What would rebuilding look like?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

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.

I just don’t see where it’s a hard sell if you’re only spending $61-65M on the roster.

If the whole argument is they need the playoff revenue to be in the black, well, how much money are they making on those extra 2-3 games? $7.5M? $10M?

It’s not a nothing amount, but I don’t believe for a second the attendance and fan interest would crater just because they went into a rebuild, and certainly not to the point that it would impact attendance in a meaningful way.

And you might point to this group as evidence against that, but this group is a fatal combination of bad and boring. Money is tight all over, and people aren’t so keen to spend $250 on a night out to watch a dull team with no plan wander through the metaphorical desert.

Spend less.

Loads of people still rock Iggy, Kipper and Regehr jerseys because those guys gave them something to love.

In ten years, Gaudreau and Tkachuk jerseys will be like Phaneufs - novelties.

There’s nobody to fall in love with on this team. There’s nobody to get excited about.

There’s one guy who MIGHT sign with us, and if we’re lucky he’s Cole Caufield (which isn’t a problem), and a blue chip goalie they won’t recall despite goaltending being this team’s biggest weakness (plus, we don’t develop goalies).

The Penguins have played in 30 playoff rounds during the Sid/Geno era. Say they average 2.5 home games a series, that’s 75 playoff games since 2007.

In that same span, Calgary has played in 9.

For the sake of argument, let’s say each playoff game is worth $2.5M in pure profit - obviously it goes up the further you go, but I don’t have the time to do that math.

Calgary has hosted 25 playoff games since 2007. At $2.5M per, that’s $62.5M.

Pittsburgh’s 75 playoff games are worth, conservatively, $187.5M (because of course it would be).

I dunno. You’re quite correct, it’s not my money, but it sure looks like they’re leaving a lot of it on the table.

[timun]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

They picked the Flames as contenders when they had Gaudreau and Tkachuk.

Cap-era champions with top-3 selections on the roster:

Carolina - Eric Staal
Anaheim - Chris Pronger
Pittsburgh - Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Jordan Staal
Chicago - Kane, Toews
LA - Doughty
Tampa - Stamkos, Hedman
Boston - Seguin
Colorado - MacKinnon, Landeskog
Washington - Ovechkin, Backstrom


St Louis and Detroit are the outliers.

Hitting on your Top-2 picks are essential if you want to have Success in the NHL - I don’t understand how this is even arguable.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you don't need to have star players to have success in the NHL, but you've gone tank commander based on a false premise that top 2/3 selections = Stanley Cup championships.

You've pointed out that cap-era champs tend to have at least one top-3-draft-pick "elite" player, but you're underselling just how incredibly difficult it is and lucky you have to be to "hit on your top-2 picks".


Teams with top-3 selections in the "cap era" (Cup champs in bold):

Oilers (5) - Taylor Hall, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Nail Yakupov, Leon Draisaitl, Connor McDavid
Panthers (4) - Erik Gudbranson, Jonathan Huberdeau, Aleksander Barkov, Aaron Ekblad
Sabres (4) - Sam Reinhart, Jack Eichel, Rasmus Dahlin, Owen Power
Blackhawks (3) - Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Kirby Dach
Coyotes (3) - Kyle Turris, Dylan Strome, Logan Cooley
Lightning (3) - Steve Stamkos, Victor Hedman, Jonathan Drouin
Avalanche (3) - Matt Duchene, Gabriel Landeskog, Nathan MacKinnon
Canadiens (3) - Alex Galchenyuk, Jesperi Kotkaniemi, Juraj Slafkovsky
Devils (3) - Nico Hischier, Jack Hughes, Simon Nemec
Penguins (2) - Sidney Crosby, Jordan Staal
Ducks (2) - Bobby Ryan, Mason McTavish
Hurricanes (2) - Jack Johnson, Andrei Svechnikov
Flyers (2) - James van Riemsdyk, Nolan Patrick
Kings (2) - Drew Doughty, Quinton Byfield
Thrashers/Jets (2) - Zach Bogosian, Patrik Laine
Blue Jackets (2) - Ryan Murray, Pierre-Luc Dubois
Rangers (2) - Kaapo Kakko, Alexis Lafreniere
Blues (1) - Eric Johnson
Islanders (1) - John Tavares
Bruins (1) - Tyler Seguin
Maple Leafs (1) - Auston Matthews
Stars (1) - Miro Heiskanen
Senators (1) - Tim Stutzle
Kraken (1) - Matty Beniers


Teams with top-2 selections in the "cap era" (Cup champs still bolded):

