HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Habs management doesn't get it...(umpteenth toughness thread)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-30-2011, 09:26 PM
  #376
Habs13
Registered User
 
Habs13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: England
Posts: 5,234
vCash: 500
You know what? I am normally the first to ***** about how soft the Habs are but management HAS started to address this issue. They did this by drafting bigger, meaner players and this summer we got E.Cole who can flatten people like a Mac truck as well as play a fast, two-way game. M.Blunden is a gritty and sometimes dirty third liner whom I hope makes the team and then we signed J.Woywitka who is a gritty, physical, stay at home defenceman who will fight and stand up for team mates! The problem is that Blunden and Woywitka don't win many scraps, hehe.

We also have Ryan White, Max Pacioretty and PK Subban who like to muck it up a bit... then, there's Travis Moen who has been a bit of an enigma because he hasn't played the way he did for Cup champion Ducks. I think that is because he was the only guy throwing hits but that could change now.

I think we finally have a good balance of speed and skill and grit! Although, I would really like a Chris Neil or Dan Carcillo in place of M.Darche but that's just me.

Habs13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 09:29 PM
  #377
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs13 View Post
You know what? I am normally the first to ***** about how soft the Habs are but management HAS started to address this issue. They did this by drafting bigger, meaner players and this summer we got E.Cole who can flatten people like a Mac truck as well as play a fast, two-way game. M.Blunden is a gritty and sometimes dirty third liner whom I hope makes the team and then we signed J.Woywitka who is a gritty, physical, stay at home defenceman who will fight and stand up for team mates! The problem is that Blunden and Woywitka don't win many scraps, hehe.

We also have Ryan White, Max Pacioretty and PK Subban who like to muck it up a bit... then, there's Travis Moen who has been a bit of an enigma because he hasn't played the way he did for Cup champion Ducks. I think that is because he was the only guy throwing hits but that could change now.

I think we finally have a good balance of speed and skill and grit! Although, I would really like a Chris Neil or Dan Carcillo in place of M.Darche but that's just me.
Yeah, I gotta disagree on Carcillo or Neil over Darche. Darche is an amazing 4th line player in the NHL, and very fairly paid. I'd hate to have either of those losers you mention in the line up.

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 09:46 PM
  #378
Habs13
Registered User
 
Habs13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: England
Posts: 5,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
Yeah, I gotta disagree on Carcillo or Neil over Darche. Darche is an amazing 4th line player in the NHL, and very fairly paid. I'd hate to have either of those losers you mention in the line up.
I like both thoe guys ; they're the kind of guy that take players off their game, can keep guys honest and defend team mates. Plus, I think they are both amusing to watch, too.

I forgot to mention Emelin... Yemelin... whichever!? I'm really interested to see how he pans out. I remember when we drafted him, somebody somewhere compared him to a mixture of A.Markov and D.Kasparitus (who I hated) and that makes me giddy!

Habs13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 10:00 PM
  #379
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
Yeah, I gotta disagree on Carcillo or Neil over Darche. Darche is an amazing 4th line player in the NHL, and very fairly paid. I'd hate to have either of those losers you mention in the line up.
I think you're crazy.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 10:01 PM
  #380
The n00b King
Kingin' since 2003
 
The n00b King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I think you're crazy.
Carcillo is a terrible player who trips on his own stick.

Neil, however, is another story. Mind you, the guy is a bit of a shadow of himself, ever since his mother passed.

The n00b King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 10:59 PM
  #381
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
The problem is that, like all trades, plenty can go awry. The deals you've suggested look good now because you have the benefit of knowing how the individual players turned out. If you had proposed Koivu for Ryan in 2006, it would probably look about as good as Markov for Pouliot in the same year. But we all know that would be a disaster of a trade.
There's always risks in trading for prospects. But when you don't build with elite prospects, you wind up like us... middle of the road. At some point you have to take a risk.

And based on how well we've drafted, I'd say our scouts know what they're doing. The only problem is that we haven't given them much to work with as we're almost always drafting outside the top 10 and don't have the will to deal for prospects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
I don't want to derail this thread, I was just responding to a certain guy because I strongly disagree with his opinion.

You seem to forget that an Avs team worse that next seasons edition made the playoffs in 09/10...
That's cool man. Maybe the Avs will be better this year and you might be right. But the Caps think that it's a good gamble and I agree with the strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Too much sugar, no baking powder... the cake's ingredients are off. Tastes okay but doesn't rise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I always tend to agree with LG, who argues well and not with anger.

If you don't like tanking, then at least we MUST find another way to get top 5 picks. That is what people are just not understanding on this site. We have to have top 5 picks over a few years to contend. We really do.

That is exactly what LG is proposing above, and that is exactly what we have not been doing, for years.

One top 5 pick in 25 years is SAD. It is shocking. Inexcusable. There are always some cunning trades that can be made every year to increase your chances of at least a top 10 pick, and higher, every couple of years. Desperate teams. Contenders that need just one piece. On and on....

I know everybody here hates the old timers, (scre-w you by the way), but Pollock consistently and constantly went after high picks. It was his first order of business.

