[Barn Burner] Boomer: "You were wrong"

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Colorado, Chicago, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles... Pretty much any team with multiple Stanley Cups over the past 15 years had multiple high draft picks on them (and I'm including the Avs in there because I think they'll win another before their time is up).

See I would really like to talk about this because people throw these names around and I don't think they are actual examples of what people want. There is a difference in blowing it up for a rebuild and just plain being bad for a long time and happening to get lucky on a couple high draft picks.

Colorado - They went 10 years without a playoff series victory. By the time they rebounded from the horrendous 16-17 campaign, they had pieces like Mackinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog, etc. Can you honestly say those pieces came from blowing it up 10 years earlier when they still had Sakic, Hejduk, Stastny, etc? Because outside of that one terrible season, their results were pretty middling, and I see no sort of bottoming out of their results and team. They had no surplus of high draft picks that allowed them to rebuild. IMO this is not a fair comparison.

Chicago - Everyone's classic example for this. Like Colorado, they went 11 seasons without a playoff series victory. Again, they were just bad for a long time. Heck they made the playoffs in 97 with a sub .500 record! They did bottom out right around the lockout year and they got lucky with back to back top 3 picks and got Kane and Toews. So a decent representation. But remember they had been bad for years at that point and had multiple years going back as far as 97 with multiple first round picks. So while they did rebuild, again it took a decade. IMO this is a decent but rose tinted example of a rebuild.

Tampa Bay - Weird example as they didn't have as much of a drought and had some ups and downs with their success. They again got extremely lucky with Stamkos and Hedman in back to back years. But in the Stamkos draft, they didn't have another pick until the 4th round. That does not exactly scream rebuilding with lots of assets. In the Hedman year they did have an additional 1st rounder, but in momst years they had less top round picks than they should have. They were over .500 slightly the year they got Vasilevsky and had been to the conference finals the year before. Not to mention it took 7ish years to get to the finals after getting their two top picks. That would be an awfully long rebuild if that was the foundation. IMO not a good example.

Pittsburg - Also a traditional example used for this philosophy. This one is a tough one. As they did get bad, and got bad fast. They then had a great turn around. But lets remember they picked top 2 4 years in a row. Had the Oilers not been as awful as they were a few years later, people would still be talking about that streak. And again, outside the Oilers and McDavid, its not every day you luck into a generational talent like Crosby. Oddly, outside the top picks, its not like they had stockpiled a lot of picks those years. They just made the most of what they got up top. IMO this is a good example, but not sure you want to count their amazing luck as something you can count on. (they even had an additional top 5 pick that started their streak in 02 with Ryan Whitney)

Los Angeles - Another team with a 10 year playoff series drought. They had a couple extra first rounders in 06 and 08 after having 3 in 03. But I am not sure they ever really went scorched earth. They were mediocre for a number of years and then managed to ride defense and Jonathan Quick for all he was worth. Oddly, they went straight bad to mediocrity after that 2nd cup and haven't won a series since then. Doughty was certainly a great lottery pick, but Kopitar was 3 years earlier and Brown 2 before that. So to me thats just mediocre for a while and managing to pick up pieces along the way. IMO not a good example.



I know its a long read, but to me, I'm not sure a single team actively blew up their roster to make this happen. Even the Penguins who fit the bill, what did they blow up pre-lockout? Lemieux retired and they didn't have much else. What did the Blackhawks blow up? Eric Daze and Tony Amonte?!?!?!

People love to think these teams had shrewd management that was long term focused at the expense of the short term. To me they were mostly chronically bad teams that got lucky at the draft.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I know its a long read, but to me, I'm not sure a single team actively blew up their roster to make this happen. Even the Penguins who fit the bill, what did they blow up pre-lockout? Lemieux retired and they didn't have much else. What did the Blackhawks blow up? Eric Daze and Tony Amonte?!?!?!

People love to think these teams had shrewd management that was long term focused at the expense of the short term. To me they were mostly chronically bad teams that got lucky at the draft.

It's this. Decent teams don't get blown up and go "scorched earth".

Bad teams are bad and accumulate picks.

