What would rebuilding look like?

[Murph]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

You post this like Draisaitl was a clear player to pick at 3. Most had Bennett ahead of him

And also like those two have won something…

[Vinny01]

When the Flames decide that they are not going to compete with this core and they do need to rebuild much like they did in 2013 I hope they do take their time and try and pick as high in the draft as possible. It is also key to keep high drafted free agents in junior/NCAA/Europe and not rush them to the NHL. As soon as you start paying these young guys the big bucks the clock starts ticking to win. Teams love to put their 18 year old fresh shiny toys on display for the fans to sell hope but once you start paying these guys you do not want to wait until year 4 of their 6-8 year deal to start to make the playoffs.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

You post this like Draisaitl was a clear player to pick at 3. Most had Bennett ahead of him

I post it to underscore how important it is to get these picks right when you have them, and how easy it is to get them wrong.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Tampa won one of their cups with Stamkos missing almost the entire playoffs. Hedmen is key but the other 3 guys were far more crucial.

When a market like Calgary goes into the tank the risk is being the next Buffalo or Edmonton and it is more than a decade of being terrible and when those teams tanked they were guaranteed the 1st or 2nd pick and the way the lotto works now we are seeing the worst team get the 3rd or 4th pick quite regularly.

Buffalo still is mediocre and Edmonton is in year 8 of a generational player and have only been an average team.

Markets like Calgary that go into tank mode seem to end up for like Buffalo or Columbus than they do Chicago or Tampa. Calagary had 2 of their best drafted players push their way out after 6 and 8 years because they didn’t want to stay in this market despite being a top team last year.

You are right it is a path to take but it is very risky with longer pain and no guarantees of success or top 3 picks.

What is the alternative?

Do what the Flames have done for three+ decades with zero success outside of one Cinderella run in 04?

The Flames are perpetually stuck in the middle. They never get bad enough to draft top talent, and never good enough to find any meaningful success. So why continue doing what they’re doing? Even when they do have a good regular season - the very next season it turns to rubbish.

Buffalo’s lack of success I’d attribute to lack of stability at the top of the organization.

Edmonton’s lack of success can be tied directly to their old boys club that arrogantly believed they were gods gift to hockey because they won some cups in the 80s.

That’s just bad management. Treliving has shown he’s actually a pretty damn good manager - but is unable to overcome the lack of the foundational top-3 picks. I’d be confident in his ability to rebuild this team.

Also, being dismissive of Stamkos in their first cup win isn’t right in my eyes. He was still their captain and with the team (and still scored an important goal).

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Murph

And also like those two have won something…

Besides 3 of the last 6 Hart trophies and more playoff rounds than Calgary since they’ve been in the league?

They’re not the GM.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

What is the alternative?

Do what the Flames have done for three+ decades with zero success outside of one Cinderella run in 04?

The Flames are perpetually stuck in the middle. They never get bad enough to draft top talent, and never good enough to find any meaningful success. So why continue doing what they’re doing?

Buffalo’s lack of success I’d attribute to lack of stability at the top of the organization.

Edmonton’s lack of success can be tied directly to their old boys club that arrogantly believed they were gods gift to hockey because they won some cups in the 80s.

That’s just bad management. Treliving has shown he’s actually a pretty damn good manager - but is unable to overcome the lack of the foundational top-3 picks. I’d be confident in his ability to rebuild this team.

Again, they have not been doing “the same thing” for the last 30 years. The last 30 years have seen different managers, different styles of teams, different financial situations (save the Flames!). There have been years where as a cash-strapped team they acted as a feeder of talent for other, better teams. There have been years where they’ve clearly been going for it (post 2004 and 2017-present). There have been the rebuild years in the middle where they rebuilt the team with high-end first round picks.

You can make excuses for why Edmonton or Buffalo didn’t tank into a contender, but as has been pointed out in another thread, no team that tanks turns into a contender. Every Stanley Cup winner has been built through the natural cycle of what most teams go through (good for a while, bad for a while, lucky while you’re bad but always trying to get back to being good). There is no shortcut in the NHL.

People want them to tank because they just want excitement, which is understandable. But people should stop acting like it’s for any reason beyond that because teams that actually rank and or purposefully trigger a rebuild when they’re middle of the road don’t actually win anything. They haven’t yet, at least. None of them. So you want to suck for a while because that’s fun to you? Cool. I would rather them continue to build towards being a cup contender.

