• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      All Threads Must Contain Tags!   07/25/2017

      ALL THREADS MUST CONTAIN TAGS   All threads in this forum must contain tags prefixed to topic titles. The purpose of the tags is to eliminate confusion in recent threads lists, and to create an organized and consistent environment. Moderators may immediately lock and thread that does not contain tags.    Tags must be placed at the start of your thread title, following this exact formatting:    [Tag] Thread Title   Here are some of the most used popular tags:    [Proposal]
      A trade, or trades, for next season, or even the off-season.
      [Off-Season]
      FA signings, off-season trades for RFA's, UFA's rights etc...
      [Value Of]
      (A question regarding a players worth, whether from another team, or the Canucks)
      [Speculation] Posting a rumor (with a source of course), but providing why it could be possible for the Canucks to land that player.   [Discussion]
      Thoughts on team trading strategy and composition.   Please feel free to create your own tag if none of these suit your thread.   
Nuxfanabroad

Bruins vs Pens Model (Team building)

Recommended Posts

Been giving this some thought recently..would like to put it out, & y'all might chime in with insights.

 

Think we'll all agree, there are so many variables involved in building a top team. But from the start(rebuilding team), I see it as mostly two directions that a GM may lean towards. I hate the Bruins..but they serve as an appropriate blueprint to contrast two designs. So...

 

Approach # 1: Pens-style. Primarily based upon acquired stars(largely thru #1 or #2 OA selections). Draft the top talent at key positions, & build around them.

***Think it's worth noting, due to cap-constraints, it's likely this model requires GM to make more future moves, perpetually shuffling in cheaper youth/peripheral talent***

 

Approach # 2(more like Beantown): Acquire a core of key vets(could be 1st rounders, or later? Or acquired via deals along a half-decade, or so). Likely emphasize grit, 'tending & D more than the above model #1. Ensure team is balanced, with all elements(speed, size, 200 ft game, special teams, etc...)

No HUGE standouts or life-long stars(although Pastrnak & Marchand are climbing, near top).

 

- I'd argue it's more sensible to aim for the 2nd style of team-composition. No superstar cap-hits enable a GM to assemble a deeper crew, more resistant to injuries & slumps.

 

- Would also suggest our team is more likely to be composed in the 2nd manner. Thus, we should forget about the Crosby, McD, DAHLIN envy, & simply get on with building a deeper, balanced, versatile, fast, gritty bunch.

 

Would appreciate your opinions...

 

 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Been giving this some thought recently..would like to put it out, & y'all might chime in with insights.

 

Think we'll all agree, there are so many variables involved in building a top team. But from the start(rebuilding team), I see it as mostly two directions that a GM may lean towards. I hate the Bruins..but they serve as an appropriate blueprint to contrast two designs. So...

 

Approach # 1: Pens-style. Primarily based upon acquired stars(largely thru #1 or #2 OA selections). Draft the top talent at key positions, & build around them.

***Think it's worth noting, due to cap-constraints, it's likely this model requires GM to make more future moves, perpetually shuffling in cheaper youth/peripheral talent***

 

Approach # 2(more like Beantown): Acquire a core of key vets(could be 1st rounders, or later? Or acquired via deals along a half-decade, or so). Likely emphasize grit, 'tending & D more than the above model #1. Ensure team is balanced, with all elements(speed, size, 200 ft game, special teams, etc...)

No HUGE standouts or life-long stars(although Pastrnak & Marchand are climbing, near top).

 

- I'd argue it's more sensible to aim for the 2nd style of team-composition. No superstar cap-hits enable a GM to assemble a deeper crew, more resistant to injuries & slumps.

 

- Would also suggest our team is more likely to be composed in the 2nd manner. Thus, we should forget about the Crosby, McD, DAHLIN envy, & simply get on with building a deeper, balanced, versatile, fast, gritty bunch.

 

Would appreciate your opinions...

 

 

PIT lucked out the same way EDM finally did after years of trying, to land the best players of their generation.  I know that word gets thrown around a lot but in this case it's actually true.

 

Both EDM and PIT had a run of first overalls and high picks, PIT also drafted Fluery and Malkin,  EDM got Hall, Eberle, Yakupov and Nurse.    

