Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

2014/15 In-Season Canes News, Updates and Talk

Recommended Posts

I wasn't implying that RF would base a decision only on Peters next season. I apologize if I wasn't clear. What I'm saying is Peters seems to be the right choice but at the same time he is still unproven. Why next season IMO is important for Peters is that if there is no great improvement over this year  he will become an increasing a target for criticism among fans and players.

 

I know most everyone likes Peters on this board, I do too. But the proof is in the pudding. At the very least this team needs to challenge for a playoff spot next season. A rebuild needs to show progress not just possibility.

 

Doesn't "rebuild" usually necessitate taking a step back on the route to forward progress?  Trading "now" players for players that will add more, but probably a bit down the line? That seems to be part of the dilema that RF faces. Rebuild or manipulate around the current core?  To me, "rebuild" at this point probably involves moving E (or to a lesser extent maybe Skinner).  Faulk's not going anywhere, and I don't see us trading Jordan unless it's a megablockbuster package deal involving both E and J. Justin Faulk is certainly not going anywhere, and everyone else important is too young and unproven to bring back commensurate return (Semin isn't part of our current core, even though we're paying him as if he is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canes have changed coaches like dirty underwear over the last few years. Maybe it's time to look the other direction. I can't see Peters being under fire next year. This is going to take time. There are a few bad deals that have to come off the books without JR's method of giving away draft choices to take bad deals away. Buyout Semin. Get EStaal and Ward's current deals off the books (maybe resign at a lower rate). Get Liles and Gerbe off the books. Gerbe is okay, but we need an upgrade at that position. Maybe we could swap his heart and drive into EStaal's body.

Then we need to resupply the pool of prospects and start generating some productive players. This whole deal is going to take 2 or 3 years at best. Maybe then, our younger players will be hitting their prime and this will be fun again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canes have changed coaches like dirty underwear over the last few years. Maybe it's time to look the other direction. I can't see Peters being under fire next year. This is going to take time. There are a few bad deals that have to come off the books without JR's method of giving away draft choices to take bad deals away. Buyout Semin. Get EStaal and Ward's current deals off the books (maybe resign at a lower rate). Get Liles and Gerbe off the books. Gerbe is okay, but we need an upgrade at that position. Maybe we could swap his heart and drive into EStaal's body.

Then we need to resupply the pool of prospects and start generating some productive players. This whole deal is going to take 2 or 3 years at best. Maybe then, our younger players will be hitting their prime and this will be fun again.

 

Heck, if we can tap into that technology, let's swap Gerbe's heart and drive into Semin's body. Then we don't have to buy him out. :P

 

On a more serious note, I personally see other places I'd upgrade before worrying about Gerbe. I suspect that because of his heart and drive Gerbe contributes in ways that are hard to measure. E.g., most of the team is still playing hard in spite of being long out of the playoff hunt.  How much does having someone like Gerbe out there busting his a$s every night contribute to that?    

 

Liles is at $2.75m next year. I suspect the question isn't what we could get in return, as much as whether we could move his contract at this point in his career (my impression is that PK is getting less and less likely to retain salary). 

 

If we're talking about upgrades, how many here are content with Hainsey at $3m next year? (that's a real question, not rhetorical) Not that I don't like him as part of the team; he gives us a lot of minutes, some grit, and probably much needed leadership on the back end. But he's 34yo with almost zero offense and not exactly the greatest puck mover. Could we do better for $3m?          

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been rebuilding so long our skate blades are rusty. IMO we don't have time for another 3 to 5 year rebuild. I don't think we are that far off from challenging for a playoff spot. Notice I said challenging for a playoff spot not getting into the playoffs and not winning it all. If this team with some additions and deletions isn't in a position to challenge for a playoff spot next season something is very wrong.

 

We are past tearing it down. I'm not sure even if J didn't get hurt we would of been challenging for a playoff spot but when we didn't replace him we lost the playoffs. But they are all healthy now. If we can't build on Peters system and add some ingredients  to make us better next season we might as well throw in the towel.