You say Treliving would be the difference in terms of turning a tank into a contender, but he’s had 7 years here, no? He’s built his team and you’re complaining about it, but want him to build another? Bizarre.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I think some ignore the ownership math of a tear down.

A horrible team risks nothing by lingering at the bottom. Eg Arizona.
A mediocre team has a huge financial risk blowing it up when the future is not clear.

The flames would be looking at something like 1.5B in revenues the next 3-5 years.
If they win a round or two that’s probably gravy. An upside run is possible even if it isn’t likely, and they (as every team) will convince themselves they have a plan.

If they blow it up there’s probably a 2-300M revenue hit. The owners may need to put in capital to keep the lights on. There is zero chance of an upside run. And in the end the best case scenario is you get back to where you started, but with maybe a payoff in years 5-10. Maybe.

And tanking is a one way door. Once you start you’re looking 5 years out no matter what. Playing your hand as a mediocre team keeps all options open. If the team crushes it, you cash in. If they crater, you can always blow it up tomorrow.

So, option A has a limited chance at a cup but may win a round or two in the next 5 years but will be profitable and we can evaluate year by year.
Option B has no chance of a cup or even playoffs in the next 5 years, will not be profitable and may lose money, and once you start down that path you kill other options.

Option B only makes sense once you convince yourself that A has disappeared. The canucks seem to be wrestling with this now. The jets have in the past. The flames are nowhere near it yet. In 2 years, who knows.

[GreenLantern2814]

^^^theres no such thing as a cup contender without elite players.

The easiest place to find them is the top of the draft.

You don’t need to build the entire roster out of them.

You do need at least one.

When your two best players walk in the span of four weeks, you should see the writing on the wall and blow it up.

Colorado, Tampa, Tampa, St Louis, Washington, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Chicago, LA, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh.

Those are the champs since 2009.

The way forward is spelled out clearly. Franchise players from the top of the draft are required for contention.

Boston DID blow it up, when they traded Joe Thornton. It gave them the cap space to sign Chara, they traded their Calder winning goalie Raycroft for Rask, and when they drafted Kessel, they didn’t hoard him like a fairy tale dragon, they sold him to Toronto for Tyler Seguin ++.

Asset management.

Which leaves St Louis, and if you wanna look at the least likely champion of the last 15 years and say “that’s our plan”, that’s 100% your call, but it’s not a great plan.

Draft a core. Develop them together. Bind them to each other, the team and the city. Supplement them with a Huberdeau/Hossa/Niedermayer/Chara big ticket signing.

This team doesn’t have a core.

Their best centre is a bottom-tier #1C without Tkachuk and Gaudreau. He’ll soon be 30, and due to make $8.5-9.5M, doesn’t work with Huberdeau, and they couldn’t win when he was in his 20s making half the cash.

They currently have one home-grown defenseman - with all the money and emphasis on defense, how are we not producing D like Carolina?

They’ve never developed a goalie.

I just don’t see what we’re protecting here. Nobody can possibly have a strong emotional connection to this roster, and there’s no intellectual case to be made that they’re better than they’ve shown.

In a 32 team league, they’re 16th in goals for, 16th in goals against.

Because of course they are.

[Vinny01]

Flames are mid pack in goals for and goals against because their superstar forward is scoring at half the pace he was last year and their Vezina goalie is a mediocre backup right now. If both things were normalized this team is in the upper echelon of the entire league.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I think some ignore the ownership math of a tear down.

A horrible team risks nothing by lingering at the bottom. Eg Arizona.
A mediocre team has a huge financial risk blowing it up when the future is not clear.

The flames would be looking at something like 1.5B in revenues the next 3-5 years.
If they win a round or two that’s probably gravy. An upside run is possible even if it isn’t likely, and they (as every team) will convince themselves they have a plan.

If they blow it up there’s probably a 2-300M revenue hit. The owners may need to put in capital to keep the lights on. There is zero chance of an upside run. And in the end the best case scenario is you get back to where you started, but with maybe a payoff in years 5-10. Maybe.

And tanking is a one way door. Once you start you’re looking 5 years out no matter what. Playing your hand as a mediocre team keeps all options open. If the team crushes it, you cash in. If they crater, you can always blow it up tomorrow.

