Why The Flames Should Never Flicker for a Pick - Pt 2 The Gambling GM
I've had this article on ice for quite awhile now because it just wasn’t timely to release it when the Flames were in the thick of the playoff race. The Flames will need some literal magic to make the playoffs at this point, even if they win out. So the timing is better now.
This article "The Gambling GM" is the GM’s or hockey operations perspective.
Part 2: The Gambling GM
Part 3: Respect the Crest
________________
The Gambling GM
As an armchair GM now, not as a fan but strictly from a hockey operations perspective, you find that your team is in that dreaded 17th-24th placement in the league or 9th to 12th in the Conference. Just out of the playoffs but also out of the top 5 overall picks.
Historical Reality vs Internet Speculation
We see this strategy advocated a lot in the blogosphere but rarely if ever see it happen in reality. I was searching for an example of one in the last decade but I couldn’t find something I felt qualified. You do see a core player moved here and there but I couldn’t find an example of a GM doing a purposeful house cleaning on a bubble team for picks and prospects. If you know of an example please post it in the comments. I'll research it to see if I agree. If an example can be found it would be what I would call a Gambler GM.
A Bit of History
I started to research the last decade of bottom five teams and their moves in detail and the article grew exponentially out of control in length (and you thought it was long as it is). I don’t think it is necessary to go through the detailed history to make the point, which is simply that a "Dive for Five" is a high-risk strategy. It is an "all in" strategy that can go horribly wrong, put you right back where you started on the bubble or you can hit the jackpot.
Is it rational to bet everything on unproven young prospects? Clearly, if you are in that situation you deal with it but should you seek it out?
In lieu of all the research I did on picks, I have a small table here that illustrates where each team finished starting in 2000. The regular season finish does not dictate the exact draft pick of course, due to the lottery AND picks are also traded etc. All that is part of the ‘fun’ of doing a dive to the bottom because the armchair GM moves become more complex.
The Blue (17) shows teams who have never finished in the bottom 6 for 2 or more seasons (7 Stanley Cup Winners in this Group)
The Red (4) shows teams that have finished in the bottom 6 for 2 or more seasons and have not even emerged with even a regular playoff team in 10+ years.
The Pink (2) shows teams that may turn Red. They have 2 or more seasons in the bottom 6 and have emerged with a playoff team BUT that team has never gone deep in the playoffs and doesn’t look destined to.
Yellow (4) is the recent additions to the Dive for Five Party. It is too early to call their basement time a success or failure. If a Cup or even a Conference Final appearance occurs we will be able to see them as a success but at this point it is undetermined.
Green (3) are the teams everyone thinks of when they advocate the "Dive for Five". The Pittsburgh Penguins who I think owe just as much of their success to winning the Crosby sweepstakes and the ever-famous Chicago Blackhawks who have literally thrown gas on the fire of the 'Dive for Five' advocates. The ‘Hawks are as clear-cut of an example of a team that has won it all from the top draft picks and now has a strong young core to compete for years ahead. Still, even a word of caution on the Hawks situation is warranted as they ran into Cap problems last off-season and this season as post-Cup winners will finish far lower in the standings than most predicted.
If the 'Fall' works, it is great and the Flames can turn out to be the next 'Hawks with that young star core BUT if it doesn’t the Flames could be the next Islanders, Blue Jackets, Thrashers or Panthers and you can walk into a half empty Saddledome like I did in 1999. Do you want to take that risk?
Do you think any GM wants to spin the wheel on that, with tens of millions of dollars on the line and perhaps the future of your very franchise's ability to stay in the city? At the bottom line real GMs in the NHL do not make these 'all or nothing' gambles, nor should they. GMs deal with the reality of having a bottom 5 team, but they do not seek it out and it should be clear why.
You enter the basement and you may never leave.
Further Obvious and Redundant Points on the risk of the "Dive for Five"
Who is a better example of a young and skilled player with terrible off-ice judgment and poor attitude than Dany Heatley.
Missed Players in the Draft
2002 - Flames 1st pick was Eric Nystrom – 10th overall – (this one hurts seeing Semin two slots down and Keith even further down.)
2004 – (Flames 1st pick Kris Chucko 24th overall)
Patience is a Virtue
Do you really blame me for not wanting to take the chance on repeating that fiasco of drafting the Flames had in that era? The same people in Flames scouting are still sitting in their same chairs from that era. Cough Tod Button Cough.
Final Word
Still you may be wondering why the "Dive for Five" is still advocated by so many people out there? Well, my theory is that this gives them something to think about because they get bored.
It doesn't take long to get to know a team very well. It really doesn't and after that how many times can you say X player 'sucks' or X player is 'awesome' before you want to move onto talking about something else.