Oilers (4) - Taylor Hall, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Nail Yakupov, Connor McDavid
Sabres (4) - Sam Reinhart, Jack Eichel, Rasmus Dahlin, Owen Power
Devils (3) - Nico Hischier, Jack Hughes, Simon Nemec
Penguins (2) - Sidney Crosby, Jordan Staal
Lightning (2) - Steve Stamkos, Victor Hedman
Avalanche (2) - Gabriel Landeskog, Nathan MacKinnon
Panthers (2) - Aleksander Barkov, Aaron Ekblad
Flyers (2) - James van Riemsdyk, Nolan Patrick
Kings (2) - Drew Doughty, Quinton Byfield
Rangers (2) - Kaapo Kakko, Alexis Lafreniere
Ducks (1) - Bobby Ryan
Blues (1) - Eric Johnson
Blackhawks (1) - Patrick Kane
Islanders (1) - John Tavares
Bruins (1) - Tyler Seguin
Blue Jackets (1) - Ryan Murray
Maple Leafs (1) - Auston Matthews
Thrashers/Jets (1) - Patrik Laine
Hurricanes (1) - Andrei Svechnikov
Kraken (1) - Matty Beniers
Canadiens (1) - Juraj Slafkovsky


I don't think the point that high draft picks tend to become "elite" players is lost on anyone, but you seem to blithely ignore that teams who tank also tend to be the hapless boobs of the league more often than Stanley Cup champs.

I think you're delusional when you write this:

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

They [said "we're rebuilding"] in 2013. Everyone was thrilled to finally suck and draft top-10, and then draft top 10 again in 2014.

Who the hell is "everyone"? I for one wasn't thrilled, that team ####ing sucked. I've pretty much forgotten the 2013-14 season ever even happened; couldn't tell you who was on that team aside from Giordano, Hudler and a rookie Monahan. I was thrilled when they made the playoffs in 2015; I couldn't have cared less prior.

You might have the patience and be enough of a "diehard" to see through a complete gut and tank job for years on end, but I for one am out if that happens. I don't want to watch losers. Losers are not fun to watch. I'll jump on the bandwagon if and when the team gets good again, but the years between are all yours.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by timun

You might have the patience and be enough of a "diehard" to see through a complete gut and tank job for years on end, but I for one am out if that happens. I don't want to watch losers. Losers are not fun to watch. I'll jump on the bandwagon if and when the team gets good again, but the years between are all yours.

If you think this, then good grief you’re cheering for the wrong hockey team. 5 playoff round victories since 1989 - you’d be hard pressed to find an NHL team with less success than that during that time.

[GreenLantern2814]

Four teams have won 10 of the 18 cups in the cap era.

Throw out the Wings, Ducks and Hurricanes because they were built in a different world, and just start from the first Penguins championship.

That means four teams have won 66% of titles.

It means that hitting on those two selections not only gets you an outstanding shot at a title, it gives you an outstanding shot at multiple titles.

The Bruins, despite getting to the finals three times, only have one ring for it, and at least one of them is a direct result of taking DeBrusk, Zboril and Senyshyn ahead of Barzal, Chabot and Connor.

And while yes, that’s not a top-2 selection, whiffing on three consecutive selections to leave three All Stars on the table is just as damaging.


I would also argue there’s a difference between losers and losing.

When you have a young team that’s building toward something, you’re watching losing.

When you have a veteran team that can’t seem to even sneak into the playoffs, you’re watching losers.

[PepsiFree]

The more the team you watch wins, the less you’re watching losers. It’s not more complicated than that.

Some people hinge their entire enjoyment or interest in sport on championships, which is fine, but a bit naive. The vast majority just like watching teams that seem like they have a shot even if they lose in the first round.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by 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.

What is their normal now is the question?

Marky was not a Vezina goalie, he simply doesn't have that type of pedigree. I don't think we have any idea what we have in him going forward.

Huberdeau is an even stranger case. We certainly had the right to expect 80 points from him.

I think if anything this year has shown is that he is certainly not a superstar. Superstars produce in any and every situation, regardless of their line mates. Superstars drive their team and make everyone better around them. I don't think that's what we have in Huberdeau going forward.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

What is their normal now is the question?

Marky was not a Vezina goalie, he simply doesn't have that type of pedigree. I don't think we have any idea what we have in him going forward.

Huberdeau is an even stranger case. We certainly had the right to expect 80 points from him.

I think if anything this year has shown is that he is certainly not a superstar. Superstars produce in any and every situation, regardless of their line mates. Superstars drive their team and make everyone better around them. I don't think that's what we have in Huberdeau going forward.

Markstrom finished 4th in Vezina voting in 2020 and second in 2022 so in the last 4 years he has been a top 4 goalie in the league twice. He was a .910-.918 goalie from 2016-2020 on a bad Canucks team. There is a reason he got 6x6 and there were 3 teams bidding for him.

Huberdeau was over a point per game for 4 seasons before his trade. In those 4 years his points per 82 averaged out to 99.