So, option A has a limited chance at a cup but may win a round or two in the next 5 years but will be profitable and we can evaluate year by year.
Option B has no chance of a cup or even playoffs in the next 5 years, will not be profitable and may lose money, and once you start down that path you kill other options.

Option B only makes sense once you convince yourself that A has disappeared. The canucks seem to be wrestling with this now. The jets have in the past. The flames are nowhere near it yet. In 2 years, who knows.

I have no sympathy for the financial requirements to run a team in the NHL. They don’t like it, they can sell. This is pro sports, pay up or get out.

This isn’t an Arizona situation where nobody cares, or a Jets 1.0 situation when they were playing in a 10,000 seat arena built 24 months after the death of Stalin.

Furthermore, They don’t need to spend $80M to finish 16th-24th.

They could spend $65M and just tell us “we’re rebuilding.” Everyone would go “great”.

They did it in 2013. Everyone was thrilled to finally suck and draft top-10, and then draft top 10 again in 2014. It would have been amazing to suck even more in 2015 and a top-10 selection in the best draft of the decade.

But no, we had Monahan and 18 year old Sam Bennett, and Jonny Hockey.

Rebuild over.

Like, learn from history or repeat it.

[Hot_Flatus]

Do you really need to "tank" in order to alter the trajectory of this team if it is determined that the current group can't get it done? You can certainly ship out the handful of high demand players (Lindholm, Backlund, Hanifin, Tanev), who are on good deals with dwindling term for pretty handsome returns without absolutely gutting the roster and operating as a doormat for the next handful of seasons.

Based on the existing NHL talent on the roster and prospects in the system, this path would likely not be overly long or painful given the ability to leverage newfound cap room as well. The biggest question would be who the franchise views as it's GM to take this on, and I'm not sold the existing one deserves more running room to do it again.

[traptor]

The idea of rebuilding is to amass a grouping of picks (especially 1st and 2nds) over 3-4 years. You then need to wait 3-4 years for these players to develop and you start building around them through trades and UFA signings. To amass a slection of picks you need to sell valuable pieces. This selling process will porbably cause your team to second for a few seaaon giving you a better chance at a top pick and elite talent.

Some of these players might not pan out, so you need to move then out and re-coup assets as soon as you realize and keep adding through drafts and trades through that core you've developed.

People use the Blues as an example of a team that didn't and won but thats just not true. Alot of their cup winning core came from their rebuild in the 2007-2010 drafts. They had 7 firsts and 6 2nda over 4 years. They had pietrangelo, tarasenko, schwartz person and alan. They traded for O'Reilly and schenn who both came out of 2009 draft. Their core was 26-30 years old.

The flames ####ed their rebuild up. They started too late and left too early and the result is a half baked rebuild. Now most of that core is gone but they're stringing along the corpse of its old remains. Nothing is impossible and they could win with this team but I don't think we have the horses or the right mix. The sooner they restart this process the better imo..

[Naitix]

This team is good, I think poor goaltending and poor coaching choices affected their confidence all year. If we get average goaltending, we are probably top 8 team in the league. Play Wolf and see what happens, he is way too good

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by traptor

The idea of rebuilding is to amass a grouping if higher picks over 3-4 years. You then need to wait 3-4 years for these players to develop and then you start building around them. Some of these players might not pan out, so you need to move then out and re-coup assets as soon as you realize and keep adding through drafts and trades through that core you've developed.

People use the Blues as an example of a team that didn't but thats just not true. Alot of their cup winning core came from their rebuild in the 2007-2010 drafts. They had 7 firsts and 6 2nda over 4 years. They had pietrangelo, tarasenko, schwartz person and alan. They traded for O'Reilly and schenn who both came out of 2009 draft. Their core was 26-30 years old.

You don't need to commit to only taking back draft picks and absolutely sucking for several years. There are always hockey trades to be made when you're talking about moving really good players that still have some term on their deals. We've seen it here with Treliving numerous times. I would simply argue that there's enough here to work with that you don't need to burn it to the ground and tank, but merely take a step backward before moving forward.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Again, they have not been doing “the same thing” for the last 30 years. The last 30 years have seen different managers, different styles of teams, different financial situations (save the Flames!). There have been years where as a cash-strapped team they acted as a feeder of talent for other, better teams. There have been years where they’ve clearly been going for it (post 2004 and 2017-present). There have been the rebuild years in the middle where they rebuilt the team with high-end first round picks.

