Patience. Or: the Importance of the Entry Draft in today's NHL

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by fotze

What I remember from the young guns era was not a rebuild, it was the same ownership style we see today, convinced we are a few pieces from a Cup. There were young players but for the most part terrible. If they go Young Guns with actual good players, like the Chicago young guns then count me in.

Yeah, that is what I mean. It wouldn't happen overnight but it can happen. You don't always have to draft these players.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by fotze

What I remember from the young guns era was not a rebuild, it was the same ownership style we see today, convinced we are a few pieces from a Cup. There were young players but for the most part terrible. If they go Young Guns with actual good players, like the Chicago young guns then count me in.

I don't disagree with your point, but let's not forget that Chicago was in a rebuild for about 14 years before the last two pieces lifted them out of the darkness.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I'm not too sure about this. I know it was a different time, but the young guns era stung the Flames hard, and in some ways I do not blame them for trying to avoid it.

I'm sure some fans will stick around for a few years of bottom feeding, but what if it takes 5 or 7? What happens if they get stuck in the Columbus or Islander forever rebuild? There is risk there too. The Oilers have shown improvement but are probably not going to make the playoffs either this year.

All I am saying is I agree the draft is important, but to blow it up is not without risk, major risk. A balanced approach of FA signings and good drafting will get you there, not one or the other.

I don't agree with the Flames approach right now, but understand and respect it. They are trying to turn this around with minimal pain to fans, and although it probably won't work, I'll wait and see what they do at the deadline.

I can't say I am 'pro' rebuild, or 'anti' rebuild - somewhere in the middle for me. I used to really have your fears as well about the rebuild, and ending up like so many teams that are 'wandering the desert' as Feaster so eloquently analogized. However, those teams didn't (and still don't) have what the Flames have - a strong front office and a committed ownership group.

Proof is really in the pudding, and we won't know for sure for a few more years, but it seems like the Flames are indeed drafting better.

Take Edmonton. Can anyone say they are drafting well? Eberle was a real gem for a late round 1st. Luck? Good scouting? Probably both in that case, judging by their lack of meaningful support coming up the pipe so far (unless I am not aware of their prospect base outside their top picks). They should be further ahead than they are now, but they don't have enough support players, have built their team incorrectly (way too soft) and management seems inept at making good moves to get them past that hump - seemingly 'hoping' that their natural skill gets them there.

Islanders - I believe they have the smallest drafting and development program in the league - enough said there.

Colombus is a more interesting case. They have had a long time to accumulate picks. Some of their picks were 'bad luck'. Some were rushed in the opinion of many. Some picks were just not good. They have a history of making poor selections, but also a history of 'bad luck'. In my opinion, you make your own luck. Colombus has a history of bad management.

Take a look at Chicago - they were 'lost in the desert' for a long time - 2 full rebuilds by the looks of it to win the cup, and 7, 8 or 9 years out of the playoffs (too lazy to look it up). What changed? The biggest change was the change in ownership - they had nicknamed Bill Wirtz "Dollar Bill" for being a very 'cheap' owner (and hated by the fans - booing during his moment of silence in the arena?).

Flames do not have that problem with their ownership group. This group can be argued is TOO committed to winning. This is the 'legacy' that Darryl has left on Calgary - not just the higher Canadian dollar. Owners not only realized winning became profitable again (the Calgary Flames turned from a 'hobby' into a real investment) but more importantly - just like the rest of us fans - they really wanted to win. I don't think they would have trouble committing again after a rebuild.

Attracting free agents is tough - but there are enough young(er) assets to hold the fort and provide both depth and leadership.

I think the Flames can turn their fortunes around in 1-2 seasons - though they have to be very shrewd. What I don't think is that the Flames will wander the desert for years. Might take 3 years, but anything more I would say you are failing - at least when you are starting from a position that the Flames are in already (with nice pieces, a solid drafting and development program in place, and assets that could drastically alter the course of this franchise).

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Of course drafting is important, because that's where teams gain assets. However, that does not mean teams should not trade picks for assets. Nor does it mean that you should try to make sure your team is made up of players you drafted.

Successful teams often have a lot of their own draftees because they are good at asset management and the draft is the easiest place to gain assets. They are not successful because they have a lot of their own draftees in their line up.

So, your argument that ROR should not have been signed because he's not the Flames draft pick isn't sound. As he's a much better long term asset than the Flames would expect to get, outside of picking top five.

That's, of course, in the hypothetical situation that ROR would not have had to go through waivers.

