Thoughts on the Rebuild? PART 3

[Sweatred]

I mean, White's practically on pace for 35-40 right now with injuries in what is pretty much his 3rd season. It takes players 4-5 seasons to hit their stride. He's 24 right now. When he's 27-28, he can definitely be a 60 pt center with the right wingers.

I feel like alot of people here are the performance as it is now, and conclude that is all the player will be.

He’s not even on 30pt pace ... he has 14pts in half a regular season. At 24 he’s entering his prime years.

 

[Dan Patrick]

He’s not even on 30pt pace ... he has 14pts in half a regular season. At 24 he’s entering his prime years.

Just to clarify he has 14 points in 33 games. So on pace for aroung 35 points in an 82 game season.

 

[Sweatred]

Just to clarify he has 14 points in 33 games. So on pace for aroung 35 points in an 82 game season.

He misses games due to injury all the time ... he’s hasn’t played close to a full professional season in his career. No reason to think he will start putting together 80+ games/year seasons.

 

[Mingus Dew]

I generally like Colin White but I'll be shocked if he ever hits 60 points...

He's a 3C at best. He's definitely overpaid but hopefully not to a crippling degree.

 

[DrSense]

The concept of trying to win on the backs of your top to bottom roster as opposed to being top heavy with star players is obviously closely tied to being a low budget team like the Senators are.

It's not ideal and history tells us that it is an unlikely route to winning championships.

It's chicken and the egg scenario. None of LA, Pittsburgh or Chicago were teams spending to the cap before they became contenders. But if you nail your picks (and get lucky), and get the nucleus of a young contender, the revenues will follow, which allow to spend to the cap. Look at how each of those contenders was basically built off of mostly high impact lottery picks.

If Ottawa becomes a contender with this nucleus, the team will sell out, playoff revenues will be added on top of it, and we will easily be able to spend to the cap (as we have before).

At the same time, teams who spend to the cap too early without the proper foundation, languish. Buffalo tried to speed up their rebuild, as have many others, and now they are close to starting over it feels like. The idea that we should be spending more money right now doesn't make any sense. Thankfully, hockey is not baseball.

 

[DrSense]

Most of those teams had elite pieces AND were super deep.

Disagree. Deep at times perhaps, but not always, and the reality is almost the entire roster turned over for these teams between cup wins outside of the core 3-4 players. Frankly, many of those teams didn't even draft well during their run, and STILL remained in contention. If you go back over the last 30 years, you'll see probably 27 out of the 30 teams had a core of 3-4 franchise players. The model is well tested and established.

The real benefit of having that core is you can often bring in free agents on sweet heart deals who want a chance at a cup and to play with greatness. That factor plugs in a lot of holes and can create some very team friendly contracts too. Do you think anyone is taking a discount to play in Ottawa or Buffalo next season? Probably not. But in 2-3 years, maybe (see Hasek, Dominik).

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Just checked. Kings have 4 prospects that are centers and that they drafted in the first round. Could probably get them to part with 1 of them

 

[dumbdick]

If you go back over the last 30 years, you'll see probably 27 out of the 30 teams had a core of 3-4 franchise players. The model is well tested and established.

Are you suggesting that 90% of the cup winning teams over the last 30 years lacked depth and just rode 3-4 main guys? If you are, I find that pretty hard to believe. I'd go as far as suggest that it's simply not true.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

It's chicken and the egg scenario. None of LA, Pittsburgh or Chicago were teams spending to the cap before they became contenders. But if you nail your picks (and get lucky), and get the nucleus of a young contender, the revenues will follow, which allow to spend to the cap. Look at how each of those contenders was basically built off of mostly high impact lottery picks.

If Ottawa becomes a contender with this nucleus, the team will sell out, playoff revenues will be added on top of it, and we will easily be able to spend to the cap (as we have before).

At the same time, teams who spend to the cap too early without the proper foundation, languish. Buffalo tried to speed up their rebuild, as have many others, and now they are close to starting over it feels like. The idea that we should be spending more money right now doesn't make any sense. Thankfully, hockey is not baseball.

