Management Thread | 5th Youngest Team in the League Edition

[RobertKron]

This is what I don't understand from re-tool advocates (not just you). They've propped up the Hronek trade as a necessary move. Time is now. Re-tool or Pettersson will leave. Or, the trade had to be done to show Pettersson this team is competing now etc... Yet, after all of this rhetoric, the 1st doesn't get dealt?

If the goal is to compete now, that pick has to be dealt. That is the logical extreme of the base premise. It follows exactly the point that the team must get as strong as possible now. Future be damned.

If that's not the case, and the future is to be served first, then the Hronek trade doesn't happen. They instead find a budget option in FA (as they did with Schenn) and build. It's one path, or the other. Not both.

I don't see why a reality can't exist where they liked Hronek as a player to add and so they did, but haven't yet seen a deal that they like more than the prospect they hope to add with the first rounder. They can be working to improve the team now, while still looking more than five feet in front of themselves.

 

[alternate]

This is what I don't understand from re-tool advocates (not just you). They've propped up the Hronek trade as a necessary move. Time is now. Re-tool or Pettersson will leave. Or, the trade had to be done to show Pettersson this team is competing now etc... Yet, after all of this rhetoric, the 1st doesn't get dealt?

If the goal is to compete now, that pick has to be dealt. That is the logical extreme of the base premise. It follows exactly the point that the team must get as strong as possible now. Future be damned.

If that's not the case, and the future is to be served first, then the Hronek trade doesn't happen. They instead find a budget option in FA (as they did with Schenn) and build. It's one path, or the other. Not both.

Saying the pick HAS to be dealt puts you in a TDL "better a 4th than nothing" mindset. It's not a 1 or 2 year all-or-nothing situation.

The hope is EP will sign an 8 year extension the day he is eligible. The window doesn't close in the immediate future. So you have to balance multiple elements, including cap structure over the intermediate time frame, when evaluating any trade that involves this year's 1st.

It's not a matter of trading the pick for any roster improvement available, no matter how minor or what the cap consequences will be a year or two down the road. It's never been about "competing now." It's about becoming a contender with a multi year window. If using the pick makes a bigger contribution to that end, use it. If trading it does, trade it.

There's two ways to shorten a competitive window: recognizing it too late, or going too big too early. The Hronek trade helps with the former; moving this pick for a short term fix risks doing the latter.

It's not just the white/black dichotomy you want to frame it as. Saying the pick "has" to be dealt with no idea what the pick would return is silly. There's certainly packages that would make sense, but any package needs to be measured against the value of an ELC from an (expected to be) very deep draft. All options should be on the table, including keeping the pick.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I don't see why a reality can't exist where they liked Hronek as a player to add and so they did, but haven't yet seen a deal that they like more than the prospect they hope to add with the first rounder. They can be working to improve the team now, while still looking more than five feet in front of themselves.

That does not align with doing your utmost to improve the team now. Normally, I would agree with a more holistic approach to a given re-tool, but this is one that is performed on a bottom team with no cap and limited futures. So much so, that they had to trade what little they had to get Hronek. If we follow that same thinking along to it's logical conclusion, the pick should get dealt for help now.

 

[andora]

From the closed thread:

Yes, you have my position right. Now let me see if I can interpret yours correctly: You would rather push towards the playoffs [by expending key future assets] rather filling in the base first.

Is that right? If so, my reply is to first point out that re-tool + core vs rebuild + core are both strategies using Pettersson-Hughes-Demko as the base. It's what happens around them that separates the mode. Your method has _every_ 1st rounder on the table for current players/cap relief. A scorched earth policy: Because why would you draft if the goal is to make the current team stronger now? My method seeks to draft first and supplement with underrated player options (Severson/Hronek.