I agree, trading a pick for a 22 year old with a high ceiling and lots of years of team control is fine for the Flames at this stage. That is much different that trading a 1st rounder for a 27 year old 2nd liner with a year and a half of team control. I don't see Feaster doing the latter, and if he did, then I am on board firing him immediately.

Bottom Line is we are much more likely to be better in each of the next five years with O'reilly vs this Summer's number 1 and 3 picks. Any move you can say that about should be made. Keeping the draft pick wouldn't likely improve over having O'reilly for another 6 or 7 years.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by fotze

But the more terrible you are, the less good you need to be at drafting. The prob with ROR debacle was potentially giving up a Stamkos for a Pominville. That's how bad this team has the potential to be. ROR would be de-risking the draft pick for less upside. Like a farm out.

The top 4 this year presents quite the opportunity.

I get that but I have absolutely zero faith in the Flames development. It feels like they could draft the baby of Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux and he'd still turn out to be a putz and not a legitimate star NHL player. So what I'm saying is maybe the de-risking makes sense.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by fotze

Or was it the owner dying that put them over the top? Brutal ownership is what cost those years.

and costing ours... whoops? Did I write that here?

Although, love the willingness to spend money. But that's about it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

and costing ours... whoops? Did I write that here?

Although, love the willingness to spend money. But that's about it.

I don't think Calgary's problem is ownership: as you say, they are willing to spend - and not just on salaries but also on scouting, etc

And consider that, until two or three years ago, there were no complaints of ownership meddling. In fact, ownership was highly regarded.

So what changed? I believe it isn't as simple as complaining that ownership is meddling, you have to ask why they are meddling.

And, to me, the answer is that the president hasn't managed the direction of the team well.

Ownership didn't seem to mind Sutter having autonomy. But when things fell apart and a new direction was established, they appeared to be less willing to grant that autonomy. It is a lack of trust in the direction of the team

If you have a solid president with a clear vision of what the franchise wants to be, it is a lot easier for ownership to allow him the authority and the autonomy to make it happen.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Attracting free agents is tough - but there are enough young(er) assets to hold the fort and provide both depth and leadership.

I think the Flames can turn their fortunes around in 1-2 seasons - though they have to be very shrewd. What I don't think is that the Flames will wander the desert for years. Might take 3 years, but anything more I would say you are failing - at least when you are starting from a position that the Flames are in already (with nice pieces, a solid drafting and development program in place, and assets that could drastically alter the course of this franchise).

Wandering in the desert? That is the Calgary Flames.

Show me other teams in the league that don't have any impact players between the ages of 21-27 in their lineups. Any contenders?

How is that going to change in 2-3 years ? While the Flames older impact ( use the term very loosely in this case) players continue to age, how are they going to replace them yet stay ahead of the other teams who are using the same drafting and development strategies that you speak of.

They have failed, minimally, the last 3 seasons and will again this season.

Keeping up with the Jones is going to be a helluva lot tougher than drafting 5 or 6 picks and developing one or hopefully 2 of them.

Who are these assets that will "dramatically " alter things and/ or hold the fort in the next 3 years.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't think Calgary's problem is ownership: as you say, they are willing to spend - and not just on salaries but also on scouting, etc

And consider that, until two or three years ago, there were no complaints of ownership meddling. In fact, ownership was highly regarded.

So what changed? I believe it isn't as simple as complaining that ownership is meddling, you have to ask why they are meddling.

And, to me, the answer is that the president hasn't managed the direction of the team well.

Ownership didn't seem to mind Sutter having autonomy. But when things fell apart and a new direction was established, they appeared to be less willing to grant that autonomy. It is a lack of trust in the direction of the team

If you have a solid president with a clear vision of what the franchise wants to be, it is a lot easier for ownership to allow him the authority and the autonomy to make it happen.

Hotchkiss passed away and Edwards has the reigns off of him meddling. As a result he has a know nothing newspaper man running an NHL franchise.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't disagree with your point, but let's not forget that Chicago was in a rebuild for about 14 years before the last two pieces lifted them out of the darkness.

Dollar Bill Wirtz died after multiple decades of sticking his nose into hockey operations, branding and marketing. He oversaw the longest cup drought in Blackhawk history and the third longest in NHL History at the time of his death.

He was eventually so disliked for his reputation as a cheap and micromanaging owner that his moment of silence was BOO'd at the United Centre following his death.

9 Months later, they Hawks handed out the richest contract in franchise history to Brian Campbell, spent through the nose for Huet, expanded their hockey operations department bringing in hockey guys like Scotty Bowman and Joel Quennville.