I just hope Flames are done with trading picks. This team seems to have habitually overestimated how good they are. You may not be drafting first overall, but accumulating picks sure improves your odds of finding a difference maker.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So for Buffalo and Detroit, what players did they trade away who still had term on their contract? Not counting guys who asked to be dealt.

What's it matter whether they had term or not? The fact of the matter is they turned players who were not part of the future and building a winner into players they hope would be part of that future. When you can turn Brendan Smith, Thomas Vanek, Petr Mrazek, Tomas Tatar, Gustav Nyqvist, Adam Erne, Andreas Athanasiou, Anthony Mantha into 2 x 1st rounders, 6 x 2nd rounders, 4 x 3rd rounders, 2 x 4th rounder, and four players, you're making chicken salad out of chicken####.

Dealing away pending UFA's is something every team does when they are out of the playoffs.

Well, everyone but the Calgary Flames. For some reason, they just don't know when to make a deal that works to their advantage and returns a haul for the future.

And if there are examples of that, what position was the team in when they did it? Were they last place in the league bad, or 2 points out of a playoff spot bad.

It's irrelevant. They keep the eye on the prize. When you know you're cannon fodder do you hold out hope for catching fire and going on an improbable run, or do you continue to build for the future. Because that's where the Flames get sidetracked and fall into the mediocrity cycle.

Originally Posted by Macindoc

So do you have any example of scorched earth rebuilds that won a Stanley Cup within 7 years of starting the rebuild?

The last would probably be Chicago, but it could be argued they were more like Arizona and a nuclear winter team. They were so bad for so long but they also turned lots of players into draft capital that would ultimately create the critical mass that would become a championship team. Chicago had 11 extra picks between the 2000 and 2001 drafts alone, but that rebuild stalled out but the extra 8 picks in 2004 made the difference. Pittsburgh sort of did, but not to the same extent of others listed. 10 extra picks in the couple years before hitting on Crosby certainly helped. Draft capital is crucial and this is where the Flames and Treliving have been a bust.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It's this. Decent teams don't get blown up and go "scorched earth".

Bad teams are bad and accumulate picks.

I just hope Flames are done with trading picks. This team seems to have habitually overestimated how good they are. You may not be drafting first overall, but accumulating picks sure improves your odds of finding a difference maker.

Exactly. Good franchises don't need to blow it up. But to be a better franchise, the Flames need to put a higher premium on draft picks. The draft is (largely) a random distribution of talent, and the best long term plan is to have as many picks as you can get (understanding that there are useful times to spend picks as well).

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Exactly. Good franchises don't need to blow it up. But to be a better franchise, the Flames need to put a higher premium on draft picks. The draft is (largely) a random distribution of talent, and the best long term plan is to have as many picks as you can get (understanding that there are useful times to spend picks as well).

That's why wasting picks on the likes of a Luke Schenn Oscar Fattenberg and Derek Forbort are not required. We already have plenty of them in the minors.

We also wasted picked on Jarnkrok last season when we could have just played a younger player.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by dobbles

Tampa Bay - Weird example as they didn't have as much of a drought and had some ups and downs with their success. They again got extremely lucky with Stamkos and Hedman in back to back years. But in the Stamkos draft, they didn't have another pick until the 4th round. That does not exactly scream rebuilding with lots of assets. In the Hedman year they did have an additional 1st rounder, but in momst years they had less top round picks than they should have. They were over .500 slightly the year they got Vasilevsky and had been to the conference finals the year before. Not to mention it took 7ish years to get to the finals after getting their two top picks. That would be an awfully long rebuild if that was the foundation. IMO not a good example.

.

Tampa I've always found a particularly weird/frustrating one. they win a cup in 04, and the next 2 lockout years they are also a perfectly fine team- then in 07-08 they still have their cup core (Lecavalier, St Louis, Richards, Prospal,Boyle hell Torts is even still coaching ) but they sputter their way into Stamkos. the next year at least they are starting to move on from guys but in addition to 18 year old Stamkos they add the likes of 40 somethings Roberts and Recchi,and draft Hedman


they've made some shrewd later picks all along the way, to be fair, and speaking to the value of accruing or not blowing draft capital

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

What's it matter whether they had term or not? The fact of the matter is they turned players who were not part of the future and building a winner into players they hope would be part of that future. When you can turn Brendan Smith, Thomas Vanek, Petr Mrazek, Tomas Tatar, Gustav Nyqvist, Adam Erne, Andreas Athanasiou, Anthony Mantha into 2 x 1st rounders, 6 x 2nd rounders, 4 x 3rd rounders, 2 x 4th rounder, and four players, you're making chicken salad out of chicken####.



