The Flames and Oilers rebuilds similar beginings

[Husky]

The Flames have enough talent upfront and on D to not finish last...the wild card is the goaltending. If no one can play half decent...then the team is last overall.

[Izzle]

Tinordi brings up a fair point. The epic ineptitude shown by Oilers management has caused the league to revise how they award the first draft pick. The chances that a last place team can retain first overall is smaller than the chances in drafts prior. Counting McDavid and Ekblad as future flames is akin to counting chickens before they hatch.

The flip side is that the team can barely miss the playoffs, but can still get 1st overall. IMO, this is the most ideal situation. But the chances of that happening are very slim.

[kehatch]

Again, I believe the Flames are in a similar situation to the Oiler's after their 08/09 season.

Here are the similarities:

Prospects

Lets look at the prospects

EDMONTON

According to hockey's future here were the Oilers top prospects in the Fall of 2009:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...ects_fall2009/

1.(NR) Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson 8.0 C
2.(1) Jordan Eberle 7.5 B
3.(2) Riley Nash 7.5 C
4.(7) Linus Omark 8.0 D
5.(4) Theo Peckham 7.0 B
6.(3) Jeff Petry 7.0 C
7.(12) Alex Plante 7.0 C
8.(11) Teemu Hartikainen 6.5 B
9.(9) Devan Dubnyk 7.0 C
10.(NR) Anton Lander 7.0 C
11.(NR) Toni Rajala 7.5 D
12. (8) Chris Vande Velde 6.5 C
13. (5) Taylor Chorney 6.5 C
14. (6) Rob Schremp 7.0 D
15. (NR) Milan Kytnar 6.0 B
16.(NR) Olivier Roy 6.5 C
17. (15) Philippe Cornet 6.5 C
18. (9) Cody Wild 6.5 D
19. (NR) Troy Hesketh 6.5 D
20. (17) Johan Motin 6.0 C

They also had Edmonton as the 16-overall team given their prospects. That was before the draft where Edmonton had a top 10 pick and five picks in the top 100 (which likely moved them up the list.)

CALGARY

The Fall prospect lists for the Flames isn't out yet. But a quick scan of hockey's future prospects for the Flames looks very similar to the Oiler's (pre draft). http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/calgary_flames/

They have our top 5 as:

1. Sven Baertschi 8.0 B
2. John Gaudreau 8.0 D
3. Max Reinhart 7.5 C
4. Mark Jankowski 7.5 D
5. Tyler Wotherspoon 6.5 C

Our spring team ranking according to HF was 20 before the draft. http://www.hockeysfuture.com/team-ra...2012-13/page/2

SUMMARY

I am sure the criticism will be:

1) Its HF and they don't know what they are talking about. Sure, but it is the best baseline we have to quantify 2009 prospects. It is close enough and makes the point.

2) Most of those Edmonton prospect suck! That is sorta the point. Most people didn't think those prospects were bad prospects in 2009. Will our prospects turn out any better or will we end up with just one or two guys that end up as decent NHL players?

Veterans

Best veterans for each team.

EDMONTON

• Horcoff
• Penner
• Hemsky
• Souray
• Visnovsky
• Gilbert
• Whitney

CALGARY

• Cammalleri
• Giordano
• Glencross
• Wideman
• Hudler
• Stempniak
• Stajan

SUMMARY

Again, it is easy to look back and say that some of the players didn't turn out well for Edmonton or were moved. It is easy to look forward with rose colored glasses as our vets and assume they will all be wonderful. But when comparing the two teams at the start of the season they aren't all that different

Young Players

Finally, here is a look at the young players on each roster.

EDMONTON

• Gagner
• Cogliano
• Brule
• Nilsson
• Smid

CALGARY

• Backlund
• Brodie
• Horak
• Knight

SUMMARY

Edmonton probably has the edge here. But I think we have an edge in the prospect department following the 13 draft so it evens out.

Overall Summary

I think a lot of people are trying to make a case that our situations are dissimilar because they want them to be. But comparing the 09 Oilers with the 13 Flames I think both teams had a similar collection of veterans, prospects, and young roster players.

That doesn't mean we in for the same trip the Oiler's are taking. A number of their high profile prospects didn't turn out and they have been generally poorly managed.

If our prospects turn out and our management isn't epicly bad then hopefully our road will be less painful. Of course the opposite is true as well. We could be just good enough to avoid getting top 5 picks and be in for an even longer road then the Oiler's have taken. Time will tell.

[Calgary4LIfe]

This is all a bit off-topic, as the OP was contrasting and comparing the Flames and Oilers at the same point in time. Flames have many more pieces with higher upsides I think, though only the future will prove that.

As for the whole "3 over-all" subsequent drafts - Oilers should be a competitive team by now, but they aren't because they simply have an inept scouting department that hasn't had anything of note help the team beyond their 1st round selections. That is a pretty damn awful record, especially for a rebuilding team.

Flames under Darryl Sutter started becoming a better drafting team (from 2008 - now) each subsequent draft seemed better and better, offering more and more 'hits' in the depth part of the draft. Brodie, Backlund, Reinhart, Bouma - all 'hits' from the 3rd round and down (with the exception of Backlund who was a late 1st rounder), from a time where it is thought of as a horrible drafting period.

I agree with Tinordi that the Flames have much more depth than the Oilers coming into this period. What I don't agree with is that this depth will prevent the Flames from bottoming out. I think the Flames will be a lottery pick team for the foreseeable future. I then re-agree with him that it is extremely unlikely to get 1st over-all picks like the Oilers got. Under the old lottery rules, didn't the Oilers have less than a 5% chance of getting all 3 1st over-all picks? Now with an even harder lottery (thanks Oilers...), there is no way.

However, lottery picks are good enough. Some people argue that the Oilers would have been a better team had they selected Seguin and Galchenyuk. Who knows. Lottery picks are lottery picks, and 1st over-all picks aren't always the very best anyways (though they usually are).

Still, one can build an elite team out of being a good drafting team. Oilers have picked 1st over-alls, and have barely moved on the 'success scale' since then.

There is no guarantee that the Flames will be better than the Oilers. The only guarantee is if they are that bad for as long as the Oilers were, there will be more management being fired.

[Tinordi]

Good post kehatch

[Flames_F.T.W]

If there's anything I've learned watching hockey, especially the Flames, is that it's an unpredictable game. Sure the Flames won't be contenders (Playoffs or Stanley Cup) for some time, but those of you suggesting 30th overall for the next two years is a lock, are out to lunch. The possibility is there of course, but I highly doubt we'll be bad enough to get McDavid in two drafts time.

I fully expect players like Baertschi, Backlund, Brodie, etc.. to continue making progress, enough so that we'll be somewhat competitive.

[transplant99]

Trading down to acquire a high pick AND another NHL ready body for Yakupov was always the right move, and showed an incredible lack of hockey IQ when they didnt do it.

talk about minimizing risks...that ^^^ deal is a minimal risk compared to taking an enigmatic though supremely talented Russian, when your team has glaring needs everywhere except the position he plays.

It was a dumb dumb move last year, it is this year and will still be a dumb move in 10 years, regardless of how Yakupov progresses.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

It would be shockingly forward thinking for any team, one year removed from the Stanley Cup finals, to have people within the organization stand back and be able to say "You know what, that cup run was a fluke. This team is deeply flawed and needs to be sold off now while values are still high"

The Flyers did that to a certain degree with their 2010 team. I would certainly give them credit for not just assuming their team was going to stay great, instead moving high priced guys out for very good young players.

I don't think the Flyer thing was a rebuild so much as them thinking they needed to change up the makeup of their team. They traded good players who were 26 years old in Carter and Richards while retaining guys like Pronger, and Timmonen. They also went out and signed Bryzgalov with some of the cap savings. The Flyers have generally been a team who will trade a veteran guy for young player or draft pick if they feel that can make that move. Something the Flames seem to have refused to do, or at least do well. They were willing to trade Tony Lydman, but only got a 3rd round pick....should have got something better. Pretty much anyone on this board wanted Phaneuf traded for a completely different return.

For the most part every team tends to end up rebuilding because they didn't recognize when they should have started making the moves and find themselves in a bad position. Today it's easy to look back and see that the Flames should have traded Phaneuf for a different type of return, and than tried to start moving out their other high priced players there.

I think the Flames right now do somewhat compare to the Oilers from 2007. How they arrived there is quite different, but for the purpose of moving forward, I think it's a situation they should analyze and use as a tool to determine how they push forward.

So far they've resisted the urge to offersheet anyone, or trade any significant assets for established players. Although the Galliardi and Russel trades were that type of move these aren't top end roster types...I admittedly hope it's more a case of targeting 24-25 year old guys who you hope can be decent inexpensive veteran guys 4-5 years down the road who are still usefull for the team. It will come down to how players picked in the last 3 drafts fair. Can they build a solid base of 8-12 forwards, and 4-6 defenceman and if they have anything in goal.

Ideally the team gets in a position to pick two top line forwards, and a top defenceman with their next 3 first round picks. Should they pull that off, and guys like Janikowski, Monahan, Klimchuck, Poirier, Guadrea emerge as reasonable top 7 forward options and Brodie solidifies himself as a good 2-3 defenceman perhaps they can emerge from this funk as a team with a chance to be a strong competitor. The key is to recognize that the rebuild is essentially in it's infancy and that there is still likely 3 more years of building to take place.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

It would be shockingly forward thinking for any team, one year removed from the Stanley Cup finals, to have people within the organization stand back and be able to say "You know what, that cup run was a fluke. This team is deeply flawed and needs to be sold off now while values are still high"

The Flyers did that to a certain degree with their 2010 team. I would certainly give them credit for not just assuming their team was going to stay great, instead moving high priced guys out for very good young players.

This is an excellent point and I agree with Sylvan that the Flyers may be the closest example but I really don't see that as a team rebuilding. For all of their warts I respect the Flyers organization for probably being the most pro-active forward looking franchise. They lost in fairly convincing fashion in the Finals and chose to swap core players for a new core of guys emerging through their system along with prospects they got back in trades.

Besides the Flyers though, NHL teams are notoriously conservative in their efforts to build a team. It's not necessarily a bad thing, because the players they're drafting are probably the most risky out of the other NA professional sports NHL teams tend to value the bird in hand much more. I would argue that even accounting for this, teams are still overly conservative. It's a cultural thing in the NHL where personal relationships are still very strong drivers of transactions.

Compare that to the NFL where if there is even the faint whiff that a player may not be a part of your team making the next step and you're cut.

That's why the story of the Flames in the past three years is just so depressing to me. Instead of building a contender it became very apparent that the team was about keeping people happy. We've lost three years because of it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It has nothing to do with liking him or not. I don't like him as a player, I think he's a punk. It's about the content of my previous post which you don't address, ie. minimizing risk.

And as I understand the reasons you don't like him have little to do with his production or stats and more on your own perception of his character. Well frankly you don't have a clue about his character besides making up stories because he's on a rival team. I'm just looking on his numbers, Jr. NHL-E, rookie season stats and concluding that the guy is most likely a front-line scorer. I know I know, you don't like stats as evidenced in a previous post and prefer your own biases, that's fine. But I'll stick with the numbers because I know my own biases fail me.

And I'm saying even if he wasn't what they needed he right play was to still draft him. You can get a heck of a lot more for him now than on draft day.

lol

1) If anything, I am a stats guy (though I a able to look beyond stats and don't follow them blindly)

2) That doesn't stop me, however, from watching players and making a personal assessment of them

3) with respect to risk, I would argue that drafting a Russian 1st overall, especially when it does not address team needs is a pretty risky way to manage the team.

4) your final argument, that you can get more for him now than on draft day flies in the face of your 'risk' argument (it was a risky proposition to assume that if he isn't right for the team, you can trade him later for more than you could trade him for on draft day - which I still don't agree with)

Time will tell of course. But a team that is long on small talented forwards, and short on pretty much everything else, drafting a Russian first overall is not what I would call good risk management.

[kehatch]

No team wants to rebuild. I can imagine the conversation. You walk into your millionaire owners office and start with:

"Murray, we aren't doing as well as we should. I want to rebuild"

"Is that going to make us better"

"Not in the short term. In fact we are probably looking at a few seasons near the bottom"

"Yikes. Does that mean we are going to be better long term then?"

"We aren't sure. That depends on how lucky we are in drafting and development. We hope so."

"Are the fans ready for this?"

"Some of them. But people are still pretty excited about that late season streak we went on."

"So let me get this straight. We are a few points out of the playoffs. We have two of the greatest franchise players in our history on the roster. We are selling out every game and moving merchandise and the fan base is excited. And you want to tear it all down so we have a chance of being a good team in a few years? GET OUT OF MY OFFICE!"

Not to many rebuilds happen until they are forced on a franchise.

That said, the Flames (and any organization) owe it to their fans to try and win. If you are fighting to make the playoffs you aren't good enough. Plus, the writing was on the wall that a rebuild was coming (forced or planned) and waiting for the bottom to fall out was a piss poor strategy.

[Enoch Root]

That's true (kehatch's post) that teams won't rebuild until absolutely necessary.

But there is another factor as well: the difference between winning and losing is marginal and the same collection of players can have vastly different success from year to year.

That is why teams don't tear it apart as soon as they have an unsuccessful year.

The NHL (and any sport) is full of examples of teams that didn't work as planned but then came together in a later year.

Patience is a good thing for a GM. Fans hate it though, of course.

[Flash Walken]

Other parallel to the Oilers rebuild:

The Oilers and Flames likely continue to evade a rebuild if not for players forcing their hand.

Ryan Smyth not signing as a pending free agent on deadline day for Edmonton's hand. Jarome Iginla refusing to negotiate a contract extension forced Jay Feaster's hand. If Jarome signs an extension during the year, the Flames are likely attempting to be free-agent players and continue with 'win now'.

They were put in a lose-lose position by their players after failing at team building with them and did the only thing they could that wouldn't risk further embarrassment (Franchise player leaving for nothing after the team misses the playoffs): trade the player and sell the fanbase on emerging magic beans.

The trajectory is absurdly similar. It's depressing.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I don't think the Flyer thing was a rebuild so much as them thinking they needed to change up the makeup of their team. They traded good players who were 26 years old in Carter and Richards while retaining guys like Pronger, and Timmonen. They also went out and signed Bryzgalov with some of the cap savings. The Flyers have generally been a team who will trade a veteran guy for young player or draft pick if they feel that can make that move. Something the Flames seem to have refused to do, or at least do well. They were willing to trade Tony Lydman, but only got a 3rd round pick....should have got something better. Pretty much anyone on this board wanted Phaneuf traded for a completely different return.

For the most part every team tends to end up rebuilding because they didn't recognize when they should have started making the moves and find themselves in a bad position. Today it's easy to look back and see that the Flames should have traded Phaneuf for a different type of return, and than tried to start moving out their other high priced players there.

I think the Flames right now do somewhat compare to the Oilers from 2007. How they arrived there is quite different, but for the purpose of moving forward, I think it's a situation they should analyze and use as a tool to determine how they push forward.

So far they've resisted the urge to offersheet anyone, or trade any significant assets for established players. Although the Galliardi and Russel trades were that type of move these aren't top end roster types...I admittedly hope it's more a case of targeting 24-25 year old guys who you hope can be decent inexpensive veteran guys 4-5 years down the road who are still usefull for the team. It will come down to how players picked in the last 3 drafts fair. Can they build a solid base of 8-12 forwards, and 4-6 defenceman and if they have anything in goal.

Ideally the team gets in a position to pick two top line forwards, and a top defenceman with their next 3 first round picks. Should they pull that off, and guys like Janikowski, Monahan, Klimchuck, Poirier, Guadrea emerge as reasonable top 7 forward options and Brodie solidifies himself as a good 2-3 defenceman perhaps they can emerge from this funk as a team with a chance to be a strong competitor. The key is to recognize that the rebuild is essentially in it's infancy and that there is still likely 3 more years of building to take place.

Offersheeted O'Reilly.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That's true (kehatch's post) that teams won't rebuild until absolutely necessary.

But there is another factor as well: the difference between winning and losing is marginal and the same collection of players can have vastly different success from year to year.

That is why teams don't tear it apart as soon as they have an unsuccessful year.

The NHL (and any sport) is full of examples of teams that didn't work as planned but then came together in a later year.

Patience is a good thing for a GM. Fans hate it though, of course.

Sure. Which is why the Edmonton Oiler's shouldn't be looking to rebuild right now. They have the ability to win with the core they just need to put the finishing touches on it.

In the Flames case though they were running out of time (player age, contracts) and needed to be more proactive. They were clearly depreciating as a team.

