Leafs Rebuild- How Long Will It Take?

[Billerdzzz]

If this current management team and players never win a Stanley Cup will this current rebuild phase ever be considered finished or successful?

I don't think so,Mess, no. Leafs fans had been waiting for ages to see competent management and stable ownership, take the reigns of the disaster that had been the Maple Leafs for so many years without a championship. We're not some expansion team. We're an original six team that had been a once great franchise, under Conn Smythe.

As fans, we need to stay patient as our top prospects develop into NHL'ers. However, if this time, Leaf management once again proves themselves to be inept, with terrible drafting, trading, scouting, signings, it will give fans the idea that it's an impossibility to win a Cup in Toronto. They'd been through this for so many years, some will hang in there, but a lot will also feel disgusted and disillusioned.

Another train wreck will once again, break many Leaf fans hearts.

 

[Mess]

Well that makes the phrase kinda useless since every team that doesn't win the cup is rebuilding. Or at least every team except Chicago, LA and Pittsburg?

Hawks are being used as a measuring stick for Leafs rebuild timeline, but not because they drafted and developed Toews, Kane and Keith but when those players hoisted Conn Smythe trophies on the way to Chicago Cup victories.

Drafting Matthews, Marner and Rielly doesn't mean a rebuild is complete or successful or even X far along some arbitrary rebuild timeline.

Washington drafted OV, Backstrom and Holby and have a #C, #1W and #1G and they have never made it out of the 2nd round of the playoffs so they're constantly rebuilding every time they change their roster and try again to win the Cup.

 

[Mess]

I see your path of thinking and don't disagree on the fact that nobody cares until you hoist the cup. I don't agree In saying that basically every year 29 teams are rebuilding.

To lump the leafs and let's say Tampa bay into the same category makes no sense to me. They are both at totally different points. One is rebuilding the core and trying to compete, the other is a contender and potentially a few bounces or one player away from a cup.

To say the San Jose Sharks who just went to the cup final are essentially rebuilding doesn't make sense to me.

Yes the are all requiring some some sort of work but not a full rebuild. Rebuilding something by definition is to tear it down and start over. Tampa, San Jose, Chicago, teams of this level do not need to be rebuilt in order to get to their end goal.

Some rebuilds are simply further along then others. TB rebuild began perhaps essentially when they drafted Stamkos and Hedman many years ago but its not completed yet and still a work in progress.

You don't have 29 non Cup teams start from scratch on their rebuild plans when they don't win in any single year, but their current rebuild isn't deemed complete either until its successful in a Cup or failure and torn down and started again if that is the decision if the current attempt failed.

It doesn't really matter if your deemed close or 100 miles from a Stanley Cup, but if you ask someone how long will take for this current rebuild to be complete, it will vary from team to team but its always the same end result victory that determines success and failure of it or if its complete.

 

[BertCorbeau]

I figure a true "rebuild" is re-constructing the core of your team to compete. Ergo, once your core is acquire (via draft/develop, UFA, trades) the rebuild is done. Once the core is 'rebuilt' the idea is to then support that core with a roster of complimentary/depth players to contend. Whether it's successful rebuild or not is another question as it hinges on the success of that core. A poorly built core won't contend often, but a well built core will contend frequently. If there are no cups though ultimately it could be a sign of a failed rebuild - that being said it could also be a byproduct of the improper complimentary/depth players that couldn't push the team over the top. It's really an argument in semantics IMO.

I see the rebuild done once the Leafs have established a handful of core players.

 

[Ropesman]

Some rebuilds are simply further along then others. TB rebuild began perhaps essentially when they drafted Stamkos and Hedman many years ago but its not completed yet and still a work in progress.

You don't have 29 non Cup teams start from scratch on their rebuild plans when they don't win in any single year, but their current rebuild isn't deemed complete either until its successful in a Cup or failure and torn down and started again if that is the decision if the current attempt failed.

It doesn't really matter if your deemed close or 100 miles from a Stanley Cup, but if you ask someone how long will take for this current rebuild to be complete, it will vary from team to team but its always the same end result victory that determines success and failure of it or if its complete.

