What Are Your Thoughts of What A Rebuild Is?

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Draft pick discussion is a different debate than "are they rebuilding or not."

 

All teams want to maximize their draft picks. 

 

It could still work out - this fan base is clamouring to hop on some 18 year old's jock strap but the rebuild needs time. Having guys develop over a few years doesn't hurt.  

 

Assuming they pan out.

Yes, a rebuild takes time.  

[TheGuardian_]

10 hours ago, Baggins said:

“Obviously we’ve been forthright in saying we’ve been transitioning as a team to a younger group and that was becoming a bit of a sticking point with some people. So to get alignment with our fans and our media I used the rebuild word today, which everyone can get their head around.

 

“If that word makes everyone happier then I’m more than happy to use it.”

 

 

So according to Linden they've been rebuilding since the beginning. For those that couldn't figure it out themselves he finally used the word 'rebuild' to make it clear for them.

2013/2014 average age = 27.6

2014/2015 average = 28.2

2015/2016 average = 28.3

2016/2017 average = 27.6

2017/2018 average = 27.4

 

These averages also include games where the younger guys on the roster played less than 8 minutes per game or were sitting out altogether.   

 

Height, Weight 

 

2013/2014 = 73.5" - 202 lbs

2014/2015 = 73.6" - 197 lbs

2015/2016 = 73.1" - 194 lbs

2016/2017 = 73.7" - 194 lbs

 

 

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Maybe you mean, coincidence?

Why did you stop at 3 years? The Leafs unloaded quite a bit 4 years ago, which seems like cherry picking, no? 

 

Still, it's not about quantity here, it's quality. 

The Leafs traded out their best players; their captain and sniper, to tank and truely rebuild through the draft.

Whereas the Canucks traded almost everything, but their best players.

(even the Kesler trade, scumbag teammate, who demanded a trade, wasn't traded for a rebuilding of the core effort)

 

Just because the Canucks traded away most of the role and support players, while keeping their best assets, doesn't mean they were in a more aggressive rebuild during those three years than the Leafs. 

As you have said, rebuilding means replacing the core.  The Canucks version of a rebuild is hanging on to the core players until the end.  I believe this is because they want to preserve the team culture and pass it on to the players of the future. 

 

The Leafs in contrast, were pretty dysfunctional so they needed to move the players (and management) who were responsible for that because they didn't want bad habits rubbing off on developing players.

 

So for the Canucks, the core of the core (the Sedins) will be some of the last to depart.  It's up to them.  You could call Edler and Tanev core players as well and since they are younger, they will stick around longer.

 

The rebuilding still has the same result which is to replace the core.  Once the rebuild is complete, does it really matter whether the core is moved first or last?  I think that if the culture is that good, and you can pass good habits along, that team would be that much further ahead.  We see teams like Winnipeg, Arizona and Buffalo still struggling with their culture and wallowing in mediocrity, while teams like the Leafs and Oilers seem to have drafted players with a strong sense of work ethic and what it means to be a pro. 

 

I would suggest that culture often has a larger effect on the supporting players anyways.

[189lb enforcers?]

19 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Who have they kept that would accept a trade?  

 

Twins/Edler have said no.  

 

Tanev, then?  

 

Other spare parts would recoup nebulous mid-round draft picks everyone is clamouring for... but are not a reliable way to rebuild a core.  

 

We've had high 1sts and our one low 1st was a home run.  

 

It takes time.  

Sure, Tanev then, if we have to split hairs on the coulda-woulda-shoulda trade missed opportunities. 

 

Rebuilding the core, at least you speak to the goal of the rebuild. 

 

The point here concerns how many shot attempts JB has made for himself to rebuild the core with. Not having moved prime assets 3-4 years ago and counting, whatever the restraints have been, have cost the roster a serious rebuild effort. Transitioning is not the same as rebuilding, in a hockey context. I'd say this team is transitioning today, sure, but with fewer prospects than they should have. Reliable or not, he has to make those opportunities for the rebuild. Choosing to do it at a pace similar to Chicago's is not really a rebuild, imo.  

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

As you have said, rebuilding means replacing the core.  The Canucks version of a rebuild is hanging on to the core players until the end.  I believe this is because they want to preserve the team culture and pass it on to the players of the future. 

 

The Leafs in contrast, were pretty dysfunctional so they needed to move the players (and management) who were responsible for that because they didn't want bad habits rubbing off on developing players.

 

So for the Canucks, the core of the core (the Sedins) will be some of the last to depart.  It's up to them.  You could call Edler and Tanev core players as well and since they are younger, they will stick around longer.