If your team isn't a Cup Contender it is easy to start pouring over draft prospects and imagining this or that scenario. It would be nice to get those players. Nice to imagine the future with this or that player - switching gears monthly on this player or that player, always keeping on top of who is the hottest young prospect of the month.
It is like being on a jet ski and having fun speeding along making sharp turns in the water and hitting little waves and switching from this direction, to that direction.
The reality is that a hockey team is more like a huge aircraft carrier moving along in a certain direction not a jet ski. You can not turn on a dime and should not. You are headed in a certain direction, with a certain amount of momentum, you decided on that a long time ago.
The Flames are well aware of the timeline on Jarome Iginla, Robyn Regehr and Miikka Kiprusoff. The timing for a youth injection is coming but it will not be as quick and fast as most fans will want, but be patient.
If the Flames by next trade deadline are in a bad position and taking on water, they will deal with it at that time like any "Seller" team does, in the meantime I don't see the point of actually hoping or advocating they hit an iceberg and join the Oilers at the bottom of the ocean...
Flames Fan Confidence Poll
Last tallied on 03/23.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just one quick thing that’ll address here rather than in my inevitable response: sample size, sample size, sample size.
I’d need at least 200+ individual seasons before being comfortable with saying X% of teams that bottomed out won a cup or didn’t win a cup with the personnel they gained from the dive.
Also, while winning a Cup should be the goal, I’d qualify making the conference finals OR finishing in the top 3 as a “successful” season.
A decade is not a long time obviously but we can’t advocate ‘for’ or ‘against’ a dive if you require 200 years. I am ok with a Conference final as being a measure of success – certainly – but the regular season means nothing to me aside from making the playoffs.
The Sharks and there are several examples of teams actually who have finished high but never had playoff success. Success is all about the second season, the playoffs… Ask the Capitals how successful they felt last season.
by Mitch Smith on Mar 28, 2011 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
First, the 200 years thing is not what I was saying. 200 individual seasons means that if you look at the 03-04 Penguins, that’s one season. The 03-04 Capitals are another season. Make more sense? Anyways, if you read again, you’ll notice my point that you can’t use the successes OR the failures to argue for a rebuild. Just not enough examples.
And much as we hate to admit it, there’s a lot of luck that goes into any game or series in the NHL.
Want to talk about the Sharks? Look at them almost losing to the Avalanche last year because of Craig Anderson in net and Dan Boyle’s flukey own-goal.
Talk about the Caps? They absolutely ran circles around the Habs last post-season and hit an absurdly “on” Jaroslav Halak.
If I understand you correctly on the season thing, don’t I have 9 seasons for 30 teams as 270 seasons. Plus the year 2000 with 28 teams for 298 seasons ? Is that what you mean ? Regardless, I don’t think 10 years is a long sample size either.
And yes luck or what I like to call the “X” factor is big in hockey. In fact that is the reason why I only follow hockey. I think you can go at baseball with a calculator and calculate things very well. I also think the single star plays much less of a role in hockey – as opposed to a star point guard in basketball or QB in football.
Another reason why I never get too heady on single star players or star prospects in hockey. Bottom line – there is a reason why every player gets their name on the Cup – a Cup team has to fire on all cylinders.
by Mitch Smith on Mar 28, 2011 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Late Round Picks
I have a real problem with your attribution of late round picks developing into superstars being a function of the quality of the scouting department (the prime examples in your piece being Datsyuk and Zetterberg as well as Fleury). In every one of these cases the very same scouts who demonstrate excellent foresight for having highlighted or selected these players, picked numerous players before them, presumably on the basis on that those other players were more likely to develop into NHL quality players.
For example, the same scouting staff that drafted Datsyuk at 171st overall thought that Jiri Fischer, Ryan Barnes, Tomek Valtonen, Jake McCracken, Brent Hobday, Carl Steen, Adam DeLeeuw were better prospects than Pavel Datsyuk. What a genius set of draft picks.
The same presumptive staff thought that Jari Tolsa, Andrei Maximenko and Kent McDonell were better prospects than Henrik Zetterberg. I can’t say that I have seen a single one of those players play an NHL game.
While there will always be players who come from late in the draft to become successful NHL players, at best these can be attributed to a solid development system and drafting into a team style. More likely it is blind luck.
I think the point still holds. If drafting is largely blind luck, then tanking a season to move up a few spots in the draft is foolish.
missing the point entirely.
drafting past the top 5 makes it closer to a coin flip. drafting past the first round makes it pretty much blind luck. nobody is saying drafting at the top of the draft is sheer luck, the point is that drafting later is sheer luck. the wings hit that luck twice.
