How long will/should Leaf rebuild take?

[Bullfrog]

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.

I believe management is the key. Luck is involved in the drafting and development side, but good management increases the odds.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

That's just not true. Firstly, because of the timing of the trade - the beginning of a rebuild - the trade itself does not necessarily have to meet these guidelines become a successful move. Secondly, Kapanen doesn't have to perform as such. Kapanen, Harrington, whoever the Leafs draft with the picks they received in the deal and the players they add/retain in the future with the cap space saved by shedding $6.75M per year from the cap by having moved Kessel have to provide more to the team than what Kessel could provide alone at the time. Obviously, that won't happen in the first few years after the trade, but in the latter years of Kessel's contract, when the Leafs should be verging on contending status? A very distinct possibility.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I believe management is the key. Luck is involved in the drafting and development side, but good management increases the odds.

Luck does play a pretty big role though. I've brought this up before but just look at Chicago. Toews was the 2nd best player in the 2006 entry draft according to TSN's rankings, and obviously ended up being the best player taken. Chicago selected him 3rd overall though. A year later Chicago wins the lottery and goes from drafting 5th overall to 1st overall and picks Kane.

Practically all of their success was due to the fact that Pittsburgh reached on Jordan Staal and the results of a lottery. Yes, they also had a lot of smart draft picks aside from those and some good trades, but they aren't anywhere near the team they are today if they had Staal and Karl Alzner instead of Toews and Kane.

 

[Kin]

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.

I suppose I'm just unclear on your point then. I don't know how the Leafs trading Kessel, who it's important to keep in mind should probably be classified as someone who can be a top 10 scorer even though what they traded was a guy who finished 47th in scoring, for what you say is probably the most they could have gotten for  him reflects badly on their ability to be good at making trades or the ability of anyone to consistently win trades.

I agree though that luck is a huge factor here. I also sort of agree with you that there's more luck to scouting than we'd probably want to admit.

 

[Kin]

I believe management is the key. Luck is involved in the drafting and development side, but good management increases the odds.

Luck does play a pretty big role though. I've brought this up before but just look at Chicago. Toews was the 2nd best player in the 2006 entry draft according to TSN's rankings, and obviously ended up being the best player taken. Chicago selected him 3rd overall though. A year later Chicago wins the lottery and goes from drafting 5th overall to 1st overall and picks Kane.

Practically all of their success was due to the fact that Pittsburgh reached on Jordan Staal and the results of a lottery. Yes, they also had a lot of smart draft picks aside from those and some good trades, but they aren't anywhere near the team they are today if they had Staal and Karl Alzner instead of Toews and Kane.

Maybe, but I think all you're really talking about there is luck speeding up the process as opposed to being the determining factor. It was good luck that landed them Kane and Toews, sure, but it was bad luck that landed them Cam Barker instead of Ovechkin or Malkin(they were just as bad as Pittsburgh and Washington).

Yes, their good luck is why they turned around so quickly but being near the bottom for long enough will almost certainly yield the results you want eventually.

 

[Bullfrog]

Exactly. You need good management to be in a position to take advantage of the good luck and be able to weather the bad.

 

[bustaheims]

Exactly. You need good management to be in a position to take advantage of the good luck and be able to weather the bad.

As well as to ensure that you're not completely reliant on the picks you make at the top of the draft.

 

[princedpw]

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.

I suppose I'm just unclear on your point then. I don't know how the Leafs trading Kessel, who it's important to keep in mind should probably be classified as someone who can be a top 10 scorer even though what they traded was a guy who finished 47th in scoring, for what you say is probably the most they could have gotten for  him reflects badly on their ability to be good at making trades or the ability of anyone to consistently win trades.

Yeah, I wasn't so clear.  Really, I have two thoughts:  (1) I am actually optimistic about the Leafs management because at least some of them seem to believe in the scientific method, unlike previous administrations -- but I find it hard to know how much of a difference it will make (how do I get some data on that?), (2) in terms of trades, the leafs don't really have a lot left to trade at this point.  I approve of trading guys like Winnik et al, but this might get us a bunch of 2nd or 3rd rounders --- picks that give you maybe a 10-20% chance at a 2nd line player and so even a whole handful can't really move the needle all that much.

