PDA

View Full Version : The Under 25 Castaways



BeