You Gotta Burn It Down to Build It Up Again

Trevor Linden caused more than a little fizz last week when he appeared on TSN1040's "Presidents Week" on the Midday Show with Matt Sekeres. If you happened to miss it, you can find the podcast here to listen to the interview in its entirety, you could besides go to OneCanuck Web log and read Jeremy Davis' breakup on what he thinks were the 7 all-time questions from the fans, and you should near definitely read "Rob the Hockey Guy" at VanCity Buzz accept on the rebuild subject past looking at the key players on each Cup winner since the lockout and how they were acquired, asking whether the Canucks can build a winner without going in the tank.

The crux of the argument is the philosophy of #TankNation, basically those who believe that a total strip-information technology-to-the-bones and be bad to get practiced approach is the only way to go to build up a winner, and surely there's evidence in the fact that half-dozen of the by 7 Cup Champions (okay certain, it's simply 3 different teams) were bottom-feeders who took reward of top-three draft picks to acquire the talent that eventually led them to the promised state. Later on the dumpster fire that was the 2013-2014 flavour in Vancouver, followed up by a rebound twelvemonth that ended on a sour note in Apr, at that place have been more a few in this neck of the woods pushing for Vancouver to follow the same route, especially so because the Canucks were knocked out rather unceremoniously in the starting time round past a team that followed the exact same tear-down rebuild model themselves. Linden threw a bucket of h2o on that thought, causing many of u.s.a. asked whether he had a point when he said:

"Let's be bad for seven, eight years or whatever that looks similar. I don't know what that looks like. People say they want that..."

Well, first of all Linden played for the Islanders from '97-'99 and then he should have a pretty good idea of what that looks like, and so maybe he actually is on to something after all. Therein lies the impetus of me filling your eyes with more pixilated hot air: How bad do you have to be to be good? For how long? Well let'due south become to it and find out!

(All facts and figures derived from HockeyDB.com, hockey-reference.com, NHL.com, and TSN.ca)

"The Dragon"

We need expect no further than the Champs themselves. Needing no introduction for Canucks' fans, they are the "modern dynasty" that draws the envy on the entire league: The Chicago Blackhawks. Of course, because they're pretty much perfect, and that'due south largely due to the tandem of Jonathan Toews and notorious douchebag Patrick Kane who of course were drafted third and 1st overall, respectively.

"So that'southward pretty much information technology, right? They were terrible, drafted loftier and developed a winner with their high-stop talent."

Well, aye. But likewise no, not at all. Firstly, we apace forget how long they were actually terrible for. Chicago missed the playoffs every year but one from 1997-'98 until their resurgence under the aforementioned Toews and Kane in '08-'09. That one playoff advent? Ousted in 5 games by St. Louis. Chicago was shut-out 3 straight games and outscored xiii-5 in the series. Ouch. That's 11 years (10 seasons- Thanks, Bettman) with i playoff win. I. That'due south bad. Existent bad.

From HockeyDB.com, Chicago's decade of mediocrity.

All sorts of incarnations of the Blackhawks lost in that era. Teams led past Steve Sullivan, Marking Bell, Tuomo Ruutu, Martin Havlat, Eric Daze(!), Tony Amonte, Alexei Zhamnov... 8 coaches and 4 gm's led this abysmal decade in Chicago where y'all couldn't even see the games on local Television. They were completely irrelevant essentially, until Toews was drafted third overall in 2006, followed by snagging Patrick Kane with the 1st pick in 2007. Fun fact (and I had forgotten about this): Chicago won the lottery that year. That'due south correct, even Chicago-level sucking wasn't plenty to become them their star winger, they had to win the f$@male monarch lottery! In fine fashion too, I might add. They were slotted in the #5 spot and vaulted all the way into #1. They were a single ping-pong ball away from "landing" Karl Alzner instead of P-Kane. Could you imagine? Granted, Jakub Voracek was also available there, so who knows, simply still, Voracek is non Kane. iii-cups in 6 years? Doubtful. Makes yous think, doesn't it?

Now, of course in that location were several key pieces that were drafted during some of those gawdafwul years in ChiTown: Duncan Keith was picked in the second round in '03, Brent Seabrook was #fourteen overall followed by Corey Crawford at #52 in '04, Bickell and Bolland (you remember them) were picked in '05. I'd as well be remiss to go out out Cam Barker (#3, 2004) and Jack Skille (#7, 2005) as top picks in that era who did nothing at all in the NHL, so they still had plenty of misses at the draft table despite their inherent suckiness, and the cadre that somewhen won were all drafted over a v-year flow, a total of eight years between drafting Keith and winning it all.

Sooooo.... yeah. Information technology almost makes ane feel a piffling distressing for Chicago fans merely that goes against the laws of physics. Still though, that's some pretty bad stuff to have to look at for 10 years, fifty-fifty if they did make upwards for it in pretty curt club.

Verdict: Far likewise many really horri-awful very bad years for me. Throw in the fluke lottery win and I vote confronting, only information technology'south close. Major points to Stan Bowman for playing Salary Cap Roulette to perfection and keeping the good times rolling.

