Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
Only quoting your post because I like it and your comment about own model prompted this thought.
I think, as uncomfortable as it might make us, is that there is far more "reacting" to your individual and unique situation by GMs then any of us care to admit. We talk a lot about models.......... and really like to bucket into two big categories, tear down and re-tool. Now I'm not saying GMs don't have "longer term plans", but I think they respond to their individual situations far more than we think, and I think in all scenarios they are actually trying to get back to "competitive" for weaker teams, and "enhance quickly" for stronger as quickly as possible in most cases.
That's to say, have any teams really truly intentionally "tanked", or has taking for the most part been thrust upon them as they've failed? That was certainly the case with Edmonton for example. Anyone who thinks they intentionally tanked and got McDavid wasn't watching for the past 15 years. Now I'm not saying at points, teams don't accept their fate and embrace the tank for a short period of time, but usually that decision gets made for them is my point.
Anyway, I just think every team approaches things differently and always has, there are not "models" to follow. Every team mostly reacts to the existing asset situation and results, which guides most of the decision making IMO, and how well one executes on those is actually the determining factor on success. Then as mentioned you layer in every team has a unique set of "environmental" challenges the hardest of which belong to the small market Canadian clubs.
|
Tear down vs retool. Scorched earth vs rebuild. Tanking vs embracing a youth movement.
This verbage can get confusing. I have to go back to Conroy's first year as a GM, and he was directly asked to define a rebuild vs retool. The definitions that he gave aligned with "Rebuild" but not "Tanking". Definitions are important. To me, a retool was something a team did for a season. Every team has turn-over at the fringes of the roster. A retool to me was a bit deeper - maybe a team takes a slight step back and changes a core piece or two, but that's it. One season.
A rebuild is essentially embracing a youth movement. Sell some of your vets, draft and develop more younger players, and breathe new life into your org. Usually it is because teams age-out after trying to compete for so long. Sometimes it is more than that.
Tanking is what i think teams do in order to grab a generational player. A player like McDavid adds over a billion dollars worth to the org. I forgot where I got that from, but I can see why a team would intentionally tank for a player of this caliber.
I actually do think that there are two types of 'tankers':
1) Teams that intentionally did tank to try and grab the best player in the draft
2) Teams that were managed so poorly, that they ended up having to tank
I definitely agree that Edmonton never tanked. They just kept trying to compete and kept falling on their faces, until they fell ass-backwards into a goldmine called McDavid.
Did San Jose tank? Grier doesn't believe in tanking, and he made sure he added vets to that roster, and didn't burn it to the ground. They just didn't have that consistent effort like the Flames - their culture was essentially broken. Where they suffer a lot is in that 25-29 age group. Flames suffer as well, but probably a bit less. At the bottom of the age range, San Jose is very strong. I think they will move up rather quickly up the standings in the next few years, but I don't think they tanked on purpose. They were definitely an example for #2 above.
Chicago is another team that belongs under the #2 umbrella - they tried to go for it too long, but fell on their faces and aged-out. It didn't help matters when Toews and Kane both prevented the Blackhawks from embracing the youth movement. Eventually it happened, but I don't think they actually tanked. We can look at the moves made, but Chicago didn't start selling players until they sold Hagel the season before their 'tank' (along with Debrincat in the off-season, making everyone scratch their heads and thinking 'tank'!). Then they sold Kane (finally), Domi, McCabe, Lafferty and Jack Johnson. I don't think that constituted a tank. That's just embracing the youth movement in my opinion. Both Hagel and Debrincat were moved after teams put in offers that they felt they couldn't refuse. They also brought in a lot of vets in the last 2 seasons, but they simply waited too long to rebuild, and have been having a hard time moving up.
Buffalo tanked - egregiously. There were still some vets on that team of course - there is a salary floor after all - but I would say they intentionally tanked to go after the #1 player n the draft - McDavid. I think they did age out, and realized that they needed to rebuild, but I think they took it all the way to a scorched-earth, intentional tanking, trying to give away any piece that a team was willing to take it seemed.
Pittsburgh for Lemieux was probably one of the worst tank-jobs in history.
Curiously, Brian Burke spoke about Colorado once, insinuating that the draft lottery was changed because of them, rather than the Oilers. So maybe we can possibly add them to this pile? I haven't dug into them much.
Teams that stay at the bottom are teams that didn't draft well, and didn't manage well coming out of a rebuild. Arizona was just a mess of an organization, for instance. I think a team will bottom out for only 2-3 years max. Any more than this, and something went wrong. I think Arizona had a few seasons where they did intentionally tank - they were an open market for cap dumps, and they didn't try to improve at all. I would push them under the intentional tanking umbrella.
I do think that Calgary has a chance this upcoming season at unintentionally tanking. We will see what happens, but if Conroy trades Andersson for futures, Hanely, Rooney and Vladar walk and they all get replaced internally - I think there is a fair chance that the Flames end up drafting top 3. I guess we will see.
I am curious to see if Pittsburgh tanks or not this year.
There aren't that many different ways to build a team. I just see teams that try to hang on for too long and end-up bottoming-out hard and for a long time, and I see teams that are a bit more proactive and seem to just touch bottom and lift-off again - these are probably rarer, and are often under the retool umbrella when something hasn't worked (like maybe Nashville this past season making too many changes, and the team taking a bit long to adjust).
I just think that some teams can be a bit more aggressive than others. If you happen to be in a market where players want to play for you, then you see:
1) top-tier UFAs wanting to sign with your team
2) UFAs taking team-friendly deals more often (though being in a low-tax area helps too)
3) Making trades is easy as you never have to worry about a player you are targeting having a NTC
4) No young player will tell you that he doesn't want to extend on your team - either your own player forcing out a move, or a player you are wanting to acquire without trade protection, but using his leverage to nix the deal
Calgary has to build through the draft. Some teams have way more options. I guess it is not surprising seeing teams like Florida, Tampa and Vegas winning cups, while the Flames just experienced an 'implosion' due to players suddenly wanting out, rather than aging out. I just think the biggest differences is how long a team tries to compete for before finally embracing the youth movement. Take too long, and I think teams end up bottoming-out for a prolonged period of time, even if they never once intentionally tank.
