On Rebuilding - Part 1, The Pittsburgh Penguins

Kent Wilson
May 26 2012 10:48AM

 

 

(Frequent commenter and...ugh...Oiler fan RexLibris recently contacted me about contributing a series of posts on rebuilding. As an unfortunate devotee to that perpetually incompetent organization just up the road, I figured he might have insight on the matter. Today we present his first article on the matter)

By RexLibris 

How many times have you heard the following?

“I don’t want my team to do a nuclear-style rebuild like the Oilers”? Or “the Penguins intentionally tanked so they could draft high”? How about “the only way to rebuild is to trade away all of your best players for high draft picks and blue-chip prospects”?

Whether you agree or disagree with any of those statements, they all beg the question “Is that really true?” I contend that there are as many ways to rebuild a team as there are winning styles of hockey and that success or failure in a rebuild is often as fickle fickle as winning a championship.

There is no single template, nothing to copy and paste into a paint-by-nhlnumbers.com recipe for instant success. A power forward, elite goaltending, strong defense, a superb center, roster depth, a healthy lineup, dressing room leadership; all of these things have been said to be crucial to a Stanley Cup win.

They have all had their place in past success stories, but there is no one key element to winning a championship (Okay, maybe having good players is key, but aside from that…). Is there a similarly oversimplified template for a rebuild other than “suck bad, draft high”?

An Islander fan might have something to say about that.

Myth Does Not Equal Fact

There needs to be a separation of myth from history in these common stories told about those NHL teams that have recently done the “handyman’s special”. My intention is to revisit the actions taken by several teams and ask the basic question: how does the history compare to the story?

The Penguins and Blackhawks have won after rebuilding. Washington is still trying to figureit out. L.A. looks like they might have finally taken hold of their opportunity after many years of slowly restocking their roster. The Oilers are hoping to build something successful. The Leafs tried an end-run around development and are back at the beginning of the process. The Flames are beginning one, and it could be argued they have been slowly, perhaps inadvertently, tearing themselves down for the past four years.

With that in mind, what was the actual history of the rebuilding attempts in several NHL cities these past few years?

The Usual Suspects

As mentioned, the teams I am going to discuss include Pittsburgh, Washington, Chicago, L.A., Toronto, the Islanders, Columbus, Ottawa, Florida, and, of course, Edmonton and Calgary.

First let’s look at the method that our first team took in their initial rebuilding phase: Pittsburgh – 2000 to 2006 - retained 1st round picks, drafting in the top five in five consecutive years.

For the first few years of the rebuilding era the Penguins, under Craig Patrick, really only seem to have shuffled the deck chairs on the good ship Penguin and the only notable talent they traded away was Alexei Kovalev in 2003. The deal had the Rangers getting Kovalev, Dan Lacouture, Janne Laukkanen and Michael Wilson while the Pens got Rico Fata (a Flames favourite), Richard Lintner, Mikael Samuelsson, Joel Bouchard, and cash. This is more or less the only trade one could point to where the Penguins deliberately sent away a veteran talent for a younger player (Samuelsson). Although the inclusion of cash in the deal, and Samuelsson’s eventual trade at the draft imply that youth and rejuvenation were not the primary motivation in making this deal.

In 2001 Craig Patrick moved Jagr for Kris Beech, Ross Lupaschuk and Michal Sivek. This was the proverbial first shot in the war that signified that the Penguins were putting financial concerns ahead of on-ice performance. It should be noted that the Jagr trade set off a bidding war and Patrick thought this return was better than any other he could have received from the New York Rangers. The Penguins at this time were not interested in rebuilding as we would recognize it today. They were merely interested in surviving. It is easy to forget now how close they were to leaving Pennsylvania with Jim Balsillie, formerly of RIM, hovering overhead like a vulture, threatening/promising to purchase the team and immediately move them to Hamilton.

Not until 2003, the halfway point of their rebuild, does one see the team acquiring the picks and players that would begin to impact the club in a way that we can associate with a stereotypical rebuild. The Penguins traded Mikael Samuelsson, a 1st and a 2nd round pick (Nathan Horton and Stefan Meyer) for the 1st overall and a 3rd round pick (M.A. Fleury and Dan Carcillo), then traded Johan Hedberg for a 2nd round pick that would become Alex Goligoski (later to be trade for James Neal and Matt Niskanen). These are the kinds of moves that most today would expect to see from a General Manager interested in hoarding draft picks and deliberately working to lay the foundation of a new franchise core.

Prior to 2003 the Pens were simply selling off what little they had in an attempt to reduce their losses. They then spent several years trying to stave off extinction. That they were a horrible team who decided to retain their draft picks and also won the NHL's biggest lottery is more a matter of capitalizing on circumstance. Leadership, initiative, and opportunity will become hallmarks of many of the rebuilds in today’s NHL. The Penguins retained their draft picks because they couldn’t have afforded to pay the players they would have received in return, even if it had made them marginally better right away. In essence, Pittsburgh’s desperate financial straits forced them into prioritizing the very asset that would, in the end, bring them success

A change in management from Craig Patrick to Ray Shero after the worst of the rebuild and ownership drama had passed should also be taken into account. Patrick oversaw the team at its very highest and lowest from December of '89 to May of '06. It was Patrick who made the decisions to move up at the draft and pick Fleury, and who held on to the first round picks that became Ryan Whitney, Evgeni Malkin, Jordan Staal and so on.

So, could Pittsburgh be said to have deliberately chosen a path in 2002 to the bottom of the league in order to draft high, with the express aim of winning a cup only seven years later? Did they sell off Jaromir Jagr, Alexei Kovalev, Wayne Primeau, Martin Straka, and even Mark Recchi for these future assets that made them what they are today? Hardly. The only trade that had a significant impact on their roster when they won the cup in 2009 was the Samuelsson trade to move up and take Marc-Andre Fleury - and even then it's arguable that MA Fleury was the most replaceable face on that club. Even into 2006, a season when the team would draft Jordan Staal 2nd overall, they were trading away 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks for players like Libor Pivko and Patrick Ehelechner.

Fumbling Towards Ecstasy

The myth that the Penguins sold off all of their old, expensive assets and, in a cost-cutting measure, deliberately decided to tank until the new CBA was negotiated, drafting high along the way, is simply wrong. They were lucky to be as bad as they were when they were, and they won the NHL’s greatest lottery prize. The Pittsburgh Penguins tripped and stumbled their way into a situation that offered them little or no recourse but to be terrible and draft well. That they were fortunate enough to find the right coach and talented enough to be able to dig themselves out of that hole is another story and one that I will leave to better analysts than I.

Copying this model of rebuilding a franchise would nearly impossible, not to mention rather irresponsible and almost pathologically fatalistic for a management group to attempt.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current FN contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#1 Colin
May 26 2012, 12:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Nice contribution from Rex, always one of the best commentators on the site. I do agree with the final consensus as well. You don't just 'start a rebuild' sometimes you just end up there. And thats how I feel the Flames could end up, Jarome and Mikka end up as aging diminishing stars that may not be traded and we just end up bad, no selling off lots of assests, we just become bad.

As well if you are going to compete after being that bad, its nice if you had some good assests mature that you acquired prior to being bad(think mid to late round picks), because after your top 5 picks kicks his entry level deal, you may just end up back in the middle of the back.

Avatar
#2 suba steve
May 26 2012, 12:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Nicely done Rex.

I prefer to look at the Pens draft positions over the 5 year period of 2002-'06 ('02-5th overall, '03-1st, '04-2nd, '05-1st, "06-2nd). They got some great players, could the Flames duplicate Crosby with a #1 overall--no.

But if the Flames (or any team) had had these draft positions over the last 5 years, the players that were drafted in these spots were:

2007-5th overall was C. Alzner

2008-1st was S. Stamkos

2009-2nd was V. Hedman

2010-1st was T. Hall

2011-2nd was G Landeskog

That is a strong young core. So if the Flames gut the team and go on an extended skid and ride the lotto pick bus for a few years things would eventually turn for the better. Continuing with the status-quo is not a good option.

Avatar
#3 BurningSensation
May 26 2012, 12:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think there needs to be an understanding that being awful a bunch of years in a row is simply not a guarantee of success. Likewise, dealing aging players for future assets is a minfield that can leave you legless and bleeding.

Once upon a time Calgary traded an aging asset in Joe Mullen to Pittsburgh for a 2nd rnd pick. That pick turned into Nicolas Perrault. Who? Exactly.

Also consider that even elite draft picks bust out leaving you holding the bag; Daniel Tkazchuk, Rico Fata, etc. Moving Kipper and Iggy for 1st rnd picks sounds good in theory, but if the picks don't pan out you are left with nothing.

The 'mediocrity treadmill' may suck, but the 'stuck in the basement treadmill' is infinitely worse.

Elite organizations frequently are built on one or two HOF calibre players that they rebuild their organizations around as necessary. Detroit did not move out Yzerman for picks as his play declined, and they did not move out Lidstrom just because his birth certificate said 'late 30's'.

The truth is that building a strong organization begins from the bottom up - the scouting department. Landing a gem late in the draft (Datsyuk), or finding a 2nd rnd player who becomes an all-star (say Chelios or Nieuwendyk) are the ways to improve the org.

The second step is to improve your farm team - cuz if all they do is lose, all you are teaching your prospects is how to fail. Bring in AHL vets to carry the heavy loads and mentor the kids - and to help them u derstand what it takes to win.

Third step is to have a GM who can win a trade, and preferably win one BIG. Vancouver turned fast skating thug Shawn Antoski into a slight framed skill winger who would over time blossom into Markus Naslund. The Flyers flipped an aging D-man to Atlanta for the now very steady Braydon Coburn.

