My thoughts on Building a Cup Contender

Recently, Kent Wilson wrote about how the Calgary Flames should rebuild their team into a Stanley Cup contender. He dismissed the Dallas model of rebuilding and instead promoted the Edmonton model.

I’ve heard a lot about the “Dallas model” since the Stars were mentioned during a year-end press conference.

Of course, nobody should pretend that this is a “model” in any meaningful sense of the term. It’s certainly something that happened – a noteworthy something, an admirable something – but it’s not something that can be studied, duplicated, and enacted as a guiding strategy. Certainly not by the Flames, who haven’t had a Heiskanen-Oettinger-Robertson draft since their historic turn in 1984.

Outside of “draft a whole new core of star talent all at once” (which is quite obviously something the Flames should try to do!), the Stars’ unlikely redound is not an object lesson for Calgary. It doesn’t illumine a fresh path, it’s not the lightbulb moment of an executable insight. We may applaud the Stars’ improbably fast turnaround, but there’s no obvious way to emulate it.

The NHL is structured to reward the boom and bust cycle of team building. Being bad – really bad, for a while – is the most surefire method to put your thumb on the scale. “Pick early, pick often” should be emblazoned on every surface in Craig Conroy’s office. This is assuming the organizational goal is to build a legitimate contender at some point within living memory, of course.

The Edmonton model Kent is promoting is sell of all your assets for draft picks, leverage your cap space to get more draft picks by taking on bad contracts, draft high, and hope you get a couple stars that you can build your franchise around. This model can work. Edmonton is build around some high draft picks: Nugent-Hopkins, 1st overall in 2011, Darnell Nurse 7th overall in 2013, Draisaitl 3rd overall in 2014, McDavid 1st overall in 2015, Bouchard 10th overall in 2018. However, in Edmonton’s case it came at a cost of missing the playoffs in 12 of 13 seasons from 2006-07 to 2018-19 followed by two more seasons of losing in first round of the playoffs (or the qualifying round in COVID year).

Buffalo’s rebuild has them missing the playoffs 13 straight seasons and counting. Detroit is at 8 seasons. Ottawa is at 7 seasons. Arizona has one playoff appearance in 12 seasons. New Jersey has two playoff appearances and one playoff round win in 12 seasons. Are Flames fans really prepared to support their team through another 8-10 years of (mostly) missing the playoffs? That’s what this blow it up and start from scratch model will take.

The idea that the Dallas model is not a repeatable model is just silly as well. Yes, Dallas had an outstanding draft but the key to the Dallas model was not accepting the boom/bust model. They didn’t ditch their veteran players (Benn, Seguin, Lindell, etc.). They kept bringing in free agents (Pavelski, Suter, etc.). They kept trying to win. They drafted well and they let their prospects develop for as long as they needed and didn’t rush them into NHL roles they weren’t ready for. Hintz was drafted in 2015. Spent two more seasons in Finland. Then a season and a bit in the AHL. Then was a 3rd line center for a couple seasons. Then moved up the lineup and is now one of the better two-way centers in the NHL.

After being drafted, Jason Robertson played two more years in the OHL. Then a year in the AHL. Then moved into the NHL. Thomas Harley was drafted in 2019, spent another season in the OHL and the majority of the next 3 seasons in the AHL before becoming a regular this season. These prospects spent the time needed to learn and grow and earn their NHL roles and when they made the NHL they were put into a quality lineup that helped them succeed.

The key part some people miss here is player development. Throwing 18 and 19 year olds into top 6 or top 4 roles before they are ready with little help and little chance of success is not optimal player development in my opinion.

The Boston Bruins have not missed the playoffs for 3 straight seasons since 1967-68. In the salary cap era they have missed the playoffs 4 times in 19 seasons but have a Stanley Cup ring and two more Cup Finals appearances. The majority of NHL fans would live their team to have this kind of success. They didn’t build the team with top 5 picks after tanking. They build the team by being smart, acquiring good players when they could, and hitting on some mid first and second round picks (Pastrnak 25th overall, Debrusk 14th, Carlo 37th, Bergeron 45th, Krejci 63rd). Interestingly, when they did have higher draft picks they ended up trading them (Seguin 2nd, Hamilton 9th, Kessel 5th).

With that said, here are what I would identify as keys to building a winning franchise.

1. Invest in scouting and analytics. Building a winning team means you need to be better at identifying talent than other teams. If you can’t identify talent better than other teams then you won’t win. You need to draft better. You need to identify under valued players to trade for or sign. You do this through scouting and analytics as both bring important and different viewpoints to the table.
2. Identify what it takes to be a Stanley Cup contending team. By this I mean, what do Stanley Cup contending teams look like. How are they built. What are their strengths that make them so good. Are they big? Are they fast? Are they skilled? Do they defend well? Are they older, younger, or a mix? How do they play? Are they a rush team? Do they forecheck well? Do they rely on their power play for offense? Are they an elite penalty kill team? What positions are they allocating the most cap space to. We aren’t looking for what a specific Cup winning team does but rather are then trends among all the recent Cup winning teams. You can certainly win building your roster in different ways but some ways may be easier or more proven than others. Analytics can definitely help here.
3. Develop a plan. After you have identified what it takes to win a Stanley Cup, develop your plan. Identify what you already have, what you may have in your prospect pool, and what you need. Identify what assets you have that that don’t fit into the Stanley Cup contender model you build in #2 but could help you acquire what you do need. Identify when you think your window to contend will be. Is it now? 3 years from now? 5 years from now? What needs to be done to develop your prospects into the players you expect them to be? How do you foresee their progression from their current league to the AHL to the NHL? When they make the NHL what do you expect their role will be?
4. Be laser focused on executing the plan. You have identified what is needed to win a Stanley Cup, you have identified what your team already has and what needs to be added, and you have identified a time frame when you think you can contend. Now you need to be laser focused on executing the plan. Every roster move you make has to enhance that objective. It can be easy to get distracted when a good player becomes available but if he doesn’t fit into your plan you need to pass. It can be easy to get distracted if you are having an unexpectedly good season, but that doesn’t mean you should deviate from your plan trading futures for short term fixes. Don’t let ‘the now’ cause you to deviate from your plan.
5. Don’t waste salary cap space. This may be the most critical item on this list. Cap space is king. To be a contender you need to be hyper cap efficient. By that I mean you need more out of your lineup than what you are spending on it. If everyone got equal value for every cap dollar spent every team would be more or less equal in the standings. Not only can you not waste cap space (bad contracts, buyouts, retained salary) you need players that out perform their salary cap hits. Every dead cap dollar and every player under performing their contract requires you to have more over performing players. There is no way around this. Cap space is a limiting factor in today’s NHL.
6. Re-evaluate #2, #3 annually.