I am not banking on this team spending to the cap at any point in the future even if they have success early on. I think even Melnyk has clarified that his "close to the cap" claims were likely to be 10 or so mil below. Wasn't there a comment from him recently on radio about expecting spending to land ~70mil or am I imagining that?

I don't recall them spending to the cap ceiling in any recent years. There was a time when the cap ceiling was reasonable for the Senators to meet, but those days are long gone and it has risen too much. There was the recent run in 2017 where they were close IIRC, but I believe the actual salary spending was quite a bit lower and not really a realistic comparable because of that.

They have to forge on with a bit of a different strategy imo and I really think it's a safe assumption that they'll never be a cap ceiling team going forward either. Better to operate under that premise imo and I think that relates to that comment you originally quoted.

 

[JD1]

Interesting take. I do love the idea of depth and using that as an advantage over teams.

But I'd say historically, the team with a top 3-4 players has been more likely to win the Cup than the team with the better depth.

Teams like the Pens, Hawks, and Kings with sustained Cup windows (and multiple cups each) all have the same thing in common - a really strong core of 3-4 elite players that are part of every Cup winner over their 5-10 year window. Those 3 teams won 8 cups over 9 years combined.

The opposite is the St. Blues formula which is more about excellent depth of 15 players, versus elite 3-4 players, but winning a cup with this model is actually quite rare. Teams with this type of depth often win a series or two, but very rarely actually hoist the cup.

Looking at past champs like Pittsburg (Crosby, Malkin, Letang), Chicago (Kane, Toews, Keith/Seabrook), and LA (Kopitar, Doughty, Brown/Carter), or even more recent winners like TB (Stamkos, Kucherov/Point, Hedman) and the Caps (Ovechkin, Backstrom/Kuznetsov, Carlson) you can see they are more about an elite core, than being deeper than the other team, which is especially important in 7 game series after 7 game series come playoffs.

So, the reality is the Sens core (Tkachuk, Stutzle, Chabot right now) is actually REALLY important in terms of seeing them become truly elite impact players, otherwise a Cup is highly unlikely. This is basically table stakes for the most part. It's why the Stutzle/Sanderson picks were so important, and why we get another shot at a core piece this year that could become part of that elite formula.

There's a lot to go into responding to your post, most of which i agree with, but i don't have the time right now. Good post though

I look at it a little differently. My take on history is needing two HoF calibre players in the prime of their careers is needed to win. As a franchise we've only ever had one.

But you can have that and still not be better than the other teams top 3. Pittsburgh lost 12 playoff series with Crosby and Malkin

 

[dumbdick]

I'm not as convinced as others are that we won't one day get back to the cap. Say what you want about Melnyk, but he's a business man and I think if he believes that spending more increases his profit, he's going to do it. The fact that other teams do it kind of tells me there's profit to be made, unless the belief is that the Ottawa market just can't support a situation where spending to the cap is financially the best decision.

So, does spending more on the roster increase the team's profit? If it does at a $50M cap, does it for sure do so at a $100M cap?
For the senators, is there a sweet spot that maximizes our profit, and is that sweet spot above the cap or below the floor?

Is there an upper limit on what the city of Ottawa can deliver in terms of profit to an NHL franchise?

I'm a numbers geek and would love to get a real understanding of the impacts of spending more or less on the roster. For example, from a given roster budget, adding another $5M in spending is predicted to:
- increase wins by #
- increase ticket sales by $X
- increase merchandise revenues by $A
- increase advertising and corporate sales by $Y
- increase the probability of making the playoffs by c%, which would generate $Z and grow the fanbase by #
- increase the probability of winning rounds by d%, which would generate $Z and grow the fanbase by #
- increase the probability of winning the Stanley cup by e%, which would generate $Z and grow the fanbase by #

At the end, you ballpark all of this and guess/decide if the $5M is money well spent. Then you compare it to the return from all of the other things you could spend your $5M on (better hotdogs, other business ventures, in-game entertainment, advertising, casino fun, etc.) and make the decision.

And there are a million external factors, like the success of the Redblacks, which will impact all those numbers that you don't control. At the end of the day, you can try to make the business case for spending more on the roster, but there's a huge amount of uncertainty and risk here. And a lot of it depends on stuff you don't control. As fans, we don't really know the details of the way this plays out in their decision making.