The good news is that Flames fans can see improvements in the first two areas - our scouting department has stopped targeting Chuko's, Pelech's and Nystrom's and started landing bona fide players of real skill (Baertschi, Reinhart, etc). The farm team brought in a Krys Kolanos and put an emphasis on winning as part of development.

Guys like Wiesbrod are absolutely key to rebuilding a team - much more than finding a GM willing to peddle Joe Mullen for a 2nd. Rebuilding the organization the right way is hard, trading Joe Mullen for a shot in the dark is easy. Let's keep doing it the hard way, we'll be better off in the long run.

Avatar
#4 RexLibris
May 26 2012, 12:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Thanks Kent. This was a very interesting process to begin and thus far I have been a little surprised at the small details that have emerged (I actually believed that Pittsburgh had garnered more of a return during their sell-off and was surprised and how little they received in some of those trades).

There will be some emerging patterns in a few of the teams that I discuss, although the extent to which those patterns can be used to outline a path for the future of other restocking franchises is very limited.

Oh, and just wait until I get to the Flames... muhwha-ha-ha-ha-ha. *tents fingers a la Mr. Burns*

;-)

Avatar
#5 suba steve
May 26 2012, 01:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Agree that the draft can be the key to sucess, and the Flames have shown improvement there. I don't see Detroit grabing another Datsyuk or Zetterberg in the later rounds any time soon. We are not in any way in the same position as Detroit, who continue to make the playoffs. If Lidstrom is back next year, and Detroit is in 13th, not inconceivable that they would trade him to a contender like Boston did with Bourque. You never know.

Avatar
#6 RexLibris
May 26 2012, 01:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Burning Sensation

Your points are spot on in that drafting is now akin to the old saying about goaltending "it is 80% of the game, unless you don't have it, in which case its 100%".

Rebuilding a team does not necessarily require a great amateur scouting squad (more on that later), but it certainly would be nice. A team can afford perhaps one 1st round bust if they spend five years in the cellar. More than that and things can begin to circle the drain quickly (more on that later, also).

One thing I will mention though, when you say that "Moving Kipper and Iggy for 1st rnd picks sounds good in theory, but if the picks don't pan out you are left with nothing".

If the alternative is that the players either walk away as free agents or buoy the team's performance enough to hurt the draft position, is that doing the franchise any favours in the long run?

Avatar
#7 loudogYYC
May 26 2012, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Good Job Rex. Slightly longer than your average post, haha.

On a serious note, I'm really glad the history of rebuilds is being brought up, I'm kinda tired of hearing the same ideas Rex talks about at the beginning of he article.

In really simple terms, it's a dumb idea to tank 2 or 3 seasons so u can then depend on a few hyped up teenagers. Every time that has worked, luck and other key players have played huge factors as well.

That said, the Flames have good to great players in place outside of Iginla and Kiprusoff. With Cammalleri, Tanguay and Glencross signed for next season, Baertschi won't have to lead the team in scoring to be considered a successful draft pick. Same with Reinhart if he makes the team, Backlund, Cervenka and Stajan will be in charge of heavier work loads than his.

What they definitely need is a few lucky picks to pan out soon and win a trade that will bear fruit now.

The idea of an actual rebuild is overhyped. Flames are in much better position than Edmonton, St Louis or Chicago were in. I'm confident that if Edwards and King don't get too involved and just let mgmt work, we'll be in good shape in 2 years.

Avatar
#8 BurningSensation
May 26 2012, 01:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Rex Libris:"One thing I will mention though, when you say that "Moving Kipper and Iggy for 1st rnd picks sounds good in theory, but if the picks don't pan out you are left with nothing".

If the alternative is that the players either walk away as free agents or buoy the team's performance enough to hurt the draft position, is that doing the franchise any favours in the long run?"

Except that is not the only alternative. Picks are only one possible return you might seek for Iggy or Kipper, and far more appealing to me would be dealing for young developed players. For example, assume for the moment that Calgary decides to move Kipper in a trade to Tampa Bay, would you rather get back Tampa's 1st this year and a 2nd next, or Brett Connelly and Justin Tokarski?

If you take the picks the draft might be strong or weak, and the players are further away from contributing. In Connelly and Tokarski you have more developed entities whose potential contributions are easier to assess.

Sure, Tampa's 1st might be a lottery winner that lands you a franchise player, but given the risks I would prefer the birds in the hand approach (unless a Kurvers for TO's 1st type deal comes along!).

Avatar
#9 RexLibris
May 26 2012, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@loudogYYC

lol, the next few should be slightly shorter.

I had some preamble to include in this one in order to get the overarching thesis across.

Avatar
#10 Colin
May 26 2012, 02:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

"That is a strong young core. So if the Flames gut the team and go on an extended skid and ride the lotto pick bus for a few years things would eventually turn for the better. Continuing with the status-quo is not a good option."