 

We should NOT fire Peters. I never said we should. What I did say is this off-season is important for Francis to make the necessary moves to make this team better. What I did say is next season will be important for Peters. He has his system in place he has the players buying in. What he doesn't have is a record of success at the NHL level. Next season he needs to show improvement. He needs to make the coaching decisions that make this team a playoff contender. If not the third year of his contract will be  a do or die situation for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canes haven't been rebuilding anything.  In Raleigh, or in Charlotte, prior to RF coming on board.

 

What the Canes have been doing is swapping deck chairs around, making poor roster decisions, and other more minor moves in an attempt to "be better next year". 

 

That's not a rebuild, and more importantly it's proven to not be a path to success.  That's just more of Jim Rutherford making poor decisions and depleting the talent pool of the organization.

 

Rebuilding is also a philosophy of how to properly put in motion a plan to set an organization up for long-term success.  That's what's happening here with RF, IMO.

 

Now that Rutherford is gone, the days of worrying about "next year" in a short-term context is irrelevant.  Thank God.

 

And seriously, we are putting all this on the back of Bill Peters?  I understand looking for a scapegoat if things don't improve but this is all on the back of Ron Francis fixing what JR screwed up so badly.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like French Fries and Gravy!

 

I won't defend Rutherford. He had his successes and failures and seemed to operate under the assumption that if he made a bad deal he could always make another to correct it.  In the end it was what cost him.

 

We will have to disagree on how to rebuild a team and thats ok. I think you can improve a team year to year while rebuilding at the AHL level.  Thats why I'm as interested to see what Francis does for the Chex this off season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there's a bigger difference in our use of terminology than in our general views as to what the organization has done and needs to do.

 

To me "rebuild" implies first completely tearing something down. We haven't done that in the past and to me it's quesitonable whether the Canes as an orgainzation can afford to do that now without losing the general fan base.  I think most would agree that we need to at least "remodel" or "renovate" the current team, though.  Hopefully, with the coaching immprovements we've seen this year, we have a chance of being competitive short term if RF can make a couple of savvy moves that don't hurt our longer term prospects.

 

Coastal's point about what I'd term "organizational culture" is a good one, but I'd call it a "building process" more so than a "rebuilding process".  I mean, what's in place to tear down?    

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand, we all liked Muller when he first got here too, but on the other hand, Peters is the antithesis of Muller. OBXer, I get what you are saying, he is unproven and still has some results to get, but I am absolutetly confident that Francis has nothing but a warm fuzzy about Peters at this point. Aside from his obvious hockey smarts, he just fits the part of coach. Francis said he knew what was wrong here, and after attending the Brind'Amour lunch I am completely sold on the idea that a big part of that was that the star players ran the show and the coaches had to toe the line. Peters has the advantage of the fact that Francis is backing his plays, and that Francis knows that Eric Staal has been involved with the removal of enough coaches now that he will go before Peters. Peters is proabably one of the most job secure coaches in the league for next year.

 

To me the question mark is still Francis. He has made some nice initial steps, and I am very optimistic about him. But as to building an organization for the long run, he still has things to prove. He has placed a good coach, and he has empowed that coach. These are very important steps. But he has yet to really put his mark on the players side, aside from letting Sekera and Tlusty go and signing McClemment. I get it, he got a first round pick, for the future. He had no choice. It will take time. Fine, but he has yet to make a serious, non UFA trade, or to sign an impactful UFA and how he handles: Semin, E, Skinner, the loss of Sekera, Ward (ie any big trades), another draft, and UFAs, will tell a lot.

 

Of course this may draw fire, but understand, I am very optimistic about Francis. I beleive. But he still has some big issues to deal with on how this team looks next year, and beyond, that will much better define his plan and turn belief into earned trust.

 

And to be good at all next year (I also cannot agree that next year doesn't matter) we will need to sign at least TWO substantative UFA's: a very solid NHL Dman, and a top 6 forward. But can RF pull that off? That has been a challenge around here. JR gets a lot of heat now, and for good reason, but at least he could find some unwanted toys that could come in and produce: Stillman, Whitney, Jokinen. Can RF convince at least mid tier UFAs to come here? Can he find the diamond in the rough guys? To be seen.

 

On this team and how good they are. Funny, but I've been a guy who for the last couple of years thought we had a much better team than our record showed. But that was when Semin was good Semin, and Skinner seemed to be finding his game, and we still had Sekera on the team, and one could still reasonably project more offense for Jordan based on his Pittsbugh stats. 

