Difference between rebuild and business as usual

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

Comparing the 2011 draft (Baertschi/Granlund/Gaudreau/Wotherspoon/Brossoit) to the 2004 draft I don't see how anyone can't see a progression in our drafting. Obviously it's too early to tell how well they will do at the professional level there is a clear difference in overall drafting philosophy.

We've had hope for a ton of draft picks that never amounted to anything. The difference now is that the emotion surrounding this latest crop is fresh and we have hindsight on the past picks. There is nothing to indicate that our drafting is any better, at this point it's just us picking different types of players.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think this is very vague.

Kind of proves my point instead of addressing it.

[Wronskian]

Whatever happens in terms of a rebuild, one thing is for sure. This team has to start capitalizing on their assets. If we are not in a playoff spot at the trade deadline, we have to start trading players for picks or players rather than letting players walk as UFAs. Nothing is worse than not making the playoffs and then not resigning guys that could have been traded for picks or prospects at the deadline (eg. Jokinen).

I will rage if the flames lose Iginla as a UFA, would be a catastrophic failure in asset management. Trade him or resign him. Just don't lose him for nothing.

[nik-]

Jokinen said he wouldn't waive his NTC so they didn't ask him. Or at least it was understood that he wouldn't waive.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you follow other teams, other sports, other leagues? Rebuild isn't some new concept, just because Flames fans have only been talking about it for a few years. The concept of a rebuild is pretty clearly established in professional sports. Except among Flames fans, its seems.

Ah yes, the classic, 'attack the person' reply if they disagree with you.

I watch lots of sports and have probably been around a lot longer than you have, thanks. I have seen teams rip it to the ground, build through the draft, build through free agency, trade too much, trade not enough, and on and on.

And as far as the Flames are concerned, I want to see change. I want to see the team change their focus to a restocking of the shelves.

My criticism of your post wasn't from a view of not wanting change, it was to point out the annoying view that some people take whereby, if you don't agree with every aspect of their plan, then you don't have a clue or you are a homer. Your response pretty much proves my point.

People are far more subject to perception than they realize. As another poster mentioned, regardless of how much change actually happens, most fans in this town will never consider it real change until Iginla and Kiprusoff are traded. Anything else is secondary or fringe.

And that is the real issue here. Despite the changes (and i fully agree that there needs to be plenty more change), fans won't be happy, won't consider it a 'rebuild' until Iginla is run out of town.

I hope that happens soon because a) he doesn't deserve what he is going tobe in for over until it happens and b) fans are going tocome increasingly annoying and vitriolic until it does.

So please, Feaster, trade Iginla soon so that we can all move on.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Kind of proves my point instead of addressing it.

How so? Again are you really thinking there is one master plan for success in the NHL that all successful teams employ that one master plan?

[Wronskian]

Originally Posted by nik-

Jokinen said he wouldn't waive his NTC so they didn't ask him. Or at least it was understood that he wouldn't waive.

Well regardless, I feel like this team just can't afford to miss any opportunities..

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Well the reality is that each strategy a team employs will be different. There isn’t a step by step road map for a re-build that teams crack open and follow.

Moreover, re-build is a strategy in and of itself and not the only one.

Take a look at any cup winning team and you’ll see a different strategy being executed.

Exactly. Every situation, and every team, is different. It depends on teh assets that you have, and that you don't have, how far away you are - both in teh development of your assets, and in the number of assets missing.

I could go on.

But no, there is only one way.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by nik-

Jokinen said he wouldn't waive his NTC so they didn't ask him. Or at least it was understood that he wouldn't waive.

Exactly, and to go back to Flash's point earlier I don't know if waiting until the deadline is necessarily even the best approach. Last deadline Jokinen wouldn't waive and I don't think they were ready to move Iggy/Kipper yet, and we were in the midst of a significant amount of injuries, including a few to players that could have generated some interest from other teams. What we were left with was someone offering a 5th (?) for Jackman. Of course we probably should have taken it, but I would hate for us to get to the deadline this year and have Iginla tweak his back a week prior.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Well the reality is that each strategy a team employs will be different. There isn’t a step by step road map for a re-build that teams crack open and follow.

Moreover, re-build is a strategy in and of itself and not the only one.

Take a look at any cup winning team and you’ll see a different strategy being executed.

the important part of looking at any cup winning team is identifying how strong they are at the center ice position.

Identify this, and address your roster accordingly. Sutter never did, Feaster has yet to.

Get high end depth at center, everything else will follow. That's where you start.

[Wronskian]

One more thing. If the flames are set on "rebuilding on the fly", our player development needs to be readdressed. It's easy to blame poor drafting as the root of our problems, and while it definately is a major factor, but who was the last player we really developed? I'm of the thought that for the most part players in rounds 5-7 in the draft are roughly equal, but it's the organization that really molds the players into NHL calibre players. Sure the flames could have drafted Benn in 2007 in the 5th round, but does anyone think he'd be the player he is today?

[Dr. Pepper]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Since this fanbase has finally woken up to the prospect of a rebuild, it might be useful if we come to some understanding of what a rebuild is.

Some are claiming that carefully drafting and developing homegrown talent and feeding it into the roster is rebuilding. That turning over second tier players with free agents is a renewal. Well, that may be a fresh strategy for the Calgary Flames franchise, but it's business as usual for 80 per cent of the teams in the NHL. Everyone drafts and develops players. Everyone fills out their roster with free agents. Everyone has several prospects who look like they could be NHL calibre talents.

No, a rebuild is where you exchange depreciating assets for appreciating assets. It's where you set a horizon in the future - typically 3-6 seasons - where you want to maximize your strength, and you're willing to accept a loss of short-term assets to increase that long-term potential. In a rebuild, all assets that have peaked or are declining are on the table. And no, that strategy wasn't invented by the Oilers. It has been employed by many franchises in all leagues that are built through a draft.

Not all fans are going to like, or agree with, a strategy of short-term pain for long-term gain. Not all fans think it's worthwhile for the Flames to rebuild. And that's okay. Just don't call business a usual a rebuild. Because building through the draft with the normal allotment of draft picks is business as usual for NHL teams.

Good definition, but I don't believe the current ownership/management of the Flames will ever do it. They want to be in contention for playoffs every year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Kind of proves my point instead of addressing it.

Proves your point?

Did you (or the OP for that matter) outline a complete 5 year plan that I missed somewhere?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Well what the heck do you want? Each case is unique in and of itself. To try and attach terms to strategies is silly.

The approach the Kings took to the cup is different than the approach the Pens took and is different than the approach the Hawks took and is different than the approach the Devils took. Do you really want me to breakdown HOW each of those is different? Surely you are knowledgeable enough about hockey to know that yourself.

Well, I'm not talking about a schematic, Jiri.

Obviously I don't expect you to come up with, "Trade for the 79th overall pick, draft the diamond in the rough top prospect of the draft. Following season, make trade on December 19th sending ____ to ____ in exchange for ____."

I'm saying, do you build through free agency, rely on your existing stable of picks. try to pick up college free agents to supplement your winning roster?

How do the Flames get 3 players like Landeskog, Duchene and Ryan O'Reilly? How do the Flames acquire players like Toews, Kane?
Pietrangelo, Berglund, Backes?
Lucic, Krejci, Bergeron, Marchand?
Kopitar, Quick, Brown?

How do you build a champsionship core of players?

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Kind of proves my point instead of addressing it.

How so? Why don't you show how that proves your point. What are the similarities in plans of the last 5 cup winners? Are there other teams that have followed the same path of any of these teams with lesser results?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, I'm not talking about a schematic, Jiri.

Obviously I don't expect you to come up with, "Trade for the 79th overall pick, draft the diamond in the rough top prospect of the draft. Following season, make trade on December 19th sending ____ to ____ in exchange for ____."

I'm saying, do you build through free agency, rely on your existing stable of picks. try to pick up college free agents to supplement your winning roster?

How do the Flames get 3 players like Landeskog, Duchene and Ryan O'Reilly? How do the Flames acquire players like Toews, Kane?
Pietrangelo, Berglund, Backes?
Lucic, Krejci, Bergeron, Marchand?
Kopitar, Quick, Brown?

How do you build a champsionship core of players?

Good drafting and development.

....and not just with very high "lotto" picks, but you need to find and develop some gems in the later rounds.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

Comparing the 2011 draft (Baertschi/Granlund/Gaudreau/Wotherspoon/Brossoit) to the 2004 draft I don't see how anyone can't see a progression in our drafting. Obviously it's too early to tell how well they will do at the professional level there is a clear difference in overall drafting philosophy.

2004 was still pre-lockout (albeit the "new NHL" was coming, but Sutter, by his own admission, would have drafted differently if he knew what exactly is coming). Hence, emphasize on more size and grit. If you look post lockout, I don't see either "progression" or "clear difference".

Baertchi is dynamic european player, who looked great in junior league. I don't see much difference - from philosophy standpoint - between this pick and Backlund pick for example. He will most likely be better than Backlund (as he should being drafted at 13th rather than 24th), but I don't see a great change in philosophy between drafting Backlund and drafting Baertchi.

Latest draftees always look like they are going to be pan out. It's just the "latest, greatest" syndrome. Until they brought it up at the NHL, it means squat.

On fun side, I just discovered that Adam Cracknell is still in Blues system and scored an NHL goal last season.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Good drafting and development.

....and not just with very high "lotto" picks, but you need to find and develop some gems in the later rounds.

So then business as usual for the Calgary flames?

[Badgers Nose]

There won't be a rebuild.

Ownership do not care what passionate fans on a message-board think. Trading Iggy will hurt their bottom line, they mis calculated in the 90s when they traded all the fan favorites and the team almost moved.

Iggy never playing in another uniform, and retiring a Flame is a big part of building the brand. For all the decades this team has played in the NHL it has very little legacy. Looking back at the 89 team, many of those players became know for their careers after Calgary.

Iggy has very little trade value. Without him this team is like Columbus.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So then business as usual for the Calgary flames?

I sure as heck hope not.

Going to take a few years to see whether or not the new regime is better at it than the least few regime's.