Difference between rebuild and business as usual

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

Detroit in the last 5 years has drafted way better than Calgary has. Over 10 years it's even uglier.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

Well, according to what I can find we have a 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and two 7th round pick this year - six picks total.

No team loads up on 12 picks and hopes it all works out. Getting additional picks over multiple years is clearly the ideal strategy and we're still at least 3 additional draft picks away from making this year #1 in our multiple year strategy. So you tell me how we acquire these extra picks (particularly higher picks of more value). Or do we just go with the status quo and call it rebuilding?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JayP

Well, according to what I can find we have a 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and two 7th round pick this year - six picks total.

No team loads up on 12 picks and hopes it all works out. Getting additional picks of multiple years is clearly the ideal strategy and we're still at least 3 additional draft picks away from making this year #1 in our multiple year strategy. So you tell me how we acquire these extra picks (particularly higher picks of more value). Or do we just go with the status quo and call it rebuilding?

Trade down at the draft to recoup 2nd rounder.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by timbit

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

They have already committed more resources to scouting and development - that is a mandatory first step (and needs to continue)

They should obviously look to acquire picks this year as I have said multiple times (since they have vets to trade).

And it's not a start and stop process - it has to be an organizational philosophy (which it is not yet, IMO)

[afc wimbledon]

I hesitate to bring them up but the difference between the way the Canucks handled the Naslund line and Calgary is a stark reminder that its is not just the drafting, the Canucks hand was forced somewhat but I have no doubt it was the fact they pulled that line apart and sold it off that made room for the twins which in turn allowed for the development of Kessler etc.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by JayP

Well, according to what I can find we have a 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and two 7th round pick this year - six picks total.

No team loads up on 12 picks and hopes it all works out. Getting additional picks of multiple years is clearly the ideal strategy and we're still at least 3 additional draft picks away from making this year #1 in our multiple year strategy. So you tell me how we acquire these extra picks (particularly higher picks of more value). Or do we just go with the status quo and call it rebuilding?

I think almost everyone, save Flames management, don't want to see the status quo in terms of strategy continue.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They have already committed more resources to scouting and development - that is a mandatory first step (and needs to continue)

They should obviously look to acquire picks this year as I have said multiple times (since they have vets to trade).

And it's not a start and stop process - it has to be an organizational philosophy (which it is not yet, IMO)

And there is the problem. Organizational philosophy.... Short, intermediate and long term.

Intellectual Honesty? Nice buzz phrase...who do they think they are fooling?

[Sylvanfan]

The way the multiple draft picks are acquired had to factor in too. It's one thing to always trade back in the first round and get an extra pick. It's another to trade veterans for picks at the deadline.

I think Nashville had 3 or 4 second round picks in 2003, and Kevin Klein and Weber were both picked after Konstantin Pushkarev. So even teams who are good at drafting did need to have multiple swings to knock one out of the park.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 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?

I don't care what you want to call it.

The current roster doesn't work and some vets need to be moved out - whether for picks or prospects.

More importantly though, is a philosophical change that understands and commits to an ongoing realiance on the draft as the primary source of asset acquisition.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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

And this approach isn't an alternative to smart drafting and development; it supplements smart drafting and development. If you think Feaster and Weisbrod have a better eye for talent than previous Flames brass (and I think they do), then imagine how much the Flames could improve their talent acquisition if those sharp minds had even more shots at the board.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JayP

Well, according to what I can find we have a 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and two 7th round pick this year - six picks total.

No team loads up on 12 picks and hopes it all works out. Getting additional picks over multiple years is clearly the ideal strategy and we're still at least 3 additional draft picks away from making this year #1 in our multiple year strategy. So you tell me how we acquire these extra picks (particularly higher picks of more value). Or do we just go with the status quo and call it rebuilding?

I don't think I have said anything remotely like that, but whatever.