 

Problem with EDM is their generational guy came way too late.  But they are the best example of things going wrong despite always getting the cream of the crop.

 

PIT strengths obviously lie down the middle, but they also had a great goalie and number one defenseman to build around, something EDM never got.

 

Boston is a different animal in that it's just a very well balanced team.   Chara is the cornerstone that's about to be done, but his team will be fine for at least another five years.  Most teams including Vancouver, are in the same boat as Boston in that they don't have a Crosby or McDavid.  Put anyone one their wing and they produce (poor Crosby, seriously he's the same as Lemuiex in this regard, can play with anyone) makes it very easy to concentrate on having two elite scoring lines as your second line is like everyone else's first line.

 

WNP and NSH also deserves props (I won't talk about TB, they are the next PIT).

 

Poile has been committed to drafting defenseman early and often for close to two decades now, and it's been paying off.  Its a long slow haul that way, just think they used to have Weber and Suter too.  That's two more top half of the league numbers ones right there.  Plus they traded Jones too,  there is your third, and they have two top ten number ones on their team currently in Subban and Josi.  I don't have that much patience to wait for this system to bite, but considering who they started with and what they done since it's admirable.

 

To me the team makes itself based on who shows up after getting drafted and what they have to offer.  Right now that means Horvat, Boeser and im confident enough to say Pettersson, he's on his way to the world's next, that tells me he's got it in him to endure the rigours of a NHL schedule.   The team needs an NHL ready 18 year defenseman to catch up to the rest of the core though, Juolevi isnt enough.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting the best player of this generation followed by another franchise altering talent to play second fiddle? I think we should just do that. Pens have it figured out.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Been giving this some thought recently..would like to put it out, & y'all might chime in with insights.

 

Think we'll all agree, there are so many variables involved in building a top team. But from the start(rebuilding team), I see it as mostly two directions that a GM may lean towards. I hate the Bruins..but they serve as an appropriate blueprint to contrast two designs. So...

 

Approach # 1: Pens-style. Primarily based upon acquired stars(largely thru #1 or #2 OA selections). Draft the top talent at key positions, & build around them.

***Think it's worth noting, due to cap-constraints, it's likely this model requires GM to make more future moves, perpetually shuffling in cheaper youth/peripheral talent***

 

Approach # 2(more like Beantown): Acquire a core of key vets(could be 1st rounders, or later? Or acquired via deals along a half-decade, or so). Likely emphasize grit, 'tending & D more than the above model #1. Ensure team is balanced, with all elements(speed, size, 200 ft game, special teams, etc...)

No HUGE standouts or life-long stars(although Pastrnak & Marchand are climbing, near top).

 

- I'd argue it's more sensible to aim for the 2nd style of team-composition. No superstar cap-hits enable a GM to assemble a deeper crew, more resistant to injuries & slumps.

 

- Would also suggest our team is more likely to be composed in the 2nd manner. Thus, we should forget about the Crosby, McD, DAHLIN envy, & simply get on with building a deeper, balanced, versatile, fast, gritty bunch.

 

Would appreciate your opinions...

 

 

 

zdeno chara says hi

the hockey hall of fame will open its doors to him as soon as he is eligible

he has been a star in anyone's books

just look at these boards. .people forever comparing try and gud to chara as the "type of defenceman"

tall, tough, physical

 

the best 2 way center in the game also plays for boston

took media and fans some time to recognize this fact

he is a low key, team first kinda star, but an elite player

patrice bergeron also says hi

 

i think you are misstating things a bit

maybe you wish to not call them stars/ superstars ..

but you are really wanting to discuss draft positions of key players for each of these teams

 

or maybe which players possibly get hyped more ??

 

Edited by coastal.view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think if we are comparing Boston to Pittsburg the diference is Boston trades away talent while Pittsburg trades for talent.

The Bruins have traded (still playing) J Thornton, Kessel, Seguin, Lucic, Hamilton and they have rebuilt, "on the fly, as it were", in doing so.

The Pens have traded for  Kessel, Hossa, Brassard, Reaves, Perron, Iginla  all for 1sts. Imagine if the Canucks got one of these guys for Howden

Both systems seem to work provided you get goods in return.

