Do you need "guys you can't win with" to win the Stanley Cup now?

[Creativero]

Kessel, Subban and Schultz are all in the finals playing key roles shortly after being trade for a discounted price for picking up "guys you can't win with" style reputations in one form or another. Is this sort of like the entry level contract of the trade market now? Target skilled players who are being blamed for the lack of success of an entire team probably largely due to the media just liking that sort of storyline. Obviously that's going to be a hit or miss strategy but you can't really deny all these guys seem to have just flipped a switch and became winners immediately on arrival with their new teams. I'm not really saying the trades were bad for the struggling teams trading them away but should a contender like Chicago look at someone like Evander Kane as a way to potentially add alot of skill for a relatively low price as a way to get back on top?

Click to read more...

 

[BigEezyE22]

Kessel, Subban and Schultz are all in the finals playing key roles shortly after being trade for a discounted price for picking up "guys you can't win with" style reputations in one form or another. Is this sort of like the entry level contract of the trade market now? Target skilled players who are being blamed for the lack of success of an entire team probably largely due to the media just liking that sort of storyline. Obviously that's going to be a hit or miss strategy but you can't really deny all these guys seem to have just flipped a switch and became winners immediately on arrival with their new teams. I'm not really saying the trades were bad for the struggling teams trading them away but should a contender like Chicago look at someone like Evander Kane as a way to potentially add alot of skill for a relatively low price as a way to get back on top?

It's a stupid narrative with all 3 players above. Kessel and Schultz were expected to go above and beyond their abilities and Subban was on an entire roster you can't win with.

 

[UnderratedBrooks44]

No it's just that "can't win with Player X" is just something people say when they simply don't like the cut of someone's jib and can't form an actual argument.

 

[BigEezyE22]

Chicago should go after Kane tho

 

[Jag68Sid87]

No it's just that "can't win with Player X" is just something people say when they simply don't like the cut of someone's jib and can't form an actual argument.

Exactly. It's easy to build a reputation in this league, but it seems virtually impossible to shake out of it once you are labeled.

The Canadian media is largely to blame for most of this, though in Subban's case it is squarely his former teammates and the organization that gets most of the blame there.

Reputation is also why Evgeni Malkin was not on the top 100 players of all time, which is an absolute joke.

It's also why he might not win the Conn Smythe trophy, or why Phil did not win last year. Reputations.

 

[Inkling]

You don't *need* one, but for savy GMs it's a good way of getting a good player under their proper market value. Take advantage of a poor GM who thinks you can't win with a player who just needs the right coaching or environment.

 

[Eisen]

You usually hear this when one guy was the team and couldn't carry it alone.

 

[Zaddy]

It's more about putting players in the right roles. Pittsburgh has done a great job with Schultz and Kessel and putting them in situations they can succeed in. But if these guys are seen as your core guys, you're likely not going very far into the playoffs. That was the problem in Toronto and Edmonton.

 

[CertifiedLurker]

It's more about putting players in the right roles. Pittsburgh has done a great job with Schultz and Kessel and putting them in situations they can succeed in. But if these guys are seen as your core guys, you're likely not going very far into the playoffs. That was the problem in Toronto and Edmonton.

Or you know... you could surround those players with other good players. Unless you think that's what Toronto had, in which case.

If your team is bad, your team is bad... if Crosby played for that Leaf team barely anything changes. Maybe they have a few more first round exits. It was still a terrible team. Having one elite player and a bunch of mediocre players doesn't spell success.

 

[hagelin1381]

Those guys you "can't win with" are usually on teams that you can't win with.. I mean look at those Toronto teams Phil was on.. Leafs fans knew it wasn't his fault. It's the media's fault. Montreal couldn't score to save their lives, and it's gotten worse since Subban left, they have maybe 3 top 6 forwards on that team. And those Edmonton teams were disasters, though Schultz was also a disaster for a lot of his time in Edmonton

 

[ToeMcDrag83]

I think it's more about buying low as a GM, recognizing not so much reclamation projects, but rather players who need a change in environment and support to thrive.

All 3 of those players simply had too much thrown at them in terms of sole accountability due to team failures. They are thriving on much stronger teams now.

 

[MrFunnyWobbl]

You usually hear this when one guy was the team and couldn't carry it alone.

Thread over.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

You can win with Kessel and Schultz when they aren't required to be the best Forward / Dman on the team.

The narrative surrounding Subban was just asinine.

 

[weastern bias]

It's a stupid narrative with all 3 players above. Kessel and Schultz were expected to go above and beyond their abilities and Subban was on an entire roster you can't win with.

/thread

 

[billybudd]

I do think there are guys you can't win with. Or, at least, prominent guys who will disappear when things get important.

I just think these three were misidentified.

Schultz, while getting worse and worse every year, was made into public enemy #1, in part, so Edmonton fans could avoid confronting the reality that they'd squandered a 1 overall pick (Yakupov was costing Edmonton 6 or 7 wins a year by himself, but sure, let's decide that everything would be gravy if not for that damned Jultz).

Subban and Kessel, I can't explain. Subban was incredible in the playoffs right out of the gate. Kessel's always been strong on the big stage, in both the playoffs and internationals.

 

[Frank the Tank]

I do think there are guys you can't win with. Or, at least, prominent guys who will disappear when things get important.

I just think these three were misidentified.

Schultz, while getting worse and worse every year, was made into public enemy #1, in part, so Edmonton fans could avoid confronting the reality that they'd squandered a 1 overall pick (Yakupov was costing Edmonton 6 or 7 wins a year by himself, but sure, let's decide that everything would be gravy if not for that damned Jultz).