 

The rebuilding still has the same result which is to replace the core.  Once the rebuild is complete, does it really matter whether the core is moved first or last?  I think that if the culture is that good, and you can pass good habits along, that team would be that much further ahead.  We see teams like Winnipeg, Arizona and Buffalo still struggling with their culture and wallowing in mediocrity, while teams like the Leafs and Oilers seem to have drafted players with a strong sense of work ethic and what it means to be a pro. 

 

I would suggest that culture often has a larger effect on the supporting players anyways.

I see your point CC.  To me the success of a rebuild is equated to the success of the high first round picks.  The more hits equals the more successful the rebuilt team will be.  Yes, there is lotto luck involved now, but still those top picks are the key to the level of success, and the speed of the rebuild too.  When rebuilding drafting key core guys, like the Twins is super important.

[TheGuardian_]

39 minutes ago, Alflives said:

How do teams improve on their key core players, if not through high first round draft picks - especially the forwards?  

1 out of 4 first rounders. What if the team traded all 4 first rounders for either moving up in the draft or for potential star prospects? The team may not have Boeser but they might have had other better..........no it wouldn't as this management group hasn't hit a home run on any trades or draft picks so far. Granlund and Sven are not NHL top six players.

 

How to improve, over pay and put just about all the players on the block. Get the two or three top line players, players that make others better around them.

 

Any idea now, as long as this management group is still here will not be done, this is a reactionary management group just trying to put out fires not trying to prevent them. Caretakers until the purge. Then it will be another 3 years. Buffalo, Toronto, Columbus, Nashville, The Peg, go down the list, they all went decades before purging and now some of those teams are starting to excel.

 

BTW Eichel stated his favourite player was Bure, maybe he has a soft spot for Vancouver eh? When he gets tired of losing in Buffalo maybe the Nucks could extract him for a couple of 1rst's as this management group only hits once every 4 years anyway.

[189lb enforcers?]

7 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

As you have said, rebuilding means replacing the core.  The Canucks version of a rebuild is hanging on to the core players until the end.  I believe this is because they want to preserve the team culture and pass it on to the players of the future. 

 

The Leafs in contrast, were pretty dysfunctional so they needed to move the players (and management) who were responsible for that because they didn't want bad habits rubbing off on developing players.

 

So for the Canucks, the core of the core (the Sedins) will be some of the last to depart.  It's up to them.  You could call Edler and Tanev core players as well and since they are younger, they will stick around longer.

 

The rebuilding still has the same result which is to replace the core.  Once the rebuild is complete, does it really matter whether the core is moved first or last?  I think that if the culture is that good, and you can pass good habits along, that team would be that much further ahead.  We see teams like Winnipeg, Arizona and Buffalo still struggling with their culture and wallowing in mediocrity, while teams like the Leafs and Oilers seem to have drafted players with a strong sense of work ethic and what it means to be a pro. 

 

I would suggest that culture often has a larger effect on the supporting players anyways.

Just going to speak to the team culture here.

 

The Sedins and Edler's play or style are not a culture worth building on.

A guy like Horvat or Guddy comes with their own behaviours that don't require a Sedin twist on them. The idea that holding onto these type of players will benefit young character guys like Horvat doesn't fly with me. 

[Crabcakes]

11 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

2013/2014 average age = 27.6

2014/2015 average = 28.2

2015/2016 average = 28.3

2016/2017 average = 27.6

2017/2018 average = 27.4

 

These averages also include games where the younger guys on the roster played less than 8 minutes per game or were sitting out altogether.   

 

Height, Weight 

 

2013/2014 = 73.5" - 202 lbs

2014/2015 = 73.6" - 197 lbs

2015/2016 = 73.1" - 194 lbs

2016/2017 = 73.7" - 194 lbs

 

 

Sorry Guardian.  Total red herring.  Average age means nothing since all teams bring in veterans to help the young players to develop.

 

What is important is what group of players is supporting the other.  At this point, the older players are there to help the young players to develop.

 

The new core is incomplete and we won't know who these players will be until they are 23 or so.  Horvat, yes.  Boeser, likely.  Who else?   Pettersson, Demko, Gaudette, Juolevi, Pouliot, Virtanen, Lind?  So many questions still.

[EdgarM]

27 minutes ago, Alflives said:

How do teams improve on their key core players, if not through high first round draft picks - especially the forwards?  

How do we know who is  going to be our "key core players" ? Do they always need to be "High"  1st round picks? AND ....do they need to be drafted by us? I agree we need key players but they can come from anywhere.

[TheGuardian_]

Just now, Crabcakes said:

Sorry Guardian.  Total red herring.  Average age means nothing since all teams bring in veterans to help the young players to develop.

 

What is important is what group of players is supporting the other.  At this point, the older players are there to help the young players to develop.

 

The new core is incomplete and we won't know who these players will be until they are 23 or so.  Horvat, yes.  Boeser, likely.  Who else?   Pettersson, Demko, Gaudette, Juolevi, Pouliot, Virtanen, Lind?  So many questions still.

Just pointing out that the team is not getting younger, there is also a time on ice by age metric. So many different stats can be found now, used to be simple observations, the old guys got more ice time than the young guys.

 

Not related but, Chicago got their core guys and now just draft for the fillers in the first couple of rounds knowing that they need skilled plumbers rather than ballerina's, by doing this they also get the odd highly skilled guy in later rounds but their scouts concentrate on support players. If some team wants to trade a skilled dman for a guy not able to crack the line up they have no problem doubling down on that trade at all. They are one of the most active trading teams in the league in high end players.

[TheGuardian_]

4 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

How do we know who is  going to be our "key core players" ? Do they always need to be "High"  1st round picks? AND ....do they need to be drafted by us? I agree we need key players but they can come from anywhere

I still think the team should aggressively attempt a deal with the Oilers for JP.

 

This team will have oodles of cap space next year unless Benning decides to resign the Sedins for 5 or 6 mil a season.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

How do we know who is  going to be our "key core players" ? Do they always need to be "High"  1st round picks? AND ....do they need to be drafted by us? I agree we need key players but they can come from anywhere.

Is there a Cup winnng team, in the Cap era, that hasn’t drafted their key guys in the top if round one?  Hawks, Pens, Kings. (The Bruins is the only team I can think of, and they didn’t deserve that Cup!). 

[Crabcakes]

2 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Just going to speak to the team culture here.

 

The Sedins and Edler's play or style are not a culture worth building on.

A guy like Horvat or Guddy comes with their own behaviours that don't require a Sedin twist on them. The idea that holding onto these type of players will benefit young character guys like Horvat doesn't fly with me. 

I think the culture has more to do with what goes on off the ice than on the ice.  It's about work ethic and personal development imo.  It is well known that the Sedins have worked unbelievably hard and have improved their fitness and skills a lot since being drafted.  Horvat possesses these traits on his own.  

 

Culture is something that is hard to put your finger on and as such I think is dismissed by many.  It is one factor among many that make a good team.  

 

How do you explain how the Oilers floundered for years despite so many 1st OA picks.  Same with the Leafs.  Nothing changed until they cut out the bad wood.  Why don't the Jets do better?  Or why are the Sabres so far behind the Oilers?  They both tanked for McDavid. 

 

The thing is, McDavid is one of the most driven players in the league.  So is Matthews.  Like you say, that dedication to self improvement can be imported.  But if you've got it already why give it away only to have to search for it again?

[ilduce39]

3 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

2013/2014 average age = 27.6

2014/2015 average = 28.2

2015/2016 average = 28.3

2016/2017 average = 27.6

2017/2018 average = 27.4

 

These averages also include games where the younger guys on the roster, even if played less than 8 minutes per game or were sitting out altogether.   

 

Height, Weight 

 

2013/2014 = 73.5" - 202 lbs

2014/2015 = 73.6" - 197 lbs

2015/2016 = 73.1" - 194 lbs

2016/2017 = 73.7" - 194 lbs

 

 

Misleading though. Top Ice time:

 

So far this year:

 

Age-Name-ATOI

 

27-Del Zotto-24:31

24-Hutton-21:16

28-Tanev-21:27

31-Edler-18:15

24-Pouliot-16:37

23-Stecher-16:18

 

Average age: 26.1

 

22-Horvat-18:30

24-Granny-17:41

25-Baer-17:00

28-Sutter-16:54

20-Boeser-15:41

28-Gagner-14:57

 

Average age: 24.5

 

(37-Hank Sedin-14:30)

 

 

In 2014:

 

28-Edler-23:59

32-Hamhuis-21:32

25-Tanev-21:05

33-Bieksa-20:50

25-Sbisa-18:47

22-(Clendenning)17:27

26-*Weber-17:11

 

D average age was 28

 

(but I didn't count Clendenning at 22 since he only played 17 games.  Instead went with Weber who was 26. Either way those are Benning additions anywho.)

 

Forwards:

 

34-Hank-18:37

34-Dank-18:21

26-Bonino-16:55

33-Vrbata-16:37

31-Higgins-15:47

33-Burrows-15:29

 

Average age: 31.8

 

(then Richardson and Hansen at 29 and 28)

 

top ice time for forwards average more than 7 years younger than in 2014.