 

This team is now mostly overacheiving. We have a mostly AHL defense a list of many underperforming forwards and one NON performing star forward. Yet we are not Buffalo.

 

I don't think this team can take another, "we're out of it by December" year. Interest in this team seems to be at an all time low. By coming out of the box 0 for October and being out of it sooooo early, we have serious apathy going. That our building is increasingly becoming another home game for out of towners, gets old. There has to be some competitiveness next year.

 

Anything is possible, but thinking that this defense is going to provide that with no upgrades is wishful even for me. If we are to even enter next year and claim any playoff viability with a sliglthy straight face, RF must pick up a sold NHL veteran defenseman. But that's not all. We must also find a legitimate top 6 forward, without losing one (not named Semin).

 

Drafting well and planning for another top pick in two years? Not enough.

 

Hopefully RF agrees. We shall see.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion, everyone.

 

I believe that if the story about Peters coming to his second interview with a PowerPoint presentation is true - and everyone swears it is - part of that presentation had to be Peters' definition of success for himself and this team viewed across the fullness of his three-year deal.

 

If I'm right about that, it would be easy to see why both he and RF labeled this as an evaluation year, and to further guess, as many are suggesting here, that the ball is in RF's court over the summer, and he will be tasked with making the personnel changes Peters requests in order to fully implement his system. Assuming that is done, and returning to my notion of BP's presentation, the second year of the contract is for the team to gel enough that, as OBXer says, it can challenge for a playoff spot. And I have to think that year three is for making it into the playoffs.

 

I agree too with those who have said we are not in a rebuild and have never been. I liked (one of the rare times this has been true) something Pierre McGuire said on NHL Network (radio) today: "Believe it or not, coaching changes are the result of poor drafting." We are the poster child for the truth in that statement, but we take it a step further, because while we have not rebuilt, we have made deals for players at the NHL level that pretty much any elite player in the league - except our captain - could have success with.

 

I am not negating that even if the revolving door of wingers had produced a potent first line, we'd still be three lines short of a team. But neither should we negate that a potent first line goes a long way in making the other lines successful. I like that BP has his fourth line, PK and even our PP performing at a level worthy of the league they are playing in. Simply by doing that he is lightyears ahead of every coach we'd had since Lavi. But the big question for me, looking back on 2014-15, is the same one I've had looking back on each of the last five years: Why is our wagon still hitched to Eric Staal's star?

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rem, I was agreeing with a lot you were saying, and you got back to Sekera and I just quit.  Yes he needs to be replaced...we get it.

 

JR gave the keys to the store to EStaal and the boys.  Traded away a ton to get his brother.  Signed Semin to a deal that he outbid everybody in the league, and nobody was bidding but him.  I am so glad he is now gone.  RF has already shown he is his own man.  Let's hope that PK lets him do what needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree too with those who have said we are not in a rebuild and have never been. I liked (one of the rare times this has been true) something Pierre McGuire said on NHL Network (radio) today: "Believe it or not, coaching changes are the result of poor drafting." We are the poster child for the truth in that statement, but we take it a step further, because while we have not rebuilt, we have made deals for players at the NHL level that pretty much any elite player in the league - except our captain - could have success with.

I mean zero disrespect to you, I'm tired of people saying we don't draft well. We have done decent as far as drafting. We've drafted team captains, 100pt scorer, 30/40-goal scorers, conn smyth winners, all stars.

Our main problem was trading draft picks, and not developing defensemen. You look at the top 5 teams in the league, most of their core players weren't drafted by the team. Nashville didn't draft Forsberg, Ribero, Fisher, Cullen, Franson, etc. The Rangers didn't draft Nash, St. Louis, McDonaugh, Brassard, etc. Being a good GM is knowning your teams and your player's limitations, drafting well, executing efficient trades, and balancing a budget. I'd say JR's best quality of all those was drafting. Another problem we had which is just as important to drafting was not knowing our players limitations. Eric Staal was a number 1 center and an all star player, but he was never a franchise player. You can say the same about guys like Cam, Gleason, Pitkanen. In our successful years, we've always had depth. The year after our last playoff run, we had a firesale and never replaced the depth players we traded. And we also have terrible contacts.