The Pens system seems like what Gillis tried to do, but Gillis did not get good returns. Eventually Sid and Geno will grow old and the Pens will look like the Canucks but in the mean time they keep winning cups. Can't really argue with that. 

Edited by lmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coastal.view said:

 

zdeno chara says hi

the hockey hall of fame will open its doors to him as soon as he is eligible

he has been a star in anyone's books

just look at these boards. .people forever comparing try and gud to chara as the "type of defenceman"

tall, tough, physical

 

the best 2 way center in the game also plays for boston

took media and fans some time to recognize this fact

he is a low key, team first kinda star, but an elite player

patrice bergeron also says hi

 

i think you are misstating things a bit

maybe you wish to not call them stars/ superstars ..

but you are really wanting to discuss draft positions of key players for each of these teams

 

or maybe which players possibly get hyped more ??

 

Of course we're all aware of Chara. Should we be so lucky to sign a 260lb UFA monster..hey - great! The important question is how were such talents obtained?

 

2011 semis vs TBay, reffs threw whistles away(game 7, & Broons were also goons in finals). Or do you think if he were a Canuck, that clothesline almost killing Pacc(in the ****ing Mtl barn) would go unpunished? I'd argue Jacobs' team cashed in on the casino punishment-system(but that's subjective opinions)

 

Bergeron: 2nd round pick(45th OA). Now 2003 was a Helluva' draft, & this is further proof. But anyone could have taken him. Marchand a 3rd rounder. Pastrnak, late 1st, etc...

 

Point being here..Boston didn't rely on completely crashing out to land their talent. HUGE diff from what Pitt, Chi & Wash did.

 

Consider they had THREE 1st's in 2015, & missed on BOTH Barzal & Boeser. Yet are they hurting for it? Or acquiring LouiE for Seguin. A deep team built from UFA's, good picks & gradual acquisitions, can apparently afford a few gaffes.

 

If anything, such an example should serve as inspiration to fans lamenting they CAN'T ever land a top pick. It helps, sure..but is not the be-all, end-all that many fans assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bruins minus the character issues seems ideal.  Penguins model relies on a generational center and a franchise center, which isn't realistic to be able to acquire.

Edited by King Heffy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is no hard and fast rule to success. The best thing you can do is just build the best team possible with what you have. Keep your draft picks and trade and p/u FA's to fill gaps. We have seen teams with great goalies fail, teams with great dman fail and a teams with elite players fail and teams with nothing great like Vegas, succeed. 

I like the teams with heart and desire(Vegas) and work around that. Throw in a great goalie if you have one, throw in a PMD if you have one and throw in the elite players if you have one. 

Its funny, it is entertaining to watch a hard working team such as Vegas even though they don't have a McDavid or a Crosby. What is not entertaining is watching an uninspired team content to being pushed around by other teams while not playing with any kind of emotion. 

When you play in the playoffs you may run into many a different teams comprised of speed, strength, size or a combination there of, and you must outwork them and out hustle them or you will not be successful.

A team full of "win at all cost" is the most important component IMO and usually what gets teams more wins in the playoffs over anything else.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also ugly when it doesn't work. I'd say Buffalo has attempted the 2nd formula, with fairly disastrous results. Some poor trades really sent them back.

 

Although they might be turning the corner, I'd see them as a cautionary-example. Little like Edmonchuk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

It's also ugly when it doesn't work. I'd say Buffalo has attempted the 2nd formula, with fairly disastrous results. Some poor trades really sent them back.

 

Although they might be turning the corner, I'd see them as a cautionary-example. Little like Edmonchuk.

Both those teams seem to have that "give up" mentality which may explain why they have not been very good for so long despite the "elite" talent they have drafted over the years. And some CDCers wanted us to "Tank" for one of those "elite" picks. :lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the mistake is calling the models the Bruins and the Pens models because these are examples of the models.  Not the "model".  We can argue why each of these teams differ from the model.  Or we can argue which of these models, which seem to be opposite, are better than the other.

 

So,

 

Model 1:  Build around and support 2 or more supremely gifted players

 

Model 2:  Build a team with a lot of pretty good players that possesses great depth and few flaws

 

Most teams develop over a period of years, a hybrid of 1 & 2 imo.  They assemble a group of core players and support them with moveable players.  There is an argument as to what constitutes a team core.  Is it 7 players, or 5,  or 2 or 3 "inner core" players and 2,3 or 4 "outer" core players . 

