| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
 Posted - 07/13/2011 : 15:32:51
|
With so much talk about draft picks, I thought it would be worthwhile to see how the Boston Bruins built their cup-winning team.
They definitely drafted well, with the following five players all selected with their own draft picks: Bergeron, Krejci, Lucic, Marchand and Seguin.
But they also did very well at the trade table, picking up players like Horton, Campbell, Boychuk, Seidenberg and Rask through trades.
And they did particularly well with free agent signings, picking up arguably their best three players through this route: Chara, Savard and Thomas.
So drafting well is important, but to be successful, a team has to make positive moves in other ways too. (And sometimes that means giving up draft picks with your trades too.)
Great teams do all of the above, and I might add, sometimes there's a bit of luck involved. Because there's no guarantee with draft picks, and players traded (to or from) can sometimes rise or fall in stature.
Boston got it right, and all within the cap. In looking at their cap space today, they are in way better shape than Chicago was a year ago. Chicago ended up losing a lot of players after their cup win in 2010, and while they were still a pretty good team this past season, to lose 8 or 10 players from your cup-winning roster is a big shift in personnel!
|
|
|
Guest9201
( )
|
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 15:50:24
|
Not to pile on the Kessel trade, but thats why great teams can stay great, when one piece leaves, another of compareable worth is ready to take their place. Take out Kessel, insert Seguin or Horton who I would argue was part of the Kessel trade because Boston could afford to trade their pick because they owned Toronto's.
Take out Recchi insert Marchand. Take out Ryder insert Knight, or Spooner. I would say drafting is by far the most important thing an organization can do to build a champion. Thats why Edmonton is going to be great very soon, while teams like Toronto struggle year after year. |
 |
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2011 : 06:27:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9201
Not to pile on the Kessel trade, but thats why great teams can stay great, when one piece leaves, another of compareable worth is ready to take their place. Take out Kessel, insert Seguin or Horton who I would argue was part of the Kessel trade because Boston could afford to trade their pick because they owned Toronto's.
Take out Recchi insert Marchand. Take out Ryder insert Knight, or Spooner. I would say drafting is by far the most important thing an organization can do to build a champion. Thats why Edmonton is going to be great very soon, while teams like Toronto struggle year after year.
Not to pile on people who pile on the Kessel trade, but how is the way Toronto is building so different than Boston?
The Leafs have one of the youngest teams, have a combination of talent acquired through drafting, trades and signings, and have several players with very bright futures.
Boston did not do it the way Edmonton is doing right now, btw (which is the way Pittsburgh did). Many past cup champions have done it slightly differently.
But again, it's clear you just have a Leaf bias, and decided to insert it on a post about building a cup champion citing Boston as the example.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2011 : 06:37:27
|
It's not really Leaf bias Slozo, it's simply logic and reason. No one is agruing the Leafs not building the same way as the Bruins. However, the Bruins are did it with better players than the Leafs which is why they won the Cup and the Leafs have not made the playoffs in 5 seasons.
Argue it any way you want, there are not many people (fans, media, etc) that can be convinced that the Leafs won the Kessel trade. It's simply not reasonable to think that at this point and likely not reasonable in the future either.
As far as claiming people to have 'Leaf Bias" how about the " Leave my (insert team name here) alone" syndrome? That's where fans simply get sick and tired of other fans pointing out their teams lack of success. Most people with this syndrome see anything negative towards their team as a bias even when it isn't.
Finally, I think this guest has very valid points and can use this frame work to just about any team that has been successful in the past decade or so. It takes quality draft picks, smart trades, and wise free agent pick ups to build a winning team. That can be said about Pittsburgh, Detroit, Anaheim, etc. He just used Boston as the most recent example.
Maybe it's less about Leaf Bias and more about Bruin Envy???? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2011 : 07:50:19
|
I will bet you a CAR, Beans, that Toronto gets past the second round of the playoffs before Edmonton does (sign of a truly competetive team, with very few exceptions).
And when does a re-building or "building" team get compared to the finished product of the cup champs?
You guys are ridicuous to argue with, seriously.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2011 : 09:28:50
|
Slozo, what does Toronto getting further in the playoffs than Edmonton have to do with anything?? "Leave my team alone" syndrome at it's best with it's wicked cousin, 'well at least my lesser team is better than your lesser team."