To me, they have to do what I'm suggesting anyways, later, because they will not be able to sustain playoff runs without pipeline+cap help (if they get there). But the risk in what I'm suggesting is that they don't get there immediately, and to some, that could cost them Pettersson (I don't think that's the case, but YMMV). I would take the route that better ensures the structures underneath the core.

you are interpreting mine correctly in terms of push towards the playoffs, and incorrectly for the other points. changing just a few words can mean a whole lot

expending key future assets - changes to - open to expending future assets in appropriate trades.
rather filling in the base first - changes to - maintaining the base and making creative moves to supplement it

you again are using a certain set a words to describe my method. i am open to trading my first round pick in the right trade involving a player just as much as i am open to trading my first round pick for a later first rounder and a 2nd if i have two players identified and confident i can grab them. i would like to draft AND make the current team stronger now. I believe a lot of this comes from implementing a structure that is more catered to their weaknesses - focusing on all positions working defensively and helping out the weak link of goaltending. this same structure in theory (and so far in reality) takes the intense high danger work and limits it for the goalie. Once you implement a structure that fits the personnel better AND get results from it, the whole approach changes. it gives a direction on the players you target when drafting, it gives direction on players you target in trades (young players ie: bloom)

maybe garland is good enough to play 2nd line on a playoff team with structure
maybe mikheyev is good enough to play 2nd line on a playoff team with structure
maybe hughes can carry a defence core on a playoff team with structure

i'm not AS worried about losing pettersson as some appear to be by mentioning it often however it is a real concern, a reality as is wasting Demko on non playoff hockey.

Tampa's history goes first build (Lecavalier) -> cup -> downfall -> rebuild (Stamkos) -> onward. They kept their 1st rounder 5 years post Hedman draft (2009). Then they started trading them (2015).

Doesn't really compare to here because this team didn't rebuild post Sedins. However, granted, if the scouting staff is able to trade down and leverage their selections to meet or surpass 1st round selections, most would be for it. Have they shown that ability?

Further, have they shown a preternatural ability to manipulate the cap?

Last, have they shown an extraordinary ability of pro scouting?

Tampa utilized many avenues toward greatness. That's why their management has been lauded. Is this one even close? Early returns: imo, no (to be kind).

they did keep their first rounders, and manipulated the hell out of the other ones they acquired (similar to how we did with the isles pick) - which i support..

again though - it is easy to look at 10+ years of tampas actions and come over here and say what you said. i am advocating for the approach to be similar, whether we have 5 picks or 50.. whether we have 2 bluechips or 20 bluechips - you have what you have, but if we are going ahead with being a playoff team you need to use what have when available and when it is right. i don't see why we cannot apply the CONCEPTS in which tampa has run their organization regarding trades, draft picks, and development / results are different, and we don't know what ours are going to be yet (and i am breaking the benning years apart).

 

[RobertKron]

That does not align with doing your utmost to improve the team now. Normally, I would agree with a more holistic approach to a given re-tool, but this is one that is performed on a bottom team with no cap and limited futures. So much so, that they had to trade what little they had to get Hronek. If we follow that same thinking along to it's logical conclusion, the pick should get dealt for help now.

How does that not align? They can't deal it for help now, because the deadline has passed. Maybe they trade it at the draft. Maybe they decide that the players on offer don't help the team in the big picture more than a player on an ELC that they think might only be a year out.

 

[Bleach Clean]

How does that not align? They can't deal it for help now, because the deadline has passed. Maybe they trade it at the draft. Maybe they decide that the players on offer don't help the team in the big picture more than a player on an ELC that they think might only be a year out.

The small picture is the priority, not the big picture. They wanted help in the immediate, and so they traded futures for Hronek. That's the mode. The players on offer for a 10-15 pick, given precedent, should more than fulfill their goal of making the team better now.

 

[Jyrki21]

central area plan wasn't a thing until 91. rogers arena opened in 1995. there were ample sites for an arena the team just wanted to be next to bc place for some reason

Agreed, for such a beautiful city they picked the worst spot

They (we) wanted it to be downtown because it's the city's commercial hub and where all the public transit converges. It used to take an eternity to get to the Pacific Coliseum from much of the city and moving downtown (where all the traditional arenas were in other NHL cities) was seen as a must – it's not like they were going to be sticking it at the top of Queen Elizabeth Park or the middle of Kitsilano.

 

[RobertKron]

The small picture is the priority, not the big picture. They wanted help in the immediate, and so they traded futures for Hronek. That's the mode. The players on offer for a 10-15 pick, given precedent, should more than fulfill their goal of making the team better now.

In what world is a 25 year old top 4 RHD not considered part of the big picture?

 

[Bleach Clean]

In what world is a 25 year old top 4 RHD not considered part of the big picture?

