Obviously any list is going to be subjective. But I wouldn't count losing in the first round in 2019 as exceeding expectations, and I certainly wouldn't count the most painful loss in recent memory either.
Obviously any list is going to be subjective. But I wouldn't count losing in the first round in 2019 as exceeding expectations, and I certainly wouldn't count the most painful loss in recent memory either.
They didn't exceed expectations going into the playoffs. But very few people figured they would finish first in the West in 2019 and first in the Pacific in 2022 going into the season.
Not sure why you guys are using top 3 at a metric. Plain and simple you need high end players to win and the easiest way to obtain them is higher in the draft. That can't be your only method of acquiring talent but it most certainly should be one way because it is the most probable way to find good talent and even more probable to find elite talent.
Of course you need good drafting beyond the first round combined with good trades and signings. It all matters. But expecting to build an elite team without using the most efficient and probable way to obtain elite players seems hopeful.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hackey For This Useful Post:
Why is that the viewpoint, though? Solely using last year as the baseline is a poor way to evaluate what this team and it's individuals are capable of.
Huberdeau having a significantly better season should absolutely be the expectation.
Markstrom having a significantly better season should absolutely be the expectation.
Kadri having a better overall season should absolutely be the expectation
Mangiapane scoring more goals should be the expectation.
Weegar performing as he did in the second half should be the expectation.
The young kids vastly outperforming the likes of Lucic, Lewis, and the Ritchie brothers should be the expectation.
Oliver Kylington being a large upgrade on Stone/Stetcher/Mackey should be the expectation.
I don't think any of those projections should be viewed as wishful thinking or bias based on recent history and performances. We know what these players are capable of.. and we didn't see that last season.
Lots needed to go right here, but all valid points.
I see this season as a show me season.
Is Huberdeau or Kadri elite?
Is Markstrom still a top goalie?
Do our youth show signs to be difference makers or just support parts?
Does the new coach unlock abilities that were hindered by Sutters recent toxicity?
I'm glad Conroy seems to be taking his time on things because this is a weird season where it's really hard to get a sense of what we really have.
If these don't go right though, I can't see any avoidance of a rebuild down the road. Players need to step up this year.
I heard the cap is expected to go up by $10 to $12 million over the next three years but only $1 million for 2023-24.
So this season will be best season to use cap space as a trade chip.
Trade all free agents for draft picks, prospects and short tern cap dump.
Then it will be little easer to trade long term guys after 2-3 years when cap is higher.
It can be misleading to say that top 3 picks mean success. It really depends on how you get them and other circumstances. Having top 3 picks that you draft living up to their pedigree is the key. You can take advantage of their ELCs under the cap, work them into the core and get them building chemistry for longer as they continue to develop.
It's a completely different thing to acquire players who were top 3 picks when you have to also sacrifice other assets to get them, overpay them , and when they are typically available because they haven't lived up to their pedigree.
It's easy to say that 90% of teams have players picked with top 3 picks, but the circumstances matter. THG had a video recently about whether it helps teams to bottom out and rebuild if they want to compete. He's not an expert, more of a super fan, but he collected the information and came to the conclusion that while not 100% fool proof, it usually helps more than it hurts for teams to bottom out and get those high homegrown picks.
The top-3 pick stat illustrates a couple things.
1. All champions bottomed out long enough to draft that high at least once. The only exceptions are the best-run franchise in the league and a team that paid $600M for a seat at the table and hoodwinked a bunch of teams out of talent with a new expansion process.
2. Those teams hit on their picks when they had the opportunity to draft that high. It’s not just limited to top-3. When you draft top-5, you can’t have those picks be role players or complimentary skill guys.
Florida No Bennett, or Reinhart or Gudbranson. They have to be MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Barkov, Makar level players
The Florida Panthers once drafted Stephen Weiss, Jay Bouwmeester and Nathan Horton top-4 in successive years.
It wasn’t until they drafted Huberdeau, Barkov and Ekblad, they started to matter, and even that wasn’t enough.
You need hits all throughout a rebuild - Andersson is a perfect example of the sort of pick every rebuilding team needs if it’s gonna happen for them. Same with Wolf. You can’t just rely on top picks to carry you.
But it’s basically impossible to do anything substantial without elite players found at the top of the draft, and we have 20 years of evidence saying as much.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy W-M - February 15, 2024
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
1. All champions bottomed out long enough to draft that high at least once. The only exceptions are the best-run franchise in the league and a team that paid $600M for a seat at the table and hoodwinked a bunch of teams out of talent with a new expansion process.
2. Those teams hit on their picks when they had the opportunity to draft that high. It’s not just limited to top-3. When you draft top-5, you can’t have those picks be role players or complimentary skill guys.
Florida No Bennett, or Reinhart or Gudbranson. They have to be MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Barkov, Makar level players
The Florida Panthers once drafted Stephen Weiss, Jay Bouwmeester and Nathan Horton top-4 in successive years.
It wasn’t until they drafted Huberdeau, Barkov and Ekblad, they started to matter, and even that wasn’t enough.
You need hits all throughout a rebuild - Andersson is a perfect example of the sort of pick every rebuilding team needs if it’s gonna happen for them. Same with Wolf. You can’t just rely on top picks to carry you.
But it’s basically impossible to do anything substantial without elite players found at the top of the draft, and we have 20 years of evidence saying as much.
So are you saying we should cheer for someone else?
1. All champions bottomed out long enough to draft that high at least once. The only exceptions are the best-run franchise in the league and a team that paid $600M for a seat at the table and hoodwinked a bunch of teams out of talent with a new expansion process.
2. Those teams hit on their picks when they had the opportunity to draft that high. It’s not just limited to top-3. When you draft top-5, you can’t have those picks be role players or complimentary skill guys.
Florida No Bennett, or Reinhart or Gudbranson. They have to be MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Barkov, Makar level players
The Florida Panthers once drafted Stephen Weiss, Jay Bouwmeester and Nathan Horton top-4 in successive years.
It wasn’t until they drafted Huberdeau, Barkov and Ekblad, they started to matter, and even that wasn’t enough.
You need hits all throughout a rebuild - Andersson is a perfect example of the sort of pick every rebuilding team needs if it’s gonna happen for them. Same with Wolf. You can’t just rely on top picks to carry you.
But it’s basically impossible to do anything substantial without elite players found at the top of the draft, and we have 20 years of evidence saying as much.
Yep, well said.
Those opposed to rebuilds seem to believe that those who are pro-rebuild see it as some sort of guaranteed Stanley Cup route. We (pro-rebuild folk) know that it isn't, but we do think it's the only real sure-fire non-expansion, non-lighting in a bottle way to put your team in a position to have a consistent shot at things.
To win a Stanley Cup, I've long said you need to do two simple things:
1. Bottom out and build the foundation of your team through the top of the draft. Yes, this means timing the year of the bottoming out is incredibly important, and does include a significant luck factor (like everything in hockey).
2. You have to be one of the best run teams in the entire league AFTER (and at the same time?) you bottom out and build the foundation of your team through the top of the draft. You need to find hits all through the draft, and you need to manage your salary cap almost perfectly.
I think the Flames, for a brief stretch, under Treliving hit point #2. There were mistakes on the salary cap side that ended up being near fatal - but no matter how good things went, they could not overcome the fact that they did not do #1. They absolutely CRUSHED it in drafting Tkachuk and Monahan both at the 6th overall spots. Bennett at 4 isn't that bad, but it wasn't a home run...but Monahan was never Mackinnon or Barkov (1 and 2 that year) and Bennett was no Ekblad or Draisaitl (1 and 3 that year). We never got our Hedman or Mackinnon, not even an Eichel or a Drasaitl. The Flames didn't accomplish #1.
Imagine if we had snagged Barkov and Bennett? Or Monahan and Draisaitl? Then all of a sudden you look at Andersson, Dube, Kylington, and Mangiapane being found later in the drafts and that's when you start to look like a Stanley Cup team. I think the Flames did plenty good at the spots they got to draft in, they just didn't get the spots they needed.
Looking back at the Flames over the last decade, I find it hard not to think that it's irresponsible for teams who are in bubble spots to not sell at the trade deadline. Even if it's for a less than stellar return at the deadline, because subtracting from your roster to create death march for the remainder of the season increases the value of your 1st round pick significantly.
I think the only thing I really disagree with in that video is that the benchmark for a successful rebuild should be Stanley Cup or bust. I think having a sustained run (6 or 7 years consecutive) as a legit contender and making it past a few rounds in the playoffs occasionally, would constitute a successful rebuild.
Actually winning the Cup require some amount of luck no matter how well you build a team.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
For a team that isn’t rebuilding you guys love talking about rebuilds.
I think the advocates of re-building are misunderstanding where the disagreement is.
With some exceptions, I don't think the divide is between pro-rebuild v. anti-rebuild.
I think the divide is those that have accepted they aren't re-building and those that seemingly haven't.
Again, there are exceptions of course.
For instance I would welcome a re-build. And I agree with the arguments for why they should. Though I also think there is some folks who think that it will be much shorter and much easier. When history tells us that MOST re-builds take a long time, and most still fail. So if we are leaning into the history lessons, that should be looked at as well.
But I would still welcome a re-build.
But I've accepted there isn't one forthcoming. yet.
I think it's coming in about 3 years.
Last edited by Jiri Hrdina; 09-07-2023 at 07:53 PM.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
I think the only thing I really disagree with in that video is that the benchmark for a successful rebuild should be Stanley Cup or bust. I think having a sustained run (6 or 7 years consecutive) as a legit contender and making it past a few rounds in the playoffs occasionally, would constitute a successful rebuild.
Actually winning the Cup require some amount of luck no matter how well you build a team.
100%. Totally agreed.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
