How long will/should Leaf rebuild take?

[hobarth]

I'm thinking we should expect the process to take around 7 years if everything falls into place perfectly. Chicago before they became a perennial Stanley Cup contender needed 10 years of basically being out of the playoffs before they were able to reverse their fortunes and then they needed to have the right players become available in the draft to top off their rebuild.

Some teams are perpetually rebuilding for a variety of reasons like Florida, Arizona, Columbus, etc. but mostly because the draft choices they've chosen were wrong.

TO is now finally in the process of removing the previous regime's junk like Kessel, Finn, Verhage, etc. so there probably isn't much in the way of value either on TO or in the minors so I would say TO is at the beginning of a rebuild which will be painful and very long.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Playoff team by year 3 if this is year 1.

Contender by year 5.

 

[Kin]

This topic was gone over quite recently:

http://www.tmlfans.ca/community/index.php?topic=3349.0

 

[Tigger]

TO is now finally in the process of removing the previous regime's junk like Kessel, Finn, Verhage, etc. so there probably isn't much in the way of value either on TO or in the minors so I would say TO is at the beginning of a rebuild which will be painful and very long.

Just, really?

 

[bustaheims]

You're massively oversimplifying things with your take on why teams like Florida and Columbus have been stuck in the rebuilding cycle. It's not only that they didn't draft well, they also weren't bad enough for a concentrated period. Teams need a couple top 3 picks, as well as success outside the 1st round, to really turn things around. Neither of those team had that. Columbus has only draft inside the top 3 twice in their existence - and those years were way too far apart to be part of a successful rebuild. They've also only drafted inside the top 5 in consecutive seasons once. They're stuck in the cycle because they were never really bad enough. Florida didn't get it right their first time around, but with 4 top 3 picks in 5 year stretch recently, they seem to be on their way.

The Hawks rebuild really only started in 2004. Before that, they were a middle of the pack team. They hadn't allowed themselves to bottom out. By 2009, they were in the Western finals, and the next year, they won the Cup. Yeah, they had a couple pieces already in the system, but the Leafs might as well. It really only took them 5 seasons to completely turn things around - and, with good management, a willingness to bottom out for a couple more years and a little luck, the Leafs conceivably could, too.

 

[Kin]

The Hawks rebuild really only started in 2004. Before that, they were a middle of the pack team. They hadn't allowed themselves to bottom out. By 2009, they were in the Western finals, and the next year, they won the Cup. Yeah, they had a couple pieces already in the system, but the Leafs might as well. It really only took them 5 seasons to completely turn things around - and, with good management, a willingness to bottom out for a couple more years and a little luck, the Leafs conceivably could, too.

Probably worth mentioning that 2004 is around when they bumped Dale Tallon up to GM. Likewise, the Panthers hired Tallon in 2010 and since then have made some pretty major strides.

It's tempting as a hockey fan to just ascribe a long run of bad results to "Columbus" or "Florida" but the reality is that every regime has it's own chance at doing things well. Hire a bad group, or make them follow bad tactics, and you'll burn three or four years. Hire a good group and things will turn around fairly quickly.

 

[bustaheims]

It's tempting as a hockey fan to just ascribe a long run of bad results to "Columbus" or "Florida" but the reality is that every regime has it's own chance at doing things well. Hire a bad group, or make them follow bad tactics, and you'll burn three or four years. Hire a good group and things will turn around fairly quickly.

Yeah. The biggest difference between the successful rebuilds and the failed ones is the quality of the management team and their willingness (and ability) to completely bottom out as part of the process. With good management, teams hired scouts that found talent in the later rounds, made shrewd trades at the right time, found the unpolished gems in other teams systems, etc. That's how you rebuild successfully.

 

[Highlander]

I am in with Patrick, playoffs three, contending in 5

 

[Boston Leaf]

I think we will be much improved in the 2nd half of season when MB's system is rolling.. Next year on the bubble and then playoffs year 3

 

[Redleaf]

I think we will be much improved in the 2nd half of season when MB's system is rolling.. Next year on the bubble and then playoffs year 3

I'm with you on this prediction.

 

[Leaflifer]

They do seem to be in full bottom out mode starting last year...so we seem to be on our way.

 

[princedpw]

It's tempting as a hockey fan to just ascribe a long run of bad results to "Columbus" or "Florida" but the reality is that every regime has it's own chance at doing things well. Hire a bad group, or make them follow bad tactics, and you'll burn three or four years. Hire a good group and things will turn around fairly quickly.

Yeah. The biggest difference between the successful rebuilds and the failed ones is the quality of the management team and their willingness (and ability) to completely bottom out as part of the process. With good management, teams hired scouts that found talent in the later rounds, made shrewd trades at the right time, found the unpolished gems in other teams systems, etc. That's how you rebuild successfully.

Are you sure good management is the key?  Or is it luck?  It is so hard to say. Im very tempted to believe there is some skill but an awful lot of luck. 

 

[hobarth]

It's tempting as a hockey fan to just ascribe a long run of bad results to "Columbus" or "Florida" but the reality is that every regime has it's own chance at doing things well. Hire a bad group, or make them follow bad tactics, and you'll burn three or four years. Hire a good group and things will turn around fairly quickly.

Yeah. The biggest difference between the successful rebuilds and the failed ones is the quality of the management team and their willingness (and ability) to completely bottom out as part of the process. With good management, teams hired scouts that found talent in the later rounds, made shrewd trades at the right time, found the unpolished gems in other teams systems, etc. That's how you rebuild successfully.