Well, everyone but the Calgary Flames. For some reason, they just don't know when to make a deal that works to their advantage and returns a haul for the future.



It's irrelevant. They keep the eye on the prize. When you know you're cannon fodder do you hold out hope for catching fire and going on an improbable run, or do you continue to build for the future. Because that's where the Flames get sidetracked and fall into the mediocrity cycle.



The last would probably be Chicago, but it could be argued they were more like Arizona and a nuclear winter team. They were so bad for so long but they also turned lots of players into draft capital that would ultimately create the critical mass that would become a championship team. Chicago had 11 extra picks between the 2000 and 2001 drafts alone, but that rebuild stalled out but the extra 8 picks in 2004 made the difference. Pittsburgh sort of did, but not to the same extent of others listed. 10 extra picks in the couple years before hitting on Crosby certainly helped. Draft capital is crucial and this is where the Flames and Treliving have been a bust.

This is just a terrible post. You provide no defense for your argument and just ignore easy questions and miss basic facts.

There really is not much point listening to what you have to say on this topic.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Yeah, the bar is low, but the Flames have played better hockey over the last decade

Sabres will be an exciting team in the coming seasons though

The Eichel trade is already proving to be a home run. They were completely correct on leveraging Vegas and (IMO) have already made Vegas look a little silly.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This is just a terrible post. You provide no defense for your argument and just ignore easy questions and miss basic facts.

There really is not much point listening to what you have to say on this topic.

It’s kind of his M.O.

The dobbles post pretty much nailed it and Lanny’s post accidentally supports the opposite of what he intended. The “scorched earth” theory seems to be a recipe for badly run teams to continue being bad because they don’t have a choice, not because they’re shrewd. Teams like Detroit, Buffalo, Arizona, etc trade a lot of players for picks but generally it’s because they’re terrible, the players won’t sign there, or the players request a trade.

The teams that have actually won cups never seem to go “scorched earth” they just are naturally bad (and not fighting for the playoffs bad) and do what bad teams do, which is trade players. They got lucky with the selections.

Talk of building “critical mass” or whatever made up theory people want to apply is just pseudo-intellectual nonsense. There doesn’t seem to be any benefit in terms of quality of players or rebuild timeline in going scorched earth vs. just being genuinely, naturally bad and doing want all naturally bad teams do (trading players because it doesn’t make sense to pay someone $6M when you’re in last place, because they asked for a trade, or because they’re a pending UFA).

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This is just a terrible post. You provide no defense for your argument and just ignore easy questions and miss basic facts.

There really is not much point listening to what you have to say on this topic.

What are you even talking about? The question was "what scorched earth looks like" to which I answered with specific criteria of what scorched earth looks like. You come back with some questions about specific players, which are irrelevant when you're burning it to the ground, so long as you get a return that forwards your objective of getting as many assets as possible. If you can get a haul for player when you're not trying to compete, you take it.
Then you try and qualify a scorched earth approach with possible playoff position, which is dumb qualifier as teams that are in the playoff picture are unlikely to go scorched earth. If you're going to go scorched earth you are not going to be trying to compete, you're going to be positioning yourself for the best opportunity for high draft picks. Maybe YOU should define what scorched earth is to you and how you qualify it if you don't like the definition or strategy?

[rohara66]

Get the popcorn for tomorrow’s episode. Lol.

[timun]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I know its a long read, but to me, I'm not sure a single team actively blew up their roster to make this happen. Even the Penguins who fit the bill, what did they blow up pre-lockout? Lemieux retired and they didn't have much else. What did the Blackhawks blow up? Eric Daze and Tony Amonte?!?!?!

