Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

(Discussion) Building a Team/Drafting -BanTSN Continued Status Update


Recommended Posts


Stamkos and Hedman are the true leaders on that team. You use deep draft picks to complement your stars, not build your core.
ipb.pngToday, 05:40 PM

  • Brad Marchand They won the Cup in 2008 with late-round picks Datsyuk and Zetterberg as their best forwards.
    Today, 05:46 PM
  • thejazz97 Zetterberg, Franzen, Marchenko, Mrazek, Nyquist, Helm. All deep finds, with Marchenko being the most recent at 2011.
    Today, 05:46 PM
  • BanTSN You'll find that the majority have those stars though.
    Today, 05:47 PM
  • Senpai So what you're trying to say is, good drafting wins you championships? Well then, that's some revolutionary stuff right dere
    Today, 05:49 PM
    • BanTSN Zetterberg and Datsyuk were drafted 16 years ago.
      Today, 05:50 PM
    • Brad Marchand And?
      Today, 05:51 PM
    • BanTSN And Babcock has been complaining about not getting stars lately. The Detroit 'formula' is dead.
      Today, 05:52 PM
    • Gstank29 ^just as dead as there 24 year playoff streak right? They are starting to turnover there roster but are still remaining competitive.
      Today, 05:54 PM
    • BanTSN No Senpai, i'm saying that Kucherov, Palat and Johnson are complementary pieces. That's not a rebuild. That's complementing your stars, which is still needed, but it is Stamkos and Hedman who'll matter more if Tampa goes far.
      Today, 05:54 PM
    • BanTSN P.S. We're not Detroit.
      Today, 05:56 PM
    • Gstank29 3 60+ point getters in their 2 second full NHL season is far from being "complementary pieces"
      Today, 05:57 PM
    • BanTSN Yeah, they're good complementary pieces. P.S. I'm not against getting them. But Stamkos and Hedman are the true leaders on that team.
      Today, 05:58 PM
    • Brad Marchand Watch out, we've got a Tampa Bay Lightning expert over here.
      Today, 05:59 PM
    • BanTSN Stamkos and Hedman are franchise players. Those other players aren't. Knowing that does not require expert-level analysis.
      Today, 06:01 PM
    • Time Lord Tampa Bay has two top lines. Most teams have one. If it wasn't for their young top line, this status wouldn't have been made.
      Today, 06:02 PM
    • Time Lord Basically, you can have Stamkos and Hedman while still being a mediocre team.
      Today, 06:03 PM
    • BanTSN And?
      Today, 06:03 PM
    • BanTSN It's like you should complement your stars or something...
      Today, 06:04 PM
    • Brad Marchand The whole underlying message of these posts is that the Canucks should deliberately tank for high draft picks.

      You're gonna have to convince JB and TL that this is the way to go.
      58 minutes ago
    • Gstank29 complementary player on Tampa are guys like Callahan, Sustr, Killorn ETC. Kucherov, Johnson, Palat are CORE PLAYERS
      58 minutes ago
    • BanTSN Sedins were picked 2nd and 3rd overall. True story.
      57 minutes ago
    • Newsflash "I've pretty much figured out how to build a SC winner"
      55 minutes ago
    • BanTSN It's not that hard.
      54 minutes ago
    • Brad Marchand It's so easy, I'm surprised no team has hired you as GM yet.
      53 minutes ago
      52 minutes ago
    • BanTSN First off, you're not relying on undrafteds and 7th rounders to build a core.
      51 minutes ago
    • Time Lord "Sedins were picked 2nd and 3rd overall. True story."