Result? Dynasty. Yeah he had it easier with high Q picks at first, but he understood the system he was in, identified other team's weaknesses, and capitalized, again and again. That is the least we should expect these days as from our GM as well.
Thanks. And well said!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
There are very few GM's that will trade a first rounder anymore, let alone a possible top 5 pick......it always takes two to tango to make this happen, and unfortunately there is only 1 Brian Burke who will make these kind of deals....
First rounders are traded for all the time... Good prospects are also available. The truth is that in the last two decades we haven't made any kind of an effort to really seek this stuff out. There simply hasn't been the will to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
No, we don't. That's where the fallacy lies. While top-5 picks are nice, they aren't necessary.
Never said they were necessary. I said they were a key ingredient going back a long time and the vast majority of cup winners have them leading the way. And it's not just top fives that I advocate either, it's prospects who teams trade at say 23 or earlier. I don't discriminate between where a player was drafted if a club sees a prospect and trades for him as a rebuilding move. That makes sense to me too. I'm also not dogmatic on it only being top five. The higher the better though. No matter how you slice it though, high picks have been a key ingredient in most cup winning teams.

I've excluded the passengers like Petr Svoboda from this list otherwise it would be larger:

Here are the multi cup winning teams which I've posted before:

Montreal (1970s) 3 top 4 picks in four years. Including two number ones.
Key picks: Lafleur number one. Shutt number four.

Islanders (1980s) 3 straight years with top four picks including two number ones.
Key picks: Potvin number one.

Oilers (1980s) Difficult to assess because they were a WHL team. They had Gretzky (would've been no. 1) and a team before the draft. Afterwards:
Key picks: Coffey 6th. Fuhr 8th.

Pittsburgh (1990s)
3 straight years with top 5 picks. 6 top five picks in 7 years.
Key picks: Lemieux number one. Jagr number five.

New Jersey (1990s)
7 out of 10 years with top ten picks. Including 4 straight years with top 6 picks. In that span they had 5 top five picks.
Key picks: Niedermeyer, Muller, Maclean, Guerin, Shanahan... all top five. Shanahan lost in the Stevens fiasco.

Quebec/Colorado
5 straight years with a top 5 pick including 3 straight number ones. Included in that span: 7 straight years of top ten picks.
Key picks: Sundin, Lindros... number one. Many of these picks were dealt off for other prospects including Forsberg (6th). And later, Roy.

Detroit 5 top ten picks in seven years including 3 top five picks and a number one. They also had two 11th overall picks in that span.
Key picks: Yzerman number four. Primeau number 3. Primeau dealt for Shanahan.

Montreal 80s and 90s: (Svoboda not a prime reason) Roy was taken in the 2nd round.

Here are the one offs:

Flames: No top ten picks but quite a few first rounders.
Rangers: Leetch number
Dallas: Modano number one
Tampa: Lecavlier number one
Carolina: Staal number two
Anaheim: None (Though they had 2 top 5s and a top 10 in the lineup)
Det: None
Pens: Crosby,Staal,Malkin,Fleury
Chi: Toews, Kane
Bruins: None (Seguin not a main factor)

Certainly it can be done without top picks but there is almost always multiple superstars (regardless of how they were gotten) leading the way. Top picks yield superstars at a much greater rate than lower picks. It stands to reason that this is how the results would pan out.

As for those who want us to emulate Detroit... they themselves were a terrible team before rebuilding. And even if we ignore the rebuild that they went through and only look at their later picks, it hasn't been repeated by any other club including us.

Who wouldn't be all for drafting superstars in the 4th or 5th round? I'd certainly be all for it but it doesn't happen with any kind of consistency. Only Detroit has managed to do this and even they seem to have stopped being able to find these kinds of guys. It's just not a repeatable strategy whereas drafting high is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The problem is LG and yourself make it seem as an unavoidable and guaranteed way to success.
I have never said this or argued it. And you've read my posts enough by now to know this.

Rebuilds don't always succeed. But cup winning teams are very often teams that have rebuilt. You are trying to distort the argument by saying they are one in the same but they aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Acutally, no. There's Washington, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Tampa... and that's it. And only half those teams have Cups.
So what? That's still an awesome degree of success. Even if the rate was 50% (and as we can see above it is much, much higher than that) it would still be a repeatable strategy.

And what's more awesome about it is if we look at the recent cup winners (Pittsburgh and Chicago) they have superstars who are on the sunny side of 25 and could win more cups. Washington and Tampa also have superstars who should be around for years to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The top six teams in the East this year were evenly split between three recent tankers (Washington, Pittsburgh and Tampa) and three non-tankers (Philly, Boston and Montreal). And out West, really, do any of the top-6 clubs qualify as recent tankers?
You don't have to tank to get top picks. Vancouver has the two Sedins... Yeah, I'd say they qualify as superstars right? Why aren't you including them here? They were the best team in the league last year and have TWO guys who've won scoring titles for them and both are top 5 picks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Habs are among the only 8 teams to have made the playoffs at least 4 times in the last 5 years. All other 22 teams have made them 3 times or less, or none.
Who cares?