I disagree with this a bit, firstly playing the season just to lose is a terrible idea in general. As well there is no garuantee your going to the lottery. And if your not getting a top 5 pick you may be in for a long long ride. I'll give you an example.

The following are the teams who have picked the MOST in the top 5 since 2004: Islanders(4), Capitals (3), Penguins (3), Blackhawks (3), Kings (3), Coyotes (2), Blues (2), Lightning (2), Thrashers (2), Avalanche (2), Oilers (2), Panthers (2) Blue Jackets (2). With a bunch of other teams with a pick here and there.

Now for the very fun side of this, the list of teams who have had the MOST picks in the top 10 of the draft since 2004: Blue Jackets (7), Thrashers/Jets (6), Panthers (6), Islanders (5), Coyotes (5), Oilers (4), Leafs (4), Black Hawks (4), Wild (4), Lightning (3), Kings (3), Pens (3), Hurricanes (3), Senators (3), Blues (3), Capitals (3) and then a bunch of teams with 1 or 2 picks.

The point I am trying to make, unless you are garuanteeing yourself that 1st or 2nd overall, you may be on that path of always trying to improve and never improving and becoming THE basement dweller. You NEED to have your 2nd/3rd/4th round picks to hit as well, because the article is talking about the Penguins, lets look at some of their better Depth picks.

Goligoski would be 3rd round pick (using todays drafting rounds), Tyler Kennedy would be a fourth rounder and Kris Letang was a 3rd rounder. Goligoski got them Neal and Niskanen and they have both worked out well. They have a bunch of misses as well, but those 3 have worked out real well to the core of the Pens.

Unless you are going to be drafting 1-3 for 3, maybe 4 years and find great complimentary peices in the 2nd/3rd/4th round, you could find yourself finishing out of the top 5 but in the top 10 and being a pretty well staple basement dweller.

Avatar
#11 beloch
May 26 2012, 03:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

This article does bust the myth that the Pens cunningly planned their tenure in the basement to rack up picks and become a powerhouse. However, it doesn't really address one thing I'd like to see covered:

Is spending time in the league's basement really necessary for a rebuild? Some teams make the playoffs almost every year and still manage to draft well and develop a steady stream of talent. How do they do it? Other teams sink right to the bottom, pick in the top 3 multiple years in a row, but then get stuck there. Why? Has the Oilers' rebuild stalled? Can the Flames put themselves on the path to a championship without becoming the Oilers first?

Avatar
#12 RexLibris
May 26 2012, 03:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Colin

No reading ahead! ;-)

I'm going to touch on depth drafting a bit more later on, but as it concerns the Penguins, while their depth drafting hasn't been as noteworthy as their first round picks the high performance of those picks has allowed a slower progression and development of later round prospects.

Part of having high-end players is that it can allow for a more thorough development path for depth prospects.

Avatar
#13 Colin
May 26 2012, 03:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris, when I was counting up all the top 5/10 picks I looked at all of Pittsburgs depth drafting and other than those guys its pretty well crap, but I highlight those guys because they generated TOP talent(Kennedy was very regarded here for his possession ability to move the puck in the right direction), Letang is probably their #1 Dman and Neal is now a top forward. You don't always have to hit with a depth pick, but if you can nail that depth pick and turn it into a top 3 forward or top 2 D man you are doing yourself a huge service. What draft pick have we had in any round after 1 that we have turned into a 40 goal man, or 1st pairing Dman?

Avatar
#14 Wanyes bastard child
May 26 2012, 03:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great post. Why isn't this on ON as well?

Avatar
#15 RexLibris
May 26 2012, 03:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@beloch

I'll be examining several teams' approaches and some of their results to-date.

It will generally be up to the reader to decide if they are to be considered successful.

Essentially, Pittsburgh could be said to be the template that every rebuilding team (or at least that team's fans) have in mind as a destination.

One of the goals of the article is to examine the path and determine what factors could be duplicated, avoided, or are entirely up to chance.

Avatar
#16 RexLibris
May 26 2012, 03:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@WBC

I had to armwrestle Brownlee to post it.

I lost.

Avatar
#17 RexLibris
May 26 2012, 03:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Colin

Talbot, Christensen, Moulson, Bissonette and Carcillo have all had decent careers that would seem to prove they covered the draft day bet. Unfortunately many of them have flourished outside the Penguins organization.

That being said, amateur scouting does what it can for a team. After that it is up to the GM.

Avatar
#18 Colin
May 26 2012, 03:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Rex

I would think there are a lot of factors other than just the draft, for Example Phoenix(hopefully not stealing thunder here again). There is a MASSIVE difference in Phoenix pre and post Dave Tippet.

Again starting in from the 2004 draft, 04 picked 5th, 05 picked 17th, 06 picked 8th, 07 picked 3rd, 08 picked 8th, 09 picked 6th and then Tippet was hired and suddenly in 10 picking 22nd, 11 picking 20th and in 12 picking 27th.