You can make excuses for why Edmonton or Buffalo didn’t tank into a contender, but as has been pointed out in another thread, no team that tanks turns into a contender. Every Stanley Cup winner has been built through the natural cycle of what most teams go through (good for a while, bad for a while, lucky while you’re bad but always trying to get back to being good). There is no shortcut in the NHL.

People want them to tank because they just want excitement, which is understandable. But people should stop acting like it’s for any reason beyond that because teams that actually rank and or purposefully trigger a rebuild when they’re middle of the road don’t actually win anything. They haven’t yet, at least. None of them. So you want to suck for a while because that’s fun to you? Cool. I would rather them continue to build towards being a cup contender.

You say Treliving would be the difference in terms of turning a tank into a contender, but he’s had 7 years here, no? He’s built his team and you’re complaining about it, but want him to build another? Bizarre.

He didn't get the opportunity to build through the top of the draft. He came in and immediately began spending money. I imagine this had to do with Ownership/Burke's stance on rebuilds at the time - they didn't want to do it. Burke openly mocked the idea of trying to pick at the top of the draft because it was lottery based and that it wasn't a strategy.

"Continue building a contender" what steps have they made towards being a contender in the modern era? Forget the 30 years, let's just focus on the 18 seasons since the first lock out when everything about the league changed, and since then the Flames have spent toe to toe with the top organizations in the league.

They've won 2 playoff series in 18 season. They've made the playoffs 50% of the time. Their only playoff series victories came in 2014/2015 and then again in 2021/2022 - how is this showing any level of progression? Also, the impact players that looked to be taking this team forward and progressing it to two (Regular Season) Division Titles have left the organization.

There's no progress. The prospect pool is bottom half of the league, and the current roster is not in the playoffs - and they face major roster issues like having a bottom of the league goalie signed for 3 more seasons at $6M, and have a number of expiring contracts next season where the Flames need to decide if they want to lock into even more players nearing 30 years of age for big dollar long term contracts.

I don't quite see the makeup of a contender anywhere here - and that's generally because contenders are built on homegrown players drafted in the top-3, top-5, top-10 of the draft - of which the Flames have zero, and zero in the system. That level of talent is what drives the stability that contenders need to achieve the consistency that sees them in the playoffs every season - not in one year, out the next, back in the following, and then back out.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Do you really need to "tank" in order to alter the trajectory of this team if it is determined that the current group can't get it done? You can certainly ship out the handful of high demand players (Lindholm, Backlund, Hanifin, Tanev), who are on good deals with dwindling term for pretty handsome returns without absolutely gutting the roster and operating as a doormat for the next handful of seasons.

Based on the existing NHL talent on the roster and prospects in the system, this path would likely not be overly long or painful given the ability to leverage newfound cap room as well. The biggest question would be who the franchise views as it's GM to take this on, and I'm not sold the existing one deserves more running room to do it again.

Lindholm @ 50% retained: 1st, 2nd, top-3 organizational prospect
Hanifin @ 50%: 1st, 3rd, top-7 prospect
Toffoli: 2nd, 4th, prospect
Tanev: 3rd, prospect
Backlund: 2nd, 3rd, prospect

Total: Two 1sts, three 2nds, two 3rds, 4th, three prospects.

Huberdeau-Kadri-Dube
Coleman-?-Mangiapane
Pelletier-Zary-?
Lucic-Lewis-Ritchie

Weegar-Andersson
Zadorov-Gilbert
?-Stone

A whole lot of yuck in the short term. But sign Coronato, add a couple top-3 picks, along with one or two studs in the later rounds over the next 3-4 drafts, and yeah, it starts to improve in a hurry.

Almost as though patience was a virtue.

[CSharp]

Backlund and Lindholm aren't going anywhere. That's crazy to go from having center strength and depth to practically nothing in the top 9 in the lineup. Also, I can't see the Flames retaining any salary for Lindholm or Hanifin on any blockbuster trades since they're pretty much at the best bargain price you can get. I think Toffoli can actually fetch more than a second round now even on how bad the Flames are this season. Also, Flames don't have to worry about Lucic's contract after this season. That frees up $6M cap!!! Now, if the Flames can get rid of Markstrom. His contract looks worse every year!