If you look at the money-saving moves, it kind of points to them believing spending to the cap isn't in their financial interest. But at the same time they must recognize the long-term bump they're going to get from a cup win.

 

[Sweatred]

I'm not as convinced as others are that we won't one day get back to the cap. Say what you want about Melnyk, but he's a business man and I think if he believes that spending more increases his profit, he's going to do it. The fact that other teams do it kind of tells me there's profit to be made, unless the belief is that the Ottawa market just can't support a situation where spending to the cap is financially the best decision.

So, does spending more on the roster increase the team's profit? If it does at a $50M cap, does it for sure do so at a $100M cap?
For the senators, is there a sweet spot that maximizes our profit, and is that sweet spot above the cap or below the floor?

Is there an upper limit on what the city of Ottawa can deliver in terms of profit to an NHL franchise?

I'm a numbers geek and would love to get a real understanding of the impacts of spending more or less on the roster. For example, from a given roster budget, adding another $5M in spending is predicted to:
- increase wins by #
- increase ticket sales by $X
- increase merchandise revenues by $A
- increase advertising and corporate sales by $Y
- increase the probability of making the playoffs by c%, which would generate $Z and grow the fanbase by #
- increase the probability of winning rounds by d%, which would generate $Z and grow the fanbase by #
- increase the probability of winning the Stanley cup by e%, which would generate $Z and grow the fanbase by #

At the end, you ballpark all of this and guess/decide if the $5M is money well spent. Then you compare it to the return from all of the other things you could spend your $5M on (better hotdogs, other business ventures, in-game entertainment, advertising, casino fun, etc.) and make the decision.

And there are a million external factors, like the success of the Redblacks, which will impact all those numbers that you don't control. At the end of the day, you can try to make the business case for spending more on the roster, but there's a huge amount of uncertainty and risk here. And a lot of it depends on stuff you don't control. As fans, we don't really know the details of the way this plays out in their decision making.

If you look at the money-saving moves, it kind of points to them believing spending to the cap isn't in their financial interest. But at the same time they must recognize the long-term bump they're going to get from a cup win.

It is pretty hard to turn Ottawa’s revenue from $130 million per year to say $150 million.

 

[PlayOn]

Are you suggesting that 90% of the cup winning teams over the last 30 years lacked depth and just rode 3-4 main guys? If you are, I find that pretty hard to believe. I'd go as far as suggest that it's simply not true.

Cup winning teams are almost always a well oiled machine. You see it in how Tampa won without Stamkos and has gone through this entire season without Kucherov, or how Pittsburgh performed at times without both Crosby and Malkin in the regular season and got to the playoffs.

There will always be teams with elite talent and depth, so if you lack one or the other, your chances of winning a cup automatically decrease quite significantly IMO.

It’s also worth noting that most of the winners in the past decade have repeated (Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA - we might be adding Tampa to that list soon) and so there’s a difference between building a team that’s capable of winning once if the stars align or a team that’s a legit threat year after year. You need to aim for the latter or there’s a higher chance you fall short than go all the way.

 

[DrSense]

Are you suggesting that 90% of the cup winning teams over the last 30 years lacked depth and just rode 3-4 main guys? If you are, I find that pretty hard to believe. I'd go as far as suggest that it's simply not true.

Nope. What I'm saying is 90% of the teams that won the Cup had 3-4 franchise players as their nucleus who were there for a long sustained run at the Cup. Are you saying they didn't? (see what I did there...classic message board, maneuver)

Meanwhile, defining "depth" is very subjective, but I encourage you to go check out the 4th line and 3rd pairing of some of those Cup winners in Pitt, Chic and LA (and how much ice time they got in the playoffs) as a matter of determining how "deep" all of those teams were. You'll also see the 3rd pairing and 4th line were different every time they won the cup, because the parts were essentially interchangeable role players. Often these teams would add a forward or D for the playoff push as a matter of adding better depth, but many of those teams had average 4th lines and 3rd pairings compared to many of the other playoff teams they beat. Some times they had decent depth, sometimes not.

Bottom line - depth is not the hallmark of these Cup winner when comparing it to the Franchise players who are on the ice the majority of the game, collectively.

