Craig Button Pyramid (Team Construction)

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just so we're clear are you thinking he purposely avoided getting a return?

No, I am saying that you are saying it would have been OK if he did purposely avoid getting a return. Again, your own words were ‘at any cost’. You're writing the GM a blank cheque to do anything, including give up more assets to get rid of the player. (See: Gilmour–Leeman trade monstrosity.)

[Bingo]

ok ... they were my words. But you're aware that's a figure of speech right?

at all costs

if something must be done or avoided at all costs, it must be done or avoided whatever happens

so you may be taking me more literally than I intended. What I would suggest is you can't build a team with a guy disrespecting his coach, his teammates, and the organization being allowed to stay.

So you canvas the league and make the best move you can.

I'm assuming he did that.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Oh let's not get too crazy here. Keep in mind button inherited a team that was a complete joke and had been mismanaged into oblivion for the better part of a decade. He obviously played a part in what happened in 2004 under Sutter, which is more than can be said of his predecessors.

Button didn't inherit a team that was a complete joke. He inherited a team that was full of highly talented prospects (Iginla, Regehr, St.Louis, Savard, Giguere, Kuba, Lydman, Stillman and Morris) and largely mismanaged it, destroying any chance to get an NHL GM job again. As for 2004 team, it was a mix of Coates (Iginla, Regehr, Lydman, Clark), Button (Conroy, Gelinas, Leopold, Yelle) and Sutter (Kipper, Warrener).

[Jay Random]

I'm perfectly aware of what the phrase means. ‘It must be done or avoided whatever happens’ is exactly right. ‘Whatever happens’ includes getting a zero or negative return. As soon as a GM has boxed himself into a situation where he has to accept a zero or negative return for a skilled young player, he's failed at his job.

It is quite possible that the best thing Button could get for Savard at a moment's notice was a fourth-rate Russian prospect who had no intention of ever coming to the NHL. (It's also possible that he didn't even bother calling around the league, but made a deal with the first team that made an offer – as Darryl Sutter was accused of doing with Phaneuf.) In that case, he should not have made the trade at a moment's notice. He rushed the deal and got a bad return. The best I can say for him is that he didn't pull a Risebrough and throw in four other good players just to get rid of the guy he wanted gone.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Bingo

ok ... they were my words. But you're aware that's a figure of speech right?



so you may be taking me more literally than I intended. What I would suggest is you can't build a team with a guy disrespecting his coach, his teammates, and the organization being allowed to stay.

So you canvas the league and make the best move you can.

I'm assuming he did that.

Wasn't Savard a buddy with Iginla and wasn't Iginla trying to bring back Savard some years later? Was Savard really that much a dressing room killer and at odds with everyone else?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm perfectly aware of what the phrase means. ‘It must be done or avoided whatever happens’ is exactly right. ‘Whatever happens’ includes getting a zero or negative return. As soon as a GM has boxed himself into a situation where he has to accept a zero or negative return for a skilled young player, he's failed at his job.

It is quite possible that the best thing Button could get for Savard at a moment's notice was a fourth-rate Russian prospect who had no intention of ever coming to the NHL. (It's also possible that he didn't even bother calling around the league, but made a deal with the first team that made an offer – as Darryl Sutter was accused of doing with Phaneuf.) In that case, he should not have made the trade at a moment's notice. He rushed the deal and got a bad return. The best I can say for him is that he didn't pull a Risebrough and throw in four other good players just to get rid of the guy he wanted gone.

Or maybe he wanted get fired so he could join TSN!

Not sure why this is such an argument. I agree that the return was weak, I just firmly believe rebuilding teams go nowhere when you have guys that are a me me me distraction in the room.

If I'm a GM of said team I get that guy the hell out of there.

All guessing from there, but my assumption is that Savard didn't have much of a market.

[Jay Random]

Savard may not have had much of a market, but Gilbert had no market at all. My point is that you don't sacrifice a player to save a coach who already needs firing; and I'm not sure why you seem so opposed to that.

If Button had fired Gilbert first and then taken his time shopping Savard, he might well have got a better return. He could hardly have got a worse one. Meanwhile, he might have found that Savard was not, in fact, ‘a me me me distraction in the room’, but merely couldn't get along with one particular coach who had pretty much lost the whole room anyway. That's two chances for a better outcome than what actually happened.

Bottom line, from my point of view: A rushed trade is usually a botched trade.

[Flash Walken]

I think it is really difficult to judge the tenure of a Flames GM given what we now know are significant oversight and pressure from senior management/ownership.

Button/King era is probably the lowest point for that until feaster/King really showed us what rock bottom was like.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm perfectly aware of what the phrase means. ‘It must be done or avoided whatever happens’ is exactly right. ‘Whatever happens’ includes getting a zero or negative return. As soon as a GM has boxed himself into a situation where he has to accept a zero or negative return for a skilled young player, he's failed at his job.

It is quite possible that the best thing Button could get for Savard at a moment's notice was a fourth-rate Russian prospect who had no intention of ever coming to the NHL. (It's also possible that he didn't even bother calling around the league, but made a deal with the first team that made an offer – as Darryl Sutter was accused of doing with Phaneuf.) In that case, he should not have made the trade at a moment's notice. He rushed the deal and got a bad return. The best I can say for him is that he didn't pull a Risebrough and throw in four other good players just to get rid of the guy he wanted gone.

The GM didn't do that...the player did. Twice. Two seperate occasions Savard went to the media and told them he had asked to be traded. That's what killed most of his value...nothing Button did.

Im not saying that Button was anything but a meh GM during his time here, but he did have forces working against him that were out of his control...and Marc Savard was one of them.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Savard may not have had much of a market, but Gilbert had no market at all. My point is that you don't sacrifice a player to save a coach who already needs firing; and I'm not sure why you seem so opposed to that.