      The team was bad then. The team isn't bad now. No playoff team is going to tank.
      50 minutes ago
    • BanTSN Instead, franchise players are used. I mean c'mon.
      50 minutes ago
    • Time Lord Gstank is right in every way in this staus update.
      49 minutes ago
    • Where's Wellwood ^^^
      Who's doing that?
      49 minutes ago
    • Time Lord WW you can't just use the ^^^ because the comment passes quickly lol
      47 minutes ago
    • BanTSN This team was 6th last a short while ago and the core hasn't changed. Then they lost to Calgary, who pretty much sucks. That's how you delay a rebuild.
      46 minutes ago
    • BanTSN Gstanks status wasn't as popular as mine. lul
      45 minutes ago
    • Gstank29 What part of 6 1st round picks in the last 4 years says the rebuild hasn't already started?
      45 minutes ago
    • BanTSN He was right in that it's important to get those players, but first you need your true leaders, your franchise players, in place. Otherwise it's not going to work.
      44 minutes ago
    • Time Lord The team is progressively getting better. We'll have our best shot in 2017 IMO. Once the Sedins leave (in 2018) then the we might tank.
      44 minutes ago
    • BanTSN Why wait if this team is showing no life in the playoffs and they were 6th last just two years ago?
      42 minutes ago
    • Time Lord Did Boston have high picks on their roster in 2011?
      42 minutes ago
    • BanTSN We're not Boston either.
      42 minutes ago
    • Time Lord Horvat and McCann are pretty good centers. Also we'll be drafting high once the Sedins leave, it's just a few years away.
      39 minutes ago
    • Time Lord So we could be like 2011 Boston in the future
      38 minutes ago
    • BanTSN I love Horvat, but 2nd liner. Same with McCann. Franchise-level players? Um, no.
      37 minutes ago
    • Time Lord Krejci, Bergeron?
      37 minutes ago
    • BanTSN Meanwhile the Sedins were still here when we finished 6th last.
      36 minutes ago
    • Time Lord Meanwhile we finished in the top 16 this year and the team should improve for the next few seasons.
      35 minutes ago
    • BanTSN Krejci and Bergeron are better than McCann and Horvat.
      35 minutes ago
    • Brad Marchand Canucks suck too hard to win the Cup.

      Tank now.
      34 minutes ago
    • Time Lord ^BanTSN in a nutshell
      34 minutes ago
    • BanTSN With an aging core, the team will continue to trend downward unless other teams don't plan on improving.
      33 minutes ago
    • Brad Marchand McCann and Horvat are 20 and under yet there's no chance they'll ever be better than Bergeron and Krejci.

      Would sure love to be able to predict the future like that.
      33 minutes ago
    • BanTSN If it's pretty obvious what I'm saying, then I'm not sure why you 'experts' continue to deny it, even in the face of blatant failure.
      32 minutes ago
    • Time Lord Can you just say "Tank!" already?
      29 minutes ago
    • photo-thumb-85980.jpg?_r=1428811501
      Salmonberries Good stuff Ban TSN. I agree for the most part. We`re using bubble gum and elastic bands to delay the inevitable here. Canadian franchise, you know
      29 minutes ago
    • BanTSN At age 20, Bergeron was a top line center and 70pt scorer. Horvat half that pace. And McCann screams 2nd liner to me just watching him. Krejci's natural skill was more notable at this age.
      29 minutes ago
    • Time Lord But how good were they during the 2011 season?
      27 minutes ago
    • BanTSN Real good?
      24 minutes ago
    • Time Lord Can you see Horvat putting up 50+ and McCann 60+, with good defensive play?
      21 minutes ago
    • BanTSN More concerned about playoffs. McCann doesn't quite scream Krecji-like conn smythe numbers when the heat is on. The thing is Bergeron and Krejci are both top line centers. Will Horvat and McCann both be considered top line centers? I like them, but that may be wishful thinking.
      15 minutes ago
    • BanTSN Gstank still status updating my status update. lul
      10 minutes ago
    • Time Lord I agree on that. We'll need some luck for sure, but there are drafts to come and trades to be made. I just don't think tanking is the right idea, unless your team is actually that bad. If our roster looks like a bottom 10 team's when Sedins leave, then we'll probably get a high pick.
      10 minutes ago
    • Gstank29 We need this on the front page...
      7 minutes ago
    • Zfetch Plan:
      •Barely miss the playoffs next year.
      •Win the lottery
      •Draft Chychrun, build team around Chychrun
      •Win cup
      5 minutes ago · Delete
    • BanTSN I guess I'm just confused as to where this team is at. They were 6th last with the Sedins, then they made the playoffs again with them, only to look horrible in the playoffs. So will the real Canucks please stand up? (They probably did. In the playoffs.)
      4 minutes ago
    • Time Lord IMO make a thread called BanTSN's status update and copy/paste all this stuff :P
      3 minutes ago
    • Gstank29 or we could get Sean Day or Dante Fabbro. Either way there are some good d-man at the top next year
      3 minutes ago
    • BanTSN Great goal by Toews. Franchise player.
      3 minutes ago
    • Time Lord Great goal by Toews. Franchise player
      Great goal by Stamkos. Franchise player
      Great goal by Tavares. Franchise player
      Great goal by Crosby. Franchise player
      Great goal by Malkin. Franchise player
      Great goal by Datsyuk. Franchise player
      Great goal by Sedin. Franchise player
      Great goal by McDavid. Franchise player
      3 minutes ago
    • Gstank29 Great goal by Kucherov. Complementary piece....
      2 minutes ago
    • Time Lord LOL
      A minute ago
    • BanTSN 7 out of 8 on that list were high picks, and the other guy was selected 17 years ago. And yet some people are still banking on us becoming the next Detroit?
      A minute ago