The hawks weren't rebuilding for 14 years, they were being squeezed and milked for all they were worth by a hawks owner who thought he knew more than his employees, including in the arena of hockey ops. Winning was a secondary concern to things like profits and Wirtz's personal relationship with some players and other employees in his franchise, employees like Dale Tallon.

They started rebuilding in 2004 when they made Dale Tallon assistant GM after being director of player personnel for several years where he oversaw the draft. He was made GM roughly a week before the 2005 NHL entry draft after a year of learning on the job as assistant.

From the 2004 draft when they initiated a new rebuilding strategy and the end of the 2007 draft, the hawks had made 44 draft selections, 4 of which were top 10 picks, hitting home runs with 2 of them and 'striking out' with the other two.

To contextualize this for Flames fans, Calgary has selected 24 times in their last 4 drafts, never selecting in the top 10, and having only 2 rounds with more than one selection, never drafting more than twice in those two rounds.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by timbit

Wandering in the desert? That is the Calgary Flames.

Show me other teams in the league that don't have any impact players between the ages of 21-27 in their lineups. Any contenders?

How is that going to change in 2-3 years ? While the Flames older impact ( use the term very loosely in this case) players continue to age, how are they going to replace them yet stay ahead of the other teams who are using the same drafting and development strategies that you speak of.

They have failed, minimally, the last 3 seasons and will again this season.

Keeping up with the Jones is going to be a helluva lot tougher than drafting 5 or 6 picks and developing one or hopefully 2 of them.

Who are these assets that will "dramatically " alter things and/ or hold the fort in the next 3 years.

I think you misunderstood my post, or I was not clear enough.

My post was in reference to a rebuild, and how I don't think the Flames would be 'wandering in the desert' for so long if they went ahead with a rebuild.

Like this team and its' players or not, but there is definitely some tradeable assets that would garner excellent returns for a rebuild - even though their 'best before' dates are gone.

As for your comment I have bolded, the answer is in 2 parts:

Brodie, Backlund and Baertschi on the Flames right now - 3 bodies that I think NOBODY is going to argue doesn't deserve to be in the NHL, and 3 bodies that will at the VERY least, go a long ways in support of a future core if they are not considered part of it. In addition, the Flames no longer have cupboards that are bare - there is legitimate reason to be more optimistic about what is coming through the pipeline. Flames ARE still in the bottom third of the league in terms of prospects, but they are MUCH improved from 3 years ago. Sure, there will be some busts, but there seems to be like a lot of good young pieces to help a rebuild out - not just in the fancy names of Gaudreau, Jankowski and Granlund, but also in the character, grit and solid two-way players such as Arnold and Reinhart. Defencemen that will probably never be all-stars, but seemingly very decent ones coming up like Ramage, Wotherspoon, Culkin, Seiloff and Kulak - not to mention Breen. All-stars? Nope - not without some very unexpected growth and development from this bunch, but definitely lots of 'probable' NHL material there. All of them? Probably not - some will bust, and some won't. However, there IS a crop of intelligent players coming up the pipeline.

2nd part: Iginla, Kipprusoff, Bouwmeester, Giordano, Tanguay, Cammalleri, and perhaps Glencross (NTC notwithstanding, he may choose to leave rather than go through a rebuild) - these are all players that would return something at the very least 'decent' to accelerate a rebuild. All of them gone? I don't recommend that - but all of them will return something to help a rebuild in whatever combination they are sent out for. Don't forget about Stempniak, Butler and may I dare say Stajan? I think Stajan has played himself into 'tradeable' status - though probably not worth trading.

The problem with the Flames is that they are built incorrectly (strong and wings, not up the middle; not enough size and grit) and they don't have enough franchise players that are "game-breakers".

I am not advocating a full-scale rebuild - merely pointing out that the Flames do indeed have EXCELLENT pieces moving forward for trades to bring in blue-chips, and they have some blue-chips that could POSSIBLY develop into key players already (Baertschi, Gaudreau, Jankowski) - but that they require more of these blue chips since you can't count on all of them to even be an NHL player.

So yes, I do in fact feel that the Flames do have players that can drastically alter the direction of this franchise.

They also have players that should really help compliment other players through the rebuild and be here when the team is 'competitive' again, I would hope. Hudler and Wideman probably will not be traded. Whomever the Flames don't trade from the list above would be considered solid players to have around anyways.

I think the Flames COULD rebound in about 2 years - depending on how far down they go in the rebuild (too far down, would hurt too much for too long, not far enough and there won't be enough change).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Dollar Bill Wirtz died after multiple decades of sticking his nose into hockey operations, branding and marketing. He oversaw the longest cup drought in Blackhawk history and the third longest in NHL History at the time of his death.

He was eventually so disliked for his reputation as a cheap and micromanaging owner that his moment of silence was BOO'd at the United Centre following his death.

9 Months later, they Hawks handed out the richest contract in franchise history to Brian Campbell, spent through the nose for Huet, expanded their hockey operations department bringing in hockey guys like Scotty Bowman and Joel Quennville.

The hawks weren't rebuilding for 14 years, they were being squeezed and milked for all they were worth by a hawks owner who thought he knew more than his employees, including in the arena of hockey ops. Winning was a secondary concern to things like profits and Wirtz's personal relationship with some players and other employees in his franchise, employees like Dale Tallon.

They started rebuilding in 2004 when they made Dale Tallon assistant GM after being director of player personnel for several years where he oversaw the draft. He was made GM roughly a week before the 2005 NHL entry draft after a year of learning on the job as assistant.

From the 2004 draft when they initiated a new rebuilding strategy and the end of the 2007 draft, the hawks had made 44 draft selections, 4 of which were top 10 picks, hitting home runs with 2 of them and 'striking out' with the other two.

Yes, I know, I am pretty familiar with Chicago's situation.

But there is a fair bit of revisionist history when it comes to the Wirtz era these days. I don't dispute anything you said, but let's keep in mind that prior to 2004, Chicago had already drafted Keith, Seabrook, Byfuglien, Wisniewski, Crawford and others, as well as other assets that were used to trade for other pieces.

It is very misleading to suggest that they started a new rebuild in 2004.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I get that but I have absolutely zero faith in the Flames development. It feels like they could draft the baby of Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux and he'd still turn out to be a putz and not a legitimate star NHL player. So what I'm saying is maybe the de-risking makes sense.

I really understand why you feel this way - the Flames have NOT been a highly regarded drafting and development team since the 80's.

The problem is that it takes a while to develop this program. Darryl Sutter got the ball running years ago when he took over and realized there were only 3 scouts (1 full time, 2 part time I think, right?? Someone want to correct me here?).

Since then, the Flames have added quite a bit to their development and drafting. They have added a LOT of amateur and pro scouts.

How quickly do you see an impact on such a program? Takes a little bit, I would imagine, but at the very least it is something that is improving.

Heck, any poster here who doesn't at least see something positive in drafting and development is completely negative - there simply wasn't a development program in the past, and there were few scouts at all. Just the mere fact that there is now a team of guys for amateur scouting, a team of professional scouts, and also an AHL team that the Flames have control over (finally!) should give you reason for optimism.

One final way to encourage you to be a bit more optimistic about the Flames development program:

Last year there was a large number of injuries. Loads of players got called up from the Heat, and what happened? The team continued playing well and making a 'run' of it. Those weren't highly ranked prospects or blue-chippers (outside of Baertschi anyways). These were low first rounders and under. Look how far Brodie has developed. If anyone claimed 2 years ago that Brodie would be a very good second pairing defencemen this year, he would have been laughed off these forums.

Is it perfect? Heck no. I still think there is lots of room for improvement - and I hope the Flames are always trying to improve these 2 key areas. I am optimistic because at least there is an emphasis on drafting and development on this team - there was no such emphasis years ago. Absolutely none.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, I know, I am pretty familiar with Chicago's situation.

But there is a fair bit of revisionist history when it comes to the Wirtz era these days. I don't dispute anything you said, but let's keep in mind that prior to 2004, Chicago had already drafted Keith, Seabrook, Byfuglien, Wisniewski, Crawford and others, as well as other assets that were used to trade for other pieces.

It is very misleading to suggest that they started a new rebuild in 2004.

This is not revisionist history.

The selection of Seabrook and Big Buff (what, an 8th rounder?) was as a result of regular drafting for the organization and a byproduct of the stacked 2003 draft where nearly every team walked away with at least two good players (with the exception of the Calgary flames of course). The same can be said for the draft previous where they ended up taking Duncan Keith in the second round, using their mid first round selection on our beloved, Manton Slapchuk.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is not revisionist history.

The selection of Seabrook and Big Buff (what, an 8th rounder?) was as a result of regular drafting for the organization and a byproduct of the stacked 2003 draft where nearly every team walked away with at least two good players (with the exception of the Calgary flames of course). The same can be said for the draft previous where they ended up taking Duncan Keith in the second round, using their mid first round selection on our beloved, Manton Slapchuk.

The revisionist history wasn't directed at you. It was in reference to the general view these days that anything that happened in the Wirtz era was entirely his fault and that everything has been sunshine and lollipops since.

