What Makes a Hockey Organization Thrive in the current NHL?

[1989]

Not being Ottawa, Arizona, or Buffalo really seems to help.

 

[jkrdevil]

Luck and the ability not to squander said luck.

The way things are set up getting to the top is more about luck and timing. However bad management can can get in the way and torpedo things even if you end up finding that luck and timing.

 

[Lt Dan]

A constant inflow of young effective cap controlled players

in the cap era , success makes players expensive and a competitive teams needs to get younger

 

[HabsQC]

Good players.

 

[ScottyMascotty]

If you want to have a significant chance to win it all for a long time you typically need to build "the core" - a group of especially talented players who make most of the difference. The more talented core you have, the better. Ideally, you have either 2 legit superstars or 1 absolute gamebreaking player + 2-4 stars. Lock these players on long-term contracts if you can.

It is important for these core players to have chemistry: their playing styles should be compatible enough & their personalities should correctly shape team attitude in locker room. Core players themselves should be very competitive and care for winning & not only individual stats/awards/collecting paychecks. They better have a playing style that translates well enough to the postseason, and ideally 1-2 of them should be a "clutch artists". If your core just don't have enough talent/too small/consistently can't perform in the playoffs as expected, your Cup perspectives are likely in trouble.

And that's only the first part of basics of building the winning team.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Good GM
Good Coaches
Good Players

Get all three and you get good results.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Success starts at the very top. So does failure. Aggressive and smart ownership is most important.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Not being stuck in the previous century would help.

But you need a forward thinking organization that isn't afraid of stepping on the toes of staff or players if necessary. It doesn't matter if someone is a "really nice guy" or "I've worked with him for 20 years" or "He's really good in the room"... If they're not good at their job they get the boot.

I've said this about Vegas... I admire their cutthroat approach to roster construction. If you lag behind, see you later. There sure was a huge uproar when they supposedly knifed Fleury in the back, but the fact of the matter was he single-handedly cost them that series against Montreal and a possible Cup. And of course they won the Cup a few years later anyway without him.

You need to be ahead of the curve in all facets. Scouting, drafting, all of it. It's not a guarantee you'll succeed but usually the best drafting teams are the ones that come out on top (Tampa, Colorado), whereas ones that fumble the ball at the draft tend to falter.

Also, nepotism and favouritism will always fail. Seen it here way too much.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Two big ones for me:

1) It's a lot easier to accidentally be bad than purposefully be good. Because of that, you need to keep good players unless you can replace them with better ones especially when you're tanking. Think of how much of a better spot Chicago would be in right now if they still had Strome and DeBrincat or SJS if they still had Hertl or DET if they still had Hronek.

How would Hawks be better long term with Strome & Debrincat? The Hawks couldn't give Strome away at the trade deadline, and Debrincat's contract was going to be up when the Hawks would be in the middle of a rebuild and would struggle to sign him. Even if the Hawks somehow kept both player - the organization almost certainly wouldn't have Bedard. And I get that the Hawks lucked out with the lottery to get Bedard - but would have been happy with a Fantilli or Carlsson as a hopeful future franchise cornerstone.

I do agree there is a real risk if an organization does a complete tear down. Losing begets more losing, and it is really hard to turn that competitive switch back on after an organization has gone through 3+ years of futility when everyone has become used to losing.

IMO - an organization gets it's tone from the top. You need ownership that brings in the right people for management, and gives them the support they need.

Agree with Tarheel's point above on a certain amount of luck. EVERY team knows how vital drafting and developing talent is, so it's not teams not making it a priority or investing the time in scouting. It's more about the difficulty in looking at a 17 YO kid and figuring out who is going to have the combination of physical tools, the hockey skills, and the desire/passion to make the sacrifices it takes to be an elite NHL'er. The fact that there are star players that get passed over 100+ times in their draft class just proves how much of a crap shoot NHL drafting is.