Really, the Kessel thing in the previous post was about the fact that we've traded what I thought might be our best asset but didn't get much to move the needle.  The remaining assets are worth less (at least individually).  That isn't meant to be an indictment of management, just an indication that it will be a long haul and that even if they do well in trades, the upper bound on what they can probably isn't high enough to get me super-excited.

Re: Nick's post in the other thread:  I stopped watching the Leafs last december after a decade or so of seeing pretty much every game.  So, I'm in a bit of negative rut when it comes to this team.  The horizon seems far away.

 

[bustaheims]

in terms of trades, the leafs don't really have a lot left to trade at this point.  I approve of trading guys like Winnik et al, but this might get us a bunch of 2nd or 3rd rounders --- picks that give you maybe a 10-20% chance at a 2nd line player and so even a whole handful can't really move the needle all that much.

You're being too focused on now. Trades as part of the rebuild aren't simply limited to the draft pick/prospect addition at the beginning of it, but they include shrewd pick ups along the way (like, for instance, the Hawks and Sharp), deals later on to shore up weaknesses, etc. The needle doesn't stop moving because there aren't pieces left to acquire high end picks and prospects. There's always deals to be made. A good management team identifies which are worth making and when.

The reality is the needle is not going to move significantly for a couple years, and if you're expecting individual deals to have much impact on that at any point, you're in for a bad time. Individual deals aren't going to turn the team around. It's the cumulative impact that will.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, I wasn't so clear.  Really, I have two thoughts:  (1) I am actually optimistic about the Leafs management because at least some of them seem to believe in the scientific method, unlike previous administrations -- but I find it hard to know how much of a difference it will make (how do I get some data on that?), (2) in terms of trades, the leafs don't really have a lot left to trade at this point.  I approve of trading guys like Winnik et al, but this might get us a bunch of 2nd or 3rd rounders --- picks that give you maybe a 10-20% chance at a 2nd line player and so even a whole handful can't really move the needle all that much.

Really, the Kessel thing in the previous post was about the fact that we've traded what I thought might be our best asset but didn't get much to move the needle.  The remaining assets are worth less (at least individually).  That isn't meant to be an indictment of management, just an indication that it will be a long haul and that even if they do well in trades, the upper bound on what they can probably isn't high enough to get me super-excited.

Well, sure. Having quality management isn't the whole turkey, it's just having your thumb on the scale. It's making things 10 or 20 percent faster or 10 or 20 percent more likely to ultimately succeed. It's not the whole question.

 

[hobarth]

in terms of trades, the leafs don't really have a lot left to trade at this point.  I approve of trading guys like Winnik et al, but this might get us a bunch of 2nd or 3rd rounders --- picks that give you maybe a 10-20% chance at a 2nd line player and so even a whole handful can't really move the needle all that much.

You're being too focused on now. Trades as part of the rebuild aren't simply limited to the draft pick/prospect addition at the beginning of it, but they include shrewd pick ups along the way (like, for instance, the Hawks and Sharp), deals later on to shore up weaknesses, etc. The needle doesn't stop moving because there aren't pieces left to acquire high end picks and prospects. There's always deals to be made. A good management team identifies which are worth making and when.

The reality is the needle is not going to move significantly for a couple years, and if you're expecting individual deals to have much impact on that at any point, you're in for a bad time. Individual deals aren't going to turn the team around. It's the cumulative impact that will.

The increased use of NT/NM contracts is making trading as a means to improve a team more difficult, a team must first show signs of life before being able to attract better players either thru trades or FA.

The 2010 is an excellent example of how it isn't imperative for a team to tank to grab a great player, 2010 was the Taylor/Tyler draft but Ryan Johansen is showing that that draft was of greater significance as is Tarasenko and they were chosen #4 and #16. TO must at first succeed thru the draft before hoping to top off the roster via other means on the way to contention. The draft is a very imprecise vehicle so no matter how good the management the scouting dept. is or should be TO's top priority.