Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Point/Counterpoint: How to Build a Team

Welcome to the first monthly edition of Point/Counterpoint, where we welcome a fellow young hockey writer to discuss a variety of subjects. It's a continuation of the intense "debate" once found at Flyers Faithful, now located here for the balance of the season.

For October, I welcome back Nick Dobrowolski. Our first topic, what's the best way to construct a Stanley Cup-caliber team: rebuild or re-load?

Nick D: Each year, all 30 National Hockey League teams try to put together a team that can win the coolest trophy on Earth and only one succeeds. Since 2005, there have been eight Stanley Cup Champions: Carolina, Anaheim, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago (twice), Boston and Los Angeles. Of those teams, only the Red Wings, Penguins, Blackhawks, and Bruins have appeared in two Stanley Cup Final rounds since 2006, which lends itself to the idea that any team really has a shot at hockey’s ultimate prize. 
However, the question remains, what is the best way to construct a team? If any of the teams that have been in the Cup Finals since the last lockout are a good indication, then teams must start keeping their cores together, building from within their own organizations, and filling holes when necessary via free agency and trades. Almost every team who has won the cup in the past eight years has a core of players that they drafted and built around, many of which are higher first round picks. There aren’t many teams that have had massive turnover one year and gone to the top of the class the next year. If you ask me, that’s the way to go. It isn’t necessary to tank to get your players, but teams must choose young players that they can and will build around, facilitate their growth and development, and go from there. 

Bob H: And how does a team get those cores, that chewy, nougat center that holds the entire on-ice candy bar together? They sit near the bottom of the NHL standings for several years, collecting top-10 draft picks by their lowly standing and then selling off whatever assets they possess for additional high-round selections. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Right here in Philadelphia, we don't do that. You don't accumulate a track record of two Stanley Cups, eight Cup Finals appearances, 16 division titles and 36 playoff berths and legions of faithful millions by rolling over every couple years in a cycle of rebirth in hopes of reaching the league's elite for another crack at a championship. Rebuilding is the key and it's gotta be done by degrees, year after year with trades and free-agent deals, always stoking the fires so that there's no threat of a prolonged drop-off and the fear of failure remains constant. Remember those five years out of the playoff picture? They wouldn't have ended if the organization didn't seize the day and make the blockbuster Eric Lindros trade.

Since the mid 90's, the Colorado Avalanche, Detroit Red Wings, Dallas Stars, Edmonton Oilers, Anaheim Ducks, Ottawa Senators, Vancouver Canucks, Los Angeles Kings have also gone the trade/free agency route to build and enhance their respective rosters and all but the Canucks and Senators have sipped the golden nectar from the silver chalice. Why wait? In the NHL of the 2000s, you have a certain window to break through and you've got to snag the best players at the best price in their prime to make it work.

Even your sainted Blackhawks fell prey to the vagaries of the cap era, taking players like Dave Bolland, Dustin Byfuglien, Brian Campbell, Brent Sopel, John Madden, Dan Carcillo et al and then having to slough them off the roster due to cap issues. What good is a core if you have to constantly make tough decisions?
Nick: Look Bob, if we take Chicago as an example, being as that they are the only NHL team to have two Cups to their name in the past eight years, it’s pretty clear as to how teams should be built. In 2010, the key players for the Blackhawks were Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Bolland, Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Patrick Sharp, and Antti Niemi. Of those players, only Sharp was not playing with the team who he signed his first pro contract with and only Niemi was not originally drafted by Chicago. In 2013, the key players for the Blackhawks remained largely the same with the departure of a few names and addition of a few others.  
Toews, Kane, Bolland, Keith, Seabrook, Sharp, Corey Crawford, Andrew Shaw, and Bryan Bickell all had a good playoff for the Blackhawks and contributed to their repeat.. Even though the Blackhawks had to trade quite a few of their players after the 2010 win to get under the salary cap, they won again with much of the same nucleus just three years later. They did have turnover, and while some key personnel were moved, the core of Bolland, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, and Toews remained intact.

Bob: Memorize that list, because in the next several years, most of those names will be crossed off due to salary-cap concerns and Stan Bowman having to perform triage on the deep core to determine who will be let go and who will be extended long-term, for a third crack at the Cup. Chances are almost 100 percent that three of the big five (Kane, Toews, Sharp, Keith, Crawford) will be working elsewhere. 
The best way to head that off is to not worry so much about keeping a core intact, but to line up cost-effective alternatives beyond the organization -- even in years when the crop may not yield much. That's the odd, recumbent loop that occurs when you start down the road to success -- you have to do whatever you can to maintain it, even at the cost of long-term goals. Do you think generations of Blackhawks, or Penguins, or Red Wings, or Bruins fans will stand another stretch of an untold number of years struggling to get back to the top like the ones which preceded their runs of success?

This is not the NHL of previous generations, where losing records still mean playoff berths: coaches and GMs are fired for missing out on the postseason despite winning percentages above .500. The pressure is to win now, and forever. Paul Holmgren has a blank check to pull the Flyers out of whatever funk they find themselves in, and the sooner the better. The full-throttle transition from 2007 to 2008 is the prime example, as was the one from 1994 to 1995 under Bob Clarke. It may not be elegant, but it has to be done to avoid lagging behind other clubs at the height of the league.
Nick:  I'll concede that teams can construct themselves via trade and free agency, but they still need to be able to draft and develop talent. Without having core players that were drafted by the team, or at least being able to develop guys, there will always be a high turnover rate, lots of question marks about chemistry and consistency, as well as a need to pay a premium for high-end talent. That is the bigger issue that, if we’re really looking at the Philadelphia Flyers, they face every year. 
They spend a lot and are usually competitive, but they have no room to make moves without losing players or trading picks just to make a trade more palatable for their partners, and have trouble developing talent. It’s an issue that will continue to plague this Cup-hungry city and franchise until they choose players to really build around and keep their core together for more than just three years.

Bob: Nick, you ignorant slut. 

That's socialism for you, in the NHL context. Win some lose some, gain players lose players. Gotta bank on proven commodities rather than waiting for draft picks or core to mature.

Go big or go home. 


No comments: