NHL Team Playoff Success In the Salary Cap Era

[CASe333]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

This pretty much sums up why I started the thread the other day asking if we as a fanbase could live with blowing it up and embracing a true rebuild. We have sucked for a long, long time. It is no longer interesting to me. Even I'm surprised with how much we've sucked now that it's laid out here!

I need something else from this team.

The problem I have with this reasoning is what is a "true rebuild". I do want the flames to win even if they have to suck but I'm not sure what a true rebuild is. According to some fans the Flames are horribly managed so aren't we on the path to a "true rebuild" at this point? Do you guys want management to say we are not going to try to win for the next three years because that's what it sounds like some want?

As pointed out previously:

Originally Posted by getbak

Yup.


People talk about Tampa "rebuilding" the right way, but let's remember that they had Lecavalier and St. Louis on their roster throughout the entire stretch where they got Stamkos, Hedman, and Drouin as top-3 picks. The season where they drafted Stamkos, they started the year with Lecavalier, St. Louis, and Richards making nearly 40% of the available cap between the 3 of them. That was not a team whose goal was to tank. They badly misjudged things coming out of the lockout and overpaid their top forwards, and they did so before people figured out the various ways to tweak contracts to reduce the cap hit.


As bad as Chicago and Pittsburgh were, they still needed lottery luck to build their championship teams. The Pens would have still been a solid team without Crosby, but he certainly put them over the top. If the Hawks don't win the lottery in 2007, they're likely drafting Gagner or Voracek at 5th overall. In 2006, Toews wasn't guaranteed to be there at 3, nor was he guaranteed to be Chicago's pick at 3. That year had a very strong top-end. Do they win 3 Cups with Voracek and Kessel instead of Kane and Toews?


The only team that has really had success with a dedicated sell-off and rebuild was the Capitals... and even then, it took 14 years before they finally won the Cup (although, they did get a couple of President's Trophies along the way and were a perennial playoff team).

[CASe333]

Originally Posted by zamler

Why only look at playoff success? Because that's the only thing that ####ing matters.

Can you tell me without looking up who was in the cup finals 5 years ago? Who won one playoff series? Obviously cups matter way more.

If your going to cherry pick playoff series wins you had better take into account regular series win too.

[bubbsy]

Flames as an organization stopped trying to win a cup ages ago. The target every season is to try to get at least 2 home playoff games. Anything beyond that is just gravy.

Even this offseason, everyone knows this team is best average, but they're happy to ensure that they are getting a fighting chance for a low seed playoff spot. That's it. That's the goal of the franchise.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CASe333

Can you tell me without looking up who was in the cup finals 5 years ago? Who won one playoff series?

Yep, easy.

If your going to cherry pick playoff series wins you had better take into account regular series win too.

You don't win jack squat besting a team in the regular season. But now I'm convinced you are Brad Treliving.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by CASe333

Can you tell me without looking up who was in the cup finals 5 years ago? Who won one playoff series? Obviously cups matter way more.

If your going to cherry pick playoff series wins you had better take into account regular series win too.

Look at the graph closely.

The better team you build, the more playoff success you have.
The more playoff success you have the better chances you have of winning the cup.

All the red bars = cup wins.
All the red bars belong to the teams on the left side of the graph where the teams with the most playoff success are.

It's not rocket appliances.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Flames as an organization stopped trying to win a cup ages ago. The target every season is to try to get at least 2 home playoff games. Anything beyond that is just gravy.

Even this offseason, everyone knows this team is best average, but they're happy to ensure that they are getting a fighting chance for a low seed playoff spot. That's it. That's the goal of the franchise.

I'd agree.

At least this year they were far enough out of it to sell.

Two seasons ago they were buying when they should have been selling Brodie for a haul. But they were too close to a playoff spot to think long term.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by CASe333

Can you tell me without looking up who was in the cup finals 5 years ago? Who won one playoff series? Obviously cups matter way more.

If your going to cherry pick playoff series wins you had better take into account regular series win too.

Yeah nah this doesn't check out for me. When the flames finished tops in the west and 2nd to Tampa, I only think of the almost sweep Colorado pulled on us

[TheIronMaiden]

Bottom line is that non traditional hockey markets need to build winners to make money. The same isnt true for Calgary.



The Flames spend to the cap, I'll give them that. But the results speak for themselves.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I'd agree.

At least this year they were far enough out of it to sell.

Two seasons ago they were buying when they should have been selling Brodie for a haul. But they were too close to a playoff spot to think long term.

They sold but could and should have sold more knowing that the expansion draft was coming. The best time to trade Gio before losing him for nothing was when teams were gearing up for a cup and did not care about the expansion draft. If Treliving told Gio he would not be protected in the expansion draft I'm sure he might have been ok with a deal at the deadline. He would have at least got to pick where he was going too.

[Macman]

I agree it's disappointing to say the least.

This is probably my first offseason where I'm not optimistic about next season. The Flames always seem to do something in the offseason that makes you go okay, next year. A free agent signing or a trade or new coach but the results are still the same.

I'm not falling for it anymore. I'm still a fan and will still watch but I think this team has a long way to go even without knowing what they'll do this offseason.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by CASe333

The problem I have with this reasoning is what is a "true rebuild". I do want the flames to win even if they have to suck but I'm not sure what a true rebuild is. According to some fans the Flames are horribly managed so aren't we on the path to a "true rebuild" at this point? Do you guys want management to say we are not going to try to win for the next three years because that's what it sounds like some want?