I still think the Wings have pretty good scouting. Regardless your point holds – the better players for the most part do go in the top ten but still.
The consequences of going into the basement are huge. In Calgary anyway I remember with utter clarity the 7 year dark age of missing the playoffs, the half empty Saddledome and the utter apathy of most Calgarians about the Flames.
I also remember the draft each year and the optimism. The reality set in though 10 years later when none of those picks emerged. It may not be fair to hang the Flames scouts out to dry but the fact remains the much anticipated high draft players emerged to be barely NHL players…
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I personally never want to go back to being close to that bottom 5 finish and I am proud the Flames have never been that far down.
by Mitch Smith on Mar 28, 2011 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
The problem is the difference between drafting in the top three and the top ten.
At top ten you’re more than like to end up with an NHLer of some caliber. At top three however, you’re almost definitely going to end up with a high quality NHL player. Not necessarily a super star, but high quality. Nothing is 100%, but still. The point remains.
Zetterburg and Datsyuk are clearly draft anomalies. And I feel a little guilty going at scouts so hard in the article but one of the reasons I did that is because I wanted to highlight the two-way argument. The Draft is a gamble, while the top ten picks may be more like coin flips than 10% or lower odds – the fact still remains it is a gamble with uncertain outcome.
Other dials are there to be turned, regular trades, Free Agents, waiver pick-ups etc. The Dive to the bottom does not necessarily have success and can potentially turn into disaster.
The main point I am trying to make is only that advocating a "Dive to Five" is high risk and can take your team to the bottom to live long-term, just as easily as it can take you to the top or back to the bubble.
The history is there for everyone to review. Until the Preds, Capitals, Kings, Coyotes make at least the Conference Finals – the jury is out.
Ignoring the Capitals from your examples (who are a very very very good team), how many times have the Kings, Preds, and Yotes drafted in the top 3 in the last…10 years? Twice. Altogether.
Weird examples man. Hell, the highest pick by the Predators was #7, and that was from Toronto.
Also all those teams are better than the Flames.
The Sharks are a good team too. I remember the when the Sabres were a great team as well in the top ten for years in the early 80s. What happens though is that no one remembers, it really doesn’t matter.
All the matters is winning the Cup and maybe a Conference title if you insist on getting at least some measurement of success. Until those banners hang in the rafters – well – I do expect the Capitals to get past the first round for sure this year. So we will see what happens.
by Mitch Smith on Mar 28, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
And how many times have the Blue Jackets, Thrashers, Panthers and Islanders drafted in the top 3 only in the last ten years? Excluding top 5 now because that is too big a window : )
Jackets – Once
Thrashers – 4 times
Panthers – 3 times
Islanders – Twice
Total – 10 top 3 picks distributed amongst 4 teams – how are all four of those teams doing today. See how easy it is to reverse the argument ?
by Mitch Smith on Mar 28, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Jackets were hamstrung for years by the terrible mismanagement of Doug Maclean. Thrashers- similar situation. Panthers have never gotten a truly good coach/GM combination. Not to mention that infamous Mike Keenan trade.
Finally, the Islanders. Look at the Islanders since the midpoint of the season. That’s damn near close to a playoff pace. They’re a much better team than given credit for and that is despite Mike Milbury running the team into the ground.
The Preds are a borderline bottom team by my chart.
If anything they probably should be colored blue not pick. They only finished 25th overall twice (which does not allow them the chance at the top 5 picks) they illustrate how you don’t need to go to the bottom to build a playoff team.
by Mitch Smith on Mar 28, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
You can go for the absolute basement if you want but the draft lottery is based on the bottom five teams. That is why I chose the bottom 5 finish. I said in the article that it was the finish not the draft pick that I was illustrating.
Picks can be traded, the lottery can alter the pick from the finish etc. But the bottom five are in the lottery for the top five picks.
The first thing you do is enter the bottom five (which is what some advocate) and at that point you have a chance at the top 5 picks. Really though top five should be a very good player, so whether it is top five or top three, really does is it matter ?
I won’t debate the Preds, Kings, Yotes being better than the Flames but so are the Red Wings, Flyers, Bruins, Canucks, Sharks and none of those teams had more than one bottom five finish.
The whole thing I was trying to illustrate is that you can easily make your point either way – you focus on the teams that have been in the basement and how they are stronger than the Flames. I can effortlessly point to the teams that have never been in the basement more than once to make the counter point and say those teams are stronger than the Flames too – how did they get that way?
Many, many dials to turn beside going to the basement to strengthen the team…
I agree that draft picks are somewhat overrated, sure there is the Sidney Crosbys and Alex Ovechkins, but overall getting a high draft pick is far from guaranteeing a star player.
