Management Threads | Structure. Standards. Habits.

[arttk]

no my point is that you can keep cost down for the bottom of the lineup just by not signing players like jay beagle and brandon sutter to outsized contracts and that you don't need any kind of special competency to do so. it's literally table stakes for decent nhl teams

there's no inherent advantage to having a player like arshdeep bains that came up through the system over a free agent signing like dakota joshua that stepped right onto the roster

the thing with having your own pipe is you have long term cost certainty. it would be Benning level stupid to sign a bottom 6 guys to a long term contract for cost certainty because there is not that much upside to capture and also because of that, whenever somebody hits, they are likely gone right away. If Bluegar and Joshua have a great year, we are most likely not going to be able to keep them and we'll have to dip into the market over and over again and you will have to find other FAs that have flaws leading them to be cheap 3rd or 4th line guys.

If you have your own pipe, you can plan knowing that over a long period of time that your bottom 6 will be cheap and also you get to capture all the upside. Yeah Bains might not be as good as Joshua right now but he is also less of a finished product than Joshua and if he hits like in year 2 of his ELC, then we know we can hold on to him, bridge him and then when cost do go up high, trade him for a pick and then replace from within.

If you have cost certainty over a longer time horizon, then you can make bigger bets on high price FA because you don't have to worry about, omg, what will happen if the 3C/W 5/6/D FA that we got became too good and we don't have a pipe to replace him and we'll have to dip into the FA market for one that is flawed or overpay for someone at that level.

 

[credulous]

that's just not aligned with reality. there is always quality free agents available for the bottom line. vancouver could have added josh leivo, tyler motte and chris tierny up until a few weeks ago

 

[arttk]

that's just not aligned with reality. there is always quality free agents available for the bottom line. vancouver could have added josh leivo, tyler motte and chris tierny up until a few weeks ago

long term planning is hard to understand eh?
it's funny you use tyler motte as an example. yeah you develop those guys use them while they are cheap and then trade them away for picks when you are done and replace them with another in house option that is cheap. why bother signing them when they are older and more injury prone. ditto with Leivo.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

In his 1.5 years of being GM, Allvin has traded away the following picks:

2022 3rd round pick (for Travis Dermott)​

2024 2nd round pick (to unload Dickinson and acquire Riley Stillman)​

2023 5th round pick (for Ethan Bear and Lane Pederson)​

2026 7th round pick (for Vitali Kravtsov)​

2023 1st round pick (from NYI; for Filip Hronek)​

2023 2nd round pick (Vancouver's; same as above)​

2025 3rd round pick (to unload Tanner Pearson and acquire Casey DeSmith)​

That's 7 picks, one of which wasn't originally Vancouver's. I will grant you that Vancouver did not have as many draft picks as they could have had. But by how many?

Sorry to completely bypass your larger point here, but its pretty nuts to have traded away all these picks in the past 1.5 years and essentially the only asset to have added in that time was Filip Hronek. a guy who is in need of a likely massive contract in the next few years. In fairness Bear should be here if his injuries didn't happen, but just tough that a lot of value got traded away with the major benefits being fleeting reprieves from being pressed up against the cap

 

[bossram]

long term planning is hard to understand eh?

In what way has anything the current regime done been in service of some kind of long-term plan? Lmao.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

He also said a couple of things could go wrong and they could still make the playoffs. Convenient of you to leave that out.

I thought he said that the eventual goal was to build a team where multiple things could go wrong and they could still make the playoffs, rather than one where every star has to align for them to sneak in

 

[bossram]

I thought he said that the eventual goal was to build a team where multiple things could go wrong and they could still make the playoffs, rather than one where every star has to align for them to sneak in

Yes, that is what he said. He's hoping to get that point.

 

[arttk]

In what way has anything the current regime done been in service of some kind of long-term plan? Lmao.

we started at a spot where we had no future assets, no development process and a bunch of flawed players in the main team.

they have since revamped the actual prospect development side of things and prospects that looked like they weren't developed in the prior years made big jump in one year. They are instilling the same system in the A as the big club so players can move up easier.
They have stepped up their college recruitment and using that as a pipeline for the bottom of the roster.

Are you just really stuck at the idea that anything that is not selling and accruing draft picks is not long term planning?