You make it sound like we've dominated the league. Pretty much every year we've been on pins and needles to even make the playoffs. We're almost always right around 92 points. The object is to win the cup, not tread water and pray to get 8th place on the last day of the year. That's not a legacy that we should be proud of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
Atlanta/Winnipeg had 6 top-5 picks since 1999...

Florida had 5 top-5 picks since 2001...

NY Islanders had 6 since 1999...

Lots of playoff success with those teams, huh?
You're doing what KrissE is doing... missing the point.

Rebuilding doesn't guarantee success. But cup winning teams have been mostly rebuilds.

It's kind of like asking a girl out. There are three scenarios here:

1. If you don't ask her out, she probably won't go out with you.
2. If you do ask her out she still might not go out with you but you've got a better chance of it happening.
3. And sometimes she'll wind up asking you out and you don't have to ask. Not likely but it does happen.

Nobody is saying that if you ask her out you're guaranteed a date... get it?


Anways... this is now officially way off topic.

I should go to Seventieslord and have him reprint his statistical study on the draft here. It really cements statistically what I'm talking about. None of this really belongs in the toughness thread.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 08-30-2011 at 11:08 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:24 PM
  #382
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,931
vCash: 500
Y'know, LG, at some time in their storied past, the Habs were also terrible. I'm guessing that counts as having rebuilt, and should help make them good now... since apparently the Wings being terrible thirty years ago somehow factors into making them good now?

While I won't bother going over your examples in detail again, might I propose that, I dunno, maybe the league operated a wee bit differently in the seventies (when there were, notably, less than twenty teams) they do now?

On that, hasn't there been a change in the way teams operate sometime recent? Something, like, oh, I dunno, I'd like to propose that maybe having a salary cap alters how teams should operate? Maybe? Multi-Cup winning teams are a practical impossibility these days, as the parity between the teams is too high and the salary cap prevents stashing excessive depth... and already before then consistent competitiveness was the way to go, if you could afford it, that is, because money was a big deal just before the lockout.

And on this? "So what? That's still an awesome degree of success. Even if the rate was 50% (and as we can see above it is much, much higher than that) it would still be a repeatable strategy. "

Seriously? I only listed the scorched-earth rebuilds that were successful post-lockout to express their relative rarity. Perhaps you've forgotten among the hype of those successful rebuilds, but there's also the lot that the media never talk about. As it is, those four teams were quite fortunate to draft in the right years; the number of rebuilds that failed (Atlanta, Columbus, Islanders, etc.) really sinks that purported "50% success rate". Of course, I shouldn't mention them, really, I'm sure they all don't count for some reason or another.

Reality check: teams that tank are not more successful than teams that don't. And in the post-lockout world, Cups have been won by teams that don't rebuild as often as not. Maybe living not only in the real world, but also in the present, would help a little bit...

(Incidentally, Tampa didn't consciously rebuild after their Cup. They just sucked. The same thing happened to Edmonton. It's why Philly and Boston got top-5 picks, too. Teams actually rarely tank by choice; they just realize they suck after the fact and pretend it was all a plan, and then the media applauds them for their cleverness because the narrative is that it's the way to win.)


Last edited by MathMan: 08-30-2011 at 11:32 PM.
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:39 PM
  #383
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,857
vCash: 500
This thread turn a few turns.

I am amazed that some of you guys can recite and post meaningless stats so easily.

I could never beat any of you in NHL '11.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:52 PM
  #384
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Y'know, LG, at some time in their storied past, the Habs were also terrible.
Being terrible is not the same thing as rebuilding. Look at the Leafs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm guessing that counts as having rebuilt, and should help make them good now... since apparently the Wings being terrible thirty years ago somehow factors into making them good now?
I listed the recent cup win as a non-rebuild.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
While I won't bother going over your examples in detail again, might I propose that, I dunno, maybe the league operated a wee bit differently in the seventies (when there were, notably, less than twenty teams) they do now?
Sure. And in ten years it will probably still be different.

But again, even if we just took the last four years... two of the four are rebuilds. Even that would be a 50% success rate. And unlike the Wings' drafting low and getting superstars... it's a repeatable strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
On that, hasn't there been a change in the way teams operate sometime recent? Something, like, oh, I dunno, I'd like to propose that maybe having a salary cap alters how teams should operate? Maybe? Multi-Cup winning teams are a practical impossibility these days, as the parity between the teams is too high and the salary cap prevents stashing excessive depth... and already before then consistent competitiveness was the way to go, if you could afford it, that is, because money was a big deal just before the lockout.
Dude, you are always going on about small sample sizes... yet when the argument goes against you, you only want to look at the last few years? Now you want us to ignore the last 40 years and only look at the last four or five? Please...

There's no doubt that things have changed. There's no doubt that things will continue to change in the future. One thing that I think won't change though is that on average, the best players will continue to be drafted the highest. There will always be awesome draft years like 2003 or 1979 but on the whole the best players are picked first.

And the best players will continue to help teams win cups more than average players will.

It only makes sense to try to build with the best prospects you can. They're more likely to become the best players. And the best players are more likely to help you win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
And on this? "So what? That's still an awesome degree of success. Even if the rate was 50% (and as we can see above it is much, much higher than that) it would still be a repeatable strategy. "

Seriously? I only listed the scorched-earth rebuilds that were successful post-lockout to express their relative rarity. Perhaps you've forgotten among the hype of those successful rebuilds, but there's also the lot that the media never talk about. As it is, those four teams were quite fortunate to draft in the right years; the number of rebuilds that failed (Atlanta, Columbus, Islanders, etc.) really sinks that purported "50% success rate". Of course, I shouldn't mention them, really, I'm sure they all don't count for some reason or another.

Reality check: teams that tank are not more successful than teams that don't. And in the post-lockout world, Cups have been won by teams that don't rebuild as often as not. Maybe living not only in the real world, but also in the present, would help a little bit...
Depends on how you measure it.

Yes, there are failed rebuilds... always will be. But cup winners tend to be rebuilds FAR more often that not. If you want to win, that's the way most clubs have gone. That's just plain true. Rebuilding clubs have been far more successful at winning cups than those that have not rebuilt.

As for the Floridas, the Columbus' of the world... I'd argue that we have more resources at our disposal and much, much better scouting. We've proven that we can get good players (not superstars but good) in the later rounds and I have enough faith in our group that we'd have landed better players and would be in a better position to win today if we gave them more to work with in the past. Unlike those clubs our arena will always be packed and we now have a strong Canadian dollar to work with. We can actually spend to the cap unlike those other clubs. And even Columbus managed to draft a Richard trophy winner with their high picks. That's something we haven't had in over 30 years. If they are that bad at drafting and STILL manage to pick a Richard winner, I think we'd be able to do much better esp when you consider that our ONLY top 5 pick in 25 years has yielded us Carey Price. As for Atlanta, they managed to draft two 50 goal scorers (and another Richard winner) and had the unfortunate experience of having their star player kill a teammate...

The Islanders are the poster boy for rebuilding. They traded away picks and prospects that turned into future superstars/stars like Chara, Spezza, Luongo, McCabe, Jokinen, Bertuzzi, Palffy... Having good prospects and high picks is meaningless if you don't manage them well. That's just plain bad management.

If we agree that those clubs are incompetent and they still managed to draft two Richard winners a Vezina and Norris winner as well as multiple guys who've hit 100 points or 50 goals, then what do you think our scouts could do if we gave them this opportunity? Heck, if we were the Islanders all we'd have had to do is KEEP the players we drafted and we'd have a contender.

And again, we don't have to tank to do this. We can trade for prospects and picks. We could deal away Markov now and still make the playoffs. We have Price and Subban... it makes sense to continue to add to the stable of youngsters who we can build around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
(Incidentally, Tampa didn't consciously rebuild after their Cup. They just sucked. The same thing happened to Edmonton. It's why Philly and Boston got top-5 picks, too. Teams actually rarely tank by choice; they just realize they suck after the fact and pretend it was all a plan, and then the media applauds them for their cleverness because the narrative is that it's the way to win.)
I don't care if teams did it consciously or not. It's irrelevant. In fact, if teams didn't mean to do it, it just goes further in strengthening my argument that drafting high works. Look at the Islanders for Pete's sake.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 08-31-2011 at 12:12 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 12:30 AM
  #385
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Being terrible is not the same thing as rebuilding. Look at the Leafs.
The Leafs are actually trying to rebuild. It's what terrible teams do. They realize they're terrible then they say they're rebuilding. Teams don't rebuild unless they are already terrible. Teams that are competitive do not do scorched-earth rebuilds; they rebuild on the fly.

Burke is just not doing a very good job of it, but most rebuilding teams aren't blessed with good management; it's why they are terrible in the first place.

It's rather significant, to me, that teams that do suck-and-draft in the modern era, even if they do eventually win the Cup, seldom do so with the management teams that presided the rebuilds...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
But again, even if we just took the last four years... two of the four are rebuilds. Even that would be a 50% success rate. And unlike the Wings' drafting low and getting superstars... it's a repeatable strategy.
That's not a 50% success rate for rebuilds. That means 50% of the teams that won the Cup in the last four years had "being terrible for a while" (and no, Chicago did not intentionally "rebuild" -- they just sucked for a while) as a component of their team building strategy. Just as importantly, 50% of them did not.

It does not say much for the importance of being terrible for a couple years.

Your four-year break point is, well, convenient. Why not use five instead and include Anaheim? Does a 40% rate not sound quite as convincing, or do they count as "rebuilding" because they had top-5 picks... even though they used them to draft Chistov, Vishnevski, and Kilger?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Dude, you are always going on about small sample sizes... yet when the argument goes against you, you only want to look at the last few years? Now you want us to ignore the last 40 years and only look at the last four or five? Please...
Samples are only meaningful if they are taken from the same population. The rules of the team-building games have changed. It's like comparing goal stats from the 80s to those of today. You have to adjust for the changing circumstances.