I stand by my point that 2 members of their core, along with some other key pieces, were drafted prior to 2004.

Keith was the 13 or 14th D-man drafted in 02 (can't remember and too lazy to check again), so dismissing him off-handedly is unfair. Also, iug Buf was an 8th rounder - hardly part of the easy drafting of 2003.

[$ven27]

Our inability to draft well and hold onto young players and be patient with them has been the downfall of the team for many years. It'll take quite some time of good drafting to turn it around, and keep it turned around.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Dollar Bill Wirtz died after multiple decades of sticking his nose into hockey operations, branding and marketing. He oversaw the longest cup drought in Blackhawk history and the third longest in NHL History at the time of his death.

He was eventually so disliked for his reputation as a cheap and micromanaging owner that his moment of silence was BOO'd at the United Centre following his death.

9 Months later, they Hawks handed out the richest contract in franchise history to Brian Campbell, spent through the nose for Huet, expanded their hockey operations department bringing in hockey guys like Scotty Bowman and Joel Quennville.

The hawks weren't rebuilding for 14 years, they were being squeezed and milked for all they were worth by a hawks owner who thought he knew more than his employees, including in the arena of hockey ops. Winning was a secondary concern to things like profits and Wirtz's personal relationship with some players and other employees in his franchise, employees like Dale Tallon.

They started rebuilding in 2004 when they made Dale Tallon assistant GM after being director of player personnel for several years where he oversaw the draft. He was made GM roughly a week before the 2005 NHL entry draft after a year of learning on the job as assistant.

From the 2004 draft when they initiated a new rebuilding strategy and the end of the 2007 draft, the hawks had made 44 draft selections, 4 of which were top 10 picks, hitting home runs with 2 of them and 'striking out' with the other two.

To contextualize this for Flames fans, Calgary has selected 24 times in their last 4 drafts, never selecting in the top 10, and having only 2 rounds with more than one selection, never drafting more than twice in those two rounds.

Just to expand a bit on the hawks drafting:

The Hawks made Tallon GM in the early part of the 2003-2004 season with a plan to go into the lockout well positioned financially and with an abundance of draft picks in case the playing field changed.

That season the Hawks moved veterans Steve Sullivan and Alexei Jhamnov for three 2nd round picks total (2 2004 picks, 1 2005). The Hawks moved Jon Klemm and a fourth for Robidas and a 2nd.

That draft they ended up picking once in the 1st, four times in the 2nd, once in the 3rd, twice in both the 4th and 5th round, once in the 6th, 3 times in the 7th, twice in the 8th and once in the 9th. Seventeen picks yielding 5 roster players.

The next draft, they picked 12 times in 7 rounds with little to show for it except for one of their three 4th round picks turning into a valuable piece of their current roster, Niklas Hjalmarsson.

That's the difference between a team finding players later in the draft and a team not. Blind luck or improving your odds by using multiple picks. David Moss, for example, was the second of two 7th round picks, Stoll the second of two 2nd rounders, Travis Moen the second of two 5th rounders, Steve Begin the second of two 2nd rounders.

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by fotze

What I remember from the young guns era was not a rebuild, it was the same ownership style we see today, convinced we are a few pieces from a Cup. There were young players but for the most part terrible. If they go Young Guns with actual good players, like the Chicago young guns then count me in.

I think you got that wrong, in 96 they drafted Tkaczuk 6th overall and then in 98 they drafted Fata 6th overall, they were both looked upon to lead the Flames into the future and we know how that worked out. The organization made it quite clear in the 90's that they weren't in a position to compete for contracts with the big market teams which meant they were bottom feeders building through the draft. So if we go into a full rebuild now then what says we don't get a couple duds or prospects run into injury problems, that turns the 6 to 7 year rebuild into a very, very long process which fans of this team showed in the 90's and early 2000's that they have no time for. So if you can explain how they go "young guns with actual good players" then count me in too, but it's just not that easy.

[Tinordi]

I'm advocating for a 3-5 year rebuild. It's the only way to be a Stanley Cup contender.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by fotze

Fata and Tkachuk were not that highly touted.

Is anyone on this site calling for a FULL 5 year rebuild? Just for 1 year, don't trade picks for some help to push for that extra 6 spots down the draft order.

Do a 1 or 2 year re-load. Whatever just don't keep doing the same thing as the past 24 years.

Lets see what happens with two first rounders in the same year. Try it. Just try it once and see what happens.

Is there another team in the league that hasn't drafted twice in the first round?