Post lockout, the game has gotten younger, faster, and defensive oriented. The fact that we have a top 3 PK and top 5 in shots allowed with a very suspect blueline and virtually the same blueline we've always had speaks volumes about the coaching staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean zero disrespect to you, I'm tired of people saying we don't draft well. We have done decent as far as drafting. We've drafted team captains, 100pt scorer, 30/40-goal scorers, conn smyth winners, all stars.

I mean zero disrespect to you, but I disagree with your disagreement that the Canes don't draft well. If the Canes were drafting well, the prospect pool wouldn't be rated as one of the worst in the league, year after year. JR did okay with the low hanging fruit in the 1st and early in the 2nd, but that is it. Nobody drafted below where Faulk was drafted has even become a real contributor. JR gave away 2nd rounders for guys like Sanguinetti rather than try to identify talent and draft. JR avoided drafting defensemen early in the draft and far too often took undersized players.

Deeper draft picks definitely are more hit and miss, but they aren't all supposed to be misses. To be successful in this league, you need players at the AHL level ready to move into the NHL lineup as regular players or at least as call ups, no two ways about it. I understand that moves can be made via trade and free agency, but the foundation of all improvement is smart drafting player development. Trades and free agency should be to fill in the holes, not to man the lions share of the roster.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean zero disrespect to you, I'm tired of people saying we don't draft well. We have done decent as far as drafting. We've drafted team captains, 100pt scorer, 30/40-goal scorers, conn smyth winners, all stars.

Our main problem was trading draft picks, and not developing defensemen. You look at the top 5 teams in the league, most of their core players weren't drafted by the team. Nashville didn't draft Forsberg, Ribero, Fisher, Cullen, Franson, etc. The Rangers didn't draft Nash, St. Louis, McDonaugh, Brassard, etc. Being a good GM is knowning your teams and your player's limitations, drafting well, executing efficient trades, and balancing a budget. I'd say JR's best quality of all those was drafting. Another problem we had which is just as important to drafting was not knowing our players limitations. Eric Staal was a number 1 center and an all star player, but he was never a franchise player. You can say the same about guys like Cam, Gleason, Pitkanen. In our successful years, we've always had depth. The year after our last playoff run, we had a firesale and never replaced the depth players we traded. And we also have terrible contacts.

Post lockout, the game has gotten younger, faster, and defensive oriented. The fact that we have a top 3 PK and top 5 in shots allowed with a very suspect blueline and virtually the same blueline we've always had speaks volumes about the coaching staff.

No disrespect taken, PK, and none intended with this: That is about the most excuse-ridden assessment of management performance I have ever read. Yes, trading picks is a problem - but that is PART OF drafting well, is it not? If you're just throwing in picks - as JR did constantly - without even thinking about building a minor league org (let alone developing relationships with junior teams in some province outside your comfort zone of Ontario), you are not managing your operation in anything close to a way that will produce long-term success. Eric Staal is not now and never has been a number-one center, Timmy is a #4 Dman at best, and Cam just happened to catch fire at the exact right time. That is not drafting success, that is sheer luck.

 

For 10 years now we've been on the other side of her (I refer there to Lady Luck), but we didn't have to be. If JR had been less concerned with butts in the seats year over year and more interested in building an org, we'd be consistent winners by now instead of staring down the throat of at least another 3-5 years before we see real results.   

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No disrespect taken, PK, and none intended with this: That is about the most excuse-ridden assessment of management performance I have ever read. Yes, trading picks is a problem - but that is PART OF drafting well, is it not? If you're just throwing in picks - as JR did constantly - without even thinking about building a minor league org (let alone developing relationships with junior teams in some province outside your comfort zone of Ontario), you are not managing your operation in anything close to a way that will produce long-term success. Eric Staal is not now and never has been a number-one center, Timmy is a #4 Dman at best, and Cam just happened to catch fire at the exact right time. That is not drafting success, that is sheer luck.

 

For 10 years now we've been on the other side of her (I refer there to Lady Luck), but we didn't have to be. If JR had been less concerned with butts in the seats year over year and more interested in building an org, we'd be consistent winners by now instead of staring down the throat of at least another 3-5 years before we see real results.   