You were saying the exact same thing about Gaudreau a couple of years ago. You called him a one dimensional 70pt winger after the Canadian division.

[timun]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If you think this, then good grief you’re cheering for the wrong hockey team. 5 playoff round victories since 1989 - you’d be hard pressed to find an NHL team with less success than that during that time.

You're not wrong! It's pretty hard to justify giving a damn. I watched a lot last season, but I've barely paid attention to the team this year; I can count the number of Flames games I've watched on one hand.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I would also argue there’s a difference between losers and losing.

When you have a young team that’s building toward something, you’re watching losing.

When you have a veteran team that can’t seem to even sneak into the playoffs, you’re watching losers.

Maybe you can rationalize this semantic "difference", but I can't. Watching losing = watching losers. It's the same thing. The only difference is "a young team building toward something" is code for "losing on purpose in the hopes that magic beans sprout into a Stanley Cup championship a few years down the line". Most teams that "build toward something" end up building toward jack ####.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by timun

You're not wrong! It's pretty hard to justify giving a damn. I watched a lot last season, but I've barely paid attention to the team this year; I can count the number of Flames games I've watched on one hand.




Maybe you can rationalize this semantic "difference", but I can't. Watching losing = watching losers. It's the same thing. The only difference is "a young team building toward something" is code for "losing on purpose in the hopes that magic beans sprout into a Stanley Cup championship a few years down the line". Most teams that "build toward something" end up building toward jack ####.

You can rationalize not doing it all you want, but there’s overwhelming evidence that tanking for superstars is the best way to secure a banner, if not multiple banners.

Every cup winner since 2009 except the Blues has had at least one top-2 selection. If we widen that to top-4, it’s everybody, since Pietrangelo was a
4th overall, so it isn’t like they never tanked either.

Colorado got Makar at 4, Landeskog at 2, Mack 1, Rantanen 10. They got a free top-5 pick in Byram out of the Duchene trade.

That’s four top-10 selections.

More good players = better chances at success.

Gaudreau was a 4th rounder. Great.

What other late round pick has made a star level impact recently? (For Calgary)

(Nobody, obviously)

Mangiapane is looking like someone they should’ve sold high on.

Dube could be a solid middle Six player.

There’s nothing else. It doesn’t matter if we don’t have the picks because we’ve traded them for depth, either - stars in the late round are found money. You can’t expect to find them there.

It’s a cap world. They can all only spend a certain amount of money. So the difference becomes “do you have Sid/McDavid/Mack/Hedman/Doughty/Ovechkin/Kane ++++ or do you not?”

Going against 14 years of results because you don’t wanna watch losers is a great way to guarantee you’re watching losers.

[GioforPM]

Flames have 4 top 10 selections on the roster.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Flames have 4 top 10 selections on the roster.

Who weren’t drafted and developed together, so they have no chemistry or cohesion.

The core of a team has to show the rest of the roster what it means to be a Calgary Flame.

This team has no core, and has no idea what it means to be a Calgary Flame.

It isn’t the players’ fault.

I was watching a video of Huberdeau’s top 10 plays from 18-19, and he’s making plays that you only make when you are thinking the game at the exact same level as your teammates.

I’ve not seen that once since he’s been here, because there’s no way to replicate it without time and practice.

I can’t help but feel there’s a reason nobody makes moves like the Huberdeau trade.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Who weren’t drafted and developed together, so they have no chemistry or cohesion.

The core of a team has to show the rest of the roster what it means to be a Calgary Flame.

This team has no core, and has no idea what it means to be a Calgary Flame.

It isn’t the players’ fault.

I was watching a video of Huberdeau’s top 10 plays from 18-19, and he’s making plays that you only make when you are thinking the game at the exact same level as your teammates.

I’ve not seen that once since he’s been here, because there’s no way to replicate it without time and practice.

I can’t help but feel there’s a reason nobody makes moves like the Huberdeau trade.

Of course, his big season came with two pretty unfamiliar linemates.

[Teroy]

If they miss the playoffs make major changes:
1. retain salary if necessary and move Huberdeau
2. move Markstrom for picks
3. bring up Wolf
4. move Weegar for picks
5. Go with Pelletier, Ruzicka, Zary, Gilbert, Mackey,
6. Give Phillips, Pospisil, Zohorna, Kirkland, Philip, Jones, Solovyov & Meloche a look this year or next.
7. resign Lucic for 1 mil.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Teroy

If they miss the playoffs make major changes:
1. retain salary if necessary and move Huberdeau
2. move Markstrom for picks
3. bring up Wolf
4. move Weegar for picks
5. Go with Pelletier, Ruzicka, Zary, Gilbert, Mackey,
6. Give Phillips, Pospisil, Zohorna, Kirkland, Philip, Jones, Solovyov & Meloche a look this year or next.
7. resign Lucic for 1 mil.