You do know that the type of long term planning you guys advocate for is not really "long term planning", it's basically just gambling. Would you sell your house and buy more lottery tickets and tell your wife, i've bought a ton of lottery tickets and one of them will hit and this is long term planning. If we spend money and improve the home and make it better over time, that's short term thinking.

 

[bossram]

we started at a spot where we had no future assets, no development process and a bunch of flawed players in the main team.

they have since revamped the actual prospect development side of things and prospects that looked like they weren't developed in the prior years made big jump in one year. They are instilling the same system in the A as the big club so players can move up easier.
They have stepped up their college recruitment and using that as a pipeline for the bottom of the roster.

Are you just really stuck at the idea that anything that is not selling and accruing draft picks is not long term planning?

You do know that the type of long term planning you guys advocate for is not really "long term planning", it's basically just gambling. Would you sell your house and buy more lottery tickets and tell your wife, i've bought a ton of lottery tickets and one of them will hit and this is long term planning. If we spend money and improve the home and make it better over time, that's short term thinking.

I would not consider "aligning your AHL club system with your NHL club" and "signing B/C level college free agents that the club likes" to be "long-term planning".

These are just basic functions that any competent NHL organization should be executing at all times.

Yeah, baseline competence is certainly superior to the previous regime. But it's not anywhere remotely close to some brilliant long-term plan to transform the club into a contender.

And to your ridiculous example, obviously I would say no. You certainly do like creating incredibly bad strawman arguments to attribute to others though.

 

[credulous]

long term planning is hard to understand eh?
it's funny you use tyler motte as an example. yeah you develop those guys use them while they are cheap and then trade them away for picks when you are done and replace them with another in house option that is cheap. why bother signing them when they are older and more injury prone. ditto with Leivo.

they all signed for league min or less. that's my point. you can get the bottom 6-10 guys in your lineup anytime you like without having to invest anything in it. you don't need a pipeline of 11th, 12th, 13th forwards. that's just nonsense

you need a pipeline of guys to play higher in the lineup than that. it's not effectively free to get a filip hronek or mikheyev. that's where you need to focus your efforts

 

[arttk]

I would not consider "aligning your AHL club system with your NHL club" and "signing B/C level college free agents that the club likes" to be "long-term planning".

These are just basic functions that any competent NHL organization should be executing at all times.

Yeah, baseline competence is certainly superior to the previous regime. But it's not anywhere remotely close to some brilliant long-term plan to transform the club into a contender.

And to your ridiculous example, obviously I would say no. You certainly do like creating incredibly bad strawman arguments to attribute to others though.

really? you are going to argue that taking steps to increase the odds of prospects making into the NHL is not long term planning?

basic or not these are things they are doing that the previous management group has not done and it's not like every team is actually good at that stuff, just look at the Rangers and how "successful" they are at developing their forwards.

I mean, there is nothing inherently "long term" about tearing and down and betting on draft picks to come through. the only long term part about it is it will actually take a freaking long time because you have no control over the quality of prospects in any given draft year and you can have the best development system and the drafted player could still bust for a variety of reasons like injury.

so when you say we are thinking long term by throwing away everything and getting draft picks, what you are doing is essentially saying we are willing to be bad for a long time until we get lucky enough times for us to get out of it. and the thing is you guys refuse to acknowledge that this "long term" planning process is like 90% dependent on luck.

 

[bossram]

really? you are going to argue that taking steps to increase the odds of prospects making into the NHL is not long term planning?

basic or not these are things they are doing that the previous management group has not done and it's not like every team is actually good at that stuff, just look at the Rangers and how "successful" they are at developing their forwards.

I mean, there is nothing inherently "long term" about tearing and down and betting on draft picks to come through. the only long term part about it is it will actually take a freaking long time because you have no control over the quality of prospects in any given draft year and you can have the best development system and the drafted player could still bust for a variety of reasons like injury.

so when you say we are thinking long term by throwing away everything and getting draft picks, what you are doing is essentially saying we are willing to be bad for a long time until we get lucky enough times for us to get out of it. and the thing is you guys refuse to acknowledge that this "long term" planning process is like 90% dependent on luck.

What is my "long-term" plan? Do you actually know? Who are "you guys"? What group are you lumping me in with? Why are you assuming whatever plan you agree with actually has a higher likelihood of success? Can you answer these questions logically, without changing the subject as you consistently do?