 

I will agree to an extent that keeping draft picks are a part of drafting well, it's also who you get for those 1st rounders that determine if trading the pick was worth it.  All I'm saying is all championship teams didn't draft all their big-money players.  We have drafted enough players to field a decent team with the aid of trades and free agency.  The problem was the trading and free agency signings.  I think looking back, JR's biggest downfall was terrible trades.  I started naming them, but that's just entirely too much typing.

 

Also, it's pretty well-known you don't like Eric, but it's hard to deny his ability as a 1st liner.  The guy put up multiple 40+ goal/70+pt seasons, has performed well in the playoffs when we have made it.  I know he has his flaws, but so do a lot of other 1st liners.  He has lost his speed, which has decreased his offensive output over the last couple seasons.  Cam has put up starting goaltending numbers over the years despite not having the best defensive teams playing in front of him, but he's not a franchise goalie like Lundqust/Quick.  Gleason was a decent dman at one point in time, but as the game's gotten faster, he's gotten slower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will keep it at I respectfully disagree that we draft well. I just ran through all the names found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Carolina_Hurricanes_draft_picks and it doesn't look pleasant. In fact it irritates me, how do you botch so many first round choices?

 

We've got many more 1st round busts then 1st round success and by my count only Faulk and Cole (maybe Rask?) selected past the first round had or will have long careers.

Edited by legend-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree to an extent that keeping draft picks are a part of drafting well, it's also who you get for those 1st rounders that determine if trading the pick was worth it.  All I'm saying is all championship teams didn't draft all their big-money players.  We have drafted enough players to field a decent team with the aid of trades and free agency.  The problem was the trading and free agency signings.  I think looking back, JR's biggest downfall was terrible trades.  I started naming them, but that's just entirely too much typing.

 

Also, it's pretty well-known you don't like Eric, but it's hard to deny his ability as a 1st liner.  The guy put up multiple 40+ goal/70+pt seasons, has performed well in the playoffs when we have made it.  I know he has his flaws, but so do a lot of other 1st liners.  He has lost his speed, which has decreased his offensive output over the last couple seasons.  Cam has put up starting goaltending numbers over the years despite not having the best defensive teams playing in front of him, but he's not a franchise goalie like Lundqust/Quick.  Gleason was a decent dman at one point in time, but as the game's gotten faster, he's gotten slower.

I've never denied that Eric WAS good. He is not anymore, at least not if you look objectively at the return we are getting on our $9.5 million. And though I've been a staunch critic, I have also, often, said I want him to find his game again. But at what point do you decide he's taken enough money and squandered enough chances? Regarding your assessment of his status in the wider league, I believe that 9 out of 10 NHL scouts/GMs would tell you he is not a first-line CENTER - probably 10 of 10 in fact. That is not to say he is not a first-line wing. He is. But for my 9.5 million, I want a whole lot more than a first-line wing - because you know who else is a first-line wing? Jiri Freakin' Tlusty, at less than 1/3 the price. 

 

Neither am I saying Cam has not worked hard for us (he may be the hardest-working Carolina-developed product in franchise history), and I have defended keeping him precisely because of that. He is adapting his game and I believe has earned another season, maybe more if he'll take a pay cut. I'm only pointing out that your citing of him and his early success isn't really germane to a conversation of our drafting success over the long term. For better or worse, here's what happened in 2006: We had a true on-ice leader who refused to lose and when our goaltending faltered Cam rose to the occasion, in spades. He did things he would never be able to do physically now, and as a result we won a Cup. Ever since, JR was convinced (by Eric, mostly) that if we just brought in this player, boom, we'd be successful again. That ANYONE who has been involved in the NHL as long as Jim Rutherford could actually believe that is just dumbfounding to me, and the picks he gave up to get "those" players are the reason we're now at ground zero organizationally.

 

All of that being said, I am heartened that BP and RF seem to be taking the long-term approach that JR did not. But I have a very hard time seeing how the NHL club moves forward as long as its failed Captain remains in the room. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legend Wrote:

 

I will keep it at I respectfully disagree that we draft well. I just ran through all the names found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Carolina_Hurricanes_draft_picks and it doesn't look pleasant. In fact it irritates me, how do you botch so many first round choices?

 

We've got many more 1st round busts then 1st round success and by my count only Faulk and Cole (maybe Rask?) selected past the first round had or will have long careers.