 

The question is, how does a team become "great'.  Is there a formula?

 

I think that one of the most interesting experiments that is happening right now is what has happened with the Vegas Golden Knights.  They are comprised solely of middle of the road players.  There are no stars and few 4th liners or bottom pair players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Been giving this some thought recently..would like to put it out, & y'all might chime in with insights.

 

Think we'll all agree, there are so many variables involved in building a top team. But from the start(rebuilding team), I see it as mostly two directions that a GM may lean towards. I hate the Bruins..but they serve as an appropriate blueprint to contrast two designs. So...

 

Approach # 1: Pens-style. Primarily based upon acquired stars(largely thru #1 or #2 OA selections). Draft the top talent at key positions, & build around them.

***Think it's worth noting, due to cap-constraints, it's likely this model requires GM to make more future moves, perpetually shuffling in cheaper youth/peripheral talent***

 

Approach # 2(more like Beantown): Acquire a core of key vets(could be 1st rounders, or later? Or acquired via deals along a half-decade, or so). Likely emphasize grit, 'tending & D more than the above model #1. Ensure team is balanced, with all elements(speed, size, 200 ft game, special teams, etc...)

No HUGE standouts or life-long stars(although Pastrnak & Marchand are climbing, near top).

 

- I'd argue it's more sensible to aim for the 2nd style of team-composition. No superstar cap-hits enable a GM to assemble a deeper crew, more resistant to injuries & slumps.

 

- Would also suggest our team is more likely to be composed in the 2nd manner. Thus, we should forget about the Crosby, McD, DAHLIN envy, & simply get on with building a deeper, balanced, versatile, fast, gritty bunch.

 

Would appreciate your opinions...

 

 

H Nux

 

You and Ibatch have it closest IMO

 

I think Benning is trying to build a team with the Boston model in mind, with some tweeks......I think he will tweek things up this draft, by Drafting Dmen in the first 2 rounds unless, someone big falls into our laps........I think that Benning, will go out and get another late 1st or early 2nd, to be in position to do this in spades................

 

I think Dobson/Boqvist are likely candidates for our 1st pick, unless we strike it rich ........I could see JB, trading down a couple of spots if we grab 3rd OA, but the top 3 picks are wishful thinking.

 

Lots of great defensive picks late1st, early 2nd, then again in the 3rd...........some nice forwards sitting in the 2nd as well, but BJ will stick with Defensmen this year as it is our short coming and they take longer to develop........I also think it is easy to see what a great position Nashville and Phili are in with so many young Dmen........and the trading strength it allows.

 

That is the draft part of it in 30 seconds................

 

Cap space, will be used to acquire a 2nd rounder this year, probably so Benning is in good position to pick another Dman..........it will be Jim's year of the D

 

Long term, Jim will go after an elite UFA Dman, if available..........................next year 

 

What ever Jim does in the Draft, Trade or free Agency...............long term his focus is a fast, quick, cerebral team, with size and tenacity to look after our smaller more skilled forwards...............Calling it here........1st round Boqvist or Dobson, 2nd round McIsaac or K'Andre Miller, and 3rd round Ginning...................if all turns out, it will be a tough Defense to crack..........all fast and big and skilled................ (except Boqvist who is borderline elite in everything but big)

 

This draft, will show us all, where Jim is looking in terms of team make up............... :blink: we will see!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Both those teams seem to have that "give up" mentality which may explain why they have not been very good for so long despite the "elite" talent they have drafted over the years. And some CDCers wanted us to "Tank" for one of those "elite" picks. :lol:

No Edgar

 

We will draft 1st OA next year, from the pre Lottery position of 15th OA...............Can you say Jack Hughes!

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Of course we're all aware of Chara. Should we be so lucky to sign a 260lb UFA monster..hey - great! The important question is how were such talents obtained?

 

2011 semis vs TBay, reffs threw whistles away(game 7, & Broons were also goons in finals). Or do you think if he were a Canuck, that clothesline almost killing Pacc(in the ****ing Mtl barn) would go unpunished? I'd argue Jacobs' team cashed in on the casino punishment-system(but that's subjective opinions)

 

Bergeron: 2nd round pick(45th OA). Now 2003 was a Helluva' draft, & this is further proof. But anyone could have taken him. Marchand a 3rd rounder. Pastrnak, late 1st, etc...

