Wings no longer interested in Phaneuf

[hobarth]

http://www.tsn.ca/wings-no-longer-interested-in-phaneuf-1.312595

The Wings are rapidly approaching TO's exalted status, they got extremely lucky on numerous draft choices, extremely, but time is running out for them, there is skill in their choices because they are able to pick players from the depths of the draft but Lidstroms, Zetters, Datsyuks, etc. are not happening now and haven't been for years. The vaunted proper model of drafting and developing is now going to be tested.

Detroit does show that where you draft in the draft isn't as important as who is drafted and to me shows that TO doesn't need to hastily divest themselves of the better players, draft success is crucial not tanking, Columbus went for 20 years approximately drafting in the upper end of the draft but almost constantly picked the wrong players. Until we actually see TO having draft success getting rid of TO's best/better players doesn't make sense.

 

[Bullfrog]

I think you're absolutely wrong. Of course who you draft is important. But simply stated, having a higher draft choice makes it easier to select the right player.

It's really quite rudimentary.

 

[L K]

http://www.tsn.ca/wings-no-longer-interested-in-phaneuf-1.312595

The Wings are rapidly approaching TO's exalted status, they got extremely lucky on numerous draft choices, extremely, but time is running out for them, there is skill in their choices because they are able to pick players from the depths of the draft but Lidstroms, Zetters, Datsyuks, etc. are not happening now and haven't been for years. The vaunted proper model of drafting and developing is now going to be tested.

Detroit does show that where you draft in the draft isn't as important as who is drafted and to me shows that TO doesn't need to hastily divest themselves of the better players, draft success is crucial not tanking, Columbus went for 20 years approximately drafting in the upper end of the draft but almost constantly picked the wrong players. Until we actually see TO having draft success getting rid of TO's best/better players doesn't make sense.

They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.  You don't have to choose between drafting incredibly poorly (Doug MacLean running your team) OR drafting in the top 5.

As for not trading players away until the Leafs show that they can draft?  Why? 

 

[Kin]

If Detroit proves that who you draft is more important than where you draft, how come they're in such a precarious position going forward as implied?

Every team tries to draft well. More so in a cap era. A team can't just have "draft success" by choosing to have it or every team would. If certain scouts or a certain system guaranteed draft success, those scouts would be making 10x what they are. Detroit was so gosh darn smart in drafting Datsyuk that they, like everyone else in the league, let him go through the draft two different times without being drafted before eventually taking him as a 20 year old. That wasn't brilliance on their part, it was a lottery ticket that paid off.

As Bullfrog mentions, we know the facts. The higher the draft pick, the likelier it is to pay off. There are two things a rebuilding team can control to somewhat that are bound to pay off. Where they finish and how many picks they have. Trading away the players on the Leafs will improve both of those things.

 

[mr grieves]

http://www.tsn.ca/wings-no-longer-interested-in-phaneuf-1.312595
Detroit does show that where you draft in the draft isn't as important as who is drafted and to me shows that TO doesn't need to hastily divest themselves of the better players, draft success is crucial not tanking, Columbus went for 20 years approximately drafting in the upper end of the draft but almost constantly picked the wrong players. Until we actually see TO having draft success getting rid of TO's best/better players doesn't make sense.

Well, I'd agree with Bullfrog's correction as mostly addressing all this, but I think you have at least one thing right. There are no guarantees, even at the upper end of the draft, and, if the goal is have good, productive players ready at roughly the same time for some years of contention, you ought to be pretty careful about trading pieces that, based on a sensible assessment of their skills, already fit that plan (i.e. Kadri, JvR, Rielly, Nylander, Kessel).

Some of those players are certainly "replacement level" within the top 10 picks (I'd say JvR and Kadri, surely). But we don't know what others (Rielly and Nylander) are yet, so it's hard to know what you'd be replacing. And we've got one who we know is an elite scorer -- top 5 in league over last 5 seasons, misses no games, etc. -- and will likely continue to be one into his mid-1930s. Replacing that will be awfully hard, so I'm a bit wary of those thinking we can dump him for a late first and middling prospect and come out ahead.

 

[Tigger]

And we've got one who we know is an elite scorer -- top 5 in league over last 5 seasons, misses no games, etc. -- and will likely continue to be one into his mid-1930s. Replacing that will be awfully hard, so I'm a bit wary of those thinking we can dump him for a late first and middling prospect and come out ahead.