I think you have to move Iginla, Cammalleri, and probably Stempniak this year. iginla is a given due to his contract, the potential return, plus the fact that I think there will be too much bad blood this year to make an extension a viable solution.

As for others, first you have to decide who you want to have around in 3 years and beyond. And that is not as simple as going down the list and saying yes or no - some guys might make sense for a while. Bouwmeester is a guy I probably hold on to until next year for example, to see he evolves.

I wouldn't move Kiprusoff this year as there are too many questions in net - let's see what Ramo can do and this season is giving aIrving a look as well (though I don't hold out much hope there). Obviously with Kipper though, you have to discuss his plans with him - if he is plannign on hanging them up (which I highly doubt) then that changes things with him.

I'll stop now - this is precisely why I didn't want to get into details. THis is not something you can put down on ppaer in a few sentences. You need a plan -an ongoing plan. And we could go through this for hours.

I will say this though: if it were my team, drafting is tp priority and my ongoing plan would always be to try and have extra picks each year (saving the 'spend some picks' strategy for the years where everything is coming together.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by fotze

I have wanted to do this for a while. Don't know where the data is anymore.

Plot the amount of points acumulated in that span versus the gross total average draft position (remove beyond the 4th round) or number of picks.

Plot every final lineup in 2012 and their average draft position, undrafted players are assigned the last pick in their draft.

I think anything beyond the 4th round is just shots in the dark. i.e. 2 picks in the second round is like 10 in the 5th.

here is a post you may find interesting:

Originally Posted by getbak

At the end of the 2006-07 season, the bottom five teams in the League were: Chicago, Washington, LA, Phoenix, and Philadelphia.

All five teams made the playoffs this season; Washington won the President's Trophy; and Chicago and Philly are about to play each other for the Stanley Cup.

^ that post is from almost 3 years ago. Chicago would of course go on to win the cup and 2 years later, LA would do the same.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The way the multiple draft picks are acquired had to factor in too. It's one thing to always trade back in the first round and get an extra pick. It's another to trade veterans for picks at the deadline.

I think Nashville had 3 or 4 second round picks in 2003, and Kevin Klein and Weber were both picked after Konstantin Pushkarev. So even teams who are good at drafting did need to have multiple swings to knock one out of the park.

For the Flames, right now, it's about trading vets because they have an abundance and a team that isn't working.

But ongoing, I don't think it's as simple as trading vets. I think it is more about determining who is part of your plan and who isn't, and trading those players taht aren't while they have value, for either players you need, or more picks, thus always adding to the supply.

[Enoch Root]

Bottomline is pretty straight forward:

A team that drafts and develops well will have more assets to deal with, and is in a position of greater strength.

[sven]

While we talk about rebuilding through draft and trading away our vets,
sure, we end up with a lot of draft picks but who will actually play for the flames from 2013-2017???

if we trade all our old guys that have value
Iggy, Tangs, Kipper, Sarich, etc

We'd be icing an AHL team.

now will fans continue to show up or will there be another Save the Flames drive???

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by sven

While we talk about rebuilding through draft and trading away our vets,
sure, we end up with a lot of draft picks but who will actually play for the flames from 2013-2017???

if we trade all our old guys that have value
Iggy, Tangs, Kipper, Sarich, etc

We'd be icing an AHL team.

now will fans continue to show up or will there be another Save the Flames drive???

A valid point.

But I think one big difference between now and 2 or 3 years ago is that there is a pretty solid group of guys in the 25-30 range now that can carry things for a while.

I do agree though, that icing a crap team leads to a losing atmosphere and makes for a very difficult hole to dig out from. Something to be avoided.

[Tinordi]

Somebody should fax this thread to Ron Bremner.

[Tinordi]

So are we gradually agreeing that there is one basic strategy available? That we need to accumulate draft picks over multiple years to draft a new core?

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So are we gradually agreeing that there is one basic strategy available? That we need to accumulate draft picks over multiple years to draft a new core?

Let's wait and see how they do tonight.

[timbit]

Oops