 

Point being here..Boston didn't rely on completely crashing out to land their talent. HUGE diff from what Pitt, Chi & Wash did.

 

Consider they had THREE 1st's in 2015, & missed on BOTH Barzal & Boeser. Yet are they hurting for it? Or acquiring LouiE for Seguin. A deep team built from UFA's, good picks & gradual acquisitions, can apparently afford a few gaffes.

 

If anything, such an example should serve as inspiration to fans lamenting they CAN'T ever land a top pick. It helps, sure..but is not the be-all, end-all that many fans assume.

you are a confusing poster

you said bruins have no stars

i pointed out at least 2 who clearly exist as stars on that team

 

but you seem to overlook that point 

and just continue to simply post more words

 

you think it unimportant to pay a bit more attention and add a bit of sophistication in your thinking and your argument

 

so i'll just move on then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

H Nux

 

You and Ibatch have it closest IMO

 

I think Benning is trying to build a team with the Boston model in mind, with some tweeks......I think he will tweek things up this draft, by Drafting Dmen in the first 2 rounds unless, someone big falls into our laps........I think that Benning, will go out and get another late 1st or early 2nd, to be in position to do this in spades................

 

I think Dobson/Boqvist are likely candidates for our 1st pick, unless we strike it rich ........I could see JB, trading down a couple of spots if we grab 3rd OA, but the top 3 picks are wishful thinking.

 

Lots of great defensive picks late1st, early 2nd, then again in the 3rd...........some nice forwards sitting in the 2nd as well, but BJ will stick with Defensmen this year as it is our short coming and they take longer to develop........I also think it is easy to see what a great position Nashville and Phili are in with so many young Dmen........and the trading strength it allows.

 

That is the draft part of it in 30 seconds................

 

Cap space, will be used to acquire a 2nd rounder this year, probably so Benning is in good position to pick another Dman..........it will be Jim's year of the D

 

Long term, Jim will go after an elite UFA Dman, if available..........................next year 

 

What ever Jim does in the Draft, Trade or free Agency...............long term his focus is a fast, quick, cerebral team, with size and tenacity to look after our smaller more skilled forwards...............Calling it here........1st round Boqvist or Dobson, 2nd round McIsaac or K'Andre Miller, and 3rd round Ginning...................if all turns out, it will be a tough Defense to crack..........all fast and big and skilled................ (except Boqvist who is borderline elite in everything but big)

 

This draft, will show us all, where Jim is looking in terms of team make up............... :blink: we will see!

Benning is trying to build a core group with support players and of course, he is doing both things at the same time.

 

The core pieces he has added to this point have depended on the opportunities that have come up in the draft, free agency, trade etc.  First rounders, which are the main source of core players, have been selected on a BPA basis, so the individuals have been added in a random fashion.  The wild card of course is whether certain players will develop into the player that they project to be.  Because of this uncertainty, duplication is necessary.  

 

Who projects to be core?  Not all will become core obviously

 

2 top centers:  Horvat, Pettersson

Scoring winger:  Boeser, Dahlen

Power forward:  Virtanen, Gadjovich, Lind

Specialist:  Sutter, Gaudette

2 top defense:  Juolevi, Pouliot

Goal:  Demko, DiPietro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crabcakes said:

I think the mistake is calling the models the Bruins and the Pens models because these are examples of the models.  Not the "model".  We can argue why each of these teams differ from the model.  Or we can argue which of these models, which seem to be opposite, are better than the other.

 

So,

 

Model 1:  Build around and support 2 or more supremely gifted players

 

Model 2:  Build a team with a lot of pretty good players that possesses great depth and few flaws

 

Most teams develop over a period of years, a hybrid of 1 & 2 imo.  They assemble a group of core players and support them with moveable players.  There is an argument as to what constitutes a team core.  Is it 7 players, or 5,  or 2 or 3 "inner core" players and 2,3 or 4 "outer" core players . 

 

The question is, how does a team become "great'.  Is there a formula?

