Difference between rebuild and business as usual

[Itse]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Assuming Tinordi's numbers are correct, the man games per team are as follows since the 2003 draft:

1) Montreal - 4494
2) San Jose - 4246
3) Chicago - 4213
4) Columbus - 4050
5) Boston - 4029
6)Buffalo - 3888
7)Pittsburgh - 3861
8) Anaheim - 3685
9) Nashville - 3614
10) LA - 3603
11) New York Islanders - 3522
12) Edmonton - 3499
13) Washington - 3499
14) Colorado - 3400
15) St. Louis - 3387
16) Philly - 3362
17) New York Rangers - 3202
18)Florida - 3035
19)Phoenix - 2836
20)Dallas - 2808
21) Ottawa - 2800
22) Minnesota - 2734
23) Carolina - 2699
24) Winnipeg - 2317
25) Vancouver - 2304
26) Toronto- 2304
27) New Jersey - 2218
28) Detroit - 1993
29) Calgary - 1747
30) Tampa Bay - 1710

Those are the standings by games played by drafted players since the 2003 draft for what it is worth, the Flames are ever so slightly better than the Tampa Bay Lightning.

This seems to have very little correlation to overall team success. Interesting. I also would not have expected the differences to be that big.

Points by players drafted might be better. That would bring out also the quality of players, not just the quantity.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In recent NHL history, the Capitals, Devils, and Blues have all systematically moved out significant veterans for picks and prospects as part of a long-term strategy.

The Bruins built a contender through a combination of methods. Chara and Ryder were free agents. Horton, Ference, Peverley, Recchi, Boychuk & Rask were all acquired in trades. That's a pretty damn deep team even without drafting guys like Lucic, Marchand, Seguin (who was also drafted because of a pick outside the top 5 they traded), Krejci, Bergeron.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's a good question that the naysayers should respond to. How do you rebuild in a materially different way from the basic method you outlined in the opening post?

Lets hear it.

I'm not saying you can't I just want a discussion on whether there are different ways to skin a cat.

It's an important question because the organization needs to identify a strategy and follow it. Rock Solid Plan v2.0.

You find a team like the Blues were for the Flames in the 1980's, and you pillage their good players. Or, you find a team like the Leafs, and you pillage their top 10 draft picks with garbage trades and sign top flight UFA's (ie. Brad Richards last season)

The Flames are trying to rebuild the way John Weisbrod rebuilt the Boston Bruins, IMO. This is the first thread I have ever really agreed with Jiri.

Here's another stupid thing to consider. Joe Thornton basically ended up turning into Andrew Ference and Chuck Kobasew for the Bruins.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Icon

I'd argue that Baertschi & Gaudreau may be 'gems'.

But I'll agree the prime time to move some of the old guard for the best return has passed. It doesn't mean the Flames should just give up on any return and ride out those contracts tho.

ie: if trading someone a couple years ago would have been a 1st and a blue-chip prospect, and now it's a 2nd and a decent prospect, you still do it... instead of just riding it out in mediocrity. Same goes for guys who would have got less a couple years ago, and get slightly less now. Still worth it if the trade makes the team better in a couple years.

Would you have made the Brett Hull trade?

[T@T]

My take on rebuilding is there is "no such thing"

Seriously, what is "rebuilding"?

Take your pick

1) Florida,NYI,,etc. multiple top picks and they still suck

2) Pittsburgh, suck so bad for years that you almost loose your team. get lucky in getting 2 generation talents,win a cup but because of the cap and because of those contracts you can't build another winner.

3) Chicago (see number 2)

4) Edmonton, disaster waiting to happen, by the time this team starts to win the cap will tear all those #1's apart.(this team is the perfect example that it takes more than offensive talent to win)

Fact is under a cap system dynasty's are a thing of the distant past so why bother "rebuilding" and piss off the fans? I for one wouldn't pay a cent to go watch a last place team, I pay my extra $$ for entertainment, support is one thing but paying $300.00 a game to watch a team get a good draft pick is borderline ######ation!

Retool, try to stay competive for the fans and hope for a good run. (examples... LA from last year, Boston, Detroit, Anahelm and Carolina since the cap system)

[Frank MetaMusil]

Since I am still up working, I'm going to put a few more thoughts into this thread.

Coaching.

Many of these teams who have undergone successful "rebuilds" have changed coaches because they were underperforming. It may be just coincidence, but all of these powerhouse "model" drafting teams (save Phoenix) either hired or created Jack Adams winners. Only one of these coaches won a cup in their first season behind the bench.

Chicago (Savard) decided to upgrade to Quenneville 4 games into the season. Pittsburgh (Therrien) decided to upgrade to Bylsma as they were struggling to make the playoffs. St. Louis (Payne) decided to upgrade to Hitchcock. Hell, even Phoenix (Gretzky) upgraded to Tippett, Boston (Lewis, who lost to CGY in 04) to Julien.

[edn88]

I'd like to see where the Flames are at the trade deadline before making a call on rebuild or not.

This team as assembled is not a 14th place team... I think we have a ton of existing assets - Hudler, Wideman, Tanguay, Iginla, Glencross, Kipper, Jaybo, Gio, Cervenka all have a bunch of value if you traded them right now... but holy crap, they have a bunch of value to us right now too. With a run of 4 or 5 games in a row, we would be right in the middle of the West play off battle. The Flames are unlucky to not be solidly in a playoff spot right now despite playing fewer games than the a lot of the other guys. 11 Games is not a large enough sample to know what this team is right now (or even going forward).

I am tired about talking about rebuilds. I do like the idea of managing our assets correctly, and if we are indeed in a place where we are not going to make playoffs, dealing some fringe assets to increase our drafting prospects, but the 2013 Flames don't suck, so why do we want to blow them up?

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Would you have made the Brett Hull trade?

Not sure I understand that one... Hull was at the start of his career, not depreciating in value.

That'd be like comparing trading Backlund or Baertschi.

Or do you mean from a St.Louis trading him away perspective?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by T@T

Fact is under a cap system dynasty's are a thing of the distant past so why bother "rebuilding" and piss off the fans? I for one wouldn't pay a cent to go watch a last place team, I pay my extra $$ for entertainment, support is one thing but paying $300.00 a game to watch a team get a good draft pick is borderline ######ation!

Retool, try to stay competive for the fans and hope for a good run. (examples... LA from last year, Boston, Detroit, Anahelm and Carolina since the cap system)

We know how well that approach has worked for the Leafs.

And we must have different notions of 'competitive'. To me, competitive is competing for the top of the conference, and for the Stanley Cup. It's not competing for a playoff spot. Hoping to squeek into the playoffs and go on a cinderella run is a sad, sad way to run a pro sports franchise.

And if you won't pay a cent for a crappy team, I assume you haven't spent any money on the Flames for the last couple seasons. Because they've been a crappy team. Personally, I see no difference, as a fan, between a team that finishes 10th in the conference and a team that finishes 14th. It's three or four wins in an 82 game season. Both are the same distance from a cup.

[l33t_hax0r]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Since I am still up working, I'm going to put a few more thoughts into this thread.

Coaching.

Many of these teams who have undergone successful "rebuilds" have changed coaches because they were underperforming. It may be just coincidence, but all of these powerhouse "model" drafting teams (save Phoenix) either hired or created Jack Adams winners. Only one of these coaches won a cup in their first season behind the bench.

Chicago (Savard) decided to upgrade to Quenneville 4 games into the season. Pittsburgh (Therrien) decided to upgrade to Bylsma as they were struggling to make the playoffs. St. Louis (Payne) decided to upgrade to Hitchcock. Hell, even Phoenix (Gretzky) upgraded to Tippett, Boston (Lewis, who lost to CGY in 04) to Julien.

Agreed - also see LA dumping Terry Murray for Darryl Sutter. I heard that turned out ok.

Elite coaches can take good to great and bad to respectable. I don't think anyone can take bad to great though. Maybe Dave Tippett, but he hasn't won a cup yet.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We know how well that approach has worked for the Leafs.

And we know how well the "suck and draft high" approach has worked for the Islanders (and thus far for the Oilers).

There is no right (or wrong) way to build/rebuild a hockey team. There is no foolproof blueprint... you just do what you do and hope it works out.

[$ven27]

The proper, or higher probability of getting success way to rebuild IMO is the Chicago had Blues way. A high one or two draft picks, but also getting quality guys later in the 1st round and beyond. To do that you need quality scouts, the Edmonton way isn't going to work and it drives me nuts that the media constantly blows their load over them.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by T@T

My take on rebuilding is there is "no such thing"

Seriously, what is "rebuilding"?

Take your pick

1) Florida,NYI,,etc. multiple top picks and they still suck

2) Pittsburgh, suck so bad for years that you almost loose your team. get lucky in getting 2 generation talents,win a cup but because of the cap and because of those contracts you can't build another winner.

3) Chicago (see number 2)

4) Edmonton, disaster waiting to happen, by the time this team starts to win the cap will tear all those #1's apart.(this team is the perfect example that it takes more than offensive talent to win)

Fact is under a cap system dynasty's are a thing of the distant past so why bother "rebuilding" and piss off the fans? I for one wouldn't pay a cent to go watch a last place team, I pay my extra $$ for entertainment, support is one thing but paying $300.00 a game to watch a team get a good draft pick is borderline ######ation!

Retool, try to stay competive for the fans and hope for a good run. (examples... LA from last year, Boston, Detroit, Anahelm and Carolina since the cap system)

I mostly agree with this.

I think that one of the things the OP was trying to say was that you often see '5 year plans' and there have been many such plans over the years in all of the major sports (and the implication, I pressume, being that the Flames should do similar).

However, I think it is much easier to create a 5 year plan in football or baseball, where individual players are very much pieces in a larger puzzle.

For instance, I know that I need linebackers that can run 4.4, or defensive linemen that are at least 6'6" so they can block passes and run a 4.6 so they can get around linemen.

I know that I need 2 right handers and 2 left handers. I know that I need X number of RBIs, etc.

So I can determine how long it will take, and what it will cost, to acquire those assets.

Hockey is far more dynamic. You can say 'I need a 1st line C, and I need a top D', but that's about it and that is pretty vague. Also, it is almost impossible to predict who will become that, or what any individual player is going to be in 5 years.

What is Baertschi going to be in 5 years? Or even 3? Is he a 40 goal scorer? A decent 2nd liner? We won't know until he gets there. So what piece have we added?

And therein lies the problem. Even when you think you acquire a piece, within 2 years that player is probably no longer the player they were (maybe better maybe worse).

And if you can't predict what pieces you'll have, you can't build a puzzle.

Instead, you need an organizational philosophy and you need to stick with it.

Sutter's was to acquire veteran talent, whether through free agency, or to trade picks to acquire it.

I believe the best franchises acquire their talent though a commitment to the draft and then trade pieces away that they don't think fit their mold for more picks, in a constant restocking of assets. (Then, during those rare periods where it all comes together, you can trade assets for missing pieces).

IMO, the best examples of this philosophy are Philadelphia nad Boston (some would say Detroit). People talk about them having quick rebuilds - there are no quick rebuilds, they simply had bad years. But they are constantly willing to trade pieces that they didn't think fit their team mold or philosophy, to continue to acquire more assets through the draft.

To me, that is how a franchise should be run. There is no set blueprint for rebuilds and I don't think a well run franchise should ever have to talk about rebuilds.

I want to see the Flames commit to the draft, better scouting, and better development (and I think they have to some extent, though they are still throwing away too many picks).

I want to see them commit to more of a 'perpetual strategy' (for lack of a better word) than their 'win now' strategy. By that, I don't think a team should ever be trading picks and prospects for veterans (until those years when it comes together and you have a real shot - it shouldn't be happening every year like it happens here).