What helps the big picture more, a potential top pairing/top line player going from an ELC, to bridge, to long-term deal, or a mid-aged, mid-pairing Dman that has to be re-signed in a year to market value?

 

[Josepho]

I think it’s a bit weird to classify trading for Hronek as some definitive short term move, when there’s still a fair chance that in like, 7 years, he is still a more valuable asset than whatever those picks become.

 

[andora]

What helps the big picture more, a potential top pairing/top line player going from an ELC, to bridge, to long-term deal, or a mid-aged, mid-pairing Dman that has to be re-signed in a year to market value?

What if we keep him until he is 35?

I mean this is just phrasing again

 

[RobertKron]

What helps the big picture more, a potential top pairing/top line player going from an ELC, to bridge, to long-term deal, or a mid-aged, mid-pairing Dman that has to be re-signed in a year to market value?

Considering that they still have another first, the general difficulty of acquiring a young solid RHD, and the state of the D both on the roster and coming down the pike - probably the known quantity.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Saying the pick HAS to be dealt puts you in a TDL "better a 4th than nothing" mindset. It's not a 1 or 2 year all-or-nothing situation.

It's not? I thought EP needs to see the team win before he re-signs? The goal is to be a competitive team in the playoffs now.

The hope is EP will sign an 8 year extension the day he is eligible. The window doesn't close in the immediate future. So you have to balance multiple elements, including cap structure over the intermediate time frame, when evaluating any trade that involves this year's 1st.

It's not a matter of trading the pick for any roster improvement available, no matter how minor or what the cap consequences will be a year or two down the road. It's never been about "competing now." It's about becoming a contender with a multi year window. If using the pick makes a bigger contribution to that end, use it. If trading it does, trade it.

There's two ways to shorten a competitive window: recognizing it too late, or going too big too early. The Hronek trade helps with the former; moving this pick for a short term fix risks doing the latter.

It's not just the white/black dichotomy you want to frame it as. Saying the pick "has" to be dealt with no idea what the pick would return is silly. There's certainly packages that would make sense, but any package needs to be measured against the value of an ELC from an (expected to be) very deep draft. All options should be on the table, including keeping the pick.

The goal is to compete now. I have seen multiple posters say the time is now to compete, while Pettersson-Hughes-Demko are in place. That's the way the Hronek trade makes sense. If it was about being a contender with a multi-year window, nothing serves that better by aiming at the highest possible ceiling: A top6/top4 ELC producer with 5+ years of cost certainty.

In the scenario you describe, why wouldn't Hronek be considered "going too big too early"? Team is bad, cap is bad, pipeline is bad, but thin core is in place.

No, the assumption is that the pick would garner another mid-aged, mid-pairing dman or top6 forward, the Hronek template. That has to be there, somewhere, for the 10th pick. Ergo, they should move it at the draft.

It doesn't need to be framed against a complete unknown in order to have it be dismissed easier. Use the same logic of the Hronek trade and execute.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Considering that they still have another first, the general difficulty of acquiring a young solid RHD, and the state of the D both on the roster and coming down the pike - probably the known quantity.

The remaining 1st is not added to the parameters. It's simply the ELC producer they forwent vs the mid-aged asset they received, and I think we both know what serves the big picture, ultimately, better.

 

[RobertKron]

The remaining 1st is not added to the parameters. It's simply the ELC producer they forwent vs the mid-aged asset they received, and I think we both know what serves the big picture, ultimately, better.

ok

 

[Bleach Clean]

What if we keep him until he is 35?

I mean this is just phrasing again

What if he discovers the super soldier serum and plays until he's 70?

It's not phrasing, it's asking people to first agree to the base understandings we know to be true. Without it, we get nowhere with this. The ELC producer, across the majority of cases, is recognized as the best asset in the league because it's unmatched for efficiency.

I think it’s a bit weird to classify trading for Hronek as some definitive short term move, when there’s still a fair chance that in like, 7 years, he is still a more valuable asset than whatever those picks become.

I mean, it's definitely short term relative to the pick, right? That's the trade off for DET in this.

 

[strattonius]

The remaining 1st is not added to the parameters. It's simply the ELC producer they forwent vs the mid-aged asset they received, and I think we both know what serves the big picture, ultimately, better.

The big picture has always been argued that if management chooses to sit on their picks and makes no noticeable improvements to the roster that our core players Pettersson, Hughes and Demko will all be leaving. Just in time for that 19th overall Islander pick to maybe be making an impact on the roster.

I'm not convinced big picture that it's better to rebuild the way everyone wants.

 

[RobertKron]

What if he discovers the super soldier serum and plays until he's 70?

It's not phrasing, it's asking people to first agree to the base understandings we know to be true. Without it, we get nowhere with this. The ELC producer, across the majority of cases, is recognized as the best asset in the league because it's unmatched for efficiency.

So the base understanding is that first round picks automatically turn into impact players on their ELCs?

 

[Bleach Clean]

The big picture has always been argued that if management chooses to sit on their picks and makes no noticeable improvements to the roster that our core players Pettersson, Hughes and Demko will all be leaving. Just in time for that 19th overall Islander pick to maybe be making an impact on the roster.

I'm not convinced big picture that it's better to rebuild the way everyone wants.

Ok, yes, finally. Make no noticeable improvements = core players leave. I'm extending that same thinking to its logical extreme: Trade the 1st, re-tool, so that there are even _more_ noticeable improvements to the roster in the 3ish years the Islanders pick would have taken to get here, and the core should be even more apt to stay...

 

[andora]

What if he discovers the super soldier serum and plays until he's 70?

It's not phrasing, it's asking people to first agree to the base understandings we know to be true. Without it, we get nowhere with this. The ELC producer, across the majority of cases, is recognized as the best asset in the league because it's unmatched for efficiency.

Umm.. no. What if he stays until he is 35 is a viable realistic option.

Are you saying the player with our current pick? Or the player that would have been taken with the isles pick? For clarity

And the fact that hronek is 25 versus when that ELC may break out - are we getting an elite cant miss or are we getting a normal first rounder?.. non elite players become impactful when.. 22ish?..

So 3 yrs? This mental gymnastic pretzel is over three years?.. really?

But we still have our first.. so we can have both assets.. yay

 

[Bleach Clean]

So the base understanding is that first round picks automatically turn into impact players on their ELCs?

Of course not. I don't make that leap, just like I don't assume Hronek will re-sign either...

The base understanding is that high picks represent the best chance to make the strongest possible future team.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Umm.. no. What if he stays until he is 35 is a viable realistic option.

Are you saying the player with our current pick? Or the player that would have been taken with the isles pick? For clarity

And the fact that hronek is 25 versus when that ELC may break out - are we getting an elite cant miss or are we getting a normal first rounder?.. non elite players become impactful when.. 22ish?..

So 3 yrs? This mental gymnastic pretzel is over three years?.. really?

But we still have our first.. so we can have both assets.. yay

Mental gymnastics, sigh. You just had poster @strattonius explain the exact premise I am extending here.

Let's do this another way. Instead of me outlining ad nauseum the value of a pick vs a mid-aged player (to people I know understand acutely that value anyway), please just explain to me what DET received in terms of value in this trade? Take that explanation, and use it as a counterpoint to advocating for the Hronek trade.

That will make it easier.

 

[RobertKron]

Of course not. I don't make that leap, just like I don't assume Hronek will re-sign either...

The base understanding is that high picks represent the best chance to make the strongest possible future team.

If it's a "leap" to assume that Hronek will re-sign, why are you assuming that the player they would have picked would sign with the team?

 

[Bleach Clean]

If it's a "leap" to assume that Hronek will re-sign, why are you assuming that the player they would have picked would sign with the team?

Because that's what usually happens more often than not. I'm not sure that same probability carries over mid-aged players traded for? Are you?

But I did in fact answer your question: I don't automatically assume 1st round picks turn into impact players on their ELCs. Does that upset the base understanding that high picks represent the best chance to make the strongest possible future team?

 

[RobertKron]

Because that's what usually happens more often than not. I'm not sure that same probability carries over mid-aged players traded for? Are you?

But I did in fact answer your question: I don't automatically assume 1st round picks turn into impact players on their ELCs. Does that upset the base understanding that high picks represent the best chance to make the strongest possible future team?

You think that RFAs refuse to sign subsequent contracts more often than not?

I'm also unsure that a pick that is currently like 16th or whatever would be considered "high" when we're talking about it being likely to produce an impact player on their ELC.