Ideal Rebuilding Strategy: Prospect Accumulation vs. 4 Green Houses for a Red Hotel

[Horse McHindu]

Preface: Mods - if you don't see it fit that this post warrants its own thread, can you please move it to the appropriate place and message/link me as to where it's been sent? Thank you in advance.

Ideal Rebuilding Strategy: Prospect Accumulation vs. 4 Green Houses for a Red Hotel

In your opinion, what is a superior way to rebuild? Prospect/Picks accumulation? Or, 4 Green houses for a Red Hotel (Monopoly analogy). I'll try and define what each one means:

1) Prospect/Picks Accumulation: Throw enough doodoo against the wall, and some of it will start to stick based on the law of percentages. In other words, anyone that is even remotely passed their prime, or will be a declined asset by the time the NEXT core rolls around, should be moved for whatever his current value is (i.e. 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick, whatever). In using the Canucks as an example, perhaps a proponent of this philosophy would be in favour of moving a guy like Hansen or Edler right now for a draft pick of equivalent value......or a young prospect of equivalent value.

The goal of 'prospect/picks accumulation', would be to "blow it up" and obtain as many picks and prospects as possible. Perhaps the Toronto Maple Leaf model is an example of this.

2) 4 Green Houses for a Red Hotel : Another rebuild philosophy, could be in the idea that trading "4 green houses" for a "Red Hotel" could be the best way to go. In other words, focus on QUALITY over QUANTITY. Focus on "probability," as opposed to, "What could be." A person who subscribes to this philosophy, isn't intimidated by "fear of loss,"........and isn't intimidated by the idea of trading a "good" prospect(s) for a great one, even if the good prospect ends up becoming great at some point.

A person with this philosophy, may subscribe to the idea that all you need is

1) A franchise goalie
2) A franchise center
3) A franchise defenseman

And everything else can be 'attracted' via signings, trading, drafting, etc. once the above 3 pieces are in-tact (i.e. complementary 2nd line C, top winger, shut down center, etc.).

So - how does this pertain to the Canucks?

When I see this current Canucks team, I see a number of 'very good' green houses (Horvat, Virtanen, Markstrom, 2017 1st, etc. ), but no "clear cut" red hotels (Demko is likely our closest, but he's by no means a lock). I look around the league, and wonder if our "green houses" can buy us someone like Hampus Lindholm or *insert franchise prospect here*. While it's possible that one of our 'green houses' (Horvat, Virtanen, Markstrom, etc.) becomes a "red hotel," why not substantially INCREASE the odds of bringing in a guy that would likely be that guy?

Even this past year when Jonathan Drouin was reportedly available, I just wonder if the Canucks should have bitten the proverbial ***** and offered a Bo Horvat+ for said guy.

A part of me wonders if the Canucks should....

A) Stay the course (the current "rebuild on the fly model)
B) Focus on Prospect/Pick accumulation (i.e. The Toronto Model)
C) 4 Green Houses for 1 Red Hotel model (i.e. our current model, but moving guys like Horvat, Markstrom, Virtanen, etc. for true "blue chip" guys that *might* be had).

What are your thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Canucker]

Either will work provided you have willing and capable management and ownership, something we don't currently have.

 

[racerjoe]

I feel in order to do B, you need to do A. And what is said right above this post too.

 

[RobertKron]

I feel in order to do B, you need to do A. And what is said right above this post too.

Yeah, I'm failing to see how these ideas are at all exclusive.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

How much faster would you rebuild if you had 14 picks instead of 7? Logically you'd think you'd speed the process up by half if you're lucky. This is what boggles my mind about our rebuild is how they piss away picks and prospects.

I prefer a shotgun method where you're drafting and signing as many prospects as possible. But logically where's some of our most prized prospects coming from? Tryamkin, Hutton, Subban, Zhukenov, Cassels, Frosling and Rodin were all lower picks.

A successful organization centers around the draft. Our wasting of picks is mind boggling.

 

[ccjon]

Wouldn't plan A get you more green houses to work with?

 

[DANOZ28]

if i were gm id do it similar to the hawks , be terrible for 2 or 3 yrs then add the best ufa available. im shocked dallas rebuilt on the fly & turned things around faster than my wild. not easy , some teams have been rebuilding since 1967.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Where's our Brendan Gallagher?

Why don't we have a prospect out of nearly nowhere, who contributes big for O production? Why are all our big offensive players already established or 1st round picks?

 

[Ho Borvat]

Ideal Rebuilding Strategy: Prospect Accumulation vs. 4 Green Houses for a Red Hotel

Not to thread-jack here, but I don't think theres a 1-size fits all way. Imagine if you're a GM, your approach to rebuilding would be way different if you were taking over from Mike Gillis, than if you were to be the guy taking over for Benning.

