Guide to: How to build a successful team

[Bieber fever]

intermittent tanking is the best way to build a successful team imo

 

[Phil Parent]

I like your little template there. It's not THAT easy, but it's a good template none the less. You'd be hard-pressed to find success in hockey as a team without those pieces for sure.

 

[PricePkPatch*]

The list is meaningless. It's a template for a successful team, not a template as to how to BUILD one.

BUILDING that kind of team is much harder than just pointing out what you need.

 

[Runner77]

6 must-haves to become Stanley Cup Champions
(...)

1. Franchise players: Galchenyuk, Price

2. #1 goalie: Price

3. #1 defenseman: Subban

4. Core players: Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Eller, Price, Pacioretty, Subban, Gorges, Markov, Emelin

5. Soldiers (grinders): Prust, Moen, White (we need more)

6. You need veterans leadership (old guys): Plekanec, Gionta, Briere (only Gionta has a cup ring)

Brought to mind Pierre McGuire's "7-Player Profile" for a Cup contender:

1. #1 all star center

2. #2 all star center

3. Top power forward

4. Specialist/Utility Player/Agitator/Shutdown center

5. All star offensive d-man

6. Top shutdown d-man

7. All star goalie

Which wasn't well-received by some: http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2011/5/5/2155762/how-full-of-it-is-pierre-mcguire

 

[ClasslessGuy]

To build a great team we have to replace Desharnais or put him with 2 big skilled players. Get rid of Moen, Bouillon (maybe Diaz but only because of his style).

Gionta could be replaced also but he's a great leader.

 

[Issacar]

On a side note, 3 scoring lines is great during the regular season but it's also a game style that can easily be exploited during the playoffs. We need a fast, mean, and aggressive third line to be successful in the playoffs.

Hawks had 3 scoring lines in their last stnaley cup, worked well for them.

 

[rockjngo]

intermittent tanking is the best way to build a successful team imo

Not true look at Edmonton.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Not true look at Edmonton.

First, that team is so young right now it's way too early to call it a day and say it was unsuccessful. Folks said this about Pittsburgh even after they got Crosby, same with Chicago... way too early to write off Edmonton.

Secondly, there are tons of examples of championship teams that built this way.

Third, top picks yield on average the best players. And top players are a huge advantage in winning cups. It makes sense to have a strategy to get those kinds of players to build with. Top picks is the best way to do it.

Maybe Edmonton will continue to suck. I have zero faith in Craig McT and Kevin Lowe so you could very well end up being right. But there's a lot of very young talent on that team. You can't look at a club of teenagers and just write everything off as a failed rebuild.

 

[Runner77]

Third, top picks yield on average the best players. And top players are a huge advantage in winning cups. It makes sense to have a strategy to get those kinds of players to build with. Top picks is the best way to do it.

No question your margin of error is significantly reduced, the higher the picking slot.

However, some teams have made up for the lack of high picks with late, smart picks and better scouting. Since there is no cap on a scouting budget and the Habs are one of the top revenue teams in the league, we just need to hire the best and as many of them we can get.

 

[rockjngo]

First, that team is so young right now it's way too early to call it a day and say it was unsuccessful. Folks said this about Pittsburgh even after they got Crosby, same with Chicago... way too early to write off Edmonton.

Secondly, there are tons of examples of championship teams that built this way.

Third, top picks yield on average the best players. And top players are a huge advantage in winning cups. It makes sense to have a strategy to get those kinds of players to build with. Top picks is the best way to do it.

Maybe Edmonton will continue to suck. I have zero faith in Craig McT and Kevin Lowe so you could very well end up being right. But there's a lot of very young talent on that team. You can't look at a club of teenagers and just write everything off as a failed rebuild.

Its not that they're young, its how you put those young guys in situations. You need veterans to guide them. that was what Pitsburgh and Chicago did. Same with Detroit when they brought in Zetterberg and Datsyuk, they had Yzerman and Lidstrom around. Colorado with Sakic, Forsberg, Blake, Roy. Don't put young players in tough situations where they have to do everything, which is what Edmonton is doing. Philly they don't have a #1 defenseman and goalie.

 

[PricePkPatch*]

intermittent tanking is the best way to build a successful team imo

Off course. Boston's recent tanking in 2006 and 2007, at the 5th-6th worst team, sure cashed.

They got Phil Kessel and... Zach Hamill.

Yhea. that's the reason tehy have a strong roster. 100% right.

 

[Monctonscout]

I don't necessarily disgree with what has been posted here...some interesting stuff...but not every cup winner is the same. Plus you have teams like Carolina and Boston taht are not elite on paper but get hot or ride a hot goalie to a cup.

 

[CanadienShark]

No question your margin of error is significantly reduced, the higher the picking slot.

However, some teams have made up for the lack of high picks with late, smart picks and better scouting. Since there is no cap on a scouting budget and the Habs are one of the top revenue teams in the league, we just need to hire the best and as many of them we can get.

One thing, this could lead to group-think, which would certainly not help us. Agreed that we need the best, but not necessarily many, as that could harm us. I'd like a relatively large and knowledgeable group that will not be "pushovers" so to speak in giving their opinions.

 

[Runner77]

One thing, this could lead to group-think, which would certainly not help us. Agreed that we need the best, but not necessarily many, as that could harm us. I'd like a relatively large and knowledgeable group that will not be "pushovers" so to speak in giving their opinions.

Certainly, there are several shades of grey in defining the "best". Generally, you're looking for individuals with a proven track record, especially covering territories where our coverage is sub-par or where we have underestimated a lot of players. An argument can be made for more scouting on account of the sheer number of games played, the fact of players getting followed earlier and the remoteness and expanse of the markets generating prospects.

You can't have group-think when the information generated by a scout covering a remote area is pitted against that compiled from our own backyard where you're dealing with not only multiple scouting sources but direct front office validation.

Certainly, it takes a strong personality to go to bat and defend your ideas across a table of qualified experts. Gotta figure the "best" have the personality it takes to get their message across otherwise, they'd never be in a position to have had their assessments acted upon in their past jobs.

 

[jpchabby]

Not Franchise?

What, winning the Norris, being one of the best 3 defensemen in the league and potentially the uncontested best D isn't enough for you?

Being able to single-handily carry this team in a potential comeback isn't good enough?

What is it, exactly. You believe Defensemen can't be franchise players?

I was talking about Beaulieu... He said that in his opinion, Beaulieu had the potential to become a franchise player...

And to answer your question, yes I believe that defensemen can be franchise players. Subban for example (I assume that's the one you thought I was talking about right?)