Again, you can have a lot of high draft picks, but if you are not using them correctly or have the proper people in place to run the show, it isn't going to help you. Tanking for the sake of tanking is a dumb idea.

Avatar
#19 Colin
May 26 2012, 04:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Christensen is very meh. He is very typical of guys you could get in the third round or later. Talbot is a pretty good depth find. Carcillo and Bisonette are replacement level guys and again, can be found in the 5th-7th round by any GM.

Moulson I must have completely missed when going through, that is another good later find.

But again the Goligoski and Letang selections I emphasize because of the roles they played(Goligoski more in the trade) in securing TOP line talent. Other than Moulson all the names you mentioned are far from top line.

Even the lowly Flames have managed to take depth players and turn them in to NHLers. Boyd, Pardy, Prust and Bouma are all/were NHLers and they were 3rd or later, but again, replacement level. Brodie was a good later find, but again his ceiling may be 2nd pairing at best. David Moss was great value for were he was drafted. But again Pittsburgh managaed to turn later rounders into what could be argues as easy first round talent.

Avatar
#20 Wanyes bastard child
May 26 2012, 04:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
RexLibris wrote:

@WBC

I had to armwrestle Brownlee to post it.

I lost.

Should have went over the top! eh ;)

Avatar
#21 Kevin R
May 26 2012, 05:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great post Rex. Must have been in your element being allowed/expected to post your propensity for detail like this:)

I really only have one issue with comparing modern day rebuilds to historical ones like Pitt & Chicago that started before the lock out/ cap world. The Salary Cap was a historical event in the NHL. It & the recovery of the Canadian dollar literally leveled the playing field for 2/3rds of NHL teams. It also spawned more & more teams to allocate more & more resources to scouting & drafting(with the exception of the premadonna GM we had for too long)but even the Flames are getting into the new NHL millennia. Depth picks are going to have more of a flavor of luck as compared to due deligence to it.

Now saying that, my response to those that correctly point out that 1st round picks arent a guarantee of a good player so why trade aging assets like Kipper & Iggy. I disagree in that, yes picking 20th or 25th gets you a much riskier no guarantees player. But if you pick up enough picks & use(parlay) them to get that top 5 pick, you can eliminate some of that risk. Smart GMs will navigate their way & learn how to rebuild much quicker than ever before. The salary cap allows that to happen. I can guarantee one thing, if we dont try to maximize the return for our aging assets & they walk or retire with Flames getting zero returns, we are looking at adding at least 2 years on to this rebuild we are about to embark on. If LA didnt make trades to acquire Richards & Carter, are they in the Cup? Its a brave new NHL where GM's with courage is mandatory & too much fatal.

Avatar
#22 RexLibris
May 26 2012, 05:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Colin

There are many factors.

Phoenix is a unique case because of the highly unusual financial constraints. They have had to simultaneously build a fan base and a team.

The first you do by winning, the second is often done (from scratch, which is basically where they started) by losing.

They have tried both methods and have had more success in this later era because they have had exceptional management and coaching.

The Flames could start on the road down the middle, but several things would have to change. This is going to make up a part of my look at their situation in this series.

Avatar
#23 RexLibris
May 26 2012, 05:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@KevinR

Yeah, I'll try and keep the rest of them a little under my 2000 word standard. ;-)

The rebuilds were entered into prior to the salary cap, but the idea of a hard cap was an open secret for the NHL, so most teams were maneuvering their contract situations prior to the lockout in advance of a new "financial landscape".

Also, Chicago and Washington could be argued to have entered into a rebuild more or less at the exact time of the new CBA. Pittsburgh is the only team that began drafting consecutive top five picks prior to the new CBA and this was largely fueled by financial concerns.

No example is a perfect fit to what many fans hold up as a "proper rebuild". Pittsburgh is closest.

Avatar
#24 Austin
May 26 2012, 06:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The Flames are starting to address this problem. They made a solid top 6 pick (hopefully tp 3) in drafting Baertschi. Markus Granlund looks like he'll be able to crack the Flames lineup in a couple years. Wotherspoon may become a depth defender, not too sure. But the picks of John Gaudreau (high risk/high reward) and Laurent Brossoit are showing how the organization has already improved under Feaster.

So if they continue in this path, and are able to trade one of (not both) Iginla or Kipper, than they can hopefully get another solid first round pick and continue to pool our prospects.

Avatar
#25 Kevin R
May 26 2012, 07:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The biggest similarity between the Oilers & Flames & the reason why I think this could be a very painful rebuild for us is that Flames & Oilers have basically post cap mismanaged their ways into the big rebuild rut. Both teams were one win away from a Cup in consecutive years & both are where they are. I dont think anyone on FN or ON would say we had top people managing these franchises over the past 5-6 years. Many horrendous decisions by both management teams. There are still many that dont think Flames have the right hockey people in place to move forward cleaning up our mess. I think if JD replaces Ken King, many of us would breathe a hell of a lot easier.