People love to think these teams had shrewd management that was long term focused at the expense of the short term. To me they were mostly chronically bad teams that got lucky at the draft.

Amen.

The last time the Blackhawks and Penguins had made the Stanley Cup Finals before their 2000s-2010s 'dynasties' was 1992, when they had faced each other. Both teams were systematically dismantled over the course of the following few seasons, as players got older/retired and other players ventured elsewhere for more money. They didn't "tank" in the early 2000s, they just went through slow, long declines and never actually fixed the problems they had.

The '92 Penguins were a relatively mediocre 3rd place in the Patrick Division with 87 points (tied with 4th place Devils (38-31-11), but Penguins were placed third for having more wins (39-32-9)). The Blackhawks finished second in the Norris Division, with the same 87 points (but went 36-29-15).

The '92 Cup winners had a core of Lemieux, Jagr, Kevin Stevens, Ron Francis, Joe Mullen, Rick Tocchet and Larry Murphy, with Tom Barrasso in net. Backing Barrasso up was Ken Wregget, and on defence they also had the Samuelssons (Ulf and Kjell; no relation), Gordie Roberts, Paul Stanton and Jim Paek. The forwards were complemented by "elder statesmen" Bryan Trottier and Jiri Hrdina, a young Shawn McEachern, and decent defensive forwards like Bob Errey, Phil Bourque and Troy Loney.

The Hawks had young Jeremy Roenick as their star forward, with Steve Larmer and oft-injured Michel Goulet rounding out their top line. Brent Sutter anchored a second line with Dirk Graham and Brian Noonan, with defensive forwards like Jocelyn Lemieux (later a Flame; Claude's little brother) and Greg Gilbert, Keenan favourite Stephane Matteau, and goons Mike Peluso and Stu Grimson on the fourth line. Defense was anchored by Chris Chelios, who played so long as a depth guy on stacked Red Wings teams that people forget he was a fantastic player and one of the best defencemen in the world at the time (he won the Norris two of the following four years, bookended by wins by Brian Leetch and wins by Ray Bourque and Paul Coffey in between; truly we as fans were spoiled by amazing defensive talent in those years...). His partner was Steve Smith (yes, that Steve Smith), with the bottom four of Keith Brown, Igor Kravchuk, Bryan Marchment and Cam Russell. In net they had Ed Belfour at his peak and some Czech weirdo named Hasek backing him up.

The next year the Pens lost Gordie Roberts and Phil Bourque to free agency, Trottier and Hrdina to retirement, and tried to plug defensive holes by trading Bob Errey to the Sabres for old-n-busted Mike Ramsey. They signed Dave Tippett to fill in the gaps in the bottom six, added a young Martin Straka to the team, and graduated prospect Mike Needham.

The Hawks didn't know what they had with Hasek and traded him for Christian Ruuttu (who was actually a pretty good player in his own right), replacing him with highly touted prospect Jimmy Waite. They picked up Joe Murphy, Dave Christian, Troy Murray and Craig Muni, with the team otherwise pretty similar.

The '93 playoffs should have been a repeat of '92, with the Blackhawks and Penguins both finishing first in their conferences (Pens first overall by a wide margin). Instead the Hawks were swept by the Blues in a first-round upset, with Curtis Joseph playing the best hockey of his career. The Pens infamously lost to the Islanders in OT in game 7 of their second-round matchup.

In '93-'94 the Pens are still an offensive juggernaut, but Lemieux spends most of the year injured. They traded McEachern to the Kings for Marty McSorley in the off-season, thinking they need to beef up the back end, and by mid-season they luck themselves into a situation where the Kings desperately want McSorely back and end up swapping the players back, but Kings had to add Tomas Sandstrom as a sweetener. They add Doug Brown and Greg Brown to bolster the defensive play, and bring back Trottier to "reinstill a winning spirit" or whatever, but still choke in the first round to the Capitals.

