The Chicago Blackhawks’ path from basement-dweller to dynasty offers some lessons for Flames fans settling in for what could be a lengthy rebuild.
Between 1998 and 2008, Chicago made the playoffs exactly once, finishing 20th or worse overall in eight of those seasons. Yet by 2010, they were hoisting the Stanley Cup — the first of three championships they would claim in a six-year span.
As Calgary enters its own reconstruction phase, it’s worth examining how Chicago built a contender that didn’t just win, but sustained excellence for nearly a decade. The answer isn’t particularly sophisticated: They drafted. A lot.
Over an 11-year span from 1997 to 2007, the Blackhawks made a staggering 121 draft selections, including 30 picks in the first two rounds and seven in the top 10.
The sheer volume is what stands out here. Chicago wasn’t particularly efficient with their selections — they whiffed on high picks like Cam Barker (third overall), Jack Skille (seventh), and Mikhail Yakubov (10th). But they picked so frequently that the misses became less costly.
Take 2004, for instance. The Hawks had 17 picks that year. While they stumbled with Barker at third overall, they still managed to unearth Dave Bolland, Bryan Bickell and Troy Brouwer later in the draft.
The years prior brought them Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, and Dustin Byfuglien.
This steady accumulation of talent meant that by the time franchise cornerstones Jonathan Toews (2006) and Patrick Kane (2007) arrived, the supporting cast was already taking shape.
When Chicago captured the Cup in 2009-10, their success wasn’t only due to their young superstars — Kane was 20 and Toews just 21. The team also featured a wave of homegrown talent entering their prime: Keith (26), Seabrook (24), Byfuglien (24), Niklas Hjalmarsson (22), Bolland (23), and Brouwer (24). Seven of their top 11 scorers were 25 or younger that season.
This youth movement was supplemented by strategic veteran additions like Brian Campbell (30), Marian Hossa (30), and Patrick Sharp (27). But the foundation was laid through years of stockpiling prospects and picks.
The abundance of young assets also gave Chicago flexibility. They could afford to move prospects like Tuomo Ruutu and Brandon Bochenski to acquire Andrew Ladd and Kris Versteeg — both support pieces of their championship club. When you build up enough future capital, some of it can be redirected to fill immediate needs.
This parallels Calgary’s current situation somewhat. The Flames took a significant step down Chicago’s path last season, moving out veterans and accumulating draft capital. Their haul of 10 selections in the June 2024 draft marked their most aggressive restocking since 2004 and early returns are promising.
Zayne Parekh, Henry Mews, Jacob Battaglia, Andrew Basha and Matvei Gridin all are producing at point-per-game paces or better in their draft-plus-one seasons. Parekh, in particular, is showing the kind of trajectory that suggests future NHL stardom.
GM Craig Conroy appears to be following the Chicago blueprint of building out the supporting infrastructure before landing the franchise-altering talents. With eight or more picks already secured in the first two rounds over the next three drafts, the Flames are positioned to continue their aggressive talent-acquisition phase.
The one piece Calgary still lacks is their equivalent to Kane or Toews — that generational offensive talent around which a championship core can be built. But this mirrors Chicago’s development path. The Hawks had already assembled much of their supporting cast through years of drafting before landing their twin superstars in consecutive years.
For Flames fans wondering about a timeline, it’s worth noting that Chicago’s true foundation wasn’t built overnight. While their struggles stretched back to the late 90s, the dynasty’s roots were really planted between 2002 and 2007. That five-year span brought them Keith, Seabrook, Byfuglien, Crawford, Bolland and, eventually, Toews and Kane.
The lesson isn’t necessarily about following an exact “Chicago model” — their rebuild meandered at times, featuring failed attempts to compete and plenty of draft misses. The takeaway is about the power of sustained asset accumulation. By consistently adding to their prospect pool year after year, the Blackhawks could afford some development failures while still building something lasting.
It also highlights the value of growing a core together. When Chicago reached the NHL’s summit, their key pieces had largely developed alongside each other in the organization. That familiarity and shared progression helped fuel their extended run of dominance through Kane and Toews’ peak years.
Craig Conroy’s early efforts seem to align with these principles. The focus on accumulating picks, the patience to develop young talent, and the willingness to move veterans for future assets all echo Chicago’s successful blueprint.
The key risks in any transitional phase like this are twofold: Rushing prospect development and trading in your extra futures and cap space prematurely. Both spring from the same source — impatience.
Rebuilding is hard because no one likes to lose. From the GM down to the casual fan, not being competitive is distinctly unpleasant for everyone involved.
So when the first few blue-chip draft picks appear or when excess cap space starts to burn a hole in the GM’s pocket, the temptation is to press fast forward and rush to the end. But that will usually only stunt the roster’s potential peak at best or end up in prolonged mediocrity at worst.
Instead, the organization will need to keep its eyes fixed on the fundamentals of growing a true, long-term contender: Do we have at least one, era-defining talent? Does our roster have (or can develop) at least five stars? Do we have a strong cohort of supporting players, mostly operating in their peak years?
Teams that can say “yes” to all of these things tend to hang around the top of the league.
As the Flames continue their rebuild, maintaining this course will be crucial. The path back to contention isn’t about executing a perfect plan — it’s about giving yourself enough chances to get it right.
Here are some fast facts on the Blackhawks
- Between 1998 and 2008 the Blackhawks only made the playoffs once — in 2001-02 where the lost in Round 1.
- They finished 20th or worse 8 of those 10 seasons, once ending up as third worst in the league, another time finishing second worst.
In 2008-09 they went to the Conference finals. - They won the Cup in 2009-10.
- They won two more Cups in 2012-13 and 2014-15.
- Between 2008 and 2017, the Blackhawks won 76 playoff games.
- The dynasty ended in 2016-17. They finished third in the league, but lost in R1.
They began their rebuild a couple of seasons later once it was clear the former core was finished.
How did Chicago build a dynasty that won 3 cups and lasted almost a decade? They drafted a core of superstars supported by a strong wave of young support players.
And they did it through the draft. Not by being particularly savvy. But by picking a lot.
Between 1997 and 2007, number of selections used by Chicago:
- 1997 – 11
- 1998 – 9
- 1999 – 9
- 2000 – 15
- 2001 – 13
- 2002 – 9
- 2003 – 10
- 2004 – 17
- 2005 – 12
- 2006 – 9
- 2007 – 7
121 picks, with 30 of them coming in the top two rounds and seven of them coming in the top 10.
Chicago had so many future assets banked during their down period, that they could afford to move some of them as they built the foundation of a contender.
As mentioned, Versteeg and Ladd were acquired with quality prospects, while Nick Leddy was had for Barker. Michael Frolik was added in exchange for Skille. These moves cemented the support structure around Kane and Toews as they peaked.
During their rebuild, Chicago: Consistently added more futures to their stockpile; made hits throughout the draft, some minor, some major; didn’t draft particularly well from an efficiency perspective, but drafted enough for that not to matte.
Traded some of their future capital for young support players as they got closer to contending (Ruutu, Borchenski for Ladd, Versteeg)
In truth, the Chicago rebuild isn’t a “model.” It’s a decade-long journey that meandered back and forth. There are portions of that period where the team tried to compete and failed. They also badly missed on many of their drafts, especially the early ones.
But they did eventually build something that lasted.