Argh, getting into another reply-fest. Let's recap instead:

1- in the cap world, rebuilt teams do not win the Cup more often than non-rebuilt teams, even using the "rebuilt" term to include "teams that happened to be terrible and get good draft picks out of it" as well as "teams that decided to be terrible to accumulate good draft picks".

2- incidentally that last category is pretty much zero. Teams only rebuild once they are terrible; they tank because they're bad, or they tank because they monetarily can't afford to be competitive. No one dismantles a competitive team in the hopes of getting high draft picks.

3- the success rate of scorched-Earth rebuilds is low. The success stories get all the hype, in no small part because they're rags-to-riches by definition. The failures don't get talked about, because they're terrible teams that stay terrible. Typically a scorched-Earth rebuild happens because one management team drives a team into the ground, and on the relatively rare occasion they do well thereafter, it's often because a new, quality management team worked to make them competitive. The high draft picks get all the credit; but the masonry work done by management is way more important.

4- teams with good management don't scorched-Earth rebuild unless they inherited a terrible team; teams with good management don't allow their teams to become terrible for a long period. That's what makes them good. Bad management teams produce terrible teams, which is what results in "scorched-Earth rebuilds". Good management teams work to stay competitive.

5- competitive teams with quality management teams do not deal players like Markov for picks, because the pick, even if it is a high pick, is unlikely to produce a player this valuable; and good management teams try to stay competitive. And the teams that look for players like Markov are competitive and so, by definition, tend not to have high picks in the first place. (Barring the utter stupidity of a GM like Colorado's who trades a potential lottery pick for a dime-a-dozen goalie. I'd jump on an occasion like this if it came up, but I wouldn't plan to get that lucky.)

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 12:43 AM
  #386
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The Leafs are actually trying to rebuild. It's what terrible teams do. They realize they're terrible then they say they're rebuilding. Teams don't rebuild unless they are already terrible. Teams that are competitive do not do scorched-earth rebuilds; they rebuild on the fly.

Burke is just not doing a very good job of it, but most rebuilding teams aren't blessed with good management; it's why they are terrible in the first place.

It's rather significant, to me, that teams that do suck-and-draft in the modern era, even if they do eventually win the Cup, seldom do so with the management teams that presided the rebuilds...
Consistently trading away 1st round picks is not rebuilding. The man has tried for quick fixes (just like the Islanders did) and it didn't work.

Only now is he starting to keep his draft picks because Toronto FINALLY realizes that it is a better path towards success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
That's not a 50% success rate for rebuilds. That means 50% of the teams that won the Cup in the last four years had "being terrible for a while" (and no, Chicago did not intentionally "rebuild" -- they just sucked for a while) as a component of their team building strategy. Just as importantly, 50% of them did not.

It does not say much for the importance of being terrible for a couple years.

Your four-year break point is, well, convenient. Why not use five instead and include Anaheim? Does a 40% rate not sound quite as convincing, or do they count as "rebuilding" because they had top-5 picks... even though they used them to draft Chistov, Vishnevski, and Kilger?
I AM talking about Cup winners dude. That's what you don't understand. I'm not saying that if you rebuild you have a 50% chance at winning the cup... don't be silly.

Your five year is convenient... why not use the last 40?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Samples are only meaningful if they are taken from the same population. The rules of the team-building games have changed. It's like comparing goal stats from the 80s to those of today. You have to adjust for the changing circumstances.

Argh, getting into another reply-fest. Let's recap instead:

1- in the cap world, rebuilt teams do not win the Cup more often than non-rebuilt teams, even using the "rebuilt" term to include "teams that happened to be terrible and get good draft picks out of it" as well as "teams that decided to be terrible to accumulate good draft picks".

2- incidentally that last category is pretty much zero. Teams only rebuild once they are terrible; they tank because they're bad, or they tank because they monetarily can't afford to be competitive. No one dismantles a competitive team in the hopes of getting high draft picks.

3- the success rate of scorched-Earth rebuilds is low. The success stories get all the hype, in no small part because they're rags-to-riches by definition. The failures don't get talked about, because they're terrible teams that stay terrible. Typically a scorched-Earth rebuild happens because one management team drives a team into the ground, and on the relatively rare occasion they recover, it's often because a new, quality management team worked to make them competitive.

4- teams with good management don't scorched-Earth rebuild unless they inherited a terrible team; teams with good management don't allow their teams to become terrible for a long period. That's what makes them good. Bad management teams produce terrible teams, which is what results in "scorched-Earth rebuilds". Good management teams work to stay competitive.

5- competitive teams with quality management teams do not deal players like Markov for picks, because the pick, even if it is a high pick, is unlikely to produce a player this valuable; and good management teams try to stay competitive. And the teams that look for players like Markov are competitive and so, by definition, tend not to have high picks in the first place. (Barring the utter stupidity of a GM like Colorado's who trades a potential lottery pick for a dime-a-dozen goalie. I'd jump on an occasion like this if it came up, but I wouldn't plan to get that lucky.)
1. The Cap world has only been around for a few years and we've seen that rebuilding has still worked. I'm all for trading for Pronger, Niedermayer and an over the hill player who turns back into a 50 goal scorer... but you aren't likely able to do this. Rebuilding though IS a repeatable strategy.