Before I make that bet, what kind of car as we talking about???
Correct me if I am wrong but were these not your words:
Not to pile on people who pile on the Kessel trade, but how is the way Toronto is building so different than Boston?
Is that not a comparison???
Are these not your words:
And when does a re-building or "building" team get compared to the finished product of the cup champs?
Is that you now saying that Boston should not be compared to Toronto??
I will bet you a CAR that your next comment will make about as much sense as your first two in this thread. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2011 : 10:49:37
|
Ok, Apples/Oranges, I'll explain. It may not make sense to you, but it'll make sense to others.
Hell, it may even be entertaining, in a Laurel and Hardy kind of way. Not that I expect 90% of my audience to even know who they are . . . but I digress.
POINT:You and others seem to be stating over and over again that Edmonton is building the right way (total tank job, gather high draft picks, hope for that one or two year window of chasing the cup before you lose a bunch of talent to free agency) - as opposed to Toronto, which started with getting parts they needed (young, gifted scorer) by dealing picks, but at the same time also developing their own players as well, and making lots of trades. In short, a bit of everything.
I don't think one way is more guaranteed than the other for a cup win; but I like the way Toronto is doing it, as it seems to have a longer window of opportunity in the future, as well as building faster towards it.
But that being said, even though we know the Leafs and Oilers (our respective teams) started the re-build at around the same time . . . and are both not there yet . . . how could you determine that the Bruins drafted better players? I mean, it would be tough to beat out Bergeron, Krejci and Lucic in the end . . . but at this point, Kulemin, Reimer and Schenn is a very good start. Add in Gunnarson, Aulie (I'm counting him as a draftee, same thing basically) and Kadri and the Colbourne kid maybe . . . it's not too bad a crop of prospects.
So what I am saying is - wait until the Leafs are finished rebuilding and are competing, THEN compare the teams and THE WAY THEY DRAFTED. Because how can you know how some of these Leaf kids will turn out? We just don't know.
However, I CAN compare the WAY they are building, because although Toronto is earlier in its development towards a cup champ/contender . . . we can see how it's being done.
We can see Toronto, like Boston, picking up some free agents along the way; drafting some good players; getting players through trades. And Boston, like Toronto, didn't get a slew of high first round draft picks to build on, and we can assume that Toronto will continue not to do this as they are already a team that won't finish in the basement.
Hope you get my drift.
As to the car? Well, I suppose I should get specific, but more importantly, detail exactly how BIG it has to be. Otherwise, I'm liable to get a beautiful replica Hot Wheels version of a 2010 Corvette
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2011 : 11:23:43
|
OK Slozo, I get it. Don't agree with all of it, but I get it.
Firstly, I don't think I have ever said that Edmonton is building their team the right or wrong way. Better said, I don't think I have ever said that there is a right way. Edmonton is building through the draft and developing their players. A team like NYR appear to buy or trade for most of their players. However, I have stated many times in the past that drafting players is one of the keys to winning. The second key is well executed trades and the third is using free agency to fill gaps.
Secondly, I think you are forgetting your timing a little bit. Edmonton and TO did not start 'rebuilding' their teams at the same time. Toronto started rebuilding their team the season before the Oilers did. Don't forget the Kessel deal was the season before the Oilers drafted Hall. That is the season the first tanked and completely gutted the team at the trade deadline. TO started a year ahead of Edmonton.
Finally, a team is never 'finished." One can not say a team is don'e building so one can never look at a complete product. At least in my opinion. What you can do is look at each draft year and who is doing what for their respective teams. Let's do that for a second.
Toronto has drafted 57 players including and since the 2004 entry draft. Of those 57 players, 14 (or about 25%) have played at least one game in the NHL. Of those 57 players, only 6(or 10%) have played in more than 100 games. The highlights of those 57 players are Nikolai Kulemin, Luke Schenn, Anton Stralman, Jiri Tlusty, Viktor Stalberg, Carl Gunnarsson, Tuukka Rask, James Reimer, and Nazem Kadri.
Boston has drafted 52 players in that same time period and 19(37%) have played at least one game in the NHL. 7 of them (or 13%) have played in more than 100 games. The highlights of those 52 players are Phil Kessel, David Krejci, Milan Lucic, Kris Versteeg, Matt Hunwick, Vladimir Sobotka, Brad Marchand, and Tyler Seguin.
I'm not sure what anyone else would say, but I think that Boston drafted better players than Toronto. I also see more players that Boston drafted still playing and producing for the Bruins. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2011 : 05:36:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
OK Slozo, I get it. Don't agree with all of it, but I get it.
Firstly, I don't think I have ever said that Edmonton is building their team the right or wrong way. Better said, I don't think I have ever said that there is a right way. Edmonton is building through the draft and developing their players. A team like NYR appear to buy or trade for most of their players. However, I have stated many times in the past that drafting players is one of the keys to winning. The second key is well executed trades and the third is using free agency to fill gaps.
Secondly, I think you are forgetting your timing a little bit. Edmonton and TO did not start 'rebuilding' their teams at the same time. Toronto started rebuilding their team the season before the Oilers did. Don't forget the Kessel deal was the season before the Oilers drafted Hall. That is the season the first tanked and completely gutted the team at the trade deadline. TO started a year ahead of Edmonton.
Finally, a team is never 'finished." One can not say a team is don'e building so one can never look at a complete product. At least in my opinion. What you can do is look at each draft year and who is doing what for their respective teams. Let's do that for a second.
Toronto has drafted 57 players including and since the 2004 entry draft. Of those 57 players, 14 (or about 25%) have played at least one game in the NHL. Of those 57 players, only 6(or 10%) have played in more than 100 games. The highlights of those 57 players are Nikolai Kulemin, Luke Schenn, Anton Stralman, Jiri Tlusty, Viktor Stalberg, Carl Gunnarsson, Tuukka Rask, James Reimer, and Nazem Kadri.
Boston has drafted 52 players in that same time period and 19(37%) have played at least one game in the NHL. 7 of them (or 13%) have played in more than 100 games. The highlights of those 52 players are Phil Kessel, David Krejci, Milan Lucic, Kris Versteeg, Matt Hunwick, Vladimir Sobotka, Brad Marchand, and Tyler Seguin.
I'm not sure what anyone else would say, but I think that Boston drafted better players than Toronto. I also see more players that Boston drafted still playing and producing for the Bruins.
Great response - am curious as to where you got the stats, and how these two teams (Toronto and the cup champs) stack up with the rest of the NHL.
I am also guessing you meant 10 games, not 100.
You also display what I would term as an incredible anti-Leaf bias, when you first state that ONLY 6 Leafs have played in more than 10 games from the draftees . . . and later list 7 for the cup champs - one whole player more - as if it is so substantially more.
Unfortunately, it is actually 9 Leaf players drafted that you list. Odd, that.
You also use the percentage as a measure, which can be a bit misleading and frankly useless, in this case. I'm much more interested in the good players drafted, which you have shown as well - real NHLers.
And lastly . . . you say at the end that "you see more players that Boston drafted playing and producing for the Bruins" compared to the Leafs.
Well, from your own list, the number is actually equal.
Boston
Krejci, Lucic, Marchand (major contributions)
Seguin, Hunwick (minor contributions)
5 players total
Toronto
Kulemin, Schenn, Gunnarsson, Reimer (major contributions)
Kadri (minor contributions)
5 players total
But again, I do appreciate the stats and numbers and such . . . interesting to ponder, and actually, it makes me think even more how right the track is that the Leafs are on. Compared to the recent cup champs . . . I feel that the Leafs do very, very well.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2011 : 07:20:34
|
No Slozo, I said 100 games because that is what I intended to say. 100 games.
Here is where I got the information from.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00008490.html
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00004919.html
As usual, someone gives some factual, statistically measures such as nearly 4 out of every 10 players drafted by the Bruins play in the NHL where TO is closer to 2 out of 10, and just say the percentages are irrelevant.
Also, when the Leafs have 6 out of 57 and the Bruins have 7 out of 52, the numbers explain everything. I never said it was substantial more. If you read that, you are implying something I did not say. But it is still more. It still proves my point that Boston drafted better players over the same period of time as TO. It still shows that drafting better players produces better results.
But again, keep looking at what you like and disregard what you don't like. I will keep seeing reality. 
|
|
|
|
Guest4312
( )
|
Posted - 07/15/2011 : 08:19:57
|
| hunwick played the last 50 games of the season for the avalanche so i'm not sure how much playing and producing he did for the bruins last year.... |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2011 : 11:01:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4312
hunwick played the last 50 games of the season for the avalanche so i'm not sure how much playing and producing he did for the bruins last year....
Exactly.
And Reimer has not played 100 games in the NHL
And Seguin has not played 100 games in the NHL
And Kadri hasn't played 100 games in the NHL
Which is why I thought you had meant 10 games.
And the percentages?
Toronto's percentage of drafted players is lower . . . because they DRAFTED MORE PLAYERS, many of them in lower rounds. They did this to cover somewhat the los of those first round picks given up in the Kessel deal . . . and yes, it doesn't matter that a team takes a different approach and skews the percentages. What DOES matter, is the end result, I think, of drafted players that turn into quality assets.
Which, as pointed out, puts the Leafs relatively on par - or at least close to - the Bruins.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2011 : 11:38:13
|
On Par?? That's a bit of a stretch my man. I don't think many if anyone would take Gunnarsson, Kadri, Kulemin, Schenn, and Reimer over Krejci, Lucic, Marchand, Seguin, and now Dougie Hamilton.
Not many at all.
But hey, to each their own. |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2011 : 16:41:09
|
| For what it's worth (and it ain't worth much) after looking at all the info Beans posted, I feel that the Bruins have drafted a little better than the Leafs have over the time-frame in question. |
|
|
|
Guest2749
( )
|
Posted - 07/15/2011 : 17:06:18
|
| Its a no brainer. How anyone can argue that the leafs have drafted as good as the bruins in the last four or five years is beyond me. If they were the same shouldn't the leafs have made the playoffs by now, let alone win a cup? Not even close. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2011 : 07:34:09
|
This is awesome how this has become a Leafs/Bruin debate. Lets put it simple as far as that debate goes. Bruins have already built a team that won the cup. The Leafs are still trying.
On to the real topic. I don't think there is a given recipe to build a cup.
If you rely solely on rebuilding through the draft then you need to hit on a franchise player like Ovechkin, Crosby, or maybe a Stamkos, maybe Patrick Kane. But in reality those are the only franchise players that have come along. Well perhaps Tavares as well but he is not making the Islanders a cup contender now is he.
Also if your only indicator of success is winning the cup then only Chicago and Pit are truely successful in that category. Even the Caps have not been playoff successful with the Great 8. So they are solid proof that even drafting a franchise player will not win the cup. (yet) The Caps look like they are finally adding some more key puzzle pieces through trade and FA.
Even with the Chicago cup team and Pitt cup team they brought in some key players through trade or Free agency to make them cup winning teams.
In other words you have to tank at the right times to get the right player (ie franchise type player) in the draft and then build the team around him through trades and or FA. As of now there is no team that is the same position as Wash, Tampa, Pitt and Chicago were when they drafted Ovechkin, Stamkos, Crosby, and Kane respectively.
Edm is a classic example of picking up highly rated draft picks over the last 6 years and are still going no where and few predict them to go anywhere until they start surrounding their young unproven draft picks with other talent.
You cannot rely solely on the draft to build a cup team. Draft picks are just too much of an unkown. Any good GM will tell you that.
If the cap keeps going up though, teams will be able to go back to the tried and true way of buying the cup, aka the Redwings in the late 90's. That is how the cup was won until the cap era.
The team that can obtain the players, either through draft or FA, or trade, that each perform their specific roles really well and are consistent in performing really well game in and game out will be a cup winning team.
I look at Bostons success and say that any team should build with a core group that is brought along together and then add a few key elements, usually veterans, once the team gets close to being a cup winning team.
The days of the dynastys are done. |
Edited by - Porkchop73 on 07/16/2011 08:10:46 |
|
|
|
Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
268 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2011 : 10:35:44
|
| I agree with you PC you need a core group to start. The Oilers are building a core group and playing their youth in their rebuild process. The other players will be added as they develop. Higher draft picks are assets no matter how you look at it the Oilers are in a good position to fill your criteria. I don't think the Oilers management has lost sight of where and what they need to achieve their goal which is a cup. This year they will be better than you have determined in your post. |
|
|
|
Guest9964
( )
|
Posted - 07/16/2011 : 18:28:55
|
Another thread turned into Slozo vs. Beans  |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Building a Cup-Winning Team 
