and we'll see how McNeil and Danault turn out

I have rummaged through the draft history looking for examples of teams loading up picks and how it turned out, and it is actually pretty shocking how poorly it usually turns out.

Again, not saying I am against it, because I am not - I want the Flames to move some vets this year and load up. Just saying.

Just goes to show that, before you start loading up draft picks, you need to ahve your scouting and development systems where they need to be.

Look at the meat of the roster, aside from Kane and Toews:

Hjalmersson drafted in the fourth round, 1 of 3 fourth round picks they had that draft.

The year they drafted Barker in the first, they had 2 seconds, and drafted Bolland and Bickell. That same draft, they drafted Troy Brouwer with their second of three 7th round picks. The year before that they drafted Seabrook with their first, Corey Crawford with one of their two 2nd rounders.

Multiple second rounders is the difference between getting Tim Ramholt and getting Tim Ramholt and maybe Shea Weber, Corey Crawford, or Matt Carle. Sure, the flames could've end up with Ramholt and another dud, but it's the potential for more. Having 2 picks is better odds than 1, and if the flames have shown anything in their last 25 years, it's that they need better drafting odds.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, I'm not talking about a schematic, Jiri.

Obviously I don't expect you to come up with, "Trade for the 79th overall pick, draft the diamond in the rough top prospect of the draft. Following season, make trade on December 19th sending ____ to ____ in exchange for ____."

I'm saying, do you build through free agency, rely on your existing stable of picks. try to pick up college free agents to supplement your winning roster?

How do the Flames get 3 players like Landeskog, Duchene and Ryan O'Reilly? How do the Flames acquire players like Toews, Kane?
Pietrangelo, Berglund, Backes?
Lucic, Krejci, Bergeron, Marchand?
Kopitar, Quick, Brown?

How do you build a champsionship core of players?

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.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When the subject of a rebuilt comes up, the only franchise Flames fans who are doubtful bring up is the Oilers. I don't see a lot of awareness on this site of the many franchises in the NHL and elsewhere that have carried out rebuilds.

Again not true - people also bring up CBJ, the Islanders and other examples. Selective memory on your part. And there certainly is a lot of talk about how teams did re-build successfully

[timbit]

Multiple draft picks seems to be a constant.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Look at the meat of the roster, aside from Kane and Toews:

Hjalmersson drafted in the fourth round, 1 of 3 fourth round picks they had that draft.

The year they drafted Barker in the first, they had 2 seconds, and drafted Bolland and Bickell. That same draft, they drafted Troy Brouwer with their second of three 7th round picks. The year before that they drafted Seabrook with their first, Corey Crawford with one of their two 2nd rounders.

Multiple second rounders is the difference between getting Tim Ramholt and getting Tim Ramholt and maybe Shea Weber, Corey Crawford, or Matt Carle. Sure, the flames could've end up with Ramholt and another dud, but it's the potential for more. Having 2 picks is better odds than 1, and if the flames have shown anything in their last 25 years, it's that they need better drafting odds.

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