Avatar
#26 suba steve
May 26 2012, 08:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Colin

"Again, you can have a lot of high draft picks, but if you are not using them correctly or have the proper people in place to run the show, it isn't going to help you. Tanking for the sake of tanking is a dumb idea."

And what do you call trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result next time?

@BurningSensation

"Except that is not the only alternative. Picks are only one possible return you might seek for Iggy or Kipper, and far more appealing to me would be dealing for young developed players. For example, assume for the moment that Calgary decides to move Kipper in a trade to Tampa Bay, would you rather get back Tampa's 1st this year and a 2nd next, or Brett Connelly and Justin Tokarski?"

I don't disagree, I would have been thrilled with the rumoured LA deal for Schenn 2 seasons back, That deal in itself could quite possibly have changed our whole outlook on what the rebuild might look like. If Schenn was playing in Iggy's place this past season, then we would not be drafting 14th next month. What, top 5? In that type of scenario you get your cake, and get to eat it too. Not sure that a deal that sweet could be got for Iggy anymore. THAT is the one that got away.

Avatar
#27 Austin
May 26 2012, 11:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I can't remember if the rumored Schenn deal would have been done before or after the Phaneuf deal. So fan sentiment would've likely been far different then since the Flames just absolutely bombed that trade. I still think you see Feaster ship one of the two out of Calgary at the draft. How else do we start this rebuild. Play out next season until one of them decides not to come back? Wait.....that's not rebuilding that's just being stupid....

Avatar
#28 Franko J
May 27 2012, 07:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great article and excellent commentary and debate again.

While the argument can be made which approach, model, or philosophy is the correct one between myth and fact; IMO there are a few factors which influence the outcome and results to becoming a contender or a pretender. After all the goal is to win the Stanley Cup. Since the finals start on Wednesday I will use the finalists from this season.

Factor # 1: Timing • Finding the right coach who can mesh and fit the players and vice versa. Example: both NJ and LA changed coaches in the past year and look where they are right now. • To trade or not to trade. Sometimes trades are not necessary, sometimes they are. Again I will use NJ and LA: LA was willing to depart with Dustin Brown at the trade deadline, however decided against it. NJ could have traded Parise for future assets, but where would each of these teams be right now?

Factor # 2: Luck • Drafting: Come draft day - every team believes they drafted the player who is going to help them win and garner success. LA best player: Kopitar drafted 11th overall. Parise 16th overall. Both players not even in the top 5 in their respective draft class, yet both have their respective teams on the cusp of glory. • Developing talent. When LA drafted Quick, they might have had an idea that he would be a good pro, however, they were banking on Bernier to be their goalie of the future. Same could be said of Brodeur, drafted with little fan fare but turned into the best goalie of the modern era. Sometimes GM's can only hope and pray, but in the end they know they have to be somewhat lucky.

Factor # 3: FATE, DESTINY, KARMA, or MOJO • Whatever you want to call it - every team and every player has "it". For instance, the irony is would LA be in their position if they actually signed Kovalchuck instead of NJ. Or NJ

Unlike tennis, golf or say being a 100m sprinter, where the pursuit for glory is individualistic in nature, there are too many dynamics in place when it comes to rebuilding or retooling a team. The only certainty as a fan is too have patience with the understanding of plenty of heartbreak

Avatar
#29 ChinookArch
May 27 2012, 07:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

Good first crack at writing Rex. Haha.

This is a great discussion you've initiated and the Pittsburg experience is a great starting point. At the risk of getting too far ahead, it would be interesting to compare the top draft pickers (the set of teams you are going to examine), with teams like Boston and Vancouver and teams that built successful teams differently.

Avatar
#30 ChinookArch
May 27 2012, 07:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Rex, I'll be watching for blown trades in your analysis. Thus far, you've illustrated that Pittsburg did'nt get great returns on a few occasisons, that probably hurt. I wonder how a very bad trade can alter a teams fortunes and for how long. I would argue that the D. Sutter's Phaneuf / Aulie trade for a $4M Stajen + Hagman was a major body blow to the Flames franchise and the impact will be felt for years.

Losing two young top 4 defenders for an overpaid 4th center has hurt the Flames and will for more years to come. Now, I wonder which other teams stepped into a bear trap like that. To my memory, the only recent trade that was close to that bad was Dallas moving Neal for Goligoski.

Avatar
#31 Colin.S
May 27 2012, 08:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@suba steve

@steve

"And what do you call trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result next time?"

That all depends if we are going into next season with the exact same roster and the same coach(the second is a no). If we were still trying to play each season with a core of Regehr, Iggy, Bouwmeester and Jokinen that would be insanity. However Feaster has shown willingness to change the Roster and get younger rather than continually get older and more "experienced" as in years past.

