I am not trying to light another fire as to whether or not there needs to be changes in the front office, the team, the coaching staff, or anything else. Just trying to get a handle on expectations.
If next year (regardless of leadership) The Blue Jackets have 85 pts and finish 11-12, is that success? It is improvement. If they get in the playoffs is that a success? If they make the playoffs every other year how would that rate? What if they make the playoffs every year but don't get to the finals?
If the organization replaces the front office and everyone gets fired and a "new group" takes over, how long do they have to become successful? How long do they have to make the playoffs? How long do they have to win a playoff series? Two series? The Stanley Cup?
Just trying to quantify what expectations of success are?
Success in sports is a process, not an event. You measure success based on your goal.
If the CBJ step into training camp with the objective to "show improvement" from last year, than your example would be considered a success. I think most of us would agree that a goal like that should get everyone fired immediately!
Success in the NHL, for many, means one thing: hoisting the Stanley Cup.
But good goals must be reasonable and attainable. Obviously, the CBJ will not win the Stanley Cup next year. So a good goal for them is to win their first playoff series - and winning their first playoff series would
be a great start. Once we get to the playoffs and win games, we can shift our goals to include hoisting the Cup.
To me, Success in the NHL is building a team that gives you a reasonable shot every year at making the conference finals and occasionally further.
It is reasonable to give management and players two seasons to climb back into contention from disaster. Success takes bold and often risky action. And success also needs cornerstones to hold the fort together once success has been achieved (the Deetroits for example).
The Jackets have exhibited none of the above. They have been playing chess with the franchise instead of going to war.
I'm realistic, 100 points is not happening next season. I do think it's not unreasonable to expect meaningful games to be played in March and April. There's nothing worse than being out of it before the New Year. If the Jackets sniff 85-90 points and some of the young guys like Atkinson, Moore and Johansen are showing progress, I'll be ok. Playoffs must happen the following season if we don't make it next year.
Regular season success: Make the post season.
Post season success: Win your first series and/or end better or equal to your seed.
To be in contention for the post season you need to be on target for 90+ points. So leaving your team room for a late season push you can say
20 games in you need at least 20 points
41 games in you need 45 points
62 games in you need 70 points
and
Any stretch of 10 games that you make less than a point per game is bad.
Next year I suspect the Blue Jackets will end up below 90 points. That is a failure but possibly tolerated if the team is trending upward. If I ignore my desire for winning now and assume next year is another lost year I want these things for a brighter future.
1. A coach ending the season with 60 games and contracted for 2013/14.
2. Fundamentally better hockey in the last 30 games than the first 30 games.
3. Youth and young star improvement throughout the year.
4. Minimal major contract busts.
5. No gaping holes in the positions, just areas that need adjustment.
If I'm gonna watch losses, I watch pretty much whatever the Blue Jackets put on the ice, I'd rather watch scrubs and youth lose playing with heart than watch talent lose because they're comfortable with losing.
I am not trying to light another fire as to whether or not there needs to be changes in the front office, the team, the coaching staff, or anything else. Just trying to get a handle on expectations.
If next year (regardless of leadership) The Blue Jackets have 85 pts and finish 11-12, is that success? It is improvement. If they get in the playoffs is that a success? If they make the playoffs every other year how would that rate? What if they make the playoffs every year but don't get to the finals?
If the organization replaces the front office and everyone gets fired and a "new group" takes over, how long do they have to become successful? How long do they have to make the playoffs? How long do they have to win a playoff series? Two series? The Stanley Cup?
Just trying to quantify what expectations of success are?
Not trying to be a smartass (anymore than usual anyway), but what make sports great is they have two things that measure success. Scoreboards and standings. Just win baby! To be more specific, being in playoff contention past Christmas would be nice for a change.
I said last summer that my measure of success for this year would be to win at least one playoff game at Nationwide. I thought that was an attainable initial goal considering the two preceding disaster seasons.
Instead we had even a bigger disaster of a season which is why I'm on board for a house-cleaning.
I can't really comment on what my expectations are for next year until I get a better idea if we are really rebuilding or just kind of subtly 're-shaping'. I really am not sure what the CBJ plan is right now.
In a forum where I lurk and post, and where Capn lurks and posts, and Blahblah lurks and posts, why would you start a topic whose title is an open-ended question?
I'll give something that I think was successful this year. A lot of the younger players came in under trying circumstances, performed, and didn't buckle under the pressure or get beaten down by the weight of the season. A few years ago, going through the one unsuccessful season of my football life, it was a struggle. It was not easy or fun to drag myself out there every day and try to teach and guide kids who were becoming just as miserable with each ensuing failure.
So there's certainly a big positive for Johansen, Moore, Savard, York, and Atkinson getting a chance to show what they can do, both while there was still a chance to have success but also long after that had passed.
In a forum where I lurk and post, and where Capn lurks and posts, and Blahblah lurks and posts, why would you start a topic whose title is an open-ended question?
Because I can. There is no room for the faint of heart here.
Ok, it seems we can all agree that winning is the measure of success. Now there's a real shocker. A few did manage to quantify to some degree with the playoffs seeming to be the initial benchmark with the Cup the ultimate objective.
But very few have balanced the equation with an expected term. How long to you give to a mgmt team, coach or roster to reach the specified benchmark? 2 years was one suggestion, from the bottom to the playoffs. I think on another thread I read 5 years to being consistently competitive (read playoffs).
Lets say, just for the sake of discussion, that the front end is blown up as the majority here would prefer. A new President and GM are hired and they re-do the whole mgmt team, staff, and roster. How long do they have to reach the established benchmark of the playoffs? How long before a Cup is required?
If your going to hold someone accountable then the standards to which you are going to hold them need to be defined.
Because I can. There is no room for the faint of heart here.
Ok, it seems we can all agree that winning is the measure of success. Now there's a real shocker. A few did manage to quantify to some degree with the playoffs seeming to be the initial benchmark with the Cup the ultimate objective.
But very few have balanced the equation with an expected term. How long to you give to a mgmt team, coach or roster to reach the specified benchmark? 2 years was one suggestion, from the bottom to the playoffs. I think on another thread I read 5 years to being consistently competitive (read playoffs).
Lets say, just for the sake of discussion, that the front end is blown up as the majority here would prefer. A new President and GM are hired and they re-do the whole mgmt team, staff, and roster. How long do they have to reach the established benchmark of the playoffs? How long before a Cup is required?
If your going to hold someone accountable then the standards to which you are going to hold them need to be defined.
I think it depends entirely on the situation and other important variables. Nothing is in a vacuum.
I'll use the example of the Pittsburgh Pirates. They not only have had a lot of losing seasons in a row, but they're usually 15 games out by the All-Star break. They've hit 75 wins once since 2000. When Neal Huntington took over as GM after the 2007 season, he had few prospects and very little at the MLB level that was worth anything. So he and his staff went through and identified players who would have trade value who were not still improving, and immediately started shipping off everyone who fell outside of that. Incoming were prospects who might not end up as all-stars, but who stood a better chance than someone who was 31 and no better than league average.
Baseball has a slower development cycle, and so it takes longer for the effects of players-for-prospects to be noticed. I'd argue that, despite the Pirates' record being no better than it was when Huntington took over, the team's future looks substantially brighter than it did. There's a fairly young roster at the MLB level, with a slightly older pitching staff. But it takes time, and a lot of it, to both replenish a non-existent farm system and also improve the MLB roster.
Compare that to the Yankees or Red Sox. When the roster is absolutely loaded, the team can compete in free agency, and you're always looking to buy, a build can be a very short-term proposition indeed. Each sport has a short list of teams that can attract whoever they want...MLB has the Yankees, Cubs, and Dodgers. The NFL has the Steelers and Cowboys. The NHL has Toronto, Montreal, and Detroit. Those are the only teams who can actually poach whoever they want from other teams, even if success has been established.
If a new regime took over in Los Angeles, they should be contending within a year based on what their roster and farm system have. But Los Angeles of 2012 is not Columbus of 2007.
If this management team returns, against all logic, it's playoff or bust. New management, they get one year, then playoffs or bust. No more Mr. Niceguy!
__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Post season play is the goal right now. Thats more than just making the playoff next season. To me it means consistently being in the playoffs, and if you occasionally miss the playoffs, you are at least in the running through late March.
It involves building a team that is competitive and sustainable (good prospects in the system).
Cup contender is the success. Winning the Cup is the reward for a successful franchise. Moving to top 4 in the conference on a yearly basis is what defines you as a Cup contender, at least top four in most years.
Making the playoffs is part of the building process but isn't something that would define your franchise as successful. The fact that Howson stood pat in our one playoff year, and actually took away from the locker room as opposed to adding, speaks volumes to me about his belief in this franchise.
Developing young players isn't a measure for success anymore than Nash scoring 40 goals from a franchise perspective. It can lead to success but isn't a measure of it. Wins and long playoff runs are how you measure success.
Unless you win the Cup, there should be no celebration the day after you are eliminated. There are some franchises that won't tolerate first round exits. Hell there are some that won't tolerate slow starts. Acceptance of our plight is the first problem. Bemoaning injuries and suspensions are excuses. Once the players hear you using them, you've planted the seed that failure is acceptable. A team like the Pens can lose super stars for months and still win. We lose a someone who isn't even a star for an eight game suspension and we're done.