I think Phil is worth more than that but even if he's not part of the pain they're talking about is bottoming out and they can do that better without him. If they keep him, as you say above, he'll likely be on the downside when they're really ready to compete in the playoffs.

 

[herman]

Ken Holland has bemoaned Detroit's drafting reputation before; if they were that good at drafting they would've taken Datsyuk, Holmstrom, etc. earlier.

Toronto's 'drafting problems':
1) During Fletcher/JFJ's era we drafted pretty well but screwed the pooch by a) moving picks like they were restaurant mints and b) trading away the ones we did pick for established players who were on downward development trends.

2) During Burke/Nonis' era, we blew our high-end picks on trying to expedite the process (Kessel, and Nonis' penchant for adding a 2nd rounder to every deal) and hamstrung our cap with mega-deals before the team was ready to contend; the ones we did end up drafting were largely players who peaked at their level (junior) and really only had ceilings as bottom-6 players due to Burke's template.

The Shanaplan:
1) Stockpile picks - by trading away the current team for whatever value is available; certain times of the year will inflate value (Draft/Free-agency/Deadline) but the goal here is to draft with a shotgun because predicting growth is such a crapshoot; as Bullfrog points out though, higher picks are easier to get right, and as Dubas keeps mentioning, getting better at later picks is what determines long-term success
2) Draft for high-ceiling skill - find the players that can do things that can't be easily taught (speed, creativity, vision)...
3) Develop, develop, develop - ... then teach them everything else (structured defense, strength & conditioning, skill refinement) and make them climb the ladder of progress and max/exceed their potential
4) Trade assets at peak value - for prospects with high ceiling and more picks to fuel steps 1 to 3 and maintain cap flexibility

 

[Frank E]

4) Trade assets at peak value - for prospects with high ceiling and more picks to fuel steps 1 to 3 and maintain cap flexibility

First of all, we all agreed that anyone using the term Shanaplan gets a kick in the nuts.

Secondly, step 4 is going to be really hard for fans to swallow.

Like, I think Kadri falls into this category. 

 

[herman]

4) Trade assets at peak value - for prospects with high ceiling and more picks to fuel steps 1 to 3 and maintain cap flexibility

First of all, we all agreed that anyone using the term Shanaplan gets a kick in the nuts.

Secondly, step 4 is going to be really hard for fans to swallow.

Like, I think Kadri falls into this category.

I apologize for that oversight. I must've missed the memo.

Step 4 is where we separate ourselves from the pack. We already saw it with Franson, and soon Kessel/Phaneuf. We're a bit late for Lupul and Bozak, but I can see Kadri, JvR, Bernier, and Reimer raking in low firsts and high seconds.

In the future, it won't be as big a deal because the pipeline will be filled with players that have developed to the point where the 2nd-tier-money talent is replaceable and we'd only keep 2-3 franchise players for a bit longer. That's what I believe Shanahan means when he says sustainable success that can feed itself (this will also drive jersey sales!).

 

[Kin]

In the future, it won't be as big a deal because the pipeline will be filled with players that have developed to the point where the 2nd-tier-money talent is replaceable and we'd only keep 2-3 franchise players for a bit longer. That's what I believe Shanahan means when he says sustainable success that can feed itself (this will also drive jersey sales!).

You appreciate that there's really no way that can happen, right? Teams aren't going to be good forever. You'll get a decent run out of a core group but then they'll fall back towards the pack.

 

[herman]

In the future, it won't be as big a deal because the pipeline will be filled with players that have developed to the point where the 2nd-tier-money talent is replaceable and we'd only keep 2-3 franchise players for a bit longer. That's what I believe Shanahan means when he says sustainable success that can feed itself (this will also drive jersey sales!).

You appreciate that there's really no way that can happen, right? Teams aren't going to be good forever. You'll get a decent run out of a core group but then they'll fall back towards the pack.

I expect ebb and flow, yes. Once they start to fall back, it's time to cycle them out for new blood.

 

[Kin]

I expect ebb and flow, yes. Once they start to fall back, it's time to cycle them out for new blood.

Right but team's won't just be able to hot swap pieces in and out of the line-up when it's convenient. A team built under this new CBA should be looking to maximize their chances for a good 5 or 6 year run, not compete in perpetuity.