The Hawks' biggest additions in '93-'94 were Tony Amonte and Gary Suter, having fleeced Amonte from the Keenan-coached Rangers for Noonan and Matteau, and having orchestrated Suter from the Flames with the Whalers as intermediary (the Flames ended up with Michael Nylander, James Patrick and Zarley Zalapski, the Whalers ended up with Ted Drury, Paul Ranheim, Frank Kucera and Jocelyn Lemieux, and Hawks ended up with Suter, Randy Cunneyworth and a 3rd round draft pick). They also added Rich Sutter from the Blues, Eric Weinrich and Patrick Poulin in another three-way trade with the Whalers and Rangers (losing Larmer and Marchment in the process). They picked up Keith Carney from the Sabres for Craig Muni, making a solid defensive team of Chelios, Suter, Smith, Weinrich, Carney and Cam Russell. They still lost in the first round to the Leafs.

In the lockout shortened '94-'95 season the Pens are without Lemieux and Barrasso. They traded Tocchet to LA for Luc Robitaille, and brought John Cullen back in free agency (was originally part of the package to the Whalers for Francis, Grant Jennings and Ulf Samuelsson in '91). The defence is pretty thin past Murphy and the Samuelssons, with Chris Joseph, Chris Tamer, Frankie Leroux, Jennings and a revolving door of others. They're still a force to be reckoned with in the regular season, but fall to the Devils in the second round.

The Hawks jettisoned Waite to the Sharks and got Jeff Hackett back (two separate trades involving picks, about a month apart in the off-season), bring in a kid named Dazé, sign Bernie Nicholls as a free agent, and take Denis Savard's contract off the Lightning's hands for a song (a sixth round pick!). They end up taking the Red Wings to five games in the conference finals.

In '95-'96 the Penguins are STILL an offensive juggernaut with a healthy Mario back, and they picked up Petr Nedved and Sergei Zubov from the Rangers for Robitaille and Ulf Samuelsson, picked up young Bryan Smolinksi and Glen Murray from the Kings for McEachern and a rapidly deteriorating Kevin Stevens. While they had lost Mullen, they also had a young Markus Naslund on their third line. They ended up dumping him to the Canucks for Alek Stojanov, a big plug of a guy whom the Canucks wasted a first-round pick on in '91. Naslund goes on to score over 750 points for the Canucks, while Stojanov ends up out of the league 18 months later. One of the worst trades ever.

They also lost Larry Murphy, trading him to the Leafs for Dmitri Mironov. That's a huge downgrade too. Murphy played less than two years for the Leafs, having become a goat there, but goes on to win two more Stanley Cups with the Red Wings. Mironov also only lasts in a Pens uniform for a little over a year, being traded early in the '96-'97 season to the Ducks for Alex Hicks and Freddie Olausson.

In '96 the Penguins make it to the conference finals but lose in seven games to the 'Cinderella' Panthers, who absolutely dismantled the Penguins' porous defense and showed how awfully top-heavy the team had become. The defensive corps consisted of Zubov, Mironov, J.J. Daigneault, Chris Tamer, Chris Joseph and Neil Wilkinson. The bottom six forwards consist of Kevin Miller, rookies Dave Roche and Joe Dziedzic, Brad Lauer, Stojanov, and Frankie Leroux. It's... rough.

The '95-'96 Hawks are much the same as '94-'95, and finish third in the conference but fall to the eventual Cup champs in the second round.

The '96-'97 Penguins made another bonehead move with their best offensive defenceman, trading Zubov to the Stars for Kevin Hatcher. They did luck out in making a smart trade with the Panthers, bringing in Stu Barnes and Jason Woolley for big young centreman Chris Wells who goes on to do not much. They bring Mullen back for one more season before he retires. Woolley they keep for a year before sending him packing to the Sabres for a pick. Coincidentally they traded Barnes to the Sabres at the 1999 trade deadline for Matthew Barnaby. They try to beef up the defence with Darius Kasparaitis, having traded Smolinski to the Islanders to get him. Barrasso spends most of the year hurt and rookie Patrick Lalime steals the starting job from Wregget. The defence still sucks though, and they lose in five games to the Flyers.