 

[Beech]

Nope. What I'm saying is 90% of the teams that won the Cup had 3-4 franchise players as their nucleus who were there for a long sustained run at the Cup. Are you saying they didn't? (see what I did there...classic message board, maneuver)

Meanwhile, defining "depth" is very subjective, but I encourage you to go check out the 4th line and 3rd pairing of some of those Cup winners in Pitt, Chic and LA (and how much ice time they got in the playoffs) as a matter of determining how "deep" all of those teams were. You'll also see the 3rd pairing and 4th line were different every time they won the cup, because the parts were essentially interchangeable role players. Often these teams would add a forward or D for the playoff push as a matter of adding better depth, but many of those teams had average 4th lines and 3rd pairings compared to many of the other playoff teams they beat. Some times they had decent depth, sometimes not.

Bottom line - depth is not the hallmark of these Cup winner when comparing it to the Franchise players who are on the ice the majority of the game, collectively.

chicago had:
Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook...5 core pieces..and I will add Sharp (his play was outstanding)..that is 6 guys
Pittsburgh had:
Crosbey, Malkin, Letang (Like it or not Kessel), Neal, Kuntiz....that is 6

I have no desire to rehash LA's line up...I think that your 3-4 is closer to 5-6.

and that does not account for more "average" players who played above their heads for that 3-5 year run.

Now consider that Chicago still had a core 3-4 (Toews, Kane, Keith) and bombed... Pittsburgh still had/has 3 (Crosby/Malkin/Letang) and bombed..

You can go through the league and see several teams that have had/have an outstanding 3-4 players and nothing to show for it (Edmonton, Toronto, Colorado, San Jose, Washington(for the longest time))..the Boston trio of Marchand, Pasternak, Bergeron and add McAvoy are as good as they get. Boston is hanging on by a thread.

I believe that a concept of 3-4 core pieces and rotating support is inaccurate and it is more like; 5-6 core pieces and a much more stable support group around them, one with sufficient skill, is needed. That broadens the effort significantly.

 

[GCK]

It is pretty hard to turn Ottawa’s revenue from $130 million per year to say $150 million.

It really isn’t that hard.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Cup winning teams are almost always a well oiled machine. You see it in how Tampa won without Stamkos and has gone through this entire season without Kucherov, or how Pittsburgh performed at times without both Crosby and Malkin in the regular season and got to the playoffs.

There will always be teams with elite talent and depth, so if you lack one or the other, your chances of winning a cup automatically decrease quite significantly IMO.

It’s also worth noting that most of the winners in the past decade have repeated (Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA - we might be adding Tampa to that list soon) and so there’s a difference between building a team that’s capable of winning once if the stars align or a team that’s a legit threat year after year. You need to aim for the latter or there’s a higher chance you fall short than go all the way.

There's a lot of sense to that.

When the game is this fast, a lot of it is about repetition and familiarity. You need to know instinctively where everyone is on the ice, what your linemates will do, and what they are capable of doing at any given time. A team that has a good core that can grow and mature together has a real advantage here. Consistent linemates and defensive partners and powerplay/PK units are important.

Getting that talented core and keeping it intact is vital.

 

[Bevans]

It is pretty hard to turn Ottawa’s revenue from $130 million per year to say $150 million.

I'd like to introduce you to inflation.

 

[DrSense]

chicago had:
Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook...5 core pieces..and I will add Sharp (his play was outstanding)..that is 6 guys
Pittsburgh had:
Crosbey, Malkin, Letang (Like it or not Kessel), Neal, Kuntiz....that is 6

I have no desire to rehash LA's line up...I think that your 3-4 is closer to 5-6.

and that does not account for more "average" players who played above their heads for that 3-5 year run.

Now consider that Chicago still had a core 3-4 (Toews, Kane, Keith) and bombed... Pittsburgh still had/has 3 (Crosby/Malkin/Letang) and bombed..

You can go through the league and see several teams that have had/have an outstanding 3-4 players and nothing to show for it (Edmonton, Toronto, Colorado, San Jose, Washington(for the longest time))..the Boston trio of Marchand, Pasternak, Bergeron and add McAvoy are as good as they get. Boston is hanging on by a thread.