 

[VanillaCoke]

Must win now for ep or its nonsense video games club in absolute shambles.

 

[TruGr1t]

they all signed for league min or less. that's my point. you can get the bottom 6-10 guys in your lineup anytime you like without having to invest anything in it. you don't need a pipeline of 11th, 12th, 13th forwards. that's just nonsense

you need a pipeline of guys to play higher in the lineup than that. it's not effectively free to get a filip hronek or mikheyev. that's where you need to focus your efforts

It’s like people forget the 2011 team and how it was actually being able to home grow top-four defensemen and quality top-nine forwards that allowed the team to take a leap around its core, free agency signings and trades (outside of Ehrhoff) were largely supplementary.

 

[credulous]

yeah the only strongly held belief i have about the nhl and roster construction is that you can't build a winner with free agent signings. you need to make some lopsided trades and get lucky with your player development to fill out the top of your roster

what you do everywhere else doesn't really matter as long as you don't blow your budget (in trade assets and cap space) and leave yourself unable to fill holes as they arise

 

[MarkMM]

I thought he said that the eventual goal was to build a team where multiple things could go wrong and they could still make the playoffs, rather than one where every star has to align for them to sneak in

I found his candour refreshing. Everything he said is accurate, fair and pragmatic.

- He said we're one or two contracts away from having our cap structure the way he wants it (so let's go with Myers and one of Beauvillier or Garland, two of which we can be guaranteed will be gone by next year if we want).

- He said that things have to go right in order for us to get into the playoffs comfortably HOWEVER he didn't say we couldn't make the playoffs if anything went wrong, because we had difference-makers who could bring us in (so let's go with Petersson, Hughes, Demko that can drag us over the bubble line, which sounds reasonable) but that the goal would be to get us to the position where we're not relying on star players to carry us into the playoffs.

That sounds like good incremental goals to build towards a contender, an accurate and most importantly a change from Benning, an honest assessment.

So someone who has an accurate, honest assessment, is laying out a transparent plan and acknowledging realities (two cap hindering contracts) that are on a pathway to being fixed, from management that with a couple questionable decisions, have overall been shrewd and measured.

If ownership set the "compete every year" mandate, then this is good management playing the hand their dealt and doing a good job of it to me.

Yes, that is what he said. He's hoping to get that point.

And he has a plan that has been being executed on the timeline laid out and with transparent steps that are by and large good moves in isolation that fit into the bigger picture. I would have preferred a more deliberate rebuild, but if this is the direction they're going then at least they're executing well.

It’s like people forget the 2011 team and how it was actually being able to home grow top-four defensemen and quality top-nine forwards that allowed the team to take a leap around its core, free agency signings and trades (outside of Ehrhoff) were largely supplementary.

Hamhuis was a free agent signing and Ehrhoff was a trade, so that's half the top four that weren't interally developed.

If in a few years we have Hughes and Willander in our top four then we're already matching the 2011 on home-grown defence, and beating it if one of the other spots goes to EP2.

 

[bossram]

And he has a plan that has been being executed on the timeline laid out and with transparent steps that are by and large good moves in isolation that fit into the bigger picture. I would have preferred a more deliberate rebuild, but if this is the direction they're going then at least they're executing well.

Uhhh no, I would not say this is accurate.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Sorry to completely bypass your larger point here, but its pretty nuts to have traded away all these picks in the past 1.5 years and essentially the only asset to have added in that time was Filip Hronek. a guy who is in need of a likely massive contract in the next few years. In fairness Bear should be here if his injuries didn't happen, but just tough that a lot of value got traded away with the major benefits being fleeting reprieves from being pressed up against the cap

That is incredible when you put it that way.

Thank heavens draft picks are worthless magic beans or one might conclude that the current management, while infinitely more competent then the previous, has kept up with the tradition of leaking assets at every turn just to tread water as a playoff hopeful.

 

[RobertKron]

Yes, that is what he said. He's hoping to get that point.

It's just a clumsy and probably poorly-chosen way of saying that the team isn't one of the big dogs yet, but that he feels that they're righting the ship and are on the path toward that goal. I don't get why everyone is agonizing over this so hard.

Like, yeah, no shit the team isn't making the playoffs if Hughes retires tomorrow or whatever. It's not like this is some revelation.