Example: Benning could have spent 1-2 years flipping assets, and bottoming out, to try and stockpile youth/talent. That's not really as much of an option today (we really don't have any trade-chips left, and we're low on draft picks).

If Jim Benning was fired tomorrow, and I magically became the GM:
1) I would keep all prospects in the minor leagues as long as possible (retain ELC's, and keep them away from waiver status as long as possible). Let them develop slowly. No rushing players.

2) Sign veterans to 1-year deals, with the intention of flipping them at the deadline for picks.

3) Eat salary when possible to gain picks (like the recent Bolland trade). Arizona landed a Virtanen caliber prospect in that deal.

4) Put Sutter/Erikkson is favorable roles to pump up their value, try and get them to waive and get those contracts off the books ASAP. Tail end of these deals will be ugly. Also, see if you can sign Gudbranson for cheap. If not, move him at the deadline.

5) Not going to be popular, but trade Tanev before his NTC kicks in to the highest bidder (for youth). We need valuable players in their early 20's, not mid-late 20's.

The biggest challenge for the next GM is going to be to minimize the damage Benning has done, and try to acquire elite prospects before Horvat/etc are on their first big contracts.

 

[Alexander Edler]

Do B. Also you said the 2017 1st in a "greenhouse" if it's a top 5 pick no way it's a "greenhouse" more like the red hotel

 

[biturbo19]

Why not both?


To really succeed in building a Cup Contending team, you pretty much need both (and a ton of luck). Teams in large part live and die by the quality of their Red Hotels...you need to find the right properties to invest in for those top end pieces. Not all Red Hotels are equal. But you also need a ton of quality Green Houses to support that core, and the more Green Houses you can accumulate, the more chances you've got that one of them unexpectedly turns into a Red Hotel. Within reason. There are practical constraints on just how many pieces you can be developing on the board at any one time. I think that's where many fans take the "shotgun approach" way too far, well beyond the capacity for a team to actually develop that many prospects at one time.


Realistically though, in most situations those Red Hotel pieces just aren't available for a collection of Green Houses. Teams just don't often trade quality young stars for quantity of simply good players - unless there are some noteworthy blemishes on them. Which comes back to the above point...when you live in die by the quality of your Red Hotels, do you really want to invest heavily in the sort of blemished ones that might be possibly be available in trade for some Green Houses?

Further, even if you can find a taker for a quantity for quality swap on a prospect/player you deem worthy of building around...for a team like the Canucks, we're still pretty early in this building process and simply don't have a huge surplus of quantity to deal from. Swapping around Green Houses for other better Green Houses, better properties that fit the model better is one thing...But to swap the number of our very best Green Houses it would take to even think about cashing into a Red Hotel is the sort of thing that basically just leaves you with a Hotel on Boardwalk and nothing else on the board - desperately banking your entire strategy on that single property. You're gonna lose.

You can't build a winning team by throwing all of your eggs into one basket and expecting that piece to be the "franchise saviour". We need more eggs. We need more chickens to hatch. We need more time to work on filling our whole board with both Red Hotels and Green Houses.

 

[mathonwy]

The ideal rebuilding strategy is to....

*drumroll*

Consistently make logical and rational management decisions that are based on solid research and evidence.

You need a GM that knows how to value players properly, understands the basic economics of the NHL player market, knows what he doesn't know and acquires the expertise to fill in those knowledge gaps, and can execute trades that don't bleed value every time; and

You need an owner that is in it for the long haul and is committed to play the NHL / sports media politics game.

Prospect accumulation
Upside: Takes advantage of our GM's alleged strength.
Downside: The creation of a toxic locker room environment where there are divided lines between the vets, the youngsters and management.

This type of environment greatly inhibits player development, it makes the coaches job impossible and produces a crap on-ice product.

Four green houses for one red house
You need to be an ace at the trading game and you need to be an ace at the pro-scouting game. I don't think Jimbo qualifies for either.

tl;dr - the best rebuilding strategy for the Canucks is to replace the owners and management team ASAP.

 

[JAK]

Where's our Brendan Gallagher?

Why don't we have a prospect out of nearly nowhere, who contributes big for O production? Why are all our big offensive players already established or 1st round picks?

Alex Burrows was out of no where.

 

[brokenhole]

I think Benning has gone to the wrong Red Hotel, blew all our cap money and came out with a bunch of std's.

 

[CanaFan]

Where's our Brendan Gallagher?

Why don't we have a prospect out of nearly nowhere, who contributes big for O production? Why are all our big offensive players already established or 1st round picks?

Statistical odds mainly. And lack of picks doesn't help. You can find D outside the first round a lot easier than a scoring forward.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Well the Nucks aren't doing either.

