What's a rebuild anyway?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Itse

Hmmm, I'd replace "certainly" with "marginally". 10th is closer to the middle than the top, and while again there is no one definition of a rebuild, if you count a third of the league as rebuilding then I think it starts to water down the concept quite a bit.

That said, move the window one year forward and we're hopefully looking at a much clearer picture.

A third is probably about right but within that you have teams in different stages of that.

This article from the Athletic that plots where each team is in the cycle is helpful because it does think about re-building in a binary way, but rather the full cycle of building and contending.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/659...tiers-2025-26/

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Love stuff like this.

So this sent me down a rabbit hole.

I took a trade value chart, and then compared value by picks taken for every team over the last three years compared to the value they would have had if they just picked in their position by standings and didn't add, trade away, move up or move down.

Clearly the greater value is at the top of the draft and terrible teams have had more value.

And winning the lottery is huge as the value differential is huge. The Islanders added just under 1200 "points" by moving up in the lottery last year.

So luck is still involved.

The Flames had the 14th highest expected draft points based on their standing in the three seasons (15th, 25th and 14th), but ended up 10th in draft points because of the accumulation of draft capital adding 347 in value.

The worst is Florida (-756 points)

Rank by Differential

1. Chicago
2. Islanders
3. Utah

all three of those won lotteries for big point differentials. Chicago added extra picks as well.

4. Nashville
5. Philly
6. San Jose (adding picks)
7. Detroit
8. Calgary
9. St. Louis
10. Washington

Calgary certainly in that rebuilding group.

Source(s)

I have been thinking to do this but too lazy to, and for the last 3 drafts where Flames were re…something (build , vamp, tool, biggel)

To me this is where I have the biggest issue . They are somewhere around 10th in draft Capital . Which isn’t good for a team entering their rebuild and who has been jettisoning their UFAs

We’re kind of the worse rebuilding team for draft capital. And that was after trading several higher end UFAs .


We also have only added 1 remotely impactful prospect in those deals (Bruz) and we’re not drafting high to begin with

So we’re not adding enough capital , aren’t adding higher impact prospects , and aren’t finishing poorly enough ourselves.

And that’s a problem. And a problem extra late firsts don’t solve (on their own)

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Inferno

I don't think trading Andersson is going to make the team cave. They've known all year unless he or the Flames give in to the other's demands he's being traded. For them it's just a matter of when and who takes his spot. I think Kadri being traded would be a bigger blow to the rest of the team and signal that management has given up on the season.

Trading him also might motivate the team like it did when Giordano's season was done in 2015 and we all thought the team would cave. I'm not saying it's going to propel them all the way to a playoff spot. But their will might not change as much as people think.

They’ve known all year but there’s a difference between knowing and then finally removing that player from the locker room. Once rasmus is moved, it’ll trigger Kadri, Coleman and perhaps Weegar to reconsider their fit in Calgary and whether they are interested in two to three years of basement hockey.

Hopefully, the Andersson deal gets sorted out over the holidays and they trade him just after the freeze. That’ll give kadri and the team plenty of time over the Olympic break to the trade deadline to make a decision and hopefully another team steps up with a big offer for him.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

Once rasmus is moved, it’ll trigger Kadri, Coleman and perhaps Weegar to reconsider their fit in Calgary and whether they are interested in two to three years of basement hockey.

Maybe, maybe not. They're already experiencing basement hockey and knew to start the season he would be leaving.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Source(s)

I have been thinking to do this but too lazy to, and for the last 3 drafts where Flames were re…something (build , vamp, tool, biggel)

To me this is where I have the biggest issue . They are somewhere around 10th in draft Capital . Which isn’t good for a team entering their rebuild and who has been jettisoning their UFAs

We’re kind of the worse rebuilding team for draft capital. And that was after trading several higher end UFAs .


We also have only added 1 remotely impactful prospect in those deals (Bruz) and we’re not drafting high to begin with

So we’re not adding enough capital , aren’t adding higher impact prospects , and aren’t finishing poorly enough ourselves.

And that’s a problem. And a problem late firsts don’t solve (on their own)

Patience. We're still on the way down. After this year, we'll pass more teams, and after next year we'll be fully in the top 5 (just like the teams that are ahead of us in the rebuild cycle are now)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Hmmm, I'd replace "certainly" with "marginally". 10th is closer to the middle than the top, and while again there is no one definition of a rebuild, if you count a third of the league as rebuilding then I think it starts to water down the concept quite a bit.

That said, move the window one year forward and we're hopefully looking at a much clearer picture.

Well 8th in differential without a lottery win is better than that in a 32 team league.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Patience. We're still on the way down. After this year, we'll pass more teams, and after next year we'll be fully in the top 5 (just like the teams that are ahead of us in the rebuild cycle are now)

Don’t tell me — tell management and more importantly the owners

I agree we haven’t hit rock bottom . I dont see anyway we’re competitive for 5 more years pushing this to a 8-10 year rebuild if done correctly

And that’s where people get nervous. The Flames have directly said that is not acceptable .

What happens when inevitability crosses paths with stubbornness ? Poor decisions usually !

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Love stuff like this.

So this sent me down a rabbit hole.

I took a trade value chart, and then compared value by picks taken for every team over the last three years compared to the value they would have had if they just picked in their position by standings and didn't add, trade away, move up or move down.

Clearly the greater value is at the top of the draft and terrible teams have had more value.

And winning the lottery is huge as the value differential is huge. The Islanders added just under 1200 "points" by moving up in the lottery last year.