 

[arttk]

What is my "long-term" plan? Do you actually know? Who are "you guys"? What group are you lumping me in with? Why are you assuming whatever plan you agree with actually has a higher likelihood of success? Can you answer these questions logically, without changing the subject as you consistently do?

enlighten me

 

[andora]

I would not consider "aligning your AHL club system with your NHL club" and "signing B/C level college free agents that the club likes" to be "long-term planning".

These are just basic functions that any competent NHL organization should be executing at all times..

To be fair they are both.. yes i agree these are what teams should be doing .. but i am not sure they all do?

It is basic concepts in my mind (where i agree) that contribute to long term planning

they all signed for league min or less. that's my point. you can get the bottom 6-10 guys in your lineup anytime you like without having to invest anything in it. you don't need a pipeline of 11th, 12th, 13th forwards. that's just nonsense

you need a pipeline of guys to play higher in the lineup than that. it's not effectively free to get a filip hronek or mikheyev. that's where you need to focus your efforts

Im not sure those examples drive home the point.. 2 bums and motte but that pipeline of bottom roster players can produce and develop middle lineup options with the proper systemt coaching and dwvelopment in place. There is of course some luck involved just like in any avenue of acquiring players outaide of drafting first overall.

I mean the overused tampa example of bringing up palat colton gourde killorn and they developed into crucial contributors from mid to late drafting.. gourde i think was a ufa.. were any of these guys viewed on the higher end or were they viewed the same way our players are right now?

 

[arttk]

To be fair they are both.. yes i agree these are what teams should be doing .. but i am not sure they all do?

It is basic concepts in my mind (where i agree) that contribute to long term planning



Im not sure those examples drive home the point.. 2 bums and motte but that pipeline of bottom roster players can produce and develop middle lineup options with the proper systemt coaching and dwvelopment in place. There is of course some luck involved just like in any avenue of acquiring players outaide of drafting first overall.

I mean the overused tampa example of bringing up palat colton gourde killorn and they developed into crucial contributors from mid to late drafting.. gourde i think was a ufa.. were any of these guys viewed on the higher end or were they viewed the same way our players are right now?

It always puzzles me when people ask those questions and reply well they should do it anyways and it doesn’t count. Almost every team does it but not every team is good at it and it looks like in a very short time we are already seeing results. I feel like the resident hfboard “long term planners” don’t really understand the importance of execution.

They want us to be like Tampa but they ignore almost everything Tampa is good at and blindy assumes Tampa got good because they tank tank tanked when that is actually not what they did.

 

[andora]

It always puzzles me when people ask those questions and reply well they should do it anyways and it doesn’t count. Almost every team does it but not every team is good at it and it looks like in a very short time we are already seeing results. I feel like the resident hfboard “long term planners” don’t really understand the importance of execution.

They want us to be like Tampa but they ignore almost everything Tampa is good at and blindy assumes Tampa got good because they tank tank tanked when that is actually not what they did.

Well without typecasting everyone i would reference what MS describes is the blurring of plan versus execution

The concept of doing these things is baseline, i believe that but execution is what can separate. I will never be convinced that being able to supplement your team every year with one or two homegrown home coached home developed players isnt an advantage when it succeeds

 

[arttk]

Well without typecasting everyone i would reference what MS describes is the blurring of plan versus execution

The concept of doing these things is baseline, i believe that but execution is what can separate. I will never be convinced that being able to supplement your team every year with one or two homegrown home coached home developed players isnt an advantage when it succeeds

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the alignment between the NHl and AHL system. Ideally, anyone that gets promoted to the big team will be excelling/adept in the same system.
So some of the posters asking well what value would that do when we can just sign cheap FAs, having home grown guys come up this way will ensure cost certainty and having a bottom6 that plays the way the coach wants exactly.
I think they preached wanting to have a team that is greater than the sum of its parts instead of having a bunch of guys that doesn’t fit. Tapping into FA is basically how you get the latter and developing your own is how you get the former.

 

[bossram]

enlighten me

Lol, you make a bunch of assumptions and strawmen about me. I ask some simple questions and you literally cannot answer.

You tell me! You already know everything! You said you already know why preferred plan is, which "guys" I'm part of, and the exact likelihood the plan's success!