While I agree with some of what you say, there are not 29 rebuilding teams every year just because they don't win the cup. Just because you don't achieve you ultimate goal doesn't mean the team is rebuilding there is a difference between rebuilding and retooling and contending IMO, quite a large difference actually. As I said before rebuilding consists of tearing something down to rebuild it into something better. There are not 29 teams doing this every year. Arguments could be made that TB does not have to make a single roster move in order to win the cup. That of course remains to be seen as they haven't done it yet so its all speculation.

I do see what you are saying but you cant lump all teams into a rebuilding category just based on not winning the cup. Your ignoring the actual meaning of the word in doing so.

Team like TB, Chicago, SJ, WSH, etc are in the middle of contending year in year out, much different then being in a rebuilding phase.

 

[Mess]

While I agree with some of what you say, there are not 29 rebuilding teams every year just because they don't win the cup. Just because you don't achieve you ultimate goal doesn't mean the team is rebuilding there is a difference between rebuilding and retooling and contending IMO, quite a large difference actually. As I said before rebuilding consists of tearing something down to rebuild it into something better. There are not 29 teams doing this every year. Arguments could be made that TB does not have to make a single roster move in order to win the cup. That of course remains to be seen as they haven't done it yet so its all speculation.

I do see what you are saying but you cant lump all teams into a rebuilding category just based on not winning the cup. Your ignoring the actual meaning of the word in doing so.

Team like TB, Chicago, SJ, WSH, etc are in the middle of contending year in year out, much different then being in a rebuilding phase.

Time-line for all teams

Start Rebuild <----------- Rebuilding -----------> Cup Win

I think you're simply trying to break the rebuilding phase into smaller parts.

Start Rebuild <---Rebuilding ---><--Fine Tuning-->< --Competing --> Cup Win.

But they're really all components of the same big picture rebuilding phase.

How could one possibly know where to draw imaginary lines between those phases other then using the same Cup success goal measure and working backwards and then basing that on how the team does in the playoffs to know if your rebuilding or fine tuning or competing?

Nashville was a playoff team and them made 2 major trades adding Johansen to their core as #1C for Seth Jones and then traded Shea Weber for PK Subban. Was that in the rebuilding phase or fine tuning or competing phase? Was their rebuilding phase ever complete?

The Pens just won the Cup but they acquired their entire HBK line in the last calendar year as well as other moves and trades crucial to cup success. What phase were they in at the beginning of the season?

 

[HoweHullOrr]

I figure a true "rebuild" is re-constructing the core of your team to compete. Ergo, once your core is acquire (via draft/develop, UFA, trades) the rebuild is done.

History has shown that most of the time, most of the core is built via the draft, and frequently solely through the draft. Yes, pieces are added via other means later, but patience is required to keep from breaking the bank too early in the process, and not before the core has been assembled. Its not that it can't be done another way, but its that its done more/most often this way. Call it the tried and true formula I suppose.

Chicago and Pittsburgh are two good example of where the core & foundation were built and kept intact, while other players that put them over the top were acquired via other means (trade & UFA).

 

[Sproo]

Constructive criticism for the author:

My charitable reconstruction of your argument/logic:

1 Leafs are rebuilding -- how long will it take?
2 You guess 4-5 years is common consensus.
3 You list the current "core"
4 You compare Leafs core ages to ages of Blackhawks player in their 2010 Cup win
5 Leafs core players skillsets are similar to those of Blackhawks.
6 Leafs have many other prospects that may pan out.
7 (From 4-6) It is therefore possible that the Leafs may be on a similar trajectory as the 2010 Blackhawks
8 It is also possible that many of the prospects are busts or mismanaged.
9 Overall you are optimistic about the Leafs in the near future.

---
Some comments:
A 4-5 year rebuild might be reasonable, but I'm pretty sure some people think it could be a little shorter... or maybe it just "takes as long as it takes" (which is something that Mgmt has already stated). My point here is that I think there is a wide range of possibilities, and it is your job as author to make a case for 4-5yrs.

Also, at this point you are suggesting your article is about trying to estimate how long a "rebuild" will take. That was your question but you don't really answer it apart from drawing similarities to the Hawks. Is that really what you're saying -- that the Leafs' rebuild will last 4-5 years because the make-up of our roster is similar to that of the Blackhawks circa 2006? If it is then I think setting up the article more like "If the Blackhawks are a good model, Leafs may be competing for the Cup as early as 2020!"

 

[HoweHullOrr]

I don't really see Burke's tenure as the beginning of any rebuild. I mean it should have been, but he came in and told us we didn't need one, and he was going to turn the thing right around.

I think Burke changed his strategy. He started off trying to buy his way to the top by trading two 1st and 2nd for Kessel. Maybe he was pushed in this direction by the owners - who knows. Then years later, he drafted Rielly. He didn't publicly admit that the only way you can build a core or a winner though until he landed in Calgary.

 

[Ropesman]

Time-line for all teams

Start Rebuild <----------- Rebuilding -----------> Cup Win

I think you're simply trying to break the rebuilding phase into smaller parts.

Start Rebuild <---Rebuilding ---><--Fine Tuning-->< --Competing --> Cup Win.

But they're really all components of the same big picture rebuilding phase.

How could one possibly know where to draw imaginary lines between those phases other then using the same Cup success goal measure and working backwards and then basing that on how the team does in the playoffs to know if your rebuilding or fine tuning or competing?

Nashville was a playoff team and them made 2 major trades adding Johansen to their core as #1C for Seth Jones and then traded Shea Weber for PK Subban. Was that in the rebuilding phase or fine tuning or competing phase? Was their rebuilding phase ever complete?

The Pens just won the Cup but they acquired their entire HBK line in the last calendar year as well as other moves and trades crucial to cup success. What phase were they in at the beginning of the season?

I feel like your trying to be to broad with the term rebuilding, much to broad.

I am not trying to break the term rebuilding into any phases, as I have already stated rebuilding is one stage. When you tear the team down because the core is not going to work, and rebuild a new one. Once this core is assembled and competitive, by competitive I mean making the playoffs, you start fine tuning your team to become a contender.

I would say it is fairly easy to determine which of these phases teams fit into year in year out based on their performance and if they made the playoffs, were put out first round, etc.

As I have already stated you are blatantly ignoring the definition of the word rebuilding, TB, CHI, SJ, etc are not ripping apart their teams and building them back up again. So how can you say they are rebuilding?

 

[Menzinger]

It's admittedly a purely subjective phrase, but I'd classify a "rebuild"bad when a management group seeks to bring in a whole new core usually via the draft.

I'd mark the latest phase of the rebuild as Shanahan's hiring. He gave the Leafs management a new focus - Nonis' team was treading water and he showed no signs of mixing things up (especially since he resigned both Kessel and Dion to 8 year deals).

And yes Rielly is a great young player, but I have little faith in the Leafs drafting and scouting per 2014. I'd wager anything if Shanahan hadn't have come on board Nonis would have gotten Ritchie instead of Nylander.

Since Shanahan has come on board - they've traded away the old core, focused on bottoming out to get a couple high picks to get a new core via the draft. Seems the best time frame to judge Shanahan and his group's ability to rebuild the team.

 

[Leaf Lander]

How is that?
Tampa drafted Stamkos in 2008.
They missed the playoffs 3 years in a row.
Had 1 great run after that but missed the next 2 years. You don't draft Drouin 3rd overall because you are good. So they made the playoffs 1 time in 6 years. Now they just had to sign Stamkos and Hedman long term. They seem to be alright. Most would agree they are a Cup contender.

Theey didnt have babcock as thier coach

 

[Billerdzzz]

History has shown that most of the time, most of the core is built via the draft, and frequently solely through the draft. Yes, pieces are added via other means later, but patience is required to keep from breaking the bank too early in the process, and not before the core has been assembled. Its not that it can't be done another way, but its that its done more/most often this way. Call it the tried and true formula I suppose.

Chicago and Pittsburgh are two good example of where the core & foundation were built and kept intact, while other players that put them over the top were acquired via other means (trade & UFA).

I agree with what Bert and you are mentioning. In the pre cap era, all a NHL franchise had to do was have big pockets. Draft a couple of top prospects, then digging in the vault ala the NYR, Red Wings, Leafs of the 1990's and early 2000's, to lure big named FA's. It can't be done that way anymore.