Link to comment

We're clearly not good enough to win the cup any time soon, and any minor improvements are pretty much moot given how much the teams around us will improve (more than we will). However, we're still too good of a team to get a top 3 pick (barring us winning the new lottery for one of those spots but we're not that lucky).

So either we mortgage the future for one more kick at the can with the Sedins (DON'T DO THIS), we stay in the middle as the Sedins get worse, and our prospects who slowly make the team (Horvat, Baertschi, Gaunce, Shink, Virt) get better, or we tank.

Link to comment

photo-32234.jpg?_r=1392073513 How to Build a Good Hockey Team
Posted by BanTSN, 24 July 2014 · 2,490 views
How to Build a Good Hockey Team

This isn't about 'Get Crosby and all the great hockey players here. What's the problem?' This is more about what types of players to have, the minutes they should be able to play, and the roles they should be able to play. Also addresses basic concepts like taking advantage of low qualcomp opportunities, etc.

1. Bigger is Better.

No, you don't need a team full of behemoths, but you have to consider that in the playoffs it gets a lot harder to get into the prime scoring areas. Bigger players are more able to do so. For those who want to make a point like Patrick Kane does it, then the response is two-fold: Dustin Byfuglien and Byron Bickell. Those really big players were not used all that much by the Hawks in their recent cup seasons until deeper into the playoffs when Kane and Toews found it harder to get to the net. The big guy simply creates more space.

We've seen this during the Bertuzzi/Naslund heydey. Big Bert's presense in front of the net allowed Naslund to snipe from afar relatively uncontested. Zetterberg and Datsyuk in the same scenario played with Holmstrom, and recently Abdelkader. It's a proven way to score. And in a cap world it's important to have these guys, but NOT overpay them. Chicago traded Byfuglien when he was due to be overpaid and now Bickell is overpaid. So a plan to win with smaller top-6 forwards should include a big guy on a entry-level or at least an RFA contract.

By small I mean less than 200lbs. Weight, not height, is what's important in the NHL and it should be imperative in this era to have most everyone on the team be at least 200lbs and be able to play decent minutes against all competition levels. If you manage that, then you have a clear advantage over teams who don't. But if you have smaller players, then they should have the skill, speed and gumption to make up for it. Guys who are too slight to go to the hard areas may tend to stay on the perimeter during critical moments. It's these moments that truly expose what type of player the guy is. If he's 50-100ft away from the net at all times, then the odds of him scoring are quite low. If, however, the smaller player has little fear, great strength for his size and tremendous skill to get the puck through heavy traffic, then he'll make up for his lack of size. If he does this in critical moments, then he is a very valuable small player.

2. Quit Thinking Top-6, Bottom-6.

There should be no dividing line between the forwards that says half of them should be underskilled, but tight-checking guys with little offensive potential, and at the same time the top-6 should be one-dimensional wizards who need great zonestarts to score often enough to make up for their lack of defensive abilities. That strategy rarely works, if ever.

Instead break your most talented players into pairs, and run 4 relatively equal lines. Esp. in the playoffs. That way it's impossible for chessmatch opposing coaches to match lines.

How you deploy them is checking-adept guys first, followed by your secondary offense, followed by your primary offense. The primary offense, who can play longer shifts and more minutes per game, then takes advantage of third-pairing opposing defences. This is Sedinery 101. The 4th line, which the Canucks have lacked for quite awhile, should have at least one capable goal-scorer on it. A 100% mucker line is useless and shouldn't have a role in today's NHL.

If you have a top center who's also a tremendous checking player, then your team has a clear advantage, as you can deploy him in all situations. This also serves to nullify a chessmatch coaches' line-matching strategy. Anze Kopitar's deployment is a good example. He is facing the best competition, not the weakest, like the prime Sedins. But if LA did not have additional offense to take advantage of third-pairing defences as well, this strategy would not be all that effective. Hence, the need for depth, which is amplified by using pairs.

