OT: How come certain teams are not able to shake off mediocrity?

[Unbiased]

If you have a bad build you will set your team back 3 years maybe 5 so it can add up.

 

[Rogie]

Thanks so much for a refreshing thread.

I agree with the posters who mentioned 'luck'. I think it can be as much as 10% of the reason some teams are stuck in mediocrity and can't seem to get out from under it.

Obviously:

SMARTS - Smart management (people who are smart business AND hockey people) plays a bigger part now - hockey is BUSINESS, so, asset management is a big part.

Player evaluation (again smart hockey people)- from drafting to trading to UFA's and even to 'walk on's, some teams spot undervalued assets better than others.

Player development (more smart hockey people) is a big part; using the minor leagues and others in the most useful way (part of the overall business org. plan as well).

Scouting (more smart hockey people)

Coaching (smart smart smart hockey people) plays a big part; coach has to understand the org. plan and be in sync with Mgmt. (always found it strange when Burke let Wilson go how he mentioned Wilson didn't have the same idea of the plan the team was on - especially since it seemed they were best friends -how could they have not understood each other in terms of what the plan was - be it the system the team was built to play or anything to do with the plan, for that matter).

The players - obviously, - but, not just the BEST players, the right mix of players; enough character players; management has to manage old players and new and talented with less talented and high paid and not so high paid all together.

Some teams can gain small advantages here and there with coaching and management and gain another small advantage if they aren't internally cap challenged BUT luck is still going to influence things in most areas.