 

I think that one of the most interesting experiments that is happening right now is what has happened with the Vegas Golden Knights.  They are comprised solely of middle of the road players.  There are no stars and few 4th liners or bottom pair players.

Thanks C2, for the further clarification there, that you've aptly laid out. & I certainly agree with your point that most teams are hybrids..indeed, probably no one has exclusively gone in one direction.

 

Tried to cite the two examples, as well-known teams that set out(say 12~15 yrs prior) rather differently.

 

I'd say this general contrast(of two models) could be applied to the remaining Cdn entries.. The Leafs tanked pretty hard to land some top guys, for 3 or 4 yrs. Don't think anyone could lay that label on the Jets, who've patiently drafted well, to build a large, fast, deeply skilled team.

 

THAT's a team-pattern JB should fix a keen eye upon.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both team are examples of what you can do if you draft properly and develop over an extended time.  The Bruins when they won in 11 had a lot of young pieces and up and coming  - Rask for example.   Neely seemed to be smart by ditching older guys (Lucic) and getting young again.    Pitts kind of the same.   This is what Linden and crew are trying to build - an organization that drafts well and develops well so we can be constant cup contenders.  Absolutely think they are right on the money.   Build for 10 year runs not one and done like what happened to us

 

Imagine if 5 years ago if we had had all the high end young guys we got now  In 2018 we would be running for the cup with the Sedins.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Benning is trying to build a core group with support players and of course, he is doing both things at the same time.

 

The core pieces he has added to this point have depended on the opportunities that have come up in the draft, free agency, trade etc.  First rounders, which are the main source of core players, have been selected on a BPA basis, so the individuals have been added in a random fashion.  The wild card of course is whether certain players will develop into the player that they project to be.  Because of this uncertainty, duplication is necessary.  

 

Who projects to be core?  Not all will become core obviously

 

2 top centers:  Horvat, Pettersson

Scoring winger:  Boeser, Dahlen

Power forward:  Virtanen, Gadjovich, Lind

Specialist:  Sutter, Gaudette

2 top defense:  Juolevi, Pouliot

Goal:  Demko, DiPietro

 I am pretty agreeable to your list , except Pouliot.....but maybe? It must be what Jim is hoping for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lmm said:

I think if we are comparing Boston to Pittsburg the diference is Boston trades away talent while Pittsburg trades for talent.

The Bruins have traded (still playing) J Thornton, Kessel, Seguin, Lucic, Hamilton and they have rebuilt, "on the fly, as it were", in doing so.

The Pens have traded for  Kessel, Hossa, Brassard, Reaves, Perron, Iginla  all for 1sts. Imagine if the Canucks got one of these guys for Howden

Both systems seem to work provided you get goods in return.

The Pens system seems like what Gillis tried to do, but Gillis did not get good returns. Eventually Sid and Geno will grow old and the Pens will look like the Canucks but in the mean time they keep winning cups. Can't really argue with that. 

Nice to have a fifteen year window isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Benning is trying to build a core group with support players and of course, he is doing both things at the same time.

 

The core pieces he has added to this point have depended on the opportunities that have come up in the draft, free agency, trade etc.  First rounders, which are the main source of core players, have been selected on a BPA basis, so the individuals have been added in a random fashion.  The wild card of course is whether certain players will develop into the player that they project to be.  Because of this uncertainty, duplication is necessary.  

 

Who projects to be core?  Not all will become core obviously

 

2 top centers:  Horvat, Pettersson

Scoring winger:  Boeser, Dahlen

Power forward:  Virtanen, Gadjovich, Lind

Specialist:  Sutter, Gaudette

2 top defense:  Juolevi, Pouliot

Goal:  Demko, DiPietro

Juolevi and JV were slightly off board but not in a different area code type of way, not BPA....if he picked that way we'd have MT and Ehlers on the team instead (it's still too early to tell who would be the better guys, and thats not my point anyways, I like JV and we need Juolevi to work out way more than we need MT).   Even last year Pettersson was closer to nine than five on most lists, not that I'm complaining about that. 

 

BPA so far I see Boeser as sticking close to the boards, JV as a hunch given his tantalizing skating and physical play, Juolevi as an organizational need pick, Pettersson fits the BPA formula, and this year it will be back to organizational need.  No Zadina or Svecknikov or BT if we draft second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.