And as my previous post shows the Trashers, Bluejackets, Islanders and Panthers were all trying the same thing, acquire high ranked young talent, lets see how well that is working for them. What says to you the Flames would do any better than the Blue Jackets when it comes to drafting? What happens if we end up selling everything off and we are just continually bad and we keep waiting for that right pick? Wouldn't that be insanity as well?

Avatar
#32 Kevin R
May 27 2012, 09:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Colin: Yeah, I think that is most peoples fear is that we get the prospects & 1st rounders, we screw them up & we suck forever. This is where I say the Cap world allows you to be more proactive in moving assets. If you lose every trade, well thats just not good but even if these young prospects & 1st rounders dont pan out, it means you arent spending big $$$, which means you can poach, trade and beg for talent off other teams whose cups runneth over. :)

Avatar
#33 TommynotsoHuge
May 27 2012, 12:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great column and great comments. I'm so glad I have finally found a place where true Flames fans can express their opinions.

I think we should consider trading Kipper and Iggy, as much as hurts. We need new blood in the room. I'm not saying a full blown rebuild by any means. Just here my out for a second.

How about we get rid of them for top prospects and picks, bring over Ramo, who I think is our goalie of the future. Maybe sign Vokun to a two year deal to help Ramo develop his North American game. We will have a ton of cap room to afford a top Dman and a couple top 6 forwards. Maybe even sign Jagr to a one year deal to help mentor Cervenka, since they were a force to be reckoned with in the KHL.

We are stuck at a crossroads, where the old ways have failed now three years in a row. We need drastic changes and a new identity. I have absolute faith in Feaster and Weisbrod. I don't think the answer is in free agency and trades. The draft is important, but we can't put all of our eggs in one basket.

Avatar
#34 RexLibris
May 27 2012, 02:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Austin

The Flames have had, by my count, two pretty decent drafts these past two years. In fact, they may be able to graduate 100% of their 2011 draft class to the professional leagues a year from now.

Unfortunately they have also only had six of a possible seven draft picks in these past two years and are going to be shy a second round pick in each of the next two draft years as well.

They have had a nice run here, to date. But it is still too early to say if John Gaudreau or Bill Arnold will become NHLers. And Feaster hasn't shown the necessary commitment to retaining draft picks for the position that this team is actually in for any fan to be comfortable, in my opinion.

Avatar
#35 RexLibris
May 27 2012, 02:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@KevinR

Mismanagement is often tied to the collapse that teams suffer before a rebuild.

The statement "no team willingly chooses to rebuild" has some merit in that few managers can defend the strategy "how about sink this ship so we can buy a new one?" to their bosses.

When I get to the Flames and Oilers I'll be able to go into a little more detail about ownership, mismanagement, and delusions of grandeur.

Avatar
#36 RexLibris
May 27 2012, 02:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@FrankoJ

All of these things play a significant role in the everyday life of a single person. Trying to track them over years in something as complex and evolving as a sports team is nearly impossible.

The trick for us as fans and observers is to try and discern intentional success (or honest failure) from dumb luck.

The interwoven nature of each of these facets is a recurring theme in the teams I'll examine.

Avatar
#37 RexLibris
May 27 2012, 03:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ChinookArch

Blown trades could just as easily be wrapped up into a larger category of Missed Opportunities (alongside trades never made, missed drafts within reason, and lost draft lotteries).

It affects some teams more than others.

I'm not going to get too hung up on poor trades, but certainly it will come up in the Edmonton and Calgary case studies.

Avatar
#38 RexLibris
May 27 2012, 03:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@TommynotsoHuge

While I am a relative outsider in the World of Flamesville, I suspect the middle of June as the draft heats up and the beginning of July with free agency this site will become a hotbed of Iginla/Kiprusoff trade talk.

I don't know if the articles will garner as many hits as a Trade Sam Gagner post does on OilersNation, but it should be a good debate.

Avatar
#39 suba steve
May 27 2012, 05:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ColinS.

"And as my previous post shows the Trashers, Bluejackets, Islanders and Panthers were all trying the same thing, acquire high ranked young talent, lets see how well that is working for them. What says to you the Flames would do any better than the Blue Jackets when it comes to drafting?"

I see these as bad/poorly run organizations. The Flames have had a bad stretch (in Iggy's early years), I attribute that to the weak Canadian dollar as much as I do to poor management. But it did not last for 20 years.

The Flames are not the Islanders or the BJ's. Do you believe that they are such a weak organization that having 2 or more early (lotto) picks would net them no impact NHL players? Some early picks do not pan out, I will give you that. But, more often then not lotto picks become valuable NHLers. I just don't see how bringing in young players and draft picks for our ageing stars is a bad move, since we are not getting into the playoffs anyway. Many have asked, "what guarantee have you got that this will work out?". No guarantees available, just as keeping Iggy guarantees nothing.

Avatar
#40 BurningSensation
May 27 2012, 08:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Steve:"I just don't see how bringing in young players and draft picks for our ageing stars is a bad move, since we are not getting into the playoffs anyway."