So luck is still involved.

The Flames had the 14th highest expected draft points based on their standing in the three seasons (15th, 25th and 14th), but ended up 10th in draft points because of the accumulation of draft capital adding 347 in value.

The worst is Florida (-756 points)

Rank by Differential

1. Chicago
2. Islanders
3. Utah

all three of those won lotteries for big point differentials. Chicago added extra picks as well.

4. Nashville
5. Philly
6. San Jose (adding picks)
7. Detroit
8. Calgary
9. St. Louis
10. Washington

Calgary certainly in that rebuilding group.

The Flames also had the 2023 draft in that 3 year cycle where Brad had traded away their 3rd round pick and their 5th round pick so Conroy was starting from a deficit and the Toffoli trade made it slightly better

Suspect if you did the same exercise in July of 2026 the Flames would be top 3 on the list. 5 picks as of right now in the first 3 rounds would bump them up significantly alone once you drop the 2023 draft. Any picks or prospects drafted in 24 or 25 that they pick up in trades would also improve their position if the same exercise was done in July of next year.

[FanIn80]

In my mind, a rebuild involves moves that don't try to replace outgoing with incoming. It's a sacrifice of the short term for a better long term.

Bringing in 23-28 year old players is the biggest sign that it isn't a rebuild, as those are "now" players, who are going to be post-prime by the time any top-level drafted (or otherwise aqcuired) prospect get into their prime. It's just a "non-committal rebuild" where you want a new core, but you still want to win now. If you don't have a couple of top-level (1st-line, 1st-pair) players already in your lineup, then all you're really doing is reducing the overall age of your team, without really acheiving anything else.

I like Frost, but is he going to be better than Kadri? No. So what's the value of bringing him in? I like Farabee too, but both of those guys are players you bring in when you already have a Celebrini, Smith, Eklund forward core. They shouldn't spearheading your new core, they should be augmenting it.

The fastest, most reliable way to acquire a new core with high-skill, is via top-three picks in the draft. Top-five is also nice, but there's a falloff from 3 to 5 and another falloff after 5. It's just the way it is. Can you get a Datsyuk in the 4th round? Sure, but how many times has that happened, compared to a top-three pick?

The other thing a non-committal rebuild does, is it ensures you never draft in the top-three without winning the lottery. Two to three years of literally not caring about winning games is all it takes, if ownership is on board. Sell anything of value for absolutely nothing that will help your team win games in the short term. There are only two priorities in a rebuild: draft as high as you can, as many times as you can... and hitting the cap floor. That's it. Literally anything other than that is just a distraction.

Will some fans not like all the losing and not really understand the bigger picture? Of course, but luckily for everyone involved, they also happen to be the first ones to come screaming back again once the team starts winning. In the meantime, the rest of the fans will love being entertained by a Celebrini/Bedard/McKenna/etc and the other top-of-the-draft pieces that become our new core.

Anyway, that's my extremely long-winded opinion on what a rebuild is. If all the other things teams do were also considered a rebuild, then people wouldn't feel the need to create other terms like retool or my new favourite, rebiggle.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

In my mind, a rebuild involves moves that don't try to replace outgoing with incoming. It's a sacrifice of the short term for a better long term.

Bringing in 23-28 year old players is the biggest sign that it isn't a rebuild, as those are "now" players, who are going to be post-prime by the time any top-level drafted (or otherwise aqcuired) prospect get into their prime. It's just a "non-committal rebuild" where you want a new core, but you still want to win now. If you don't have a couple of top-level (1st-line, 1st-pair) players already in your lineup, then all you're really doing is reducing the overall age of your team, without really acheiving anything else.

I like Frost, but is he going to be better than Kadri? No. So what's the value of bringing him in? I like Farabee too, but both of those guys are players you bring in when you already have a Celebrini, Smith, Eklund forward core. They shouldn't spearheading your new core, they should be augmenting it.

The fastest, most reliable way to acquire a new core with high-skill, is via top-three picks in the draft. Top-five is also nice, but there's a falloff from 3 to 5 and another falloff after 5. It's just the way it is. Can you get a Datsyuk in the 4th round? Sure, but how many times has that happened, compared to a top-three pick?

The other thing a non-committal rebuild does, is it ensures you never draft in the top-three without winning the lottery. Two to three years of literally not caring about winning games is all it takes, if ownership is on board. Sell anything of value for absolutely nothing that will help your team win games in the short term. There are only two priorities in a rebuild: draft as high as you can, as many times as you can... and hitting the cap floor. That's it. Literally anything other than that is just a distraction.

Will some fans not like all the losing and not really understand the bigger picture? Of course, but luckily for everyone involved, they also happen to be the first ones to come screaming back again once the team starts winning. In the meantime, the rest of the fans will love being entertained by a Celebrini/Bedard/McKenna/etc and the other top-of-the-draft pieces that become our new core.

Anyway, that's my extremely long-winded opinion on what a rebuild is. If all the other things teams do were also considered a rebuild, then people wouldn't feel the need to create other terms like retool or my new favourite, rebiggle.

Outside of salary dump Kuzmenko and basically the throw in that was Miromanov (doubt the Flames get much more than a 1st and a conditional 2nd for Hanifin) the oldest player the Flames got in any trade was 25 years old (Sharangovich and Frost) or younger. Most rebuilding teams have to try to get some players back both to ice a team and make the salary floor as UFAs generally don’t sign with terrible teams.