Jason Gregor has an interesting interview with Ken Holland that shows some of this process in play.

Holland: Probably after year one when we went through our analytics. We were more of a rush team. I think if you want to win in the playoffs, you need to be a cycle team. You want to score off the rush, but you have to be able to cycle the puck. So that was a big focus moving forward.

In the summer of 2021 two of the top-five forwards in the National Hockey League, in terms of cycling and forechecking, were (Warren) Foegele and (Zach) Hyman.

Without judgement on the validity of “you need to be a cycle team” to win in the playoffs (this is something you could use analytics to verify in step #2), Holland identified a need and sought out players that could help him fill that need. Holland almost certainly had options to acquire other players via trade or free agency, maybe even better players, but his plan was to acquire cycle players and Foegele fit the bill.

I recently evaluated the Leafs failures on Twitter. Either they had a poor plan or they deviated from the plan. They did so by being impatient. They paid a heavy price (the pick that turned into Seth Jarvis) to get rid of Marleau’s contract rather than wait the year. They traded a first and two fourth round picks to acquire Nick Foligno and then let him walk as a UFA. They traded a first, second, third and fourth round pick for O’Reilly and then let him walk as a UFA. There were numerous other trades of second, third and fourth round picks for rental players. All this happened before the Leafs core had won a single round in the playoffs. The process was rushed and they traded for rentals before the core had any playoff success.

Contrast this to the Tampa model. They generally have not traded for rental players. Their first big trades were Goodrow from San Jose and Coleman from New Jersey who both had reasonably valued contracts with term remaining. They traded for Nick Paul and signed him. They traded for Brandon Hagel who had an excellent contract with term remaining and then extended him. Last year they traded for Jeannot who was an RFA and then extended him. Jeannot may not be working out well but the point stands. They didn’t trade big assets for pure rentals of older players. Trading a first round pick for a couple months of play just does not make sense and the result is the Leafs prospect pool is lacking in NHL ready players. Maybe it was a young inexperienced GM or maybe it was the pressure to succeed in Toronto but several of the trades the Leafs made were ill advised hoping the team was ready to make the push when in fact they weren’t.

St. Louis is another team that I think did things the right way. In 2017 the St. Louis Blues were in a playoff spot but they new they weren’t a Stanley Cup contender. Not only did they not trade for rentals to give themselves the best chance to make the playoffs or possibly win a round they traded one of their best defensemen, Kevin Shattenkirk, who was set to be a UFA for a first round pick and a young Zach Sanford. The first round pick they acquired was used in a trade for Brayden Schenn who was a key component of their Stanley Cup win in 2019. They had the discipline to realize their team wasn’t ready to contend in 2017 so they moved assets that helped them win in 2019.

In my view fans and some teams generally over value skilled offensive players and undervalue two-way players or players that play specific roles that make the team better. I think this is particularly true for centermen. Most Stanley Cup winners over the past 15 or so years have had strong two-way centers. Toews with Chicago. Kopitar with Los Angeles. Bergeron (and Krejci) with Boston. Point (and Cirelli) with Tampa. Last years Golden Knights team had William Karlsson who I think is a very underrated two-way player. Chandler Stephenson is pretty good as well. Not all these guys are elite offensive players. Toews was never a point per game player. Bergeron was only a point per game player once in his career. Brayden Point doesn’t normally lead his teams in scoring. This years final four featured Barkov, Lundell, Hintz, Zibanejad and Trochek who I would describe as two-way more than offense first.

On defense I have written about how bigger defensemen generally go further in the playoffs and have more playoff success than they had in the regular season. This could be tied to Holland’s belief that you need to cycle more in the playoffs and bigger defensemen with longer reaches can break up cycles better as well as protect the front of the net better.

As far as the draft goes, the players you draft should be tailored to the players you think you need to be a cup contender. If you have determined that small skilled defensemen are less able to help you in the playoffs drafting small skilled defensemen high in the draft may not make sense. If you have identified two-way centers as a necessity for winning in the playoffs you should probably drop the skilled offensive-minded center who doesn’t defend well down your list.

In conclusion, I think there are plenty ways to successfully rebuild a team. Blowing up your team and starting from scratch is one method but it is a long long process that many teams grow tired of waiting it out. Another route is rebuilding on the fly. It requires investing in scouting and analytics and developing a good plan and some discipline to stick with it but it can be done.