That is a very intesting list Legend. I have long wondered how to put our drafting into perspective. Yes, we have a lot of misses, but that's the norm. I often quote (even more often than lammenting Sekera) that the chance of a late first rounder making 200 NHL games is less than 50-50, 2nd rounder 25% and all the rest of the low rounds 12% COMBINED. So on average teams get a 200 game player (note that this is not a star player) On average about once PER ENTIRE DRAFT.

 

But until this list, I had no other method of comparison. This allows team to team comparison. It would be an interesting study to compare our drafting over periods of time with every team in the league, but that would take all day.

 

So I compared our drafting from 2005 on with two teams, that people like to hold up as bastions of drafting a player development: Detroit and Chicago.

 

Since 2005:

 

Number of players over 250 games played OR 50 games per season since NHL, or obvious candidates to do so:

 

Canes: 6

Chicago: 4 (including Toews and Kane (#3 and #1 overall picks).

Detroit: 3

 

Number of fairly clear first round misses:

 

Canes: 2 Boychuk, Paradisis

Chicago: 4

Detroit: 4 (Detroit traded 4 first round picks, and missed on every single first round pick since 2005)

 

Since 2005 players making the cut for 250 games or as above: All rounds:

 

Chicago:

 

Hjalmerson: (260 games. Hardly a star)

Toews: #3 overall pick

Kane: #1 overall pick

Teuvo Teravainen

 

Detroit:

 

Abdelkater

Helm

Mathias

 

Canes:

 

Jack Johnson (became Gleason)

J. McBain

Brandon Sutter

Jeff Skinner

Justin Faulk

Elias Lindholm

 

To be fair, both Chicago and Detroit had a few big hits earlier in their drafting history. As to Detoit finding all those diamonds in the rough? Well more like two stunningly shiny findings a long time a ago: Zetterberg and Datsuk. Imagine Detroit all these years without them? Yes, they have added key pieces in later rounds, but mostly a killer draft in 2002, and Franzen 2004. Yes, overall they have found more late round players, but many of those same years their first rounder was a miss. And they have found very few diamonds lately.

 

Now what if we compare with more average teams? Or bad teams? I don't know, have at it.

 

 

I would come away saying that we have not found many late rounders and that is almost certainly due to our tiny scouting staff, and no doubt that one or two big finds (Zetterberg and Datsuk) can by themselves make a massive difference over many years. But on balance our actual choosing of first and even second rounders has been decent.

 

Bottom line, it is incredibly rare to be able to play 250 games in the NHL. At best, there is one guy per team per entire draft. Draft misses are FAR more common than hits, even on the best drafting teams and even in the first round.

 

The most reproducible correlation with good drafting is not being Detroit, or Chigago, it is picking in the top 10, top 5, top 3, etc. No matter who does the picking. And while Zetterberg and Datsuk are an amazing story, they are by far the exception. Look at the top 10 guys taken in just about any draft. Then look at the top 10 from that year's second round, then third round. Then do it for the top 5 in each round, then the top 3.

 

It's not surprising, but it does hold up. Everyone knows the very best players in the draft and for top 10 they usually pan out, top 5 very very often, and top 2 almost never miss.

 

Anyway, this is not to say that expanding our tiny scouting team and finding those occasional late round hits is not important. Frankly, really getting the second round right is probably even more key.

 

That is the draft and development part.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thesis for our woes would include a lack of true late round steals, and possibly weak player developement, but really is more focused on two things. We have not stayed down low enough or long enough to get that elite core. and the guys we do have as our elites, are not getting it done. Could we use more depth? YES! But at least in terms of points produced, very very few teams have more than 6 guys that really do that. But what the top team have is top line guys who are top line, most nights.

 

But this brings me to a point has been made by me and others, that the truely big reason for this is not really bad drafting It is bad UFAing. This, is in fact the other end of the problem.

 

The last truely effective UFA we signed was Cory Stillmman the first time. OK, Semin the first time, but given how that has turned out, seems unfair to mention that. The big advantage that the big market, and original 6 teams have on us, is that they can go out and sign the key UFA: Marion Hossa, Ryan Suter and Zach Parise, Zedano Chara, Paul Stasney, Jerome Iginla, etc. That key extra piece or two.