 

[OurlordAndSaviorKuch]

Good ownership/GM FO personnel willing to do whatever it takes to remain competitive.

As much as I hate JBB for giving Stamkos the boot it was the ruthlessly correct thing to do to keep this core competing.

But aside from that you have to be able to scout and find good talent and not just the superstar talent you have to be able to surround that core year in and year out with pieces that complement it.

Right or wrong, Players willing to give hometown discounts and not chase money helps with this, You can't pay just your forwards over half of your cap space, Looking at you Leafs.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Good ownership/GM FO personnel willing to do whatever it takes to remain competitive.

As much as I hate JBB for giving Stamkos the boot it was the ruthlessly correct thing to do to keep this core competing.

But aside from that you have to be able to scout and find good talent and not just the superstar talent you have to be able to surround that core year in and year out with pieces that complement it.

Right or wrong, Players willing to give hometown discounts and not chase money helps with this, You can't pay just your forwards over half of your cap space, Looking at you Leafs.

Obviously everyone would like a hometown discount, but I think you're overlooking how desperate teams are to keep said stars in the first place. And this very frequently results in paying them a bit more. Tavares should've taken a discount of course, but for most human beings you're not going to turn your nose up at that kind of money, especially in a potential bidding war. Very rarely does a player take a hometown discount when heading into free agency unless they're a bit player.

Yeah the Leafs should absolutely pay some of their players less, they have questionable management... But how many players around the league can you reasonably say have taken those discounts?

 

[OurlordAndSaviorKuch]

Obviously everyone would like a hometown discount, but I think you're overlooking how desperate teams are to keep said stars in the first place. And this very frequently results in paying them a bit more. Tavares should've taken a discount of course, but for most human beings you're not going to turn your nose up at that kind of money, especially in a potential bidding war. Very rarely does a player take a hometown discount when heading into free agency unless they're a bit player.

Yeah the Leafs should absolutely pay some of their players less, they have questionable management... But how many players around the league can you reasonably say have taken those discounts?

I could name a few but they would be from my own team. I can't think of others currently off the top of my head.

I also said that it helps if they take home town discounts not that they should or shouldn't but at the same time handing out obnoxious contracts while handicapping yourself isn't a smart move that will result in good things happening long term.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I could name a few but they would be from my own team. I can't think of others currently off the top of my head.

I also said that it helps if they take home town discounts not that they should or shouldn't but at the same time handing out obnoxious contracts while handicapping yourself isn't a smart move that will result in good things happening long term.

Of course, but situations are different for different teams. All the Canadian teams are quite poorly run.

 

[GrandmaCookie]

Of course, but situations are different for different teams. All the Canadian teams are quite poorly run.

That, or Canadian markets aren't the most popular ones amongst NHL players and teams need to make up for it by giving better contracts to keep their assets.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

That, or Canadian markets aren't the most popular ones amongst NHL players and teams need to make up for it by giving better contracts to keep their assets.

It's both, really. They're just not desirable destinations, even for those who grew up in the area. But that doesn't have anything to do with substandard drafting and scouting.

 

[Iggys Dome]

Good ownership that is willing to spend and doesn't meddle in hockey operations decision making.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I could name a few but they would be from my own team. I can't think of others currently off the top of my head.

I also said that it helps if they take home town discounts not that they should or shouldn't but at the same time handing out obnoxious contracts while handicapping yourself isn't a smart move that will result in good things happening long term.

Historically I would say a guy like Marchand (or many of the Bruins for that matter) would apply. Recently a guys like Reinhart & Verhaege signed very reasonable deals. It's honestly difficult because a portion of "discount" to cover expected fall-off over the later part of UFA eligible deals. Would also add Crosby as a guy who gave his team a discount.

Also, it's hard for TB/FLA, because people will attribute any discount to being in a low tax state, which I'm sure is part of the calculation as well.

 

[NYI365]

The basic concept of hockey, scoring goals and not getting shut out in 4/first 10 games of the season