What the Heck is a Foundation Player?

[TheGuardian_]

As the post states, what is that?

 

To me, that means 3rd/4th liners, 4,5 or 6 dmen.

 

Maybe depth.

 

Does that mean top two line players are "star" players?

Are they "star" players because they are on the top two lines or because they are that good league wide?

 

Is Hansen a "foundation" player?

 

OR is this some type of designation created for drafting/trading for players that might not make expectations, you know, cover your a$$. If they aren't top players then they are assigned the moniker of being "foundation players", sort of a "can't lose" keep my job catch phrase or wait 3 to 4 years to see if they can be 3rd liners.

 

[Warhippy]

5 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

As the post states, what is that?

 

To me, that means 3rd/4th liners, 4,5 or 6 dmen.

 

Maybe depth.

 

Does that mean top two line players are "star" players?

Are they "star" players because they are on the top two lines or because they are that good league wide?

 

Is Hansen a "foundation" player?

 

OR is this some type of designation created for drafting/trading for players that might not make expectations, you know, cover your a$$. If they aren't top players then they are assigned the moniker of being "foundation players", sort of a "can't lose" keep my job catch phrase or wait 3 to 4 years to see if they can be 3rd liners.

 

 

Foundational Player right thur bud

 

He's reeeeaaaaal good

[groovy]

Bo Horvat. The only way is up now... baby!

[-Vintage Canuck-]

A player who is capable of helping turn the team around.

[Toews]

Well so far the description has been applied to Brandon Sutter and Derek Dorsett.

 

In short I have no idea what the hell it means. Someone should have asked Linden and Benning at the town hall meetings.

[Type R]

Its the brick and mortar you build a championship team on.. To me, that means a guy who can do more than one thing for you.  Whether that means skill, size, checking ability, tenacity, grit... Jury is out no Sutter for obvious reasons, but I would wager that Horvat is one of our best examples of this right now.

[PhillipBlunt]

Two words: Matt Bartkowski

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

A foundation is what you build your structure upon. "Foundational players" are what you build a team around.

 

It's a very similar meaning term to "core players." Mostly, the term is applied to key players in key roles. Like top-six forwards, top-pairing Ds, and starting goaltenders.

 

But "role player" types can also earn the moniker. Such as a "shut down" centre or defenseman whose presence is crucial to building a strong "spine" to a team's lineup.

 

The term can be overused at times and whether or not a player deserves to be called "foundational" is always open to debate.

 

As for Hansen, I'd say he could be seen as a "foundational player" if his GM believes he's a crucial part of the team core and fills a key role in the lineup. Thus far however, I haven't seen any quotes attributed to JB that suggest he really sees Hansen in quite that light (so he's probably not a "foundational player" on Jim Benning's Vancouver Canucks--although that could change and Hansen certainly displays many of the traits necessary to deserve consideration).

 

And as far as whether it's a "cover your ass" term for if acquisitions don't meet expectations, I'd suggest the exact opposite. Putting the term "foundational player" on a new addition only raises expectations. It's a risky call for a GM to say this about any player who hasn't clearly demonstrated "foundational" value to an NHL club.

 

Sutter is the obvious example and I really don't think Benning's choice of words did any favours to either the player or management (in terms of how the critics responded to JB calling Sutter a foundational player).

 

But with some luck, Sutter will be able to stay healthy next season, and he will manage to do enough to prove that he deserves the moniker (and that Benning was correct in using it), and hopefully silence some of the criticism in the process.

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

 

To me, that means...

 

Mere semantics.

 

Easy answer:  look at what Benning said in context.

 

OR - is this a weak, pointless protest.

 

 

 

[MJDDawg]

Ever heard of a foundation for a house or building? It's a strong, solid base from which to build your structure. Get that wrong and you are screwed.

 

The Sedins, Luongo, Kesler, younger Hamhuis, young Burr. All fixed foundation pieces we built our team around. Every other player were just movable pieces to fit around the foundational pieces.

 

Same thing as "core" for me.

[Bur14Kes17]

They're like this guy 

[Provost]

Filler kind of player and not a star is what it means.

[tas]

24 minutes ago, MJDDawg said:

Ever heard of a foundation for a house or building? It's a strong, solid base from which to build your structure. Get that wrong and you are screwed.

 

The Sedins, Luongo, Kesler, younger Hamhuis, young Burr. All fixed foundation pieces we built our team around. Every other player were just movable pieces to fit around the foundational pieces.

 

Same thing as "core" for me.

this, in my mind, is getting closer to it, but still not quite there. 