Yes, teams have to build through the draft now. Having a great scouting staff is essential to success. Unlike Lou's predecessors who either never had the patience, or never had been given the power to just draft and develop from within. Always adding the wrong pieces at the wrong time.

The Pens and Hawks are a good example. The Kings also had a decent core not too long ago, winning a cup. I think it's important to look at teams that had recently won Stanley Cups, having other teams, including the Leafs analyze them, seeing how they can benefit.

 

[Gabriel426]

The answer is as long as it takes.
Leicester City won the EPL last season and they just managed to stay in the EPL the year before.
Maybe the Leafs will sneak into the playoffs and guys like Andersen, MNM boys, Reilly, Jake and Zaitlev all step up and win the Cup. Or the Leafs finishes last again and ended up drafting 4th overall...
I think with the current roster, the Leafs should be better than last year. Honestly, if JB didn't have that 0-7start or whatever and was just his normal self, along with JVR and Bozak not getting hurt, Kadri didn't shoot at 6%, the Leafs probably would not have finished last. What's interesting for us fans will probably the 3 on 3 OT, imagine watching Matthews, Marner and Willie during OT!
Should be fun to be a Leafs fan.

 

[ULF_55]

The answer is as long as it takes.

So what you are saying is the Leafs are just like every other team with the same agenda, goals, and expectation as every other team.

Every team will take as long as it takes.

Some have had recent success, but they will take as long as it takes to win the next Cup.

"Give us an unlimited timeline, and we promise to complete the rebuild."

So in other words, no confidence whatsoever that they know anymore than any team management group does.

Worst management = Leaf management.

 

[royboi]

It might be helpful to start by defining when a rebuild ends , and then achieve consensus on that definition. For example:

1. When a certain milestone is reached:
a) arbitrary date based on other rebuild models: e.g., 10 years after whatever event is commonly agreed upon as the start of the rebuild (Chicago model)
b) team makes the playoffs for the first time
c) key player matures - e.g., Matthews' 5th year in NHL

2. When team management says the rebuild phase is over

3. When team starts acquiring complimentary pieces (ostensibly for a cup run or a switch in team philosophy)

4. What else?

 

[royboi]

If you look at the Oilers (not as a model to follow), are they done their rebuild? They started in 2010 when key events signalled the start of the rebuild. However, management only started acquiring pieces outside the draft in 2015 (goaltending (Talbot)), which is continuing into 2016 with the apparently lopsided move to trade Hall for Larsson to fill a positional need (defense), signalling the end of their rebuild, perhaps, as management is desperate (about freaking time!) to start competing for the playoffs.

 

[The CyNick]

Is the end of the rebuild winning the Cup? If thats the case, there's a good chance the rebuild goes on for 30+ years. On average we should win the Cup once every 30 years. Of course, as we have seen, averages dont always work, so we could be waiting a long time.

The term rebuild is stupid anyway. Every team is trying to create a championship winning team. Even the Pens right now, are trying to fine tune their team to win another Cup. The Hawks have won 3 Cups in recent years, and they are constantly changing the makeup of their team. The Leafs are also trying to build a championship group.

The good thing is we have the franchise centre, thats the biggest piece needed. But there are so many variables that will go into what is ultimately around Matthews, that it is impossible to say with any accuracy how long it will take to get to the final goal.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

If you look at the Oilers (not as a model to follow), are they done their rebuild? They started in 2010 when key events signalled the start of the rebuild. However, management only started acquiring pieces outside the draft in 2015 (goaltending (Talbot)), which is continuing into 2016 with the apparently lopsided move to trade Hall for Larsson to fill a positional need (defense), signalling the end of their rebuild, perhaps, as management is desperate (about freaking time!) to start competing for the playoffs.

No, I don't think the Oliers have finished their rebuild. But, I think that is more of an issue that the core wasn't built with the right kind of balance & skill. There is always some instance of something outside the median or norm. It's to be anticipated statistically and logically. Oilers are the exception in this case. That doesn't mean that the principle being discussed or scrutinized is invalid.

The rebuild subject is a difficult topic at the best of times, but when opinions and definitions of start dates and end dates (as you pointed out in your post) are so varied, its even tougher.