 

NO I'm not talking about buying a team. The team basis, still is best built through the draft, and even trades, but that last piece, that cover of the inevitable mistake or filling that glaring team need with just the right guy.

 

Back in "the day" we picked up Whitney and Stillman. HUGE keys to E's breakout year. Sure, everyone remembers the late additions of Recci and Weight, but Whitney and Stillman were even bigger. Oh, and Matt Cullen. That cup team was the thing. Balance of drafted and traded for guys with key UFA's and then key rentals: Cup. Take those key UFA's off the team: Whitney, Stillman, and Cullen? No cup.

 

JR was pretty decent at finding value guys for a small market team. Where it went off the rails was going with a very high stakes high gamble "value" player in Semin. I bet that this was partly JR trying to find a top skilled guy willing to play here. If this is the Rangers,  even JR doesn't make that move. And to be fair the one year deal was genius. It was the re-signing that was a high risk move and the risk came due.

 

So it is always a challenge to find those key UFA's in this small market, and escpecially if we are viewed as a losign team, but most teams need those guys. My harping on Sekera is right to this point. Can we find a suitable replacement? Here then is both sides of this coin. The team that CAN get a decent replacement for a loss like that gets a double win: 1. They replace the guy (UFA) 2. They get an extra first round pick and a prospect. Winner. IF they can't replace the guy, they get an AHL defense and hope that their mid round pick pans out.

 

It will be most interesting to see what Francis can do signing UFA's. Especially if the plan is to stay w/ Staal squared.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 2005 players making the cut for 250 games or as above: All rounds:

 

That's a dangerous statistic you are pulling out there, remkin.

 

The 250 games can be self serving.  Perhaps a GM hangs onto a guy longer than he should.  Perhaps shrewder GMs cut bait with certain players who then never make it back to the NHL.

 

 I.E. JR hung onto some guys longer than he should have compared to the other team's GMs.

 

You numbers are interesting, but they have to be taken into context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All numbers have to be taken into context.

 

But what I can tell you is this. You are correct, there are guys who can hang around for 250 games and not be key players, (though not very many), but there are almost NO key players who don't hit that mark.

 

So if you look at that cut off, you may include a couple of boardliners (McBain), but you won't miss any Kanes or Toews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that you started at 2005 likely so you don't have to work on composing a post all day but it's really hard to ignore 97-01 which had 3 1st round busts and not calling David Tanabe a bust makes me grind my teeth but I'll let him slide.

 

98 is the best we've ever done in the 2nd round and later. Cole, Vasicek.

2010 is the first time we've ever nailed 2 stars in a single draft. Faulk being our #1 draft steal of all time at this point. Cole moving into second.

 

Yea I'm getting WAY back there and those players selected in 97 likely would have no effect on us today but if we did draft better and enjoyed more playoff success is this team where it's at today as a trickle down effect through the years?

Edited by legend-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric Staal

Jeff Skinner

Justin Faulk

Andrew Ladd

Brandon Sutter

Erik Cole

Elias Linholm

Cam Ward

Jack Johnson

Frederick Anderson

 

We keep all those players and build around them, we're a consistent playoff contender.  I'm sitting here reading Chicago's draft history, they haven't had that much more success than we have outside the first 2 rounds.  They only have a handful of nhl'ers outside the 2nd round.  And they've had some 1st round busts as well.  We've drafted decent, we just don't hang on to the good ones we draft all the time.

 

Top-shelf, I said in my initial post that Eric is not a top line center anymore, but he was in the past.  Rather or not that's his natural position isn't the point, but he's had great success at that position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, another thing i did a poor job of emphasizing is overall i think we've drafted better than we've traded and free agency.  Our only good free agent signings of recent history as far as performance and affordability is Gerbe & McClement.

 

All i'm saying is let's not get so hung up on the draft, because this franchise has dropped the ball as far as other front office moves go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL Live covered the recent GM meetings and they interviewed (the one's I actually saw) 11 GM's.  When asked what they thought was the most important part of building a successful franchise in today's salary cap league, all 11 answered drafting well, and development of their own players.

 

So there you go you draft hanger-uppers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always looked at drafting and developing players as building a strong foundation for the franchise. Counting on building the team through trades and free agency is like trying to build a solid home by picking out nice drapes and carpet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...