 

[JuniorNelson]

A team cannot succeed if they are dealing with an idiotic owner. This is Vancouver's issue. We'd all be sporting replica rings if David Braley owned the Canucks.

 

[Zaddy91]

last night i was thinking if hutton was drafted in 2009 we would not only win the cup but gillis would still be gm

we needed 1 5th round gem.

one

 

[Disappointed EP40]

Ideally it's more like:

a) Trading 4 houses to get a hotel

b) Accumulating and keeping as many houses as possible to gamble a hotel emerges

c) A balance of both

And the answer is C


-------

What is happening in reality though is four houses are being traded for another house, achieving neither.

 

[canuckster19]

Why not both?


To really succeed in building a Cup Contending team, you pretty much need both (and a ton of luck). Teams in large part live and die by the quality of their Red Hotels...you need to find the right properties to invest in for those top end pieces. Not all Red Hotels are equal. But you also need a ton of quality Green Houses to support that core, and the more Green Houses you can accumulate, the more chances you've got that one of them unexpectedly turns into a Red Hotel. Within reason. There are practical constraints on just how many pieces you can be developing on the board at any one time. I think that's where many fans take the "shotgun approach" way too far, well beyond the capacity for a team to actually develop that many prospects at one time.


Realistically though, in most situations those Red Hotel pieces just aren't available for a collection of Green Houses. Teams just don't often trade quality young stars for quantity of simply good players - unless there are some noteworthy blemishes on them. Which comes back to the above point...when you live in die by the quality of your Red Hotels, do you really want to invest heavily in the sort of blemished ones that might be possibly be available in trade for some Green Houses?

Further, even if you can find a taker for a quantity for quality swap on a prospect/player you deem worthy of building around...for a team like the Canucks, we're still pretty early in this building process and simply don't have a huge surplus of quantity to deal from. Swapping around Green Houses for other better Green Houses, better properties that fit the model better is one thing...But to swap the number of our very best Green Houses it would take to even think about cashing into a Red Hotel is the sort of thing that basically just leaves you with a Hotel on Boardwalk and nothing else on the board - desperately banking your entire strategy on that single property. You're gonna lose.

You can't build a winning team by throwing all of your eggs into one basket and expecting that piece to be the "franchise saviour". We need more eggs. We need more chickens to hatch. We need more time to work on filling our whole board with both Red Hotels and Green Houses.

Quality for quantity died the moment the cap was put in place.

 

[me2]

you are a rebuilding GM: do your job and get 4 green houses AND a red hotel.

 

[JAK]

last night i was thinking if hutton was drafted in 2009 we would not only win the cup but gillis would still be gm

we needed 1 5th round gem.

one

We were one less motorcycle away from winning the cup.

RIP Luc Bourdon.

 

[ChilliBilly]

We actually are in good shape for quite a while in G and D. (Optimistic)

Demko and Markstrom for 4 or 5 years should be a good tandem, and Demko for another 4 - 5 years after that

Hutton, Tanev, Gudbranson, Tryamkin and Juolevi should all be top 4 D men in 2 -3 years. Edler may still be around to mentor. The only problem is that only Juolevi really looks like he could be a good top pairing D man with offensive abilities.

Then there is this little problem regarding forwards.

Unless Boeser turns out to be a legit 1st line winger, I see nothing that looks like 1st line material to replace the Sedins. McCann and Shinkaruk were the ones with the chance of a future. (By no means guaranteed).

Instead we let them go for:

Granlund, who was maybe more NHL ready, but borderline waiver fodder, and

Gudbranson, who I think will be a valuable addition, but never flashy and we overpaid for him.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

We actually are in good shape for quite a while in G and D. (Optimistic)

Demko and Markstrom for 4 or 5 years should be a good tandem, and Demko for another 4 - 5 years after that

Hutton, Tanev, Gudbranson, Tryamkin and Juolevi should all be top 4 D men in 2 -3 years. Edler may still be around to mentor. The only problem is that only Juolevi really looks like he could be a good top pairing D man with offensive abilities.

Then there is this little problem regarding forwards.

Unless Boeser turns out to be a legit 1st line winger, I see nothing that looks like 1st line material to replace the Sedins. McCann and Shinkaruk were the ones with the chance of a future. (By no means guaranteed).

Instead we let them go for:

Granlund, who was maybe more NHL ready, but borderline waiver fodder, and

Gudbranson, who I think will be a valuable addition, but never flashy and we overpaid for him.

I'm still surprised the Canucks went from having the worst goal scoring years in team history and did almost nothing to address scoring. Seems like they are really banking on Edler and Sutter being back to drastically change the amount of goals scored.

 

[Hit the post]

I'm still surprised the Canucks went from having the worst goal scoring years in team history and did almost nothing to address scoring.

heh, Jethro blew is stash on a DEFENSIVE defenseman.