 

theres always a core, at any given time. the core is relatively fluid, and has a lot to do with present roles and performance.

 

referring to the foundational players, in my interpretation, really only comes into play at the beginning of an era/rebuild. a player being foundational is a separate thing from his performance, role or spot on the depth chart. the foundational players are the ones that demonstrate how you want your team to play on the ice, and act off the ice. "culture carrier" is another term benning has used to describe similar traits. basically, the foundational guys are the ones you want to be examples for the rest of the guys you add, the ones that adhere rigidly to the style of play you want and the attitude you want. these guys may not be the core, but they set the trend for the guys who become the core. 

 

stan smyl was a foundational player for the linden/bure era. linden was a foundational player during the west coast express era, which carried into the sedin era. in benning's eyes, guys like sutter and dorsett, even if they never end up "core" players, will set the tone for the incoming generation. 

 

gritty, hard-nosed, fast, hard-working.

[dudeistpriest]

16 minutes ago, Bur14Kes17 said:

They're like this guy 

a 1st round pick at #5.  bodes well for our 5th pick this year,

 

[aGENT]

55 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

A solid veteran presence at a mature age 25-29 who can play up and down the lineup, good defensively, good on and off the ice.  Can help the young kids coming up and at the same time can help a team put points on the board.

This ^^^

6 minutes ago, tas said:

this, in my mind, is getting closer to it, but still not quite there. 

 

theres always a core, at any given time. the core is relatively fluid, and has a lot to do with present roles and performance.

 

referring to the foundational players, in my interpretation, really only comes into play at the beginning of an era/rebuild. a player being foundational is a separate thing from his performance, role or spot on the depth chart. the foundational players are the ones that demonstrate how you want your team to play on the ice, and act off the ice. "culture carrier" is another term benning has used to describe similar traits. basically, the foundational guys are the ones you want to be examples for the rest of the guys you add, the ones that adhere rigidly to the style of play you want and the attitude you want. these guys may not be the core, but they set the trend for the guys who become the core. 

 

stan smyl was a foundational player for the linden/bure era. linden was a foundational player during the west coast express era, which carried into the sedin era. in benning's eyes, guys like sutter and dorsett, even if they never end up "core" players, will set the tone for the incoming generation. 

 

gritty, hard-nosed, fast, hard-working.

...and this ^^^

[Wilbur]

To me a foundational player is an important cog in the team that you build around.  Usually it's a top 6 forward, top 4 defenseman, or #1 goalie.  But it can be someone else (ie a 4th line player) if (1) they bring leadership (2) they are one of the better 4th line forwards in the league and (2) their contract is decent.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Can we build a proper foundation upon this steep slope? Stay tuned...

[TripleSedins]

I see a foundation player not in terms of ability or roster position. The criteria are as follows:

 

1. Has been with the franchise for a long period of time, knows the systems (Sedins, Yannik, Alex E.) and can still play at their current age.

2. In the eyes of the organization; they will be with the organization for a long time (Bo) or into the foreseeable future (Brandon, Sven).

3. Fulfills a specific role in the organization and has major fan support (Derek)

 

[TheCerebral1]

Two words: Bo Horvat. 

 

He's not a franchise defining player, but in every way a foundation piece in any rebuild or structure of a team.  Someone who can take face-offs, play on the PP and PK when needed, who can make teammates better.  

[Guest]

My take is that a foundational player is:

1) a player that everyone else on the team can depend on

2) represents the team not only in play but also to the community

3) is likely worth more to the team in question than he would to another team

4) is likely worth more than his talent level may suggest

5) players that you build your team around, rather than trying to find a player to fit in with the current roster

Players on  the current team that I feel fit this bill are: Horvat, Hansen, the Twins, and to a lesser extent Sutter and Dorsett (among the forwards); Tanev and looks like in the near future Hutton among the Dmen.

If we traded everyone else on the roster, these guys would give the team a framework to build around. Much as I like players like Baertschi, Edler and Hamhuis, I don't consider them to be "foundational" (in Edler and Hamhuis' cases, at least not any longer). Luongo was a foundational goalie, at least for a while. I could see some arguments about Tanev and Dorsett, but both of them fill at least 4 of the 5 requirement on my list. Edler, I don't feel, fits criteria 4 & 5; Hamhuis the same (maybe a little less on #4). Baer hasn't been here long enough, nor has he played to the point of excellence, to fulfill most of the list; a couple more seasons (or better) like last year, and he could make the transition.

 

Of course, this is all opinion. There will likely be as many opinions on this as, well, members of CDC!