Flightless Birds

The long-thought-of poster-child of the "draftists" was of course the team looked at as the affiche-kid of the post-lockout era, the Pittsburgh Penguins. Be bad, draft Marc-Andre Fleury, Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby and Jordan Staal 1st,2nd,1st and second overall, respectively, in consecutive years so go win a loving cup. I simply vomited in my oral fissure a little fleck writing that. What makes it even worse is that in that location'south an argument to say Pittsburgh didn't even make the all-time choices at the typhoon table, considering Fleury went #1 in the deepest draft in league history, and Staal was chosen i pick before Jonathan Toews. Yikes. Of course revisionist history is too piece of cake looking back at old drafts, but still... *shiver*

Of course the reality of the situation for the Penguins in the years leading up to the lockout was the fact that they were bleeding money, playing in the oldest arena in the NHL and the team was under constant threat of relocation. The blow-upward began with the merchandise of Jaromir Jagr for a bag of pucks and things didn't get any meliorate from in that location. Things were pretty ugly in western Pennsylvania until Crosby came forth, though of form in that location'south that little asset of the "Sid the Kid Sweepstakes", the bizarre lottery devised to give every team a chance to typhoon 1st overall coming out of the 2005 season-stealing lockout, in which of grade Pittsburgh won the jackpot.

Then again the draft lottery played a major role in a "rebuilding" team mining gold that would eventually pay out in the form of a Stanley Cup. At present of course this isn't to say- actually yes, I'thou maxim it. The 'Pens' got lucky.

OT: You tin can't talk about the Penguins and "rebuild" without bringing up the infamous '83-'84 Lemieux Tankjob. Here is a very good piece about this from the guys at Hockey-Graphs.

Verdict: Pittsburgh was a mess that happened to pull off a quick turnaround tankjob, just Sidney Crosby has a mode of making light work of such tasks. I have to vote against, just too much luck involved, and besides many Really bad times before the practiced.

The Have-nots: Panthers and Islanders

One simply does not discuss rebuilding, tanking, drafting loftier, or any combination of the above without besides bringing up the curious example of the Florida Panthers and New York Islanders. I mean, as much every bit Pittsburgh, Chicago and LA are the poster-children for building a winner in the modern NHL, FLA and NYI are, well:

Homer discussing a mid-February Panthers-Islanders game in 1998.

These teams were bad, but not just bad, bad for a reeeaaaalllly long time. "How long?" you ask? Well, let'due south put it this way: Betwixt 1997 and 2003, Florida and Long Isle combined for twenty (20!) Starting time-round draft picks (the Islanders alone had 9 in 4 years). Now, to be off-white New York did manage a few short years of almost-relevance beginning under Peter Laviolette (Mike Peca ftw), with 4 playoff appearances in v years, although they were not able to win a circular.

Florida, well... Let me just prove you their entire history. Again, thanks to HockeyDB:

That'south a lot of red.

So, plainly you can't merely be bad for a while. You sort of demand to be bad with a plan. Or at least you demand to discover a plan when you're scraping the bottom year after year and are more than relevant as a tardily-night talk testify joke than a hockey team. Just beingness bad for a while and accumulating top draft picks alone isn't plenty to build a winner. We can forgive these poor fools just a fiddling due to awful ownership and market situations, but even so. I mean c'mon.

Verdict: Just.. I mean, I tin can't... It'due south just terrible. Even though I brought them upward every bit a counterpoint more than anything, these teams were terrible for years and take barely anything to show for it. You tin can't just be bad, you need management who knows what to practice with all your high typhoon picks. Losers who lose just because they're losers is a non-starter.

Drinkin' (out of the Cup) in LA

I'm sorry for that, but I truly believe that one can never refuse an opportunity to reference Bran Van 3000. The Kings are an interesting case, regardless of this writers' shameless apply of tardily-'90's Canadiana. Like our friends the Blackhawks and Penguins, the Kings were a pretty-friggin'-bad team for a lot of years effectually the early-to-mid oughts.

I finish with the LA Kings because they're pretty much the well-nigh interesting example of recent teams to build up from very trivial. Sorta like Chicago, we desire to await at them and meet a team that wasn't very skillful, drafted Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty a few years apart with a sprinkle of Dustin Brown and Jonathan Quick thrown in and all is well. Actually though, the Kings were a fleck of a train-wreck for quite a while in the years surrounding the lockout, missing the playoffs for 6-consecutive seasons (not years- thanks Bettman).

"No big deal, right? They were terrible, drafted high and developed a winner with their high-finish talent."