The '96-'97 Blackhawks are a bit of an underperforming tire-fire, with Ed Belfour and Jeremy Roenick demanding out. Roenick was shipped out in the summer to the new Phoenix Coyotes for Alexei Zhamnov and a first-round pick. Belfour was a whiny sucky-baby all year and moped his way out of town while Jeff Hackett took over in net. Belfour they end up trading to the Sharks at the '97 deadline for Ulf Dahlen, Michal Sykora and Chris Terreri. Zhamnov got hurt right before the playoffs and they lost to the Avalanche again, this time in the first round.

The '97-'98 Pens still finish first in their division, but had lost Lemieux to retirement and Nedved to a whinge and a pout (he sat the year out in a contract dispute). They bring back former Lemieux linemate Rob Brown and add Robert Lang, Ed Olcyzk, the Ferraro twins, Tyler Wright and draft picks Robert Dome and Aleksey Morozov to round out the forwards. Defence they try to better by bringing in Jiri Slegr and oft-injured Brad Werenka. Jagr and Francis put the team on their backs but they still end up getting bounced in the first round by the Canadiens (led by former Pen Mark Recchi).

The '97-'98 Blackhawks miss the playoffs. Nicholls and Savard are gone. Past their top five of Amonte, Zhamnov, Dazé, Chelios and Suter, it's a mess. They still had a pretty good defence and goaltending with Hackett and Terreri, but the offence had dried up; only the moribund Lightning were worse.

The '98-'99 Pens are still respectable, but the holes in the lineup are getting bigger. Ronnie Franchise went to Carolina as a free agent. They acquired German Titov and Todd Hlushko from the Flames for Roche and Wregget in the off-season, claimed Kip Miller from the Islanders in the Waiver Draft, dumped Nedved, Sean Pronger and Chris Tamer to the Rangers for Alex Kovalev and Harry York early in November. The defence at this point is a tire-fire, with Hatcher, Werenka and Slegr pretty much the only respectable full-time NHLers at this point. Barrasso returned to full health, but they traded Lalime to the Ducks for Sean Pronger late in the previous season, and I think they thought they had more in Petr Skudra and J-S Aubin. (Spoiler alert: they didn't.) They won a hard-fought first-round series over the Devils but lose in six to the Leafs in the second round.

The '98-'99 Blackhawks are a 29-41-12 tire-fire. Former forward Dirk Graham came back to coach, and was fired three quarters of the way through; the team went 13-6-4 with Lorne Molleken behind the bench, but Molleken gets fired only 24 games into the following season anyway... Terreri went back to Jersey to back up Marty Brodeur and they replaced him with journeyman Mark Fitzpatrick. Suter was traded to the Sharks in the offseason. They signed Doug Gilmour in free agency, having spent only a year with the Devils. Hackett and Weinrich are traded early in the season to the Canadiens for Jocelyn Thibault, Dave Manson and Brad Brown. The once vaunted Hawks defence is reduced to Chelios, Manson, Brown, Doug Zmolek, Christian Laflamme, Bryan Muir and a revolving door of others (Boris Mironov, Jamie Allison, etc.). They picked up Paul Coffey in the offseason but he's a shell of what he once was at that point, and they ship him off to Carolina for Nelson Emerson after only 10 games in a Hawks uniform. The final indignity of the season is the trade of Chelios to the Red Wings at the deadline for two first-round picks who amount to nothing, and Anders Eriksson... Chelios would go on to win Stanley Cups with the Red Wings in 2002 and 2008. (He was still a force in 2002, finishing second in Norris Trophy voting to teammate Nick Lidstrom.)

The '99-2000 Pens are still respectable, but it's the Jagr show now. The man was astounding, leading the league in scoring with 96 points in only 63 games. The supporting cast of forwards was decent (Kovalev, Lang, Straka, Jan Hrdina, Titov, Morozov, Slegr, Barnaby, Rob Brown, Tyler Wright), but even with the famed Herb Brooks behind the bench the defence was still mediocre as all hell. Hatcher was unceremoniously punted to the Rangers for Peter Popovic right before the season started, and the corps was led by Slegr, Kasparaitis, youngster Michal Roszival, Werenka, Ian Moran and Swedish free agent Hans Jonsson. Barrasso finally got the boot, traded to Ottawa for Janne Laukkanen and Ron Tugnutt. They embarrassed old rivals the Capitals in five games in the first round, but lost to the Flyers in the second (led by former Pen Mark Recchi...).