If you have 4 centers who can do it all; score, check, win draws, play defensively, then you're at cup contender status. Every forward pairing should have one of these centers on it. Winger pairings aren't nearly as good because the true strength of a teams' offense is carried up the middle. LA deployed their top checkers, Kopitar and Stoll, more often. Then what followed was their top scoring, Carter and then Richards (on an off year) was their 4th line option. If teams' centers that can do it all, but fall short for whatever reason on their current teams and are put on the market, then management should try very hard to snap them up.

3. One-Dimensional = Useless

This should be fairly obvious, but if the guy, no matter how skilled he is, doesn't give any regard to defense or is utterly inneffective at it no matter how hard he tries, then he should be discarded, or at least deployed against low qualcomp pairings and forwards. A coach doesn't really want to have to do this every game for more than a couple players though. Winning involves taking advantage of other teams' weaknesses more often than covering your own teams'. If the players you rely on to score at critical times are not able to cover anyone on defense without taking a penalty, then there is no way you can ultimately win.

On the other end, what of the slow-skating, meagrely-skilled forward who's there for just size, perhaps, but not much physicality because he's just too slow to execute any checking. Or perhaps he's there to drop 'em with other middleweights when his team is down by 3? If a team has any of these players in the lineup, then it's just too underskilled to win. It's even better to put in a one-dimensional skilled guy instead. At least he can score.

4. What Makes A Defenseman Truly Elite?

A defender who can play 30+ minutes of effective hockey is a rare commodity indeed. But what makes the guy able to do that often is not so much his personal ability, which is still exceptional, but how effective the forwards are at their job.

If a team possesses enough strength in the middle, then a 'franchise' defenseman can play a very high amount of minutes fairly easily, as puck control is high, the odds of being stapled on the end boards are low and a lot of time is being spent up ice instead of being hemmed in your own zone.

If a team uses a dated top-6, bottom-6 strategy or simply doesn't have the horses, then they run the risk of injury to their defense as they tire often in shifts and get run over by fresher forwards. Teams with mucker-level 4th lines are suspect in this regard as well as those with low-skill or small 3rd lines.

When Lidstrom was in his prime, you could barely touch him because Detroit was just too deep up front. (Yzerman, Fedorov, Larionov, Draper... All two-way stars) Same with Niedermayer in New Jersey (Sykora, Arnott, Holik, Madden, Gomez) and Keith in Chicago (Toews, Sharp, Bolland, Madden) The key factor is having 4 centers who are reliable in all zones.

(The Canucks' recent drafting strategy as of late seems to revolve around filling the lineup with centers of this desirable ability. So let's hope that pans out.)

5. Penalties Are Stupid

'Moral Victory!' Are you kidding me? Nobody wants to see goon hockey anymore. But beyond that, there seems to be this feeling in Vancouver that the refs are out to get them. False. The reason the team takes more penalties than others and appears to be fouled more often than not is because it is simply built incorrectly.

A team that has one relatively one-dimensional scoring line will find that line to be targeted every night. So that's why the point I made in 'Bigger is Better' applies. When push comes to shove, you're going to need that big net presence to take physical pressure off your scorers and to give them some more space. However, that big net presence shouldn't be a goon or a totally undisciplined wackjob or he'll be a total detriment to the teams' scoring efforts.

This is exactly what happened in the Canucks' upset loss against Minnesota. Bertuzzi collected mountains of penalties in that series and didn't stop doing the same silly crosschecking play over and over again in front of the net. And because they Canucks were pretty much a one-line team back then, with a weak goalie and a coach who didn't make adjustments well, that was enough to bury them.

A guy like Bertuzzi should have been corralled. But what about Burrows' biting/hair-pulling antics? And Kassian's multiple suspensions? Are these types of guys irreparable? Perhaps if the entire team was built better. What takes the pressure off of these guys to take these insane penalties is if the rest of the team is built well enough to start dictating play. The fewer guys that need protecting, the less the need for retaliation penalties. The more puck control you have, the less need there is to take penalties at all. Again, the need for 4 'do-all' centers in the lineup comes into effect.

6. You Shouldn't Rely on The Power Play to Score

This relies too much on the refs making calls, and we all know the whistle pretty much vanishes in the playoffs. This is also part of the persecution complex in Vancouver. The Sedins, being powerplay wizards in their prime, absolutely needed the powerplay to be effective. So when the calls stopped coming, the whining started increasing. And so did the diving.

A team that is built properly shouldn't need the powerplay at all to score. A coach should be able to focus on a 5-on-5 deployment strategy and treat powerplays as a bonus. If that is the case, then his team is close to being ready to win.