[189lb enforcers?]

12 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Sorry Guardian.  Total red herring.  Average age means nothing since all teams bring in veterans to help the young players to develop.

 

What is important is what group of players is supporting the other.  At this point, the older players are there to help the young players to develop.

 

The new core is incomplete and we won't know who these players will be until they are 23 or so.  Horvat, yes.  Boeser, likely.  Who else?   Pettersson, Demko, Gaudette, Juolevi, Pouliot, Virtanen, Lind?  So many questions still.

In contrast, and in context, who are the rebuilt Leaf's core players? 

(Hint: they aren't prospects today)

The Canucks core is still in the maybe/prospect column, so you're point of aged 23 seems sad, but true. 

 

Good call on the vets aspect. See Marleau for example. Possibly even Jäger.  

[Crabcakes]

7 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Just pointing out that the team is not getting younger, there is also a time on ice by age metric. So many different stats can be found now, used to be simple observations, the old guys got more ice time than the young guys.

 

Not related but, Chicago got their core guys and now just draft for the fillers in the first couple of rounds knowing that they need skilled plumbers rather than ballerina's, by doing this they also get the odd highly skilled guy in later rounds but their scouts concentrate on support players. If some team wants to trade a skilled dman for a guy not able to crack the line up they have no problem doubling down on that trade at all. They are one of the most active trading teams in the league in high end players.

It is related.  The Hawks bring in young guys like you say to support their core (Kane, Toews, Keith, Seabrook, Crawford) and have repeatedly shifted players in and out to support these guys as they try to fit under the cap.

[EdgarM]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Is there a Cup winnng team, in the Cap era, that hasn’t drafted their key guys in the top if round one?  Hawks, Pens, Kings. (The Bruins is the only team I can think of, and they didn’t deserve that Cup!). 

They may not have deserved it but they still won it. Yes the Canucks had all the tools in place but still lost. The big concern now a days is teams being "Cap compliant" and eventually those teams are going to have to give up assets which they cannot afford.

Whether we can make a trade deal with them or just get those players through FA are options which are available to us with having a lot of extra Cap space.

Stamkos was given the option to play anywhere in the league and the Lightning were in a position to do absolutely nothing about it if he so desired to go somewhere else.

We are slowly getting the pieces we need and I see more key components coming once the Twins contracts expire.

[189lb enforcers?]

3 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I think the culture has more to do with what goes on off the ice than on the ice.  It's about work ethic and personal development imo.  It is well known that the Sedins have worked unbelievably hard and have improved their fitness and skills a lot since being drafted.  Horvat possesses these traits on his own.  

 

Culture is something that is hard to put your finger on and as such I think is dismissed by many.  It is one factor among many that make a good team.  

 

How do you explain how the Oilers floundered for years despite so many 1st OA picks.  Same with the Leafs.  Nothing changed until they cut out the bad wood.  Why don't the Jets do better?  Or why are the Sabres so far behind the Oilers?  They both tanked for McDavid. 

 

The thing is, McDavid is one of the most driven players in the league.  So is Matthews.  Like you say, that dedication to self improvement can be imported.  But if you've got it already why give it away only to have to search for it again?

Character isn't taught as much as it is an inherent personality trait.

Nobody had to teach Toews how do be who he was at 18. 

 

This concept off-ice mentorship is not worth 14 mil a year. 

 

The Coilers had Ebele, Hall and Yak as their young core. Not exactly oozing leadership or character. We've got a lot of mileage with this bait-and-switch point of using an extreme as a bar to compare teams with. 

[TheGuardian_]

1 minute ago, Crabcakes said:

It is related.  The Hawks bring in young guys like you say to support their core (Kane, Toews, Keith, Seabrook, Crawford) and have repeatedly shifted players in and out to support these guys as they try to fit under the cap.

It is a little bit of what Detroit was able to do for so long. It is much easier to draft for the 3rd and 4th lines and then let them percolate in the minors for 3 to 5 years+. But it was getting those core guys in the beginning that was the real managing, Tallon and his "you have to bad to get good" strategy.

If the team just fills out with the plumbers then they end up in the middle of the road unless they get very, very lucky in the draft. A team full of plumbers could go a decade without being serious contenders while waiting for the "star" players to show up. Burke did something similar, the team sank in the standings and then he overpaid for a draft pick.

[189lb enforcers?]

15 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I agree we need key players but they can come from anywhere.

Anywhere, yes, but statistically, impact players are taken high in the draft. 

Statistically, scientifically, this is a best practices approach to rebuilding, if a team affords itself those draft opportunities.