 

[herman]

I expect ebb and flow, yes. Once they start to fall back, it's time to cycle them out for new blood.

Right but team's won't just be able to hot swap pieces in and out of the line-up when it's convenient. A team built under this new CBA should be looking to maximize their chances for a good 5 or 6 year run, not compete in perpetuity.

I've given this some additional thought, and I see that you are quite right. I wasn't thinking they could be hot swapped, per se, but that there would be way more internal competition than years past and better value propositions, making peeling off peak players more palatable.

 

[Kin]

I've given this some additional thought, and I see that you are quite right. I wasn't thinking they could be hot swapped, per se, but that there would be way more internal competition than years past and better value propositions, making peeling off peak players more palatable.

Sure. But a team will still decline when the salary cap pushes on them. That's just unavoidable and, as we can see in Chicago, that's going to happen as soon as your best players are getting market rates. Chicago's "dynasty" was only really possible because their best players were being paid undermarket rates and no team can just peel off franchise talents.

 

[herman]

I've given this some additional thought, and I see that you are quite right. I wasn't thinking they could be hot swapped, per se, but that there would be way more internal competition than years past and better value propositions, making peeling off peak players more palatable.

Sure. But a team will still decline when the salary cap pushes on them. That's just unavoidable and, as we can see in Chicago, that's going to happen as soon as your best players are getting market rates. Chicago's "dynasty" was only really possible because their best players were being paid undermarket rates and no team can just peel off franchise talents.

What if we move (most) players before they need to be paid market rate?

 

[Kin]

What if we move (most) players before they need to be paid market rate?

It depends on what you mean by "most" No team is going to draft/develop well enough that they can just replace good secondary players whenever they want and those are the guys you're going to lose. Imagine what kind of cap situation Chicago would be in if Hossa/Keith were getting paid what they should cap hit wise. That's the environment the Leafs will be building in.

 

[rdowdall]

What if we move (most) players before they need to be paid market rate?

It depends on what you mean by "most" No team is going to draft/develop well enough that they can just replace good secondary players whenever they want and those are the guys you're going to lose. Imagine what kind of cap situation Chicago would be in if Hossa/Keith were getting paid what they should cap hit wise. That's the environment the Leafs will be building in.

But don't you get saved by inflation in that case to a certain degree?  Hossa's deal at the time was probably considered to be a slight underpayment but still fair.  I'll agree that Keith should probably fire his agent. 

 

[Kin]

What if we move (most) players before they need to be paid market rate?

It depends on what you mean by "most" No team is going to draft/develop well enough that they can just replace good secondary players whenever they want and those are the guys you're going to lose. Imagine what kind of cap situation Chicago would be in if Hossa/Keith were getting paid what they should cap hit wise. That's the environment the Leafs will be building in.

But don't you get saved by inflation in that case to a certain degree?  Hossa's deal at the time was probably considered to be a slight underpayment but still fair.  I'll agree that Keith should probably fire his agent.

Hossa's deal was only possible at that price point because of the rules at the time about structuring deals. If Hossa was really looking to maximize his dollars he probably could have gotten 7 or 7.5 per.

And re: inflation, as we're seeing this year that's anything but a certainty going forward.

 

[herman]

What if we move (most) players before they need to be paid market rate?

It depends on what you mean by "most" No team is going to draft/develop well enough that they can just replace good secondary players whenever they want and those are the guys you're going to lose. Imagine what kind of cap situation Chicago would be in if Hossa/Keith were getting paid what they should cap hit wise. That's the environment the Leafs will be building in.

That's a great point (bolded).

I do still believe that not having a GM hand out $4-5+M deals to Bozak, Clarkson, Lupul types would go a long way to keeping us in the hunt, but I agree there will come a time when we need to try to draft in the top 10 for a few years again.

 

[Kin]

I do still believe that not having a GM hand out $4-5+M deals to Bozak, Clarkson, Lupul types would go a long way to keeping us in the hunt, but I agree there will come a time when we need to try to draft in the top 10 for a few years again.

But that's not the issue. Good teams already don't have those contracts but have to deal with the cap coming at them. Chicago doesn't have piles of deadweight on their books but they're going to have to say goodbye to good players at reasonable rates because there's just no room for them if 4 or 5 of your best players are taking up 50-60% of your cap.