Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

NHL Case Study: The Calgary Flames


CanucksJay

Recommended Posts

I created this topic in the first half of the 2013 season and looking back on it now, man what could have been...

 

I think it's pretty relevant now. 

 

 

I keep reading things like, we just need a legit top 6 forward, we need our core guys to step up, etc.

This is going to hurt real bad guys. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is a good team but not an elite team. Yes we are under performing right now and are capable of playing better but let's look at the overall landscape of the NHL. We are at best a 2nd or 3rd round playoff team (if we are going on all cylinders) but we aren't Stanley Cup Champion caliber.

Let's face the facts.

Yesterday, we outplayed the Kings but we lost to a backup

The previous game, we outplayed Chicago but lost. I read things like, we just need a top 6 forward. Guess what? Chicago was also missing a top 6 forward. His name is Hossa and he is a game breaker.

Even if we mortgage the future (by trading a 1st rounder and one of Shink,Horvat,Jensen) and add a solid top 6 player, we are still not going to be good enough. Add that to the fact that our core is declining while the current favorites are younger and getting even better, it would be asinine to move our young assets to get even older for 1 last hail Mary at the cup.

 

At this point, I hope MG is able to make a bold move like he said he would and go against the grain by trading some of our guys who actually have value to actual real contenders so that our rebuild isn't like Edmonton or Calgarys and we actually get the job done right in 2-3 years as opposed to 5 or 6 years.

 

Calgary was pretty much in the same situation as Van. After their SC finals run, they kept all their aging vets and signed them to NTCs. (sound familiar?)

 

Iggy signed his 5 year deal with Cgy at 31. Sedins signed 4 years at 33

 

The Flames after the cup run went to a slow decline in which their fan base like ours currently were in denial.

They went from a SC Finalist to 3rd, 8th, 7th, 5th, and then 2 years at 10th before they realized it was time to rebuild.

 

During the decline, it was the same talk we are hearing here. We just need another player. Tanguay is coming back! Sweet we got Cammy, etc.

 

If the end goal is the Stanley Cup, MG has to realize that the window for the old core is closed and we need to set ourselves up for success in 2-3 years.

 

You guys can bring this thread back up a la Clutch's Burrows thread (Deep inside, I hope that happens) but I don't think this will happen and I think the best move at this point is to cash in our chips and go for the ultimate prize in a couple of years.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read.  Thanks for re-posting.

 

Thing is, Gillis was already working on the renewal.  He traded Schneids for Horvat and convinced ownership to buy and AHL franchise to develop players.  I can't say that I saw it at the time.  It's never easy but we're well into a rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no such thing as a quick rebuild. If you trade away all your good veterans to bottom out you may well get your stars but now they have no supporting cast (Edmonton). Both Chicago and Pittsburgh struggled for years before getting their big stars. They had their supporting cast in place during those struggling years before bottoming out to get back to back stars in the draft. Detroit went from contender to contender without bottoming out. But again, it took more than two or three years. Any form of rebuild requires patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

There's no such thing as a quick rebuild. If you trade away all your good veterans to bottom out you may well get your stars but now they have no supporting cast (Edmonton). Both Chicago and Pittsburgh struggled for years before getting their big stars. They had their supporting cast in place during those struggling years before bottoming out to get back to back stars in the draft. Detroit went from contender to contender without bottoming out. But again, it took more than two or three years. Any form of rebuild requires patience.

you can't base it on the detroit model.. they were able to go year in year out as contender coz they were consistently finding gems in the draft and they had one of the greatest defenseman of all time in lidstrom playing lights out in the twilight of his career.. ya there's no quick rebuild.. but at least all the teams u mentioned faced the fact that they are in a rebuild rather than keep trying to retool and hope you can rebuild/retool on the fly.. and i'm not sure which supporting cast you are talking about in chicago or pittsburgh.. but all the vital players in their cup runs were all from the years they were or almost were last in the league.. malkin, crosby (freebie), fleury, letang were all from their bottom out years.. keith toews kane were from their bottoming out years and their support pieces were acquired thru trades.. ladd byfualien(sp) etc etc...

 

yes we all know rebuild will take multiple years maybe more closer to 5 and up.. so what's the point of trying to delay it over and over and over again just to try and get 1 or 2 more game revenue from playoff when ur regular season games aren't even sold out anymore.. fine whatever you don't need to tank to rebuild.. but you need to acquire multiple draft picks or prospect to rebuild and so far we haven't really done any of that.. we have 2 years with multiple 1st round picks and already 2 of the 4 are shipped out for players that they think can play now and help them win.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything Calgary has done since 2012 in the draft, we have basically matched without stripping away at the team.  Lets look at the for 3 round picks.