As pointed out previously:

I do agree with you and I do feel everyone's opinion on what a rebuild is might be a bit different. I think for me a re-tool is what team should look at more often and a rebuild is only for teams that have no choice or in a situation where you have future generational talent in the up coming drafts.

IMO retooling should happen more with this franchise and you should always be looking at adding as many picks and prospects and fixing future cap issues if your way out of the playoffs. Trading Gio and maybe Backlund and keeping Bennett was probably the best way to go. If you choose to keep Backlund over Bennett because the return was better than that is ok too but this team isn't up enough picks and didn't fix the cap situation next summer in a down year. If you move Backlund and Gio then resigning your top players is a lot easier next summer with the additional cap space. All you need then is to plug holes with your extra prospects and cap space. But it is also tempting in a retool to maybe not plug the holes right away when you know there is some top end talent in the next draft.

Anyone old enough to enjoy the 89 cup or the 04 cup run can't tell me that they prefer to watch this team lose in the first round over having a cup run more often than once in every 15 years. My brother is a die hard penguins fan and not only have they won but he got to watch the best player in the league play on his team for like 3 decades straight. It has to be a bit more fun to watch them play and if you can't admit it then your not really a fan IMO. You just want to go to games to have a beer with a buddy and have a visit then to watch them win.

[powderjunkie]

It wouldn't noticeably change the graph, but IMO the 'salary cap era' truly began when the Pens won the cup in 2009. The preceding 3 years were transitional as those teams were largely assembled pre-cap.

Originally Posted by CASe333

Shouldn't we just show a graph of who won the cup then. That's ultimately all that matters. Maybe add a metric taking into account when the last time the team won the cup would make it more accurate.

Using that metric Calgary is still not bottom 5 or even 10.

The other thing I want to stress is absolutely no one is boasting about the Flames success. Some are just trying to reign back the hyperbole.

17 different teams have won the cup since 1989.

The Islanders, Canucks, Flyers, Sabres, Leafs, and Coyotes/Jets are the only 6 teams to have existed that entire time (and the first 4 of those had some extended periods of contention).

TBL and ANA are the only expansion teams since the WHA merger to win a cup. VGK, NAS, SJ, and OTT have all had more success than CGY in less time.

MIN, ATL/WPG, CBJ, and FLA have all been unimpressive, but not much more/less than CGY.

We are bottom 10.

[Ped]

I can't believe people appear to be arguing seriously that playoff success is not a meaningful indicator of franchise success.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

I think for me a re-tool is what team should look at more often and a rebuild is only for teams that have no choice or in a situation where you have future generational talent in the up coming drafts

Which is precisely where we are in two of the next three drafts. If there were ever a time, it’s now.

[CASe333]

Originally Posted by Ped

I can't believe people appear to be arguing seriously that playoff success is not a meaningful indicator of franchise success.

This is exactly the hyperbole I am talking about. No one is saying that.

My point is that really only cups matter. If you want to take into account playoff series wins then take into account regular season too.

Funny thing is I still agree Calgary is bottom half and as fans we shoudn't find that acceptable. I just tried to point out we are not bottom 5 by any metric whether it takes into account cups wins or a more accumulative approach that takes the regular season into account.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by CASe333

This is exactly the hyperbole I am talking about. No one is saying that.

My point is that really only cups matter. If you want to take into account playoff series wins then take into account regular season too.

Funny thing is I still agree Calgary is bottom half and as fans we shoudn't find that acceptable. I just tried to point out we are not bottom 5 by any metric whether it takes into account cups wins or a more accumulative approach that takes the regular season into account.

Playoff series wins are the second most fun thing to win. Cups being 1, regular season wins being a far distant third.

I’d take everything the Sharks had and would have loved most of it (…I mean come on you gotta win at some point).

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CASe333

This is exactly the hyperbole I am talking about. No one is saying that.

Unless I'm reading this wrong (read it 3 times) that is essentially what you are saying.

My point is that really only cups matter. If you want to take into account playoff series wins then take into account regular season too.

Funny thing is I still agree Calgary is bottom half and as fans we shoudn't find that acceptable. I just tried to point out we are not bottom 5 by any metric whether it takes into account cups wins or a more accumulative approach that takes the regular season into account.

[Reign of Fire]

process

[Ped]

Originally Posted by CASe333

This is exactly the hyperbole I am talking about. No one is saying that.

My point is that really only cups matter. If you want to take into account playoff series wins then take into account regular season too.

Sorry, but in stating that only cups really matter, then you are exactly saying that playoff success is not an indicator of franchise success. That is not hyperbole at all; you just said it.

Yes, cup wins matter. But you know you get a cup? You get playoff wins. Yes, you need to win games in the regular season to get to the playoffs, but no team who wins the president's trophy and loses in the first round would consider that a successful season.


And when there are literally two teams out of 31 that have less playoff success, then that would be an unsuccessful franchise.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Ped

Sorry, but in stating that only cups really matter, then you are exactly saying that playoff success is not an indicator of franchise success. That is not hyperbole at all; you just said it.

Yes, cup wins matter. But you know you get a cup? You get playoff wins. Yes, you need to win games in the regular season to get to the playoffs, but no team who wins the president's trophy and loses in the first round would consider that a successful season.


And when there are literally two teams out of 31 that have less playoff success, then that would be an unsuccessful franchise.

Well we have 0 cups in the last 32 years. So at best were tied for the worst even by that measure of success