I believe that a concept of 3-4 core pieces and rotating support is inaccurate and it is more like; 5-6 core pieces and a much more stable support group around them, one with sufficient skill, is needed. That broadens the effort significantly.

I understand your point. I think the core's of the teams that won are better than the ones you've noted that didn't, but I also totally get that having a strong core of 3-4 players doesn't guarantee success and isn't an automatic for a Cup. That isn't what I was saying. What I was saying is that if you DON'T have that core 3-4 players, you are unlikely to win a cup because they are basically table stakes.

That said, I disagree with a lot you say here. For instance, I don't see McAvoy, Neal or Kunitz as franchise players in the context of this discussion. Not even close to be honest. Pens won a Cup without Kessel. I also think Toronto, and Colorado are all at the beginning of their windows, and I believe at least won of them will win a up, perhaps as early as this season or next. Toronto has their challenges with perhaps a shorter window given the salary strategy there, but they still have some time. Edmonton however, is a great example of having a core of 2 players, and no franchise defender, which makes it really tough to be a contender, let alone a cup winner.

 

[Sweatred]

I'd like to introduce you to inflation.

But that’s a relative increase for all teams - the Sens need to increase revenue vs the league ... and that is hard. Ottawa lacks a corporate base and we don’t like buying $25 tickets and $9 beer let alone $85 or $250 tickets.

And the increases would be need to be against the EK playoff run type revenue, not the last few years.

 

[GCK]

But that’s a relative increase for all teams - the Sens need to increase revenue vs the league ... and that is hard. Ottawa lacks a corporate base and we don’t like buying $25 tickets and $9 beer let alone $85 or $250 tickets.

And the increases would be need to be against the EK playoff run type revenue, not the last few years.

Getting to 150M is not that hard. A better team generates more ticket, merch and game day revenues. Better relationships with businesses generates additional suite sales and advertising revenues. Playoff games generate about 1.5M each after 35% taste goes to league. It’s easy to increase 20-25M, a new owner could do it within 1 season.

 

[Sweatred]

Getting to 150M is not that hard. A better team generates more ticket, merch and game day revenues. Better relationships with businesses generates additional suite sales and advertising revenues. Playoff games generate about 1.5M each after 35% taste goes to league. It’s easy to increase 20-25M, a new owner could do it within 1 season.

We had a better team with unsold playoff tickets - the fans didn’t come. 1000’s of excuses, but not enough people bought tickets.

 

[Beech]

I understand your point. I think the core's of the teams that won are better than the ones you've noted that didn't, but I also totally get that having a strong core of 3-4 players doesn't guarantee success and isn't an automatic for a Cup. That isn't what I was saying. What I was saying is that if you DON'T have that core 3-4 players, you are unlikely to win a cup because they are basically table stakes.

That said, I disagree with a lot you say here. For instance, I don't see McAvoy, Neal or Kunitz as franchise players in the context of this discussion. Not even close to be honest. Pens won a Cup without Kessel. I also think Toronto, and Colorado are all at the beginning of their windows, and I believe at least won of them will win a up, perhaps as early as this season or next. Toronto has their challenges with perhaps a shorter window given the salary strategy there, but they still have some time. Edmonton however, is a great example of having a core of 2 players, and no franchise defender, which makes it really tough to be a contender, let alone a cup winner.

yes..the discussion has two different points in it. It is why there is so much debate. We blended them into one point.
1) you need 3-4 franchise players..automatic HOFs when their time comes. 100% agree. Which is troubling when it comes to the Sens..I don't see it.
2) once you have your 3-4 HOFs, you need a further 2-3 "Damn good ones!!". I mean HOF LITE, and a further 3 to 4 to 5 rock solid NHL "upper 1/2" players.

Let me then ask you.
if you have 1) but not 2) can you win?
If you have 2) but not 1) can you win? (naturally assumes that the 3-4 HOFs are replaced by 3-4 HOF LITES.

 

[GCK]

We had a better team with unsold playoff tickets - the fans didn’t come. 1000’s of excuses, but not enough people bought tickets.

Team was boring as hell.

 

[Sweatred]

Team was boring as hell.

And here I thought everybody loved EK, Stone etc...

I wouldn’t want the job of getting Sens fans to swipe their credit cards.