Bruins vs Pens Model (Team building)

[Rush17]

Pittsburgh model is entirely based on drafting the best player of his generation followed by a high end elite C in Malkin and good goaltending.

 

Boston is kinda grindy but i get what they are after. Fast, phyiscal, and agitating. Pastrnak has transformed himself into the identify of a Bruin. 

 

Their players seem to enjoy and thrive playing the role of a villian as a big bad Bruin. I find it very interesting and they seem to remain competitive.  Boston's model is probably the easiest to replicate but finding a decade long selkie candidate isn't an easy task either.  I don't think they have the success they have without Bergeron.

[Crabcakes]

6 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

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

He's a long shot.  He has some pedigree as an 8th OA pick in 2012 and was to be a principle return in a proposed Ryan Kesler trade that didn't pan out.

 

After seeing him for most of a season I doubt he'll become a top pair player but I included him to illustrate that Benning is adding many players who fit a profile knowing full well that most won't become core players.  You never know how a player will develop.

[Crabcakes]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

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.

I'm pretty sure that Benning makes his own list based on his own criteria and his own research (scouting and interviews).   

 

Since Bennings 1st round picks have been close to the media's rankings it's pretty hard to argue that he's gone off his own list

 

 

[kloubek]

I don't think we need to "model" another team, as much as take the learnings from it.  I'll use your two examples:

Pittsburg: Agreed that they build around a lot of talent.  They have some truly great players in their top six and have been lucky to have such an amazing 1-2 center punch in Crosby and Malkin. They get significant points from their defensive corps and generally just have all-around very solid talent.

Boston: They manage to get by with not quite as much talent, and they largely rely on the breakout play of the Rat along with Pastrnak who has done really well for them.  Overall, they are a solid team with balanced play and you can see in their series with Toronto that they continue to manhandle their opponents - though perhaps not as much as back in the day when we went to the finals.

 

So basically, balanced scoring through the lineup, speed, grit, scoring from the back end and good goalie.  All elements that come together to make a contender, but this isn't exactly a revelation... we all know this already.

 

I think we are on the right track as is.  We have amassed a bunch of forward prospects with skill - of which a certain amount of them will hit.  We can utilize the extras as trade bait to get us what we might be missing.

 

Right now, we are missing:

High end D.  At least one, and depending on Juolevi turns out that might be enough.  We have plenty of mid to low end guys in this regard.

Goaltending.  We are relying on Demko, which may or may not work out for us.  He hasn't showed well so far but the sample size is very, very small.  Hopeful we won't need anything in this regard.

Forward size: Archibald might be ok for the 4th line, but I'd like to see us get a speedy and nasty 3rd line guy similar to Dorsett.  Ideally, I'd also like to see a top six player with size.  In that regard, MAYBE Virtanen will develop into that player.

Star Power: With Boeser and Pettersson, we are almost there.  I wouldn't mind having one more elite player in the forward lineup, but we could get by without.  I do think that #1d I mentioned earlier needs to be a true high end guy though; we so badly need scoring from the back end.

 

The draft will help, but who knows how long it will take for whoever we draft to get to the bigs so I'm not sure we can rely on that.  This is why I am an advocate for trying to convince Tavares to come here.  If that happens, we have an extra asset to trade in our forward group, and it rounds out the talent up front. Next year, I say we push hard for OEL who may not be a true elite guy, but would go a long ways to helping us score from the blueline.

 

I honestly think we are almost there.  Just 2-3 pieces to be taken care of, and if Benning moves on that right away we should be a playoff team after next season (outside chance of this coming season), and a contender as early as the year after depending on how quickly our young guys reach their prime. Obviously, what we do in trades and/or UFA could make a big impact.

[khay]

First approach is not even an approach. It requires you to be extremely lucky enough to draft generation player or two. Even if you manage to tank on purpose because you knew Crosby or Malkin level talent is available in the upcoming draft, you only get 18.5% odds of winning #1 overall. To win it in two years out of say, 4 year period, is only about 14%.

 

Is any approach to building a team that relies on 14% chance really called an approach?

 

Penguins are just a lucky team. 

 

Boston is doing it the right way and I think we are going to be like them.

 

[Rob_Zepp]

18 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...

 

 

With current lottery system, the Pens model (your Approach #1) is pretty much impossible to use as it is now based upon luck versus management planning.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

5 hours ago, Rush17 said:

Pittsburgh model is entirely based on drafting the best player of his generation followed by a high end elite C in Malkin and good goaltending.

 

Boston is kinda grindy but i get what they are after. Fast, phyiscal, and agitating. Pastrnak has transformed himself into the identify of a Bruin. 

 

Their players seem to enjoy and thrive playing the role of a villian as a big bad Bruin. I find it very interesting and they seem to remain competitive.  Boston's model is probably the easiest to replicate but finding a decade long selkie candidate isn't an easy task either.  I don't think they have the success they have without Bergeron.

Two key events.....the acquisitions of Chara & Thomas.  Neither of whom the Bruins drafted.  Without either one of these two (let alone both of them), would be really be talking about the Bruins in this thread?

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I'm pretty sure that Benning makes his own list based on his own criteria and his own research (scouting and interviews).   

 

Since Bennings 1st round picks have been close to the media's rankings it's pretty hard to argue that he's gone off his own list

 

 

For sure he does, as do all clubs.  The lists are a good compass but each club needs to check out players in person to get a feel for them, and they do come in with master list which no doubt differs from ISCS  and THN, Bob McKenzie whom have you.   THN had BT at  3 this year, Zadina at 4, Boqvist at 5 etc as of a month ago.  

 

 

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Two key events.....the acquisitions of Chara & Thomas.  Neither of whom the Bruins drafted.  Without either one of these two (let alone both of them), would be really be talking about the Bruins in this thread?

Good point.  Thomas made the team great, they were one of the best for two or three years.  What amazes me about them though is how they've maximized the amount of time they have to win another cup, or at least be considered a contender.  They are similar to PIT and CHI in that their support or even very good players leave but they refill their roles very quickly internally.    Thomas left ( and went squirley) but Rask stepped in and gave them excellent goaltending.  L.E. was a good player for them but aged out, Chara is holding the fort until he walks away and into the HHOF but they now have young McAvoy and have enjoyed Krugs contributions.   Marchand turns out is one of the best forward in the league.   Impressive.