Are the Sharks the poster child of why you shoudn't rush into a rebuild?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

No way. You can't just look at the return we got, you also have to look at the opportunities within the organization it created and the increased draft positioning we received.

For example in 2013, we drafted Monahan. We might have gotten lucky at a lower draft position and ended up with Domi, but most likely we would have ended up with a much worse player.

Although part of Calgary's rebuild can be attributed to luck. Getting Gaudreau and Brodie from later rounds was just lucky.

I thought we did better at the end of the season when we had to call up players, so we still could have gotten Monahan.

The one thing we did do was shake up the so called old boys club in the dressing room, for a fresh start. Mao Tse Tung was always a big fan up breaking things up and starting over as well.

[dino7c]

3rd round is nice but they haven't proven anything yet...they got a very favorable 2nd round match up that they didn't really deserve (two teams above them play while they get a wild card team from another division) Good team, it remains to be seen if they are capable of winning it all

[darthma]

Originally Posted by sharkov

The sharks have shifted their core group from Thornton and Marleau to Pavelski, Burns and Couture. Thornton and Marleau have handled this transition with grace and hence they have caught lightning in a bottle.

The OP seems to neglect how that core has shifted considerably and the above post points that out. And that isn't just a new thing, that's been true for many years.

Look at the leader boards for playoff points - it's not Thornton or Marleau leading it. It's Pavelski, Couture, and Burns.

Finally, it's not like they DIDN'T try to blow it up. Thornton nixed deals by exercising his NMC. (Maybe Marleau did too?) Good for Thornton and Marleau for sticking it out. Where some see it as 'coach killers', I see it as a few players committed to the cause in SJ.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The thing I love about the Sharks current playoffs run is that it helps to put the Flames' own future into perspective. SJ is a good team, but not at all what I would consider a great team, or one of the WC powerhouses, and yet here they are in the third round. Based on their performance this year, Calgary is not all that far off—at all. If the Flames fix their goaltending this summer I could see them next year right where the Sharks are now.

The Sharks most definitely ARE one of the WC's and overall league's powerhouses. The only team with more wins under their belt since the '05 lockout are the Red Wings. And not a single person would not have considered them a powerhouse until most recently.

So let's slow the horses down a bit. The Flames are no where close to being what the Sharks are. Not even close. Our performance this year was abysmal and the Flames are very very far off from being the perennial contender the Sharks are, let alone a Conference final appearance.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

The Sharks most definitely ARE one of the WC's and overall league's powerhouses. The only team with more wins under their belt since the '05 lockout are the Red Wings. And not a single person would not have considered them a powerhouse until most recently.

So let's slow the horses down a bit. The Flames are no where close to being what the Sharks are. Not even close. Our performance this year was abysmal and the Flames are very very far off from being the perennial contender the Sharks are, let alone a Conference final appearance.

Yes, please slow them down. By quite a bit. Sharks "are" or "were"? They were a perennial contender, but are not at the moment. They are, however, having a good (and largely unexpected) year. You talk like they're a powerhouse now, but I think that's in the past.

"Very very far off"? Just how far off? I think they're 3 players away, but it seems you think it's how many more than that?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Yes, please slow them down. By quite a bit. Sharks "are" or "were"? They were a perennial contender, but are not at the moment. They are, however, having a good (and largely unexpected) year. You talk like they're a powerhouse now, but I think that's in the past.

"Very very far off"? Just how far off? I think they're 3 players away, but it seems you think it's how many more than that?

Again, the Sharks have the 2nd most wins out of any team since the '05 lockout. During that time they have 5 division titles, have had 50+ wins four times, 105+ points six times, a presidents trophy. Their list of accomplishments go on. So yeah, I'd say the Flames are quite a fair ways away. We made the 2nd round last season because teams like the Sharks had poor seasons and we played a weak Vancouver team in round 1. And yet people trot it out like it was some massive accomplishment to piggy back off the failure of other teams.