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by $ven27

To do that you need quality scouts.

Naw, that isn't so much quality scouting as it is just luck. I mean... you do need the eye's on the guy but you can't tell me some guy in the Red Wings organization saw Pavel Datsyuk for what he would become and decided that he could recommend waiting until the 6th round to pick him up.

No scout in the world is that good.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I believe the best franchises acquire their talent though a commitment to the draft and then trade pieces away that they don't think fit their mold for more picks, in a constant restocking of assets. (Then, during those rare periods where it all comes together, you can trade assets for missing pieces).

IMO, the best examples of this philosophy are Philadelphia nad Boston (some would say Detroit). People talk about them having quick rebuilds - there are no quick rebuilds, they simply had bad years. But they are constantly willing to trade pieces that they didn't think fit their team mold or philosophy, to continue to acquire more assets through the draft.

I agree that is a sound approach. We need to keep in mind that those teams are willing to sustain short-term pain (Kessel, Carter, Richards deals) in order to get the younger assets to renew the roster. I have a tough time thinking of the last time Flames management had done that voluntarily. Even with the Niewendyk and Fleury deals their hands were forced.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

To me, that is how a franchise should be run. There is no set blueprint for rebuilds and I don't think a well run franchise should ever have to talk about rebuilds.

Once you become a well-run franchise with short-term, mid-term, and long-term talent, you shouldn't have to rebuild. The question is how you turn a badly-run, asset-poor team into a good team.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Naw, that isn't so much quality scouting as it is just luck. I mean... you do need the eye's on the guy but you can't tell me some guy in the Red Wings organization saw Pavel Datsyuk for what he would become and decided that he could recommend waiting until the 6th round to pick him up.

No scout in the world is that good.

sure they are - that is why Detroit took Bob Boughner in the 2nd round in 89 - to confuse the other teams, so that they could sneak Lidstrom down to the 3rd round. /green

By the way... Detroit's selections in 1989:

Mike Sillinger 1st
Bob Boughner 2nd
Nick Lidstrom 3rd
Segei Fedorov 4th
Dallas Drake 6th
Vlad Konstantinov 11th

(I skipped the failed picks)

That tee-ed them up for a while.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I agree that is a sound approach. We need to keep in mind that those teams are willing to sustain short-term pain (Kessel, Carter, Richards deals) in order to get the younger assets to renew the roster. I have a tough time thinking of the last time Flames management had done that voluntarily. Even with the Niewendyk and Fleury deals their hands were forced.



Once you become a well-run franchise with short-term, mid-term, and long-term talent, you shouldn't have to rebuild. The question is how you turn a badly-run, asset-poor team into a good team.

I don't think either team 'sustained short term pain'. I think they felt they had replacement players they preferred (turning the team over to Giroux) and so tehy were able and willing to make those moves. Also, there are always other factors in any single trade - I think you have to look at a larger body of activity to evaluate a team's core philosophy.

As for the 2nd bold, I believe that you are what you do. You can't keep saying "we'll do that once we get to a certain point" because you'll never get there.

If you want to be that franchise, just start being that franchise. Success is a process and you have to start the process to have the process.

I don't want a 'rebuild' because I don't want to be that team. I want my team to commit to a philosophy (other than win now) and begin to execute it. If they do, I will be patient. But I am running out of patience with the current strategy (would not be impressed with going after Arnott for instance)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Parallex

And we know how well the "suck and draft high" approach has worked for the Islanders (and thus far for the Oilers).

The Islanders have trouble meeting the cap floor. And the Oilers have terrible management. They would suck regardless of what strategy they employed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Islanders have trouble meeting the cap floor. And the Oilers have terrible management. They would suck regardless of what strategy they employed.

The flames have given me the same vibe, for what it's worth.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

The Flames are trying to rebuild the way John Weisbrod rebuilt the Boston Bruins, IMO.

How exactly did John Weisbrod rebuild the Bruins?