2. Washington is the most recent example of a club that purposely rebuilt and dealt away Jagr and vets to start over.

3. The success rate of ANY strategy is low. But cup winners have been rebuilds far more often than not. And you don't have to tank to get top picks.

4. I'm not recommending a 'scorched earth'. I recommending we trade for the best prospects and picks that we can.

5. Wrong again. Once again I'll use the Caps because they are the most recent example. They dealt away Jagr and company because they knew they weren't going to win a cup with him. Feel free to read Leonsis' ten point plan on rebuilding. He makes a LOT of sense. http://www.hogshaven.com/2009/2/26/7...shares-his-ten And even if this wasn't the case... it still doesn't matter. I don't care if NO team has ever done this. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Pollock understood this. You can scream it was a different era all you want, he still faced the same pressure to win as we do today but he understood the value of the draft.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 03:14 AM
  #387
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
1. The Cap world has only been around for a few years and we've seen that rebuilding has still worked. I'm all for trading for Pronger, Niedermayer and an over the hill player who turns back into a 50 goal scorer... but you aren't likely able to do this. Rebuilding though IS a repeatable strategy.

2. Washington is the most recent example of a club that purposely rebuilt and dealt away Jagr and vets to start over.

3. The success rate of ANY strategy is low. But cup winners have been rebuilds far more often than not. And you don't have to tank to get top picks.

4. I'm not recommending a 'scorched earth'. I recommending we trade for the best prospects and picks that we can.

5. Wrong again. Once again I'll use the Caps because they are the most recent example. They dealt away Jagr and company because they knew they weren't going to win a cup with him. Feel free to read Leonsis' ten point plan on rebuilding. He makes a LOT of sense. http://www.hogshaven.com/2009/2/26/7...shares-his-ten And even if this wasn't the case... it still doesn't matter. I don't care if NO team has ever done this. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Pollock understood this. You can scream it was a different era all you want, he still faced the same pressure to win as we do today but he understood the value of the draft.
1 Yup, and we've seen non tanking teams winning the cup as well...

2. Jagr was dealt EIGHT years ago, and they're still waiting for their first cup...

3. So, what you're saying is you prefer the tanking strategy over others... ok.

4. trading to contender means picks you'll get for your vets will be between 20 and 30... that's pretty far from lottery picks...

5. makes lots of sense on paper, have yet to see a GM go in rebuild mode while the playoffs are still in reach though...

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 08:05 AM
  #388
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
I'm not a big fan of tanking or losing on purpose to get higher picks and I don't think LG really is either. He's saying pursuing the UFA route to build the core of your team is not a winning recipe. Without a doubt he's right. The UFA route is what you use to put an already contending team over the top. They're mostly complimentary players available on the UFA market, because any core players are maintained by their drafting club.

Where we kinda of get disconnected is the direction PG is going, I think we are making a strong case with our developed players, within our own system to have developed a strong core. He can't change what has already happened. He was in a bit of a pickle when he took over the club from BG, but has performed admirably to this point.

I like the direction of our current club, but I think we may have been even closer to the ultimate goal if the gomez, gionta, cammy, spacek signings never took place. Sure we might be a regular 6th-8th seed playoff team with those acquisitions, but they didn't bring us any closer to the ultimate goal of winning a cup. Our best players are the guys we developed on our own, Price, PK, pleks, ak ect. I would of been fine with a cammy signing only and worked from there, but I gotta say I love the direction this club is heading. I use to think Gomez would prevent us from being a contender, but with the plethora of youth we have now I think we can win despite his huge cap hit, I still think it was the worst move post lockout though.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 08:33 AM
  #389
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Your five year is convenient... why not use the last 40?
If 40, why not 50? 60? Heck, let's look at how it all went down when there were only 6 teams.
Don't your understand the simple concept of evolution? Progress?
THINGS ARE NOT DONE THE SAME.
Don't tell me you know this but don't care. Tossing it aside makes your whole argument look worse than what comes out of my dog's arse.

Mentioning how Pollock operated is
Laughable.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 08:56 AM
  #390
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If 40, why not 50? 60? Heck, let's look at how it all went down when there were only 6 teams.
Don't your understand the simple concept of evolution? Progress?
THINGS ARE NOT DONE THE SAME.
Don't tell me you know this but don't care. Tossing it aside makes your whole argument look worse than what comes out of my dog's arse.

Mentioning how Pollock operated is
Laughable
.
Not really the premise is the same. Every year there are contending teams willing to overpay for what they think are improvements enough to put them over the top. Every, single year this still happens.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:10 AM
  #391
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
-The Cup winning teams that did use the rebuild route won the Cup whereas their best players were under their ELC. They both have to suck for more than 4-5 years to win the Cup.
With the cap, you really have to suck horribly to be in the cellar for that long. And you have to wonder why you are there for that long, by the way, which means that something is wrong etc...