The '99-2000 Blackhawks were modestly improved, having added Steve Sullivan, Michael Nylander, Bryan McCabe and Sylvain Côté. They still miss the playoffs, and Côté and Manson are traded to the Stars for Kevin Dean and Derek Plante. Plante was hurt and left in the offseason, and Dean was barely an NHLer for one more year... McCabe was traded just before the 2000-01 season for Alexander Karpovstev.

Jagr stuck around for one more year, and led the league in scoring again (121 pts in 81 games; his fourth straight Art Ross Trophy), and with Lemieux and Kevin Stevens back for half the year the Pens managed to get to the conference finals again in close series wins over the Caps and Sabres, but they fell to the Devils in five. Even with shaky goaltending and a defence that was as-always a feast for opponents. (They finished with the fifth most goals against in the league; the craptastic Islanders, Rangers, Lightning and Thrashers were the only ones worse.)

The Blackhawks had a bit of a resurgence in '01-'02, making the playoffs for the first time in five years, but they again lost to the Blues in the first round. It was the last time Dazé played a full season, Amonte signed in the 2002 offseason with the Coyotes, Michael Nylander wore out his welcome early in the '02-'03 season and was traded to the Capitals... They were done. Sullivan and Zhamnov were traded away late in the '03-'04 season and the team sucked until the ascendency of Toews, Kane, Patrick Sharp, Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook 4-5 years later.

[Samonadreau]

I feel like the point still stands that for the most part, you have to be really bad before you can be really good for a long time. There lies the problem that the flames are never bad enough to be really good for a long time, yet always close enough to be spending assets. Marinating in mediocrity with a few good regular seasons and one run to the finals sprinkled in.

Seems all the posts above are just reaffirming this.

Maybe its just the sour taste from tonight

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

I feel like the point still stands that for the most part, you have to be really bad before you can be really good for a long time. There lies the problem that the flames are never bad enough to be really good for a long time. Marinating in mediocrity with a few good regular seasons and one run to the finals sprinkled in. .

Seems all the posts above are just reaffirming this.

Sure, but the key difference there seems to be that the teams that actively try to be really bad never become really good, and the teams that are just naturally terrible (and get lucky) do.

So as mediocre as the Flames might be, trying to go scorched earth or tank is probably a recipe for the same thing with 5-10 years of even worse hockey in the middle.

[Royle9]

Well I can pretty much confirm that mediocrity and the method of how the Flames continue to build isn't working either here, so if not a rebuild what do you propose to fix this team?

1 deep run almost 20 years ago now, and before that another 15 years.
Only got past the first round twice since 1989.
No lottery picks in franchise history.
Best draft pick @ 4 O/A was a bust and driven out of town.

Let's keep doing what we're doing though...

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, but the key difference there seems to be that the teams that actively try to be really bad never become really good, and the teams that are just naturally terrible (and get lucky) do.

So as mediocre as the Flames might be, trying to go scorched earth or tank is probably a recipe for the same thing with 5-10 years of even worse hockey in the middle.

Mediocre if you do and mediocre if you dont. Eventually you have at least try something different, even if its not a scorched earth approach.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by dobbles

See I would really like to talk about this because people throw these names around and I don't think they are actual examples of what people want. There is a difference in blowing it up for a rebuild and just plain being bad for a long time and happening to get lucky on a couple high draft picks.

Colorado - They went 10 years without a playoff series victory. By the time they rebounded from the horrendous 16-17 campaign, they had pieces like Mackinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog, etc. Can you honestly say those pieces came from blowing it up 10 years earlier when they still had Sakic, Hejduk, Stastny, etc? Because outside of that one terrible season, their results were pretty middling, and I see no sort of bottoming out of their results and team. They had no surplus of high draft picks that allowed them to rebuild. IMO this is not a fair comparison.