If Button had fired Gilbert first and then taken his time shopping Savard, he might well have got a better return. He could hardly have got a worse one. Meanwhile, he might have found that Savard was not, in fact, ‘a me me me distraction in the room’, but merely couldn't get along with one particular coach who had pretty much lost the whole room anyway. That's two chances for a better outcome than what actually happened.

Bottom line, from my point of view: A rushed trade is usually a botched trade.

I just don't see it that way.

They are independent of each other. The coach was on borrowed time, but the player showed up out of shape, and sulked. He's a distraction and a guy you can't build around (my opinion).

I think they were both going regardless of order.

[belsarius]

I look at Savard's tenure with the Flames a lot like Hall in Edmonton now. A me first player who refuses to do what the coach wants and play a team game, he wanted to get points, not play defense which is why he butted heads with Gilbert so badly. It's the same thing with players like Phaneuf. You have to judge talent vs coachability and I agree with Bingo he needed to be moved at all costs during a rebuild stage team.

I also laugh at the implication that the 2000 Flames were loaded with "talent" that was squandered. No one knew what some of these players would grow into and for the most part at the time it was just a collection of spare parts. People were as high on Valeri Bure as any of the other prospects. Derrick Morris was more hype than top pairing guy and Lydman's comparable is Kris Russell.

No Button didn't get enough return for Savard, but 2000 Marc Savard wouldn't have lasted a whole season on this year's Flames either. He grew up a lot and got the chance to play with two of the best scoring wingers of their time in Heatley and Kovy.

[Enoch Root]

So Button figures you need a couple really good Cs, 3 really good D, a couple really good wingers, and a great goalie in order to be a top contending team...

<insert picture of Captain Obvious>

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I just don't see it that way.

They are independent of each other. The coach was on borrowed time, but the player showed up out of shape, and sulked. He's a distraction and a guy you can't build around (my opinion).

I think they were both going regardless of order.

So how does that imply that getting zilch for them was a good thing?

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So Button figures you need a couple really good Cs, 3 really good D, a couple really good wingers, and a great goalie in order to be a top contending team...

<insert picture of Captain Obvious>

He might as well just call it as it is, 2x elite 5-man units and a world class 'tender.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Craig Button's Flames pyramid

Micki Dupont, Petr Buzek, Bob Boughner
Blair Betts, Scott Nichol
Roman Turek
Ruslan Zainullin, Blake Sloan
Denis Gauthier

Also crucial to this pyramid of power is to get rid of structural weaknesses like Marc Savard and Martin St. Louis.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Button didn't inherit a team that was a complete joke. He inherited a team that was full of highly talented prospects (Iginla, Regehr, St.Louis, Savard, Giguere, Kuba, Lydman, Stillman and Morris) and largely mismanaged it, destroying any chance to get an NHL GM job again. As for 2004 team, it was a mix of Coates (Iginla, Regehr, Lydman, Clark), Button (Conroy, Gelinas, Leopold, Yelle) and Sutter (Kipper, Warrener).

Who would have ever thought St. Louis would ahve scored so much.....Savard has been addressed in other posts.....while Giguere did have success elsewhere, once again who knew.......Stillman turned into conroy and morris turned into Drury and Yelle - seems to me that Button did ok for the most part.

i assume that every GM who makes a decision listens to input from other folks - so it is likely button was not the only one making calls on players during his tenure here

how are we to know if he truly destroyed any chance to get an NHL job agian - it is possible that he enjoys his current gig and never wants to go back

[Torrie the Whaler]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So, a GM has no obligation to try to get any return for the assets in a trade? Whether you realize it or not, that is what ‘at any cost’ means.

Meanwhile, what do you make of the 1990 Flames? The entire team bailed on Terry Crisp at the end of the season. According to reports at the time, the ringleaders, McCrimmon and Mullen, were indeed traded – but Cliff Fletcher didn't just trade them for minor-league Russians that had no chance of ever making the NHL; he made a bona fide effort to get assets in return. Was that wrong? And if any player who quits on the team needs to move at any cost, doesn't that mean that the entire team should have been shipped out, without any consideration of what was coming back in the deals?

All was screwed when loob suddenly retired, he was counted on to be here for at least 10 more years.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So how does that imply that getting zilch for them was a good thing?

I could read back but I don't remember calling it a good thing.

I just don't hold the Savard thing against Button because I felt he had to move.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I could read back but I don't remember calling it a good thing.

I just don't hold the Savard thing against Button because I felt he had to move.

This is where I disagree. What I hold against Button is that this first came public in December of 2001. Savard was not traded until November 15 of 2002. Originally Button thought he wasn't being offered enough, or didn't want to admit he had to do something. So he keeps a disgruntled guy around for the rest of that season while the team implodes. He tries to bring him back the following year and of course he comes to camp out of shape and plays even worse under the same coach. Eventually traded off for nothing.

When Savard first wanted out he had value of some sort. Button waited and hesitated...and ended up giving him away and firing his coach. Asking for the trade and making it public is on Savard 100%. Not doing anything about it for 11 months, that is 100% Craig Button's shat bed to smell.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The move I remember hating the most in that time (I think it may have been Coates) was Stillman for Conroy. Top 6 winger for bottom 6 center made absolutely no sense. But I never even cared about losing some 25 year old midget AHL tweener.

It was Button, I actually sent him an email because I was so upset at the time and he replied to me. Can't remember the exact response but it was to the effect of "Stillman has three freakin playoff games, he will never be a playoff performer like Conroy is/will be." I clearly remember the "freakin" part because I lol. Corey Stillman went on to collect 3 Stanley Cup rings Craig.