So what you are saying is that the current management is on a proper course of tanking which is desirable which I would say is what Nony was also doing for TO so we can assume he or anybody is/was capable of doing that.

We don't know if Hunter is any better than the scouts who were fired but we do know he didn't have any experience as a scout for
stocking an NHL team.

We also know that Lou was an excellent GM but he should also be the #1 person who should be held responsible for the current state of the Devils.

TO has added all kinds of bloggers, stat gurus, Junior coaches and others of questionable experience and credentials and should therefore be well prepared to glide into contention.

TO hires the marquee coach in the NHL as was RC when TO signed him and both coaches feasted on the quality of their line-ups so really is TO any further ahead, that's to be seen.

Then the greatest move was without a proper GM the team's greatest asset was moved by people who probably shouldn't have anything to do with the transaction, the returns were predictable.

Does TO have a treasure trove of real prospects ready to assume NHL positions, this year or next, no, does it have desirable players that can be moved for guaranteed blue chip prospects in the future, no. Bozak, Lupul, Phanny are about all TO has to move but are they valuable or more additions by subtractions, if moved.

TO is at the very beginning of a rebuild without a single asset that anyone can say will definitely lead TO to the promised land let alone the playoffs, all of TO's younger players of young age, 22 or younger, are at the development stages of their careers rather than a dead solid guaranteed future star.

There are many things that can go wrong and some that have already and Bab's reputation will be taking a huge hit trying to teach a playing style to players that are transients rather than the bedrock of TO's future. I expect in 3 years many will be screaming for Babs' dismissal because you can't teach a system to players who can't execute and right now that's the type of player TO has. There was nothing wrong with RC's systems except TO didn't have the personnel to carry out his instructions so in TO he became a bum as well Babs.

We haven't even really begun the rebuild and fans are already expecting TO to make the playoffs in 3 years and contend in 5, there really isn't a will to be patient only lip service.

 

[herman]

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

 

[bustaheims]

Are you sure good management is the key?  Or is it luck?  It is so hard to say. Im very tempted to believe there is some skill but an awful lot of luck.

There's always going to be an element of luck and timing. For instance, if your bad during bad draft years, that's not going to get things done. But, there's a lot of skill that goes into it, too. Negotiating trades and contracts is an important skill. Scouting well is a skill. Having a good development program comes from having skills. Luck is an influence, but it's guided by skills and abilities.

 

[princedpw]

Are you sure good management is the key?  Or is it luck?  It is so hard to say. Im very tempted to believe there is some skill but an awful lot of luck.

There's always going to be an element of luck and timing. For instance, if your bad during bad draft years, that's not going to get things done. But, there's a lot of skill that goes into it, too. Negotiating trades and contracts is an important skill. Scouting well is a skill. Having a good development program comes from having skills. Luck is an influence, but it's guided by skills and abilities.

Let's take scouting: I do believe there is some skill in scouting.  You can see statistically that guys taken in the first round are much more likely to make the nhl than guys taken in later rounds.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if this skill was relatively evenly distributed around the nhl, meaning that scouts in Toronto, Montreal, NYC are roughly the same.  At the very least, there is no concrete evidence that I know of that supports the fact that Toronto should have some significant edge in scouting over average teams.  Hence, I conjecture that timing and luck turn out to be by far the dominant factors there.  In terms of trades, I suspect that things roughly even out -- it is hard to gain too much of an edge over your competition on a consistent basis or at least we don't have a reason to expect that Toronto will suddenly become an outlier in this dimension -- Toronto just traded a top-5/10 nhl scorer for what may turn out to be a net negative return -- to make it positive, a guy like Kapanen has to make the team and outperform the salary he gets by 1.25 million per year for the next 7 years.

It is really sad or ironic that the leafs finally decide to tank at the exact moment when it becomes least advantageous in nhl history to do so --- when the nhl changes the lottery rules to increase the amount of luck you need to get one of those top draft picks.  To me it feels similar to the fact that through the 90s and early 2000s, the leafs were finally increasing their payroll and using high-priced free agents (and beginning to see some benefits of that) when the lockout struck and that strategy turned in to a loser, putting the leafs behind.

 

[Kin]

Toronto just traded a top-5/10 nhl scorer for what may turn out to be a net negative return -- to make it positive, a guy like Kapanen has to make the team and outperform the salary he gets by 1.25 million per year for the next 7 years.

How does that figure? Leaving aside every other consideration that went into the trade, the Leafs got more than Kapanen for Kessel.

 

[jdh1]

The rebuild starts tonight...they will start playing the Babcock way.

 

[princedpw]

Toronto just traded a top-5/10 nhl scorer for what may turn out to be a net negative return -- to make it positive, a guy like Kapanen has to make the team and outperform the salary he gets by 1.25 million per year for the next 7 years.

How does that figure? Leaving aside every other consideration that went into the trade, the Leafs got more than Kapanen for Kessel.

It is true. They did (I was just writing lazily and didn't fill in the details, as per usual).  Collectively, we hope one or two of them make it and outperform their salaries by 1+ million.  I know it isn't all price-performance ratio (you actually need performers, and I know not having kessel helps the tank) but that is roughly the break even point. But my point isn't to rehash the pros and cons of that trade.  It seems likely that they more-or-less got the most they could for kessel at that time.  I note luck again (or things outside the GM's control) can be a factor.  For instance, a bigger jump in the salary cap this year could have given more teams room to bid and the Penguins more money, reducing the need to retain salary.