Important point, both teams were sucking before the lockout, and not only after. Now, i think its impossible, with the parity on the league, to catch that many (4-5) high picks without a problem in the team/organization.

-"The success rate of ANY strategy is low." Except that the downside of that route are really problematic, if you dont succeed.
If you dont succeed with a slow process, you're still playing in PO on a consistent basis. Or sometimes. From a business point of view, its at least safe. If you fail your rebuild, you've lost an entire decade. And its hard to recover from such a thing.

-Teams dont trade high picks that often. We only see bets (just like Columbus or Colorado's one) or swaps. You have to wait the 20th overall pick and the top-10 teams in the league to see really some deals that a rebuilding team can do without needing luck.

-We underestimate the value of the veterans. The pick may break out, but no one knows if he will...

(What follows is theoritical, and im not drunk.)

Lets talk about Gionta for instance.
I think that given his abilities, his intangibles, his production etc, he's probably good enough to be around the 170-180th best player in the league.
Around 90-110 forwards better than him, around 50-70 defenseman better than him, around 20 goalies better than him.
Hard to represent this, but we can only focus on forwards if needed.

The average age of a NHL player is 27, i think. You're drafted at 18, that means 9 different entry drafts.

Divide 100 (his spot on forwards around the league) by 9, it gives you 11.
I think that a player like Gionta is very probably good enough to be the 11th forward drafted in a draft class.
Which gives you a draft spot between the 18th and 24th pick, normally.

Is a 20th overall pick likely to give you a player better than Gionta ?
When we look at the last entry drafts, its not sure at all.

Rutabaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:20 AM
  #392
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Not really the premise is the same. Every year there are contending teams willing to overpay for what they think are improvements enough to put them over the top. Every, single year this still happens.
A very simplistic premise is the same, sure. That is, it's a GM building a hockey team in the NHL to win.
Right.
But, everything else is different. Heck, the rules and equipment are even different. So ya, the premise is the same, doesn't mean the eras are comparable.
Trying to look at the way teams were built in the 70's is retarded.

In order to win a cup, you need a lot of things. It's not just about having top5 picks, it's not just about going through the UFA route, it's not just by making trades. It's a mix of everything, which means good drafting (from wtv position), good signings, and key trades. Suggesting one route is more successful than another is just wrong.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:22 AM
  #393
Freaky Habs Fan
Registered User
 
Freaky Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New-Brunswick
Posts: 9,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I agree it's tough to trade for high picks. But it is not impossible, and every attempt should be made to do so by any good GM. There are always a few desperate GM/s out there. Always. 'Have to win this year or I'm gone!' There are also ways to trade for high picks 2 or 3 years down the line, not just next year.

Also, most GM's were not stupid in Pollock's day either. The trades I'm talking about are not always obvious. Pollock used to trade to make certain teams BETTER, in order that others finished lower, the ones he wanted something from. There are many ways...
The GMs were not stupid, but they were not as knowledgeable as today. The draft wasn't that important for many teams. Pollock knew he was able to build team with good draft picks so that's why he had an edge over other GMs. Back then, getting a high draft pick was much more easier.

Now, it's a whole different story. Most of the teams wants to build through the draft. The bad teams understand they should be bad for a few years and then become good (Pittsburgh, Chicago...a few years ago)(Edmonton, NY Islander now...).

A few years ago, it was possible to get a 1st for a rental player, but not so much anymore. You now get a second round pick. Why? Because teams want to keep their first...even if it's in the 20ies. And you still believe it's not that hard to get a top 5 pick? If it's the case, I don't know what to say. Most teams in the top 5 don't even want to trade down a few spots because they want X player. But of course, it's not impossible...but you would have to pay a premium to get one...and that's Subban or someone like him. Those teams want quality over quantity, which make those trade REALLY hard.

And I'm pretty sure Gauthier is calling quite a few team on draft week to get a better pick...

And think about it, how many high draft picks were traded in the past few years? In the last draft, Columbus traded their 7th overall pick, but for Jeff Carter. Sure they added Voracek, but the 7th pick was still the most valuable asset in the trade, again, for JEFF CARTER.

Freaky Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:28 AM
  #394
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Not really the premise is the same. Every year there are contending teams willing to overpay for what they think are improvements enough to put them over the top. Every, single year this still happens.
Except "overpaying" means a late first-round pick and a second-tier prospect, and maybe spare parts. That's what the Habs got for Rivet, that's basically what Hossa brought back, etc. It's meaningful enough that you do it if you're not competitive, and it can get you some very good results, but it doesn't actually fit the strategy of "trading for top picks/prospects".

@Rutabaga: except for thinking that you're overestimating the amount of talent around the league, you're bang on -- people are all too keen on draft picks because of the highly-publicized success stories and forget that they still are, ultimately, bags of magic beans who may well not yield a player as good as the one you traded the pick for. Drafting works by going for volume so even with the iffy success rate, you still net nice players.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:28 AM
  #395
Perrah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Not really the premise is the same. Every year there are contending teams willing to overpay for what they think are improvements enough to put them over the top. Every, single year this still happens.
Yeah look at pittsburgh and philly. Trading prospects and picks like candy trying to find a now winger for crosby and philly gave up a 1st and 3rd for versteeg, terrible.

Perrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:35 AM
  #396
JimmyDarmody
Registered User
 
JimmyDarmody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrah View Post
Yeah look at pittsburgh and philly. Trading prospects and picks like candy trying to find a now winger for crosby and philly gave up a 1st and 3rd for versteeg, terrible.
Kind of sounds like us and our annual scramble to replace whatever PP dman we let walk the year before. And we gave up a 1st and 2nd for Tanguay so we're not in a position to talk either.

And a 2nd for Moore. And a 2nd for Wiz. And a 2nd for Lang. And a 2nd and 4th for twenty games of Schneider.

JimmyDarmody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:36 AM
  #397
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You're doing what KrissE is doing... missing the point.

Rebuilding doesn't guarantee success. But cup winning teams have been mostly rebuilds.

It's kind of like asking a girl out. There are three scenarios here:

1. If you don't ask her out, she probably won't go out with you.
2. If you do ask her out she still might not go out with you but you've got a better chance of it happening.
3. And sometimes she'll wind up asking you out and you don't have to ask. Not likely but it does happen.

Nobody is saying that if you ask her out you're guaranteed a date... get it?


Anways... this is now officially way off topic.

I should go to Seventieslord and have him reprint his statistical study on the draft here. It really cements statistically what I'm talking about. None of this really belongs in the toughness thread.
I'm not missing the point and you said so yourself: "Rebuilding doesn't guarantee success. But cup winning teams have been mostly rebuilds". You're summarizing my point with that phrase and that's all I'm trying to say here.

Not all Stanley cup winning teams went through a painful and frustrating rebuild period and not all teams that have had a number of top picks have been successful. In fact, using only Stanley cup winners as a sample doesn't show the reality, since not only cup winners are contenders and every year, a number of good teams that didn't go through a total rebuild have a chance at winning the cup.

Here's another angle to look at things: are the teams that went through a rebuild dominating year-in, year-out in this salary-cap era?

Fozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:40 AM
  #398
Perrah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyDarmody View Post
Kind of sounds like us and our annual scramble to replace whatever PP dman we let walk the year before. And we gave up a 1st and 2nd for Tanguay so we're not in a position to talk either.

And a 2nd for Moore. And a 2nd for Wiz. And a 2nd for Lang. And a 2nd and 4th for twenty games of Schneider.
Yeah, the wiz one I cant really harp on since it was a necessity to get another mobile point producing d man. Lang was a beauty and I think he would have been re-signed for a year or 2 if not for his injury that basically ended his career. I still dont know why they didnt re-sign moore unless he pulled what he did in TO wanting too much cash.

Perrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:49 AM
  #399
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
A very simplistic premise is the same, sure. That is, it's a GM building a hockey team in the NHL to win.
Right.
But, everything else is different. Heck, the rules and equipment are even different. So ya, the premise is the same, doesn't mean the eras are comparable.
Trying to look at the way teams were built in the 70's is retarded.

In order to win a cup, you need a lot of things. It's not just about having top5 picks, it's not just about going through the UFA route, it's not just by making trades. It's a mix of everything, which means good drafting (from wtv position), good signings, and key trades. Suggesting one route is more successful than another is just wrong.
Umm, the rules and equipment are different, what the hell does that got to do with anything? The idea of selling aging assets when your team is no longer competitive is still a successful model that could/should be followed today. The fact the league has changed varying degrees doesn't change this simple concept.

Another strawman, no one is arguing there is only one way to skin a cat, but Sam Pollocks model for success can still be employed today. I wonder if Alex Anthopolous knows anything about hockey.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:53 AM
  #400
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Except "overpaying" means a late first-round pick and a second-tier prospect, and maybe spare parts. That's what the Habs got for Rivet, that's basically what Hossa brought back, etc. It's meaningful enough that you do it if you're not competitive, and it can get you some very good results, but it doesn't actually fit the strategy of "trading for top picks/prospects".

@Rutabaga: except for thinking that you're overestimating the amount of talent around the league, you're bang on -- people are all too keen on draft picks because of the highly-publicized success stories and forget that they still are, ultimately, bags of magic beans who may well not yield a player as good as the one you traded the pick for. Drafting works by going for volume so even with the iffy success rate, you still net nice players.
Agreed mathman, obviously contending teams don't have a top pick, but a trade like rivet for Gorges late first (patches) is something this team hasn't done enough of. Letting players walk for nothing is something that should be avoided as much as possible. Obviously it would be harder to do when a team is competing for a playoff berth, but imo if the goal is to eventually win a cup, making a rivet for gorges patches type deal is gonna move you closer to that goal than getting 8th place in the conference, especially since the number of teams who won a cup as an 8th seed are zero. Obviously you need support of ownership to make a bold move like that.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.