 

2012

Calgary drafted 21st, 42nd, 75th

Canucks drafted 26th 57th

 

2013

Calgary drafted 6th, 22nd, 28th, 67th

Canucks drafted 9th, 24th, 85th

 

2014

Calgary drafted 4th, 34th, 54th, 64th

Canucks drafted 6th, 24th and 36th, 66th

 

2015

Calgary drafted 53rd and 60th

Canucks drafted 23rd, 66th

 

2016

Calgary drafted 6th, 54th, 56th, 66th

Canucks drafted 5th, 64th

 

In 2015 Flames traded away there 1st round pick (15th) and 2 seconds round picks for a young, top 4, right handed D man

In 2016 Canucks traded away a former 1st round picks(24th) and one 2nd round pick for a young, top 4, right handed D man 

 

 

The biggest take away the flames have is in 2011 in the 4th round they drafted a top 10 scorer.  In 2008 in the 4th round they drafted a #2, #3 d man in Brodie, and the flames also signed an un-drafted Giordano to go on and become their captain and a top pairing D.  

 

Canucks have an un-drafted tanev, and we are hopeful on a 4th round hutton, but that top 10 scorer is a hard player to match.

 

But looking at the positions each team drafted and some of the moves they made, it's really hard to say one team has rebuilt differently than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Everything Calgary has done since 2012 in the draft, we have basically matched without stripping away at the team.  Lets look at the for 2 round picks.

 

2012

Calgary drafted 21st, 42nd, 75th

Canucks drafted 26th 57th

 

2013

Calgary drafted 6th, 22nd, 28th, 67th

Canucks drafted 9th, 24th, 85th

 

2014

Calgary drafted 4th, 34th, 54th, 64th

Canucks drafted 6th, 24th and 36th, 66th

 

2015

Calgary drafted 53rd and 60th

Canucks drafted 23rd, 66th

 

2016

Calgary drafted 6th, 54th, 56th, 66th

Canucks drafted 5th, 64th

 

In 2015 Flames traded away there 1st round pick (15th) and 2 seconds round picks for a young, top 4, right handed D man

In 2016 Canucks traded away a former 1st round picks(24th) and one 2nd round pick for a young, top 4, right handed D man 

 

 

The biggest take away the flames have is in 2011 in the 4th round they drafted a top 10 scorer.  In 2008 in the 4th round they drafted a #2, #3 d man in Brodie, and the flames also signed an un-drafted Giordano to go on and become their captain and a top pairing D.  

 

Canucks have an un-drafted tanev, and we are hopeful on a 4th round hutton, but that top 10 scorer is a hard player to match.

 

But looking at the positions each team drafted and some of the moves they made, it's really hard to say one team has rebuilt differently than the other.

 

Very good post.

 

Flames and Canucks have made similar moves.  Their moves, even though they are similar to Vancouvers, have had more of an immediate impact- for instance Monahan picked at #6 made an immediate impact whereas our #6 (Jake) hasnt had nearly the same immediate impact. Monahan scored 30 goals in his second year....

 

Both Alberta teams have had luck that the Canucks havent had yet.  Coilers finished 28th and got McDavid, Canucks finished 28th and dropped down in the draft because of rules put in place to prevent teams like Edmonton (aint that funny) from sucking up the top player every year.  Flames get the hockey gnome in the 4th round, that gamble paid off big time.

 

Can we just get a little luck here?  Maybe Boeser, picked in the 20s, will turn out to be a 30 goal man?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Interesting read.  Thanks for re-posting.

 

Thing is, Gillis was already working on the renewal.  He traded Schneids for Horvat and convinced ownership to buy and AHL franchise to develop players.  I can't say that I saw it at the time.  It's never easy but we're well into a rebuild.

I disagree.  I think you're describing player turnover which is a natural cycle of a sports team.  Trading away picks to maintain a competitive team is the opposite of rebuilding. As is throwing big money at 30something players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

I disagree.  I think you're describing player turnover which is a natural cycle of a sports team.  Trading away picks to maintain a competitive team is the opposite of rebuilding. As is throwing big money at 30something players. 

They spent a lot of time developing Schneider and at 27 years old, they traded him away as he was entering his prime for a draft pick.  I don't call that a natural turn over.  That's a big change of direction.

 

You could argue that they couldn't move Luongo, so they moved Schneids.  A year later, they moved Lui anyways.

 

What about the Comets?  That's all about having full control over player development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Crabcakes said:

They spent a lot of time developing Schneider and at 27 years old, they traded him away as he was entering his prime for a draft pick.  I don't call that a natural turn over.  That's a big change of direction.

 

You could argue that they couldn't move Luongo, so they moved Schneids.  A year later, they moved Lui anyways.

 

What about the Comets?  That's all about having full control over player development.

Schneider was only traded because they couldn't trade Luongo for any value.  Then Luongo had to be traded because our brilliant coach wouldn't play him.  That wasn't anything to do with a rebuild.  Also, that was the last president & GM.  We're talking about the current regime and direction of team.