Subban and Kessel, I can't explain. Subban was incredible in the playoffs right out of the gate. Kessel's always been strong on the big stage, in both the playoffs and internationals.

Speaking of narratives... Schultz being put into a situation above his ability and eventually being beaten into submission had nothing to do with the Yakupov situation and Oilers fans confronting reality.

 

[billybudd]

Speaking of narratives... Schultz being put into a situation above his ability and eventually being beaten into submission had nothing to do with the Yakupov situation and Oilers fans confronting reality.

*One guy says something about Yakupov not belonging in the NHL

"How dare you! 2013! Jultz is the REAL problem. Eakins Eakins Eakins."-10 people

This exchange was constant among Edmonton fans for probably two years.

It was a pure coping mechanism to deal with sunk cost and not one that is unique to Edmonton. I saw it in Pittsburgh when people would trash Pascal Dupuis to try to make themselves feel better about the fact that we'd wasted a first round pick on a soft wing who struggled to score five goals a year. It got so bad that one guy even wrote a 2k word post hypothesizing that Dupuis was a bad father.

And, incidentally, Schultz is on Pittsburgh's first pairing presently.

 

[Frank the Tank]

This exchange was constant among Edmonton fans for probably two years.

It was a pure coping mechanism to deal with sunk cost and not one that is unique to Edmonton. I saw it in Pittsburgh when people would trash Pascal Dupuis to try to make themselves feel better about the fact that we'd wasted a first round pick on a soft wing who struggled to score five goals a year. It got so bad that one guy even wrote a 2k word post hypothesizing that Dupuis was a bad father.

And, incidentally, Schultz is on Pittsburgh's first pairing presently.

I'm trying to decide if you're conflating all these separate things willfully to get a response or if you don't understand how woefully complex the Oilers situation was until changes were made. Either way it would take too long to disentangle and educate, especially when I'm leaning to the former reason after reading your last sentence.

 

[Rorschach]

Kessel, Subban and Schultz are all in the finals playing key roles shortly after being trade for a discounted price for picking up "guys you can't win with" style reputations in one form or another. Is this sort of like the entry level contract of the trade market now? Target skilled players who are being blamed for the lack of success of an entire team probably largely due to the media just liking that sort of storyline. Obviously that's going to be a hit or miss strategy but you can't really deny all these guys seem to have just flipped a switch and became winners immediately on arrival with their new teams. I'm not really saying the trades were bad for the struggling teams trading them away but should a contender like Chicago look at someone like Evander Kane as a way to potentially add alot of skill for a relatively low price as a way to get back on top?

There is a point to be made here.

Instead of these players being referred to as "players you can't win with," these players should be called "complementary players" that complete a winning team built around "core players."

Dean Lombardi made a lot of mistakes both in San Jose and LA. But the one thing he understood and got right was to build his team around a bunch of core players then added complementary players at the end. And usually, not always but usually, these players are two-way (if they're a skater) and play a position down the middle (top nine centers, PMD, SAH, starting goalie). Because of this, despite all of his flaws of overpaying the wrong players, being too loyal, botching top picks like Hickey and such, nearly every deal he made emphasized bringing in core players. And his development of existing prospects also emphasized this.

This is exactly why I felt Hall for Larsson made a lot of sense for Edmonton and the on-ice product reflects that. People can say "McDavid" but until the veteran Larsson came in and stabilized the back end, every offensive defenseman looked like trash in that system (Petry, Schultz, etc.) and every goaltender looked bad too (Dubnyk). McDavid by himself is so good that if he gets the opportunity he can get the puck out of the Edmonton D zone and into the slot faster than I can in Sega Genesis EA hockey 93. But he only plays 1/3rd of the game and you know the other team will put their best D unit on the ice every time they can to match him. But Larsson plays up to half of the game and pushes down the rest of the D on the depth chart so that they all get easier assignments. The whole team's game stabilizes because of him. On the other hand Hall is a very complementary piece since his position is LW, the most complementary position there is in the game (no knock on him as a player).

 

[socko]

Part of problem with Phil, if you want to call a PPG player on a bad team a problem, is that he plays his best in the playoffs and the Leafs weren't good enough to make the playoffs.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Justin Schultz was a young defenseman playing on a team that was terrible, so that's not a great situation for success.

Subban and Kessel just played in huge markets and were constantly under the microscope. Run out of town by the media.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

Did anyone actually say you can't win with Phil?

I don't see him as a franchise player you build around but he's an elite complimentary piece.

Phaneuf is similar. He was treated as the number 1 guy in Toronto, even though he's really a stable second pairing guy.

 

[Alwalys]

sounds silly but the OP has a point. in the cap era it's all about eking out advantages where you can and the maligned playoff performer is one such potential area.

 

[Creativero]

sounds silly but the OP has a point. in the cap era it's all about eking out advantages where you can and the maligned playoff performer is one such potential area.

This is really what I'm driving at. There's a salary cap so there's just not that many ways to gain an edge. There just aren't that many good player available just because their can't afford them. You need to do something above and beyond just being able to identify all-around good players with sparkling personalities and great hair because that's what everyone else is doing and every team has the same resources to sign them thous guys. The reality is not everyone's perfect. You got actively look for some guys where you can live with the bad stuff and use the good stuff for your specific team. God that sounds corny.

 

[clydesdale line]

I still remember when people here (and the media) said we wouldn't win with that cursed Hossa on our team.