7. Effective Minutes-Played For Cup-Contending Teams

Top offensive foward pairing: 16 es mins/g, center 2 sh mins/g, both 3 pp mins/g
Top checking pairing: 14 es mins/g, center 3 sh mins/g, both 1 pp mins/g
Secondary offense pairing: 13 es mins/g, 2 sh mins/g, 2 pp mins/g
Third player on top line: 13 es mins/g, 3 pp mins/g
Third player on top checking line: 13 es mins/g, able to fill in for pp and sh when needed
Third player on secondary offense line: 11 es mins/g, able to fill in for pp when needed
Secondary checking pairing: 10 es mins/g, center 3 sh mins.g, winger albe to fill in pp when needed
Third player on secondary checking line: 8 mins/g

Notice all centers can pk? That's vital. If your centers can't all pk, then it's going to be hard to win.

#1 D: 22 es mins/g, 3 sh mins/g, 3 pp mins/g (again, made easier via center depth)
#2 D: 19 es mins/g, 2 sh mins/g, 2 pp mins/g (big shutdown-type)
#3 D: 17 es mins/g, 3 sh mins/g (big shutdown-type)
#4 D: 17 es mins/g, 3 pp mins/g (secondary pmd)
#5 D: 14 es mins/g, 3 sh mins/g
#6 D: 12 es mins/g, 3 sh mins/g

You can get away with one non-pk defenseman, but any more than that and you're putting too much pressure on too few defensemen to play these tougher minutes.

The need for a true #1 was perhaps not stated well in the defense section above, but there's a reason why the winning teams all have them. The guy should be able to physically handle enough reliable skating minutes. If he has elite speed, that's a bonus, but the two factors typically go hand-in-hand. For Weber/Chara types, you can see where elite size and shot is the bonus instead. If the guy has speed, but no shot or offense, then he's not #1 capable. If the guy has size, but again no shot or much speed or offense, then he's not #1 capable. The physical attributes and skillset simplt needs to be there first, or it's not happening. You'll find many a team rolling the dice in the draft looking for these type of defensemen.

8. Goaltending is Overrated

If Crawford in Chicago can win, then any average goalie able to physically play enough games can win. One thing the great goaltenders of the current era have in common is the great 'do-all' center depth i've been bringing up over and over again, and the appropriately-built and deployed team otherwise.

If a team has the forwards and defensemen i've indicated, able to play the effective minutes i've indicated, then a goaltender's job is made a lot easier. All he has to do most of the time is go into his butterfly and wait with his giant pads. He'll be well rested, allowing him to make 'spectacular' saves now and then look easy.

Any team relying on their goaltender to win will not win.

9. Injury Replacements

If a team is built appropiately, then puck-control will be high and injuries low. However, injuries still happen. A team needs 1-2 spare forwards capable of playing 12 es mins per game in short stretches, and 2 defensemen also capable of playing 12 es mins per game, with 2 pk mins/g on top of that in short stretches.

In the playoffs these players should all be used, and more appropriately, all be useful, preferably in early rounds, to make the regulars' lives easier going forward.

10. Cap World

In the current era, you need to base a winning plan on your entry-level players. All winning teams in the cap era have had these types. The higher the cap, the more deep the entry-level types are in the lineup.

Appropiately building the team takes this into account. Once a decent group of character prospects is selected in a few years of drafts, the draft should very well be 'capped off' by a superstar selection, preferably a franchise center or perhaps a quick franchise defenseman if that center is already there. Then the clock starts ticking on the winning window.

It needs to be understood that the younger the superstar, the wider the window will be. Remember the Sedin window? Because it took them so long to hit their prime, that window was made fairly brief. And now the Canucks are heading into rebuild mode. That rebuild should be capped-off by a superstar draft selection. But the question is when? Now? Or years from now? Well, that's going to have to be decided by Linden and Benning, as they look over what prospects they have and plan for the future.

I hope this has been a decent read for you all. Go Canucks Go! Thanks.
Link to comment

I think the exchange between him and I pretty much summed it up.

Me (mocking him): "I've pretty much figured out how to build a SC winner"

Him in response: It's not that hard.

It's not. Maybe here in Canuckland we think it's impossible, but it's not really that hard if you just put all your efforts into it and disregard all business-related issues and politics. But every time a decent plan comes along, you hear 'But it's a business' or 'Making the playoffs year after year is more important than winning the cup' and a bunch of loser talk like that.

Link to comment


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...