 

What about the Comets?  I don't know, you tell me.  Rebuilding, or championship level teams, I would imagine all teams want to develop the prospects they have to their best ability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Schneider was only traded because they couldn't trade Luongo for any value.  Then Luongo had to be traded because our brilliant coach wouldn't play him.  That wasn't anything to do with a rebuild.  Also, that was the last president & GM.  We're talking about the current regime and direction of team.

 

What about the Comets?  I don't know, you tell me.  Rebuilding, or championship level teams, I would imagine all teams want to develop the prospects they have to their best ability. 

I think that Gillis was trying to rebuild after they didn't do well in the 2012 playoffs.  He was putting more resources into drafting and development. But he was more of a contracts guy.  He is the sort of GM who would do well with a mature team.  Benning is more of a team builder because his back ground is scouting.  

 

Don't forget, this is Bennings 3rd go around with rebuilding as an executive, once before as a scout.  He was a scout in Buffalo when they reached the SC finals in 1999 and in 1998 he became Director of Amateur Scouting and the Sabres went through a rebuild to reach the conference finals in 2006 and 2007.  By that time, Benning had moved on to be AGM in Boston (2006) and they won the SC in 2011.  He knows what he's doing.  

 

Gillis was did not know how to rebuild a team so he was let go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CanadianRugby said:

Schneider was only traded because they couldn't trade Luongo for any value.  Then Luongo had to be traded because our brilliant coach wouldn't play him.  That wasn't anything to do with a rebuild.  Also, that was the last president & GM.  We're talking about the current regime and direction of team.

 

What about the Comets?  I don't know, you tell me.  Rebuilding, or championship level teams, I would imagine all teams want to develop the prospects they have to their best ability. 

Buying out Luongo was the only sensible option.  Now because of Gillis' short-sightedness, we're stuck wasting cap space throughout Luongo's contract and could get tagged with a crippling caphit in the case of early retirement.  That idiot is the reason for a lot of the problems facing the franchise and it's going to take Benning years to undo the damage he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

retread has no more traction than the first go around.

 

it's an absolutely terrible analogy when you actually look at the Flames youth and prospect pool

 

Since we're reposting our genius of the past, have a go at answering this....

On 8/3/2016 at 5:14 PM, oldnews said:

 

Just a horrible analogy that has been exposed as such repeatedly on these boards.

Have a look at the Flames prospect pool in that era and get back to us.  Absolutely no comparison to be made.

 

 

The Flames Cup run was in 2004. A full five years later they still did not have any talent whatsoever on their roster under the age of 25. Here's their 2009 roster.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CGY/2010.html

 

Backlund, Dawes, and Phaneuf at 24 whom they dealt midway.

 

The Canucks are 5 years removed from 2011 - and have Horvat, Baertschi, Virtanen, Etem, Granlund, Gaunce, Hutton, Gudbranson, Tryamkin all on their roster, let alone the younger prospects in their system - Boeser, Demko, Juolevi et al.  They also have guys like Tanev, Sbisa, Sutter, Markstrom - who've just graduated that group/demographic.

 

Added to that fact, here's the Calgary Flames prospect pool five years after their Cup run in 2009:

 

Lance Bouma

Brett Palin

Keith Aullie

Greg Nemisz

Ryley Grantham

Kris Chucko

John Negrin

TJ Brodie

Jason Jaffray

Anton Stralman

John Armstrong

Cam Cunning

Gaelen Patterson

Michael Backlund

Spencer Bennett

Hugo Carpentier

Brad Cole

Carsen Germyn

Kyle Greentree

Ryan Howse

Josh Myers

Leland Irving

Garth Murray

David Van der Gulik

J.D Watt

David Shantz

Matt Keetley

Daniel Spence

 

Four full years later in 2013 they finally stopped spending futures / buying assets at the deadline trying to prop up a core that hadn't made the playoffs through that entire stretch.  

 

 If the Canucks had been selling futures all this time - never made the playoffs, and continued to until 2018/19, we'd have the makings of an analogy.

 

That is the Flames timeline - from 2004 to 2013, with no youth and selling assets to buy playoff pipe dreams until there was scarcely any value left in their core.

 

The Canucks are  light years ahead of where they were in terms of futures in their system, and years ahead in the sense they've been moving aging core players - from Luongo and Kesler, to Bieksa, Garrison... They simply haven't torn it down to the extent of the hapless Laffs.  

The Flames waited so long that Kiprusoff retired before they could rent him for a mid round pick.

Iginla, their franchise player - they got a late pick and b prospects for him.

And that was under circumstances where they had next to no futures.

This team by comparison - has a core - and a relative wealth of futures.  The drama and panic revolves around single assets - like 'where are we gonna get our future 1C?'