The Red Wings have been mentioned a few times, and no team illustrates better the unpredictability of draft picks. Pretty much all of their core players have been drafted in the second round or later: Nick Lidstrom (3rd round, 53rd overall), Pavel Datsyuk (6th round, 171st overall), Johan Franzen (3rd round, 97th overall), Henrik Zetterberg (7th round, 210th overall), Tomas Holmstrom (10th round, 257th overall), Jimmy Howard (2nd round, 64th overall). Although some credit has to be given to their farm system, there’s no question that there is some luck involved when a 6th and 7th rounder become your best forwards, and your 3rd rounder becomes one of the greatest defensemen of all-time.
Well, you know what they say. Luck is one or two times but when it starts to pile up like it has for the Wings I think you have to acknowledge they have good scouts.
Thx for coming by, reading the article and commenting; I was a little worried about writing such a monster article in length, wondering if anyone would read the whole thing.
As a Habs fan I think you will enjoy part three of this series "Respect the Crest" – the Habs will feature in this one strongly as a team that never has dived in the standings, whose fans always expect a playoff team and is always pushing hard for the playoffs and has its mantra in hockey in a similar way the Yankees do in baseball.
Cheers
by Mitch Smith on Mar 28, 2011 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Well I think it’s more likely to be an indication of a good development system rather than good scouting, for as CalTach pointed out above, the scouts that selected these late-round picks selected a bunch of non-NHLers before them.
And by the way, the article was a very enjoyable read, I also enjoyed the first part from a fan’s perspective, I know that I myself do not enjoy seeing the team(s) I support in the basement, no matter what draft pick they get out of it. In addition to being a Canadiens fan, I am also a supporter of most Canadian teams (Vancouver being the exception, and I don’t really care for the Sens), meaning I am of a rare breed of Habs fans who also likes the Leafs, and having them be a below-average team for the past five years is not enjoyable.
Another perspective that could be interesting is from the players’ point of view. I don’t think it can be that constructive to a team to have their fans and GM basically give up on them and hope for them to lose.
I am not a fan of the tank
Mitch, I don’t mean to be too hard on you because I mostly agree with your points, tanking is not a good idea. What I really dislike seeing, over and over again, is a team that is mortgaging its draft picks for players that have limited ceilings as I believe the Flames have done repeatedly since 2003.
As for all the much vaunted success of the Detroit machine, at little time travel is necessary:
Detroit drafting:
1983 – 4th overall – Steve Yzerman
1984 – 7th overall – Shawn Burr
1985 – 8th overall – Brent Fedyk
1986 – 1st overall – Joe Murphy
1987 – 11th overall – Yves Racine
1988 – late 1st round –
1989 – 3rd in the conference
1990 – 3rd overall – Keith Primeau
So, in 5 of 7 years from 1983 to 1990 the Red Wings drafted in the top 11 in the draft.
1991 – 6th in the conference
1992 – 1st in the conference
1993 – 4th in the conference
1994 – 1st in the conference
1995 – 1st in the conference
1996 – 1st in the conference
1997 – Stanley Cup
1998 – Stanley Cup
And the rest is history. While Detroit didn’t move quite as meteorically to success like Chicago, (4 in the top 10 from 2004 to 2007 and then a Cup in 2010) their mid-90s success was essentially built on a series of crap finishes securing high draft picks in the mid to late 80s. They managed to sustain that sucess through the late 90s and early double 00s through spending like drunken sailors on aging free agents and through the lockout by getting extraordinarily lucky on drafting in late rounds.
You can pretty much go back to any team that has a run of success and point to either a) high draft picks that panned out to be superstars or were traded for quality returns or b) late round draft picks that lucked out to be superstars or were traded for quality returns.
The teams that don’t make it are mostly a function of poor management and unwillingness to spend money to keep top end talent around. Don’t think Atlanta would be a playoff team with Hossa, Heatley, Kovalchuk, Enstrom, Bogosian and Kane on the roster?
Why don’t I advocate for the tank then? Because the Flames are still playing out their run of top end talent that they acquired by picking up other teams draft picks in the mid-90s. Iginla and Regehr were basically our high picks, even though we traded to get them from other teams. While Calgary’s top 10 picks did not pan out (Tcaczuk and Fata still make me cry) the timeline for the turn around of watching crappy hocky is long and ugly. I would rather take our chances for a couple more years, before we start the sell-off.
Economics weigh heavily as well. The owners don’t want to lose money, and you can only sell youth and hope for so long-see the “Young Guns” era.
We know two things: Shitty Hockey and Booze.
Go Flames Go!

