I understand why they were reluctant to rebuild. But I don't think it was the right decision and I don't think patience was the right call given the depreciating state of the club.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol

1) If anything, I am a stats guy (though I a able to look beyond stats and don't follow them blindly)

I don't think you know how to follow stats. You can't pick and choose which stats you believe in in a player when you allow yourself to look beyond them at your convenience. You've yet to provide any substantive argument outside of the stats as to why Yakupov is not a good player besides some hand waving that he has character problems.

2) That doesn't stop me, however, from watching players and making a personal assessment of them

Absolute, go ahead. That's where I get to bring in rival talk though because I detect your personal assessment is very much coloured by this.

3) with respect to risk, I would argue that drafting a Russian 1st overall, especially when it does not address team needs is a pretty risky way to manage the team.

The Oilers didn't have a need for a 40 goal guy? Which other players on that team are front line goal scorers?

4) your final argument, that you can get more for him now than on draft day flies in the face of your 'risk' argument (it was a risky proposition to assume that if he isn't right for the team, you can trade him later for more than you could trade him for on draft day - which I still don't agree with)

Well that's up in the air and I point I concede. I just happen to think that the Oil will do better in a trade trading a two year NHL forward if he continues scoring like he did last year. And my basic point on risk is that Yakupov was by far the surest thing in that draft which made it the least risky move. Your point is that he's Russian and therefore more risky. I don't buy into that too much. He came through the OHL and has always said his goal is to play in the NHL. I'm sure that the interview process would have more than addressed that perceived risk.

Time will tell of course. But a team that is long on small talented forwards, and short on pretty much everything else, drafting a Russian first overall is not what I would call good risk management.

And I guess this is the fundamental difference. I believe in BPA with first round picks always, organizational need is addressed the 364 days that aren't the draft.

[$ven27]

Nice post Kehatch, however you forgot to add Klimchuk, Monahan and Poirier.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I don't think you know how to follow stats.

Then I guess I'll have to sell my business and find a new career. I thought I was successful until Tinordi came along and told me I don't know what I'm doing.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You can't pick and choose which stats you believe in in a player when you allow yourself to look beyond them at your convenience. You've yet to provide any substantive argument outside of the stats as to why Yakupov is not a good player besides some hand waving that he has character problems.

Yes I have - I stated that, based on my observations, he is not the kind of player you build a successful team around. Nor is he the kind of player that the Oilers need. You are free to disagree. But to say that I have not addressed it is silly

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Absolute, go ahead. That's where I get to bring in rival talk though because I detect your personal assessment is very much coloured by this.

The Oilers didn't have a need for a 40 goal guy? Which other players on that team are front line goal scorers?

Yakupov is a 40 goal guy?

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Well that's up in the air and I point I concede. I just happen to think that the Oil will do better in a trade trading a two year NHL forward if he continues scoring like he did last year. And my basic point on risk is that Yakupov was by far the surest thing in that draft which made it the least risky move. Your point is that he's Russian and therefore more risky. I don't buy into that too much. He came through the OHL and has always said his goal is to play in the NHL. I'm sure that the interview process would have more than addressed that perceived risk.



And I guess this is the fundamental difference. I believe in BPA with first round picks always, organizational need is addressed the 364 days that aren't the draft.

Interesting because the Flyers video demonstrated very clearly that teams don't necessarily follow the 'BPA always' mantra that fans like to throw around (while completely ignoring the fact that many different factors, as well as opinions, go into determining BPA).

And it is especially rich (the Flyers example), since you just mentioned in another thread how much you respect the Flyers as an organization because they are bold enough to do what is necessary.

Plus, trading him isn't contrary to the BPA argument anyway. Trading him acknowledges that he is worthy of being the BPA and 1st selection. Trading him simply suggests that the assets gotten in return would be more beneficial to the organization.

Anyway, this conversation has run its course. You think the Yakupov pick was the right one. I do not. Neither of us is going to change their mind.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Offersheeted O'Reilly.

Yeah, but that's after trading Iginla and Bouwmeester. The rebuild had not started yet. The miffed offersheet hopefully is the bottoming out. Which I actually mention in my post on the second page.......

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yakupov is a 40 goal guy?

If he doesn't become a 40 goal scorer he should be considered a massive failure based on the pre-draft scouting reports of him (gushing over his shot) and his draft position.