 

And yet, despite all that, as bleak as it looked for Calgary, look where the Flames are today - have a fairly bright future nevertheless - tank-fail aside.   

 

But this analogy - of the Canucks to the 2010 Flames - is just horrible and holds no water whatsoever.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old News, 

 

Canucks refused to rebuild much like the Flames until it was very clear that they will be a perennial 10the place team. 

We are pretty much there now. 

They didn't have a very good plan starting 2012 and here we are in 2016. If you don't see that we absolutely wasted the last 4 years, you can continue drinking the Aqualini Kool-Aid. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What were you proposing?
You said "we need to set ourselves up for success in 2-3 years", but didn't say how.
I could've said "it'd be great if we win the cup" and I'd be right as well because it would be great.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

Old News, 

 

Canucks refused to rebuild much like the Flames until it was very clear that they will be a perennial 10the place team. 

We are pretty much there now. 

They didn't have a very good plan starting 2012 and here we are in 2016. If you don't see that we absolutely wasted the last 4 years, you can continue drinking the Aqualini Kool-Aid. 

 

 

CanucksJay

if you can't see the huge difference in the commitment and state of the prospect pool you're just plain blind.

the post above speaks for itself - this team moved Luongo, Schneider, Kesler, Bieksa, Garrison....

you have a very simplistic apples equals oranges perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oldnews said:

CanucksJay

if you can't see the huge difference in the commitment and state of the prospect pool you're just plain blind.

the post above speaks for itself - this team moved Luongo, Kesler, Bieksa, Garrison....

you have a very simplistic apples equals oranges perspective.

I appreciate your views ON, but are we really rebuilding with the best materials available?  I don't know, but sometimes I think we're shopping at the discount supply place, while other teams currently rebuilding are getting supplies from the number one supply store.  I think we do have some really nice pieces though, just not the special stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I think that Gillis was trying to rebuild after they didn't do well in the 2012 playoffs.  He was putting more resources into drafting and development. But he was more of a contracts guy.  He is the sort of GM who would do well with a mature team.  Benning is more of a team builder because his back ground is scouting.  

 

Don't forget, this is Bennings 3rd go around with rebuilding as an executive, once before as a scout.  He was a scout in Buffalo when they reached the SC finals in 1999 and in 1998 he became Director of Amateur Scouting and the Sabres went through a rebuild to reach the conference finals in 2006 and 2007.  By that time, Benning had moved on to be AGM in Boston (2006) and they won the SC in 2011.  He knows what he's doing.  

 

Gillis was did not know how to rebuild a team so he was let go.

 

Exactly.

Gillis's problem was, he was easily side-tracked and constantly lost focus. You never got the impression that he had a set plan or template for the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I appreciate your views ON, but are we really rebuilding with the best materials available?  I don't know, but sometimes I think we're shopping at the discount supply place, while other teams currently rebuilding are getting supplies from the number one supply store.  I think we do have some really nice pieces though, just not the special stuff.

 

Exactly during the past 3 years , our best piece has been Bo Horvat who came through a trade (not even or original draft pick ) 

Who is our best draft pick ? Boeser at 20 something overall ? 

What did our rivals add during the same time? Better or worse than us ? 

If people don't see that we've essentially wasted and spun our wheels the past 3 seasons , you are straight up in denial. Sure we've added some future pieces but the NHL and hockey is a competitive game. The success of a team will always be in relation to what your competition has done during the same time frame. If we've added some nice pieces but the competition has added even better pieces, then unfortunately you haven't done enough to set yourselves up to win. 

To Those that are in denial, I'd like to ask, from 2013,how many years do you think it would have taken to build a contender again? We are 3 years in and look like a 10th place team in the west which is what we looked like 3 years ago. We don't have any elite top end talent coming in through the system. We have 2 very good ones in Horvat and Boeser but that's not enough against guys like McDavid or Matthews. I also don't think the Flames have done a particularly good job either as the topic of this post was saying we can't go the way of the Flames. Sure they have Bennett, Gaudreau, Monahan and Tkachuk but they really lucked out as Gaudreau was a late round pick.  

My main issue is that we are 3 years in on a retool but we are still a 10th place team while others around are on an upswing while we are prolonging an inevitable downswing which will happen. 

People point at the oilers to say tanking  isn't the way to go. The problem with the oilers wasn't that tanking is a bad idea. It's tanking with a bad management group is a bad idea. 

In 2013,if we had sold off all our expiring assets yes we would have had a horrible team the past 3 years but we would be in a much better position than now . 

What if we had 3 of Ekblad, McDavid Matthews, Eichel , Reinhardt, etc to compliment Horvat instead of Virtanen and Boeser and Juolevi ? 

I have big hopes for Boeser but I would find this team a lot more exciting seeing the names mentioned above . I would also have  a lot more hope for the future as well 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...