Or just sell all the UFAs to be and have Huberdeau and Kadri be your tank commanders. No team would retain on an eight year contract

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

You can rationalize not doing it all you want, but there’s overwhelming evidence that tanking for superstars is the best way to secure a banner, if not multiple banners.

Every cup winner since 2009 except the Blues has had at least one top-2 selection. If we widen that to top-4, it’s everybody, since Pietrangelo was a
4th overall, so it isn’t like they never tanked either.

Except none of them “tanked” to do it. They all just got worse over time until they were really bad, and then got lucky in the draft. There was no trigger where they started selling everyone off to purposefully tank a season. For none of them.

Not one Stanley Cup winner of the last 15? 20 years? forever? “tanked” in the 10 years preceding their cup win.

There is overwhelming evidence that teams that tank never win anything though. And at this point it’s starting to get ridiculous that this needs to be repeatedly pointed out.

You’re right that teams need high draft picks to win the cup (or that teams that win the cup always have high draft picks). But, for whatever reason, the teams that purposefully went out and tanked to get them are the ones who haven’t won anything. I don’t know if it’s just a psychological thing, or if tanking is indicative of a flawed organization, or something, but tanking to acquire those picks doesn’t work.

There’s no evidence of it. Especially not “overwhelming” evidence of it.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

You can rationalize not doing it all you want, but there’s overwhelming evidence that tanking for superstars is the best way to secure a banner, if not multiple banners.

There are also overwhelming evidence that non-desirable small market teams that go into tank mode struggle to transition out of that loser mentality and struggle to get players to come there as they desperately try and turn the page. Edmonton, Ottawa, Columbus, Buffalo, Atlanta/Winnipeg. Many of these teams spent a decade drafting high and struggle to be relevant.

Tanking may work but it could also create an endless pit of despair that would have us pining for the “success” we have had over the past 8 years.

[NewFan]

If you really decide to tank and rebuild you must have a whole plan. Not just keep same people in head office and try to draft high and bring those drafted youngster into same failed group of people. Like Edmonton.
Improve scouting, developing, coaching and also GMs. You need spend your draft picks wisely and try to find gems in later rounds, in other organizations and from out from NHL. And that's hardest part.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except none of them “tanked” to do it. They all just got worse over time until they were really bad, and then got lucky in the draft. There was no trigger where they started selling everyone off to purposefully tank a season. For none of them.

Not one Stanley Cup winner of the last 15? 20 years? forever? “tanked” in the 10 years preceding their cup win.

There is overwhelming evidence that teams that tank never win anything though. And at this point it’s starting to get ridiculous that this needs to be repeatedly pointed out.

You’re right that teams need high draft picks to win the cup (or that teams that win the cup always have high draft picks). But, for whatever reason, the teams that purposefully went out and tanked to get them are the ones who haven’t won anything. I don’t know if it’s just a psychological thing, or if tanking is indicative of a flawed organization, or something, but tanking to acquire those picks doesn’t work.

There’s no evidence of it. Especially not “overwhelming” evidence of it.

What is your definition on tanking though? Is it selling off aging players for futures and not signing big UFAs to long term contracts considered tanking? This will probabky cause your team to drop i standings but every successful team has gone through periods of doing this and there is a good argument to be made that the flames should take a step back to take two steps forward.

This is different from what the hawks are doing which is literally selling off everything including young players to intentionally suck.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by traptor

What is your definition on tanking though? Is it selling off aging players for futures and not signing big UFAs to long term contracts considered tanking? This will probabky cause your team to drop i standings but every successful team has gone through periods of doing this and there is a good argument to be made that the flames should take a step back to take two steps forward.

This is different from what the hawks are doing which is literally selling off everything including young players to intentionally suck.

We have been told the Flames have never done this but then what was 2013-2016? The Flames rebuilt from the Iginal Kipper days around Gaudreau/Monahan/Bennett/Tkachuk/Gio/Backlund/Brodie/Hamilton. They then pivoted from Hamilton to Lindholm/Hanifin and that deal was key to them winning the division in 19 and 22.

Their retool on the fly last year was forced out of necessity and while people are kicking them now this team is not nearly as bad as some will say and it is more like 2 key players are struggling or we would be firmly in first place right now.

[gamesaver]

[QUOTE=GreenLantern2814;8601866]

The Bruins, despite getting to the finals three times, only have one ring for it, and at least one of them is a direct result of taking DeBrusk, Zboril and Senyshyn ahead of Barzal, Chabot and Connor.

/QUOTE]

True, but they also drafted Pastrnak at 25th. We drafted Bennet at 5th that year btw.

But I agree with you. In cap era you have to suck for a while to rebuild. Fairweather fans are scared of losses so they are stucked with a mediocre team tripping over itself over and over again and call it "not losing". Also never winning anything.