I'm not going to comment on how many players away I think we are, because frankly no one knows. But I do think the organization itself is quite a ways away from having the success the Sharks have had for the last decade. And more to that, it's more then just players we need. We need a change in style, a change in special teams, defensive structure ,etc. The Sharks have that in spades.

You say the Sharks aren't a perennial contender. Why not? They missed the playoffs once in the last 12 seasons. The definition of perennial is

lasting or existing for a long or apparently infinite time; enduring or continually recurring

So I guess if we're taking the literal definition, no team in NHL history is a perennial contender. But you could definitely say the Sharks making the playoffs is a mostly continually recurring event.

Otherwise I'm not really sure what we are arguing about. The Sharks are a damned good team, and have been for a while, and are at present. The Flames aren't. I'm not sure what there really is to argue. I guess if you're trying to say the Flames are close to what the Sharks are AT PRESENT (ie regular season 98 pts team), I still disagree. But it's extremely hard to make any argument against a team like the Sharks vs Flames at present when they are playing in the WCF and we are picking 6th overall in the draft

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

It's a snap shot. One team, one season.

Not everything needs to be over-analyzed to that degree where conclusions on how franchises need to be built are drawn.

This.

I'm sure we could say after '04 that the Flames were the model example of how a hardworking team of nobodies (outside of 2 players) that are all on the same page can have success.

Except that was a one season thing that couldn't be sustained without better core pieces in place.

San Jose has been far from the envy of the NHL despite some moderate success. This season they've had a breakthrough year, on the back of a new tender in Jones and resurgence of Thornton. I wouldn't put much more into it than that.

They'll probably choke again, and they still have no cups to show for how the franchise has been run. It's like if the Flames remained a one round perennial playoff team with the occasional deeper run. But people sure weren't very satisfied with that by the '09 season..

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Again, the Sharks have the 2nd most wins out of any team since the '05 lockout. During that time they have 5 division titles, have had 50+ wins four times, 105+ points six times, a presidents trophy. Their list of accomplishments go on. So yeah, I'd say the Flames are quite a fair ways away. We made the 2nd round last season because teams like the Sharks had poor seasons and we played a weak Vancouver team in round 1. And yet people trot it out like it was some massive accomplishment to piggy back off the failure of other teams.

I'm not going to comment on how many players away I think we are, because frankly no one knows. But I do think the organization itself is quite a ways away from having the success the Sharks have had for the last decade. And more to that, it's more then just players we need. We need a change in style, a change in special teams, defensive structure ,etc. The Sharks have that in spades.

You say the Sharks aren't a perennial contender. Why not? They missed the playoffs once in the last 12 seasons. The definition of perennial is



So I guess if we're taking the literal definition, no team in NHL history is a perennial contender. But you could definitely say the Sharks making the playoffs is a mostly continually recurring event.

Otherwise I'm not really sure what we are arguing about. The Sharks are a damned good team, and have been for a while, and are at present. The Flames aren't. I'm not sure what there really is to argue. I guess if you're trying to say the Flames are close to what the Sharks are AT PRESENT (ie regular season 98 pts team), I still disagree. But it's extremely hard to make any argument against a team like the Sharks vs Flames at present when they are playing in the WCF and we are picking 6th overall in the draft

As I said, they were a power-house and perennial contender (I'm sort of lumping those two terms together, rather than the strict definition). I just don't see them as that same team - they're on the decline I think. They're having a great year, but they're also not a young team. So, I don't see them keeping this up like they were, hence I don't think they're a perennial contender going forward.

Again, though, just how "very very far off" are the Flames? Never once did I suggest they were near "perennial contender" status, just that they're closer to the current Sharks than you seem to think.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I think the Sharks have an interesting mix. No doubt Marleau and Thorton are past their prime, but Pavelski, Couture, Burns, Vlasic, Jones and Hertl are nice pieces. Add Meuller (sp?), Goldobin, Timo Meier, Jeremy Roy, Rourke Chartier as recent draft picks and they seem to be in decent shape (not that I follow their kids, but good pedigree).