Well, kinda, merely also not at all. I mean, of class they grabbed a large chunk of their core with the high draft picks they accrued in that era, just they had a tonne of misses then as well. Names like Lauri Tukonen, Thomas Hickey and Colten Teubert surround Kopitar, Brown and Doughty, not to mention the fact that central players in their Cup-winning teams were either free agent signings or trades. Mike Richards, Jeff Carter and Marion Gaborik were all traded for, and cardinal pieces like Willie Mitchell and Jason Williams were UFA signings. Now, that's not to take abroad from the "gotta be bad to get good" theory, bad teams typically have cap space to sign free agents, and young avails teams covet in trades. Then half dozen seasons of near-futility (they put upwardly a skillful fight though) to win two cups in 3 years seems like naught, and I think there's a bit of truth there, simply the path the Kings took was 1 of the uglier ones to be sure.

Verdict: I'one thousand calling this i a yeah by the squeakiest of margins. ii Cups in 3 years is only enough to offset the 10 years of fugly that were the Kings. Call me in the morning and I might change my mind over again, but for now they're in the black. (Oooh, look at me getting all word-playin'!)

"Merely of Course the Oiler--"

No. No, no... Merely, no. Not even. Don't start with me. Same goes for Toronto.

Flamers and Sabres

This could nearly exist the "to be continued" portion of the bear witness, as we could be talking about the "Flames Model" in a few curt years, and Buffalo could be the shining case of everything #TankNation holds near and dear.

These are interesting teams to scout at the moment, evidently Calgary will ride 18-twelvemonth-old Sam Bennett all the mode to the Stanley Loving cup considering CBC, and Buffalo shrugged off all labels, gave nil shits and went total TANK, resulting in 2 of the worst seasons ever seen, but of course are now about to hit the upswing with "the other guy", Evander Kane, Tim Horton's spokesman, and a goalie they paid and then much for Vancouver went tilt considering they expected the same from Eddie Lack. The great irony with that of course is that the near obvious tank job in 30 years resulted in Buffalo getting leaped on the typhoon board past a lottery winner. The hockey gods accept a sense of humor.

Regardless, if either of these teams were to win a cup soon I think there might be a pretty big rethink on expected timelines of tanking- sad, rebuilds. Yes, Calgary was a middling team for a number of years before they began the large sell-off, and the aforementioned could be said for Buffalo, but the sheer speed at which these teams dove to the bottom and began their ascension is quite interesting. Tin't phone call it till we come across some real results for either team, but I will say that at to the lowest degree at this point it looks promising, though we'll encounter how much regression bites Calgary this yr, as they have to adjust to actually having expectations for a change.

Verdict: Let's stay tuned and revisit these guys in a year or two.

Sooo.... What'cha sayin' then?

Well honestly, I'm starting to think Linden had a point. A wait at the Big 3 (post-lockout) and I run across a lot of years of real bad. Sure, the diehards will always exist there because Hockey, but the best laid plans of mice and all that...

There is an awful lot of luck involved in drafting, just especially nowwhere you draft. As the NHL prepares to level the playing field fifty-fifty more than in regards to the lottery starting side by side year, tanking only doesn't seem like a sure bet. Information technology's awesome if the die rolls your way, only the odds are increasingly stacked against you. Of course the higher you lot sit the less you could autumn, but again in that location is no guarantee. If y'all're bad, you lot're bad and let the chips fall where they may. Such is the bike of professional sports. Doing it on purpose however looks really to exist dicey these days, with no guarantee of landing the big fish at the draft table. I might be convinced otherwise in a few years, but for now I recall I actually agree with Trevor on this one.

The problem I take though is that it is extremely difficult to learn the level of talent that is available at the top of most year's draft boards exterior of said typhoon. Aristocracy talent does not fall on your lap, like nigh always. It'due south an incredibly difficult fact to reconcile if y'all don't believe in blowing it upward, because how else exercise you get that level of talent?

There are examples of grade. Corey Perry, Claude Giroux, and Vladimir Tarasenko were all mid-to-late 1st circular picks. On the defensive side, Erik Karlsson was drafted at #15, Shea Weber, PK Subban and Duncan Keith were all 2nd rounders, Nik Lidstrom was a 3rd. Forwards like Jamie Benn, Joe Pavelski and of course Pavol Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg were all late round picks and of course in that location'southward the undrafted stars like Martin St. Louis and Tyler Johnson. Other elites like Of class these are all outliers, merely so is winning a lottery (Unless you're the Oilers).

At the end of the day I retrieve information technology just boils down to smart management. The good teams volition find talent in the draft regardless of where they option, and the smarter GM's will augment their young talent through smart signings and trades. Of course the best talent is at the top of the draft and you have to be at the bottom to go at that place, but that route is a long, ugly and painful, and you notwithstanding take to take a bit of luck on your side, but that is certainly the all-time way to go the all-time players.

If Trevor Linden doesn't like the way that looks that's understandable, but he's taking a huge take a chance (which seems to be becoming a trademark of this regime) in thinking that they can find Sedin-level replacement value picking in the middle of the pack. It's possible, yes, but if they miss on a couple picks the team may very well exist on the fast track to the bottom anyway, whether Linden likes the way information technology looks or not.

canningeary1987.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.nucksmisconduct.com/2015/8/20/9157775/gotta-burn-it-to-build-it

Share this post