I don't think that is a fair statement, unless you can see the future - in which case I could use some lotto numbers. Ottawa was everyone's consensus last place finisher before the season started, and they not only made the playoffs, they gave the Rangers everything they could handle.

The Kings barely made the playoffs, and but for some injuries (Jokinen's late season swan dive was injury related), Calgary could well have been there instead of them. Once in, who knows?

There is no question the team needs to get younger and reload with younger talent, talent we don't have due to bad drafting from previous years. That doesn't mean 'trade Iggy+Kipprusoff'.

Good teams keep their best players.

Avatar
#41 Kevin R
May 27 2012, 10:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Burning Sensation: Our best players havent been that good, hence no playoffs for the last 3 years. You think this is suddenly going to change? I for one are tired of paying to watch our best players fail to make the playoffs. I dont think its unreasonable to expect change.

Avatar
#42 suba steve
May 27 2012, 10:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

BurningSensation

"The Kings barely made the playoffs, and but for some injuries (Jokinen's late season swan dive was injury related), Calgary could well have been there instead of them. Once in, who knows?"

I know. If the Flames had managed to squeek into the playoffs:

a.I would have been shocked, as I predicted their 9th place finish before the season started.

b.they would not be where the Kings are today--no bloody way. The Kings are a really good, up and coming team who underachieved during the regular season. The Flames are following a coach killing leader who's best days are long behind him. If the Flames had played Vanc. in round one, Iggy would have lead this team straight to the golf course.

Avatar
#43 Austin
May 28 2012, 08:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Nobody is saying Iggy and Kipper aren't our best players. But they're both 35+ if I'm correct, or Iggy will be turning 35 this summer or something like that. But when they retire and have no value left, tell me, how are we going to get better? Convince the next top UFA/RFA to come to Calgary? I don't think so. We get better through drafting, if the organization is going to trade one of Iggy or Kipper, do it now while they're value is at the highest. And for heaven's sake get a decent first round pick back.

Avatar
#44 Parallex
May 28 2012, 09:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Dude, you won't get a decent first round pick back.

Who is going to want Kipper & Iginla? Teams pushing for a Stanley Cup, what teams push for a Stanley Cup? Good teams, Where do good teams draft? Low, Would a low pick be decent? Probably not.

Avatar
#45 Parallex
May 28 2012, 09:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Burning Sensation

Here, Here.

Seriously, how did people some get it into their minds that subtracting good players from your roster and replacing them with lottery tickets is somehow a surefire road map to success. Madness, I say.

We'll have up to the trade deadline to reconsider (and I like next years draft more then this years anyways). Why don't we just see if Brent Sutter (whose arrival ushered in the current era of blah) being rightly jettisoned improves things before committing the sports equivalent of murder-suicide.

Avatar
#46 the-wolf
May 28 2012, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Well, I'm not sure if it really matters how the Pens got there, just that they did and that it worked. Twice.

Timing is everything, which is why the team would look like geniuses had they moved Iginla to LA and now look like fools.

Calgary is 1 year removed from being forced into a rebuild. So, while 'choosing' to do a rebuild may never happen, maybe it should and at a sooner stage. All circumstances and situations are unique. Is it better than to wait until a team is forced into a rebuild?

Regardless of circumstances, sucking and picking high gives about a 50/50 chance of becoming one of the better teams in the NHL. I'll take that.

Perhaps the article should take a look at teams that never rebuild, regardless of circumstance, and gauge their level of success.

Team success is 100% drafting, but it's also 100% development if you know what I'm saying.

The Flames did neither very well for 2 decades.

Avatar
#47 the-wolf
May 28 2012, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Parallex - so how are the Flames better off not having taken the package sent to LA?

....hmmm....something to build around vs. nothing to build around.....

Iginla's only use as an asset for the last several years is in a trade.

Let's not confuse a winning team not moving star vets, of whom they have many andwho are real leaders, vs a losing club not moving a single individual who thinks he IS the team.

Improve things to what, exactly? First round suicide?

I'll never understand the love fest for a supposed superstar who has gotten his team past the 1st round once in 15 years.

First you say don't get rid of good players, then you say we'd get nothing for them.

Avatar
#48 RexLibris
May 28 2012, 05:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@the-wolf

All teams rebuild. It is a natural cycle as players age.

Even Detroit.

Eventually Fedorov, Yzerman, Larionov, Konstantinov and all the others had to move on.

Detroit's trick is that they got exceptionally fortunate (generationally fortunate) in some of their draft picks and had in place a core that bought the time and space for those picks to develop at their own pace.

They also had a very wealthy owner who has managed to buy his way out of the team's mistakes.

This series isn't meant to justify or villify the process of rebuilding a team.

Instead it is meant to focus on the path that teams took. Often there is a selective memory in people where the good old times have been so distorted that they bear little to no resemblance to what actually occurred. People will focus on the result and forget the many causes that lead to it.

Comments are closed for this article.