Canucks Young Guns

[Ronning's Ghost]

Is/was Miller and Horvat a strong enough duo to win a Cup with? Probably not. They might have been enough to get you there, but looking at the last 30 years, the number of teams that have won the Cup with centres outside the top 10 is exceedingly low...

Not that I really disagree with you, but wasn't this past season another example of a team winning it without a true elite center? Aho, Stankoven, and Staal worked pretty well as quality in numbers.

I was going to add Aho as an example, but I didn't watch any of these last playoffs. So I agree, I think you could add Carolina probably both times they won the cup.

Not many teams have ever had what they had this year though, ie three super premium #2 centers. Something like that is likely to work more times than not if you can put it together. Again, I basically agree with your point.

This fun for me, because it touches on a topic I enjoy, but few here care to discuss very often, at least with respect to a deliberate plan: roster construction and cap allocation.

Could the Canucks be looking at three premium #2 centres? Rossi, Cootes, and Malhotra?

My suspicion is that such a roster is actually easier to put together (and fit under a cap) than a 1 -2 centre punch like McDavid and Draisaitl.

[5thhorseman]

Isn't that because McDavid and Draisaitl.are actually a 1-1 centre punch?

[UWSaint]

This fun for me, because it touches on a topic I enjoy, but few here care to discuss very often, at least with respect to a deliberate plan: roster construction and cap allocation.

I agree that the topic is interesting.

Here's the way I see it very generally:

(1) All winning teams need above average talent on their rosters. This is a team's core. (St. Louis was arguably an exception to this rule).
(2) Rosters and team identity should be constructed around the core, to accentuate, complement, and sometimes make up for deficits without sacrificing identity.
(3) The corollary to the above is that the core isn't acquired because they fit a pre-conceived notion of team identity. It is really hard to find special players, and beggars can't be choosers. The exception to this is when there is an established core and you are adding a final member who is going to slide into an established system.
(4) This might be summarized as follows: your core players will have specific attributes. To construct a roster, you must understand what those attributes are, and build an identity that maximizes their effectiveness. And that's all right because....
(5) There is no single blueprint for success in the NHL. In recent seasons, the Stanley Cup has been won by teams with different styles. Florida and Carolina have several similarities -- the most significant to me is how relentless they play, but the way they play relentless is quite different and defines them. Florida relies on physicality (not just hitting, but using bodies to take away space without the puck and create space with the puck), always on the line. Carolina speed and indefatigability. Both styles require depth. Florida's game requires above average size, Carolina's game can be played with below average size (at least in the forward group). Florida's game as a team looks more like Barkov; Carolina's looks more like Aho -- they built identities on the players who emerged to be their important players. But go back a few years and the Cups were won by teams defined by their enviable top of the line up skill and the ability of the best defensemen to eat up most of the game (Tampa, Colorado).
(6) A review of recent winners also suggests something quite obvious -- the less "top of the league" your top end talent is, the deeper you have to be. Depth opens up effective style options, and makes finding complements who can play that way really important. Extraordinary high end skill (ideally without glaring weak spots) is a cheat code to being successful, but it brings with it bigger cap hits and less flexibility to build complements. And if those top players flame out, there's nowhere to go.

I think the above holds true with not only styles, but also positions. You can win from the net out, you can win with center depth. And you can lose with each strategy. I agree wings are far less important as a general rule than centers, defensemen, and goalies, but goalies are nearly impossible to project at 18 and defensemen are somewhat hard to project, so that nudges rebuilding through the draft teams to grab centers. My view--when the slate is blank, just get talent and refine from there.

[Lancer]

It's the Carolina model, and I think it's one of the more sustainable models.

(3) The corollary to the above is that the core isn't acquired because they fit a pre-conceived notion of team identity. It is really hard to find special players, and beggars can't be choosers. The exception to this is when there is an established core and you are adding a final member who is going to slide into an established system.

Talent at the draft is talent, and I subscribe to the BPA. That said, if management has an identity or a style of play they want their team to adopt, and one of their 'special/core players' isn't fitting that mold, there's nothing saying they can't trade that 'special/core player' for a player who fits their mold better - perhaps take some picks and prospects depending on how much runway management has in a rebuild. Pump and dump the kid for a better fit - either now or in the near future. The risk is the time lost in a team's development if you go the picks and prospects route.

[Cornuck]

Where do you see "chemistry" in terms of importance? I think Florida and Carolina also had that mixture of players who were playing for each other and added a few points to their makeup.

One thing that makes winning the Cup unique is that it is a long slog unlike any other in pro sports. Luck is also a big factor. Injuries, hot goalie, schedule - which can disrupt even the best teams.

With the rising cap, it's going to be interesting to see what the next few Cup winners look like. Will there be the switch back to high-end talend leading the way - or will it be a strong lineup and down the roster that marks success?

[UWSaint]

Talent at the draft is talent, and I subscribe to the BPA. That said, if management has an identity or a style of play they want their team to adopt, and one of their 'special/core players' isn't fitting that mold, there's nothing saying they can't trade that 'special/core player' for a player who fits their mold better - perhaps take some picks and prospects depending on how much runway management has in a rebuild. Pump and dump the kid for a better fit - either now or in the near future. The risk is the time lost in a team's development if you go the picks and prospects route.

I don't disagree that sometimes you progress with the BPA and that player isn't fitting the mold that is developing around your draft pick. Florida moved on Huberdeau (and after a President's Trophy, IIRC), not because Huberdeau wasn't effective, but because they were forming their mold around Sasha.

Where I do take issue is identifying the style before having things far enough developed with an emerging core to have that style built around the growing talent. Don't think "we need to play big" and bypass a clear smaller BPA early in the draft (where there are more meaningful marginal quality differences) when you don't really know how you need to play because the special talent isn't developed enough or numerous enough.

[UWSaint]

Where do you see "chemistry" in terms of importance? I think Florida and Carolina also had that mixture of players who were playing for each other and added a few points to their makeup.

One thing that makes winning the Cup unique is that it is a long slog unlike any other in pro sports. Luck is also a big factor. Injuries, hot goalie, schedule - which can disrupt even the best teams.

With the rising cap, it's going to be interesting to see what the next few Cup winners look like. Will there be the switch back to high-end talend leading the way - or will it be a strong lineup and down the roster that marks success?

All teams that win have chemistry because winning is evidence of chemistry....

I don't put a ton of stock into that intangible term, yet at the same time, I can't deny that Hank and Dank had something with one another that went beyond their big brains and great hands. But setting aside these aliens, I think that "chemistry" is something that comes from three things: (1) knowing the expectations (playing to the style of the line/team in the role the line has for you), (2) hockey iq, and (3) ensuring the lines are balanced to fit the needs of the line (e.g., don't put three Henriks on the same line, don't couple a sniper with two guys that play with their head down). I think that Carolina and Florida are really well coached teams, and a good deal of the above has to do with coaching decisions and communication. On the other hand, Kuzmenko and EP40 can have great chemistry under Boudreau and before Tocchet wants to make every player into his image; they have shitty chemistry in Kuzzy's second year where Kuzzy's assigned the role of forechecker. That kind of thing.

As for the effect of the rising cap, I don't think that it will change too much whether high talent or depth will be preferred. I think that is almost a where you sit is where you stand decision. If you are fortunate to draft a Celebrini, you will pay out your nose for him and that has downstream effects. I do think that the rising cap, however, will enable already nearly established teams with longer term contracts signed before agents figured out the future to stretch their talent further. Guys signed before the bull market have gotten more valuable, and so there are going to be higher end players on principal complementary player salaries. Montreal is sitting very very pretty.....