Seriously, the Flames aren't looking for another rebuild. They'll bounce back next season and they'll likely lose/move a player here and there to fill the roster if none of the AHL prospects can fulfill their roles in the big leagues.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

^^^theres no such thing as a cup contender without elite players.

The easiest place to find them is the top of the draft.

You don’t need to build the entire roster out of them.

You do need at least one.

When your two best players walk in the span of four weeks, you should see the writing on the wall and blow it up.

Colorado, Tampa, Tampa, St Louis, Washington, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Chicago, LA, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh.

Those are the champs since 2009.

The way forward is spelled out clearly. Franchise players from the top of the draft are required for contention.

Boston DID blow it up, when they traded Joe Thornton. It gave them the cap space to sign Chara, they traded their Calder winning goalie Raycroft for Rask, and when they drafted Kessel, they didn’t hoard him like a fairy tale dragon, they sold him to Toronto for Tyler Seguin ++.

Asset management.

Which leaves St Louis, and if you wanna look at the least likely champion of the last 15 years and say “that’s our plan”, that’s 100% your call, but it’s not a great plan.

Draft a core. Develop them together. Bind them to each other, the team and the city. Supplement them with a Huberdeau/Hossa/Niedermayer/Chara big ticket signing.

This team doesn’t have a core.

Their best centre is a bottom-tier #1C without Tkachuk and Gaudreau. He’ll soon be 30, and due to make $8.5-9.5M, doesn’t work with Huberdeau, and they couldn’t win when he was in his 20s making half the cash.

They currently have one home-grown defenseman - with all the money and emphasis on defense, how are we not producing D like Carolina?

They’ve never developed a goalie.

I just don’t see what we’re protecting here. Nobody can possibly have a strong emotional connection to this roster, and there’s no intellectual case to be made that they’re better than they’ve shown.

In a 32 team league, they’re 16th in goals for, 16th in goals against.

Because of course they are.

Even the blues went through a rebuild and built the core that won them the cup.
2007-2010. 7 firsts and 6 seconds. They got Tarasenko, Perron, Pietrangelo, Schwartz and Alan. Then they traded for 2 2009 drafted players in O'Reilly and Schenn.

6 of their top 7 season producers came out of the 2007-2010 drafts.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

You don't need to commit to only taking back draft picks and absolutely sucking for several years. There are always hockey trades to be made when you're talking about moving really good players that still have some term on their deals. We've seen it here with Treliving numerous times. I would simply argue that there's enough here to work with that you don't need to burn it to the ground and tank, but merely take a step backward before moving forward.

I don't disagree. You don't necessarily need to draft them but you need to get them young and you need to have a grouping of higher-end players in a similar age range that make up your core. If the flames don't want to sell some of their older players for picks, I would be looking to sell older players for younger players. Unfortunately, teams don't give up top young players unless it's a top player coming back.

The only player that will really get you a young top player is Lindholm, but what is this team without him?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I have no sympathy for the financial requirements to run a team in the NHL. They don’t like it, they can sell. This is pro sports, pay up or get out.

This isn’t an Arizona situation where nobody cares, or a Jets 1.0 situation when they were playing in a 10,000 seat arena built 24 months after the death of Stalin.

Furthermore, They don’t need to spend $80M to finish 16th-24th.

They could spend $65M and just tell us “we’re rebuilding.” Everyone would go “great”.

They did it in 2013. Everyone was thrilled to finally suck and draft top-10, and then draft top 10 again in 2014. It would have been amazing to suck even more in 2015 and a top-10 selection in the best draft of the decade.

But no, we had Monahan and 18 year old Sam Bennett, and Jonny Hockey.

Rebuild over.

Like, learn from history or repeat it.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. The business aspect is a reality. As a fan you do not need to give a ####.

It’s not my 100M. I wish I had this problem. I just like to think about where others might be coming from. As an owner of a team in the mushy middle it would be a tough fn sell to convince me a sell off is worth it economically. It’s a fan fantasy wanting magic beans for tomorrow because you don’t like today. As an owner looking at a huge financial hit for no likely payoff you’d never make that call.