Chicago - Everyone's classic example for this. Like Colorado, they went 11 seasons without a playoff series victory. Again, they were just bad for a long time. Heck they made the playoffs in 97 with a sub .500 record! They did bottom out right around the lockout year and they got lucky with back to back top 3 picks and got Kane and Toews. So a decent representation. But remember they had been bad for years at that point and had multiple years going back as far as 97 with multiple first round picks. So while they did rebuild, again it took a decade. IMO this is a decent but rose tinted example of a rebuild.

Tampa Bay - Weird example as they didn't have as much of a drought and had some ups and downs with their success. They again got extremely lucky with Stamkos and Hedman in back to back years. But in the Stamkos draft, they didn't have another pick until the 4th round. That does not exactly scream rebuilding with lots of assets. In the Hedman year they did have an additional 1st rounder, but in momst years they had less top round picks than they should have. They were over .500 slightly the year they got Vasilevsky and had been to the conference finals the year before. Not to mention it took 7ish years to get to the finals after getting their two top picks. That would be an awfully long rebuild if that was the foundation. IMO not a good example.

Pittsburg - Also a traditional example used for this philosophy. This one is a tough one. As they did get bad, and got bad fast. They then had a great turn around. But lets remember they picked top 2 4 years in a row. Had the Oilers not been as awful as they were a few years later, people would still be talking about that streak. And again, outside the Oilers and McDavid, its not every day you luck into a generational talent like Crosby. Oddly, outside the top picks, its not like they had stockpiled a lot of picks those years. They just made the most of what they got up top. IMO this is a good example, but not sure you want to count their amazing luck as something you can count on. (they even had an additional top 5 pick that started their streak in 02 with Ryan Whitney)

Los Angeles - Another team with a 10 year playoff series drought. They had a couple extra first rounders in 06 and 08 after having 3 in 03. But I am not sure they ever really went scorched earth. They were mediocre for a number of years and then managed to ride defense and Jonathan Quick for all he was worth. Oddly, they went straight bad to mediocrity after that 2nd cup and haven't won a series since then. Doughty was certainly a great lottery pick, but Kopitar was 3 years earlier and Brown 2 before that. So to me thats just mediocre for a while and managing to pick up pieces along the way. IMO not a good example.



I know its a long read, but to me, I'm not sure a single team actively blew up their roster to make this happen. Even the Penguins who fit the bill, what did they blow up pre-lockout? Lemieux retired and they didn't have much else. What did the Blackhawks blow up? Eric Daze and Tony Amonte?!?!?!

People love to think these teams had shrewd management that was long term focused at the expense of the short term. To me they were mostly chronically bad teams that got lucky at the draft.

Great response, and puts the situations in a light I’ve never viewed them before.

It’s easy to look back on those teams now and say they had a great plan, but I think you might be correct in that they’re pretty much all the results of dumb luck.

It just feels like this franchise is due for some dumb luck of their own. Felt like we finally had it last year and it went to hell in a hand basket.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Well I can pretty much confirm that mediocrity and the method of how the Flames continue to build isn't working either here, so if not a rebuild what do you propose to fix this team?

1 deep run almost 20 years ago now, and before that another 15 years.
Only got past the first round twice since 1989.
No lottery picks in franchise history.
Best draft pick @ 4 O/A was a bust and driven out of town.

Let's keep doing what we're doing though...

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Mediocre if you do and mediocre if you dont. Eventually you have at least try something different, even if its not a scorched earth approach.

Both of these posts suggest the Flames have just been doing the same thing since the 90s, but putting aside any annoyance with the current season, I think it’s pretty clear that it isn’t true, or that if it is, they’re been doing the same thing every other team has been doing.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Great response, and puts the situations in a light I’ve never viewed them before.

It’s easy to look back on those teams now and say they had a great plan, but I think you might be correct in that they’re pretty much all the results of dumb luck.

It just feels like this franchise is due for some dumb luck of their own. Felt like we finally had it last year and it went to hell in a hand basket.

Luck for sure has a lot to do with it. Top picks bust, lower picks blossom. The lightning drafted Stamkos and Hedman high, but not Point or Kucherov, and Vasilevsky was picked with the Bolts lesser first round pick that year - their first was Slater Koekoek, and two ahead of Janko (and after where Calgary was going to pick).

[dino7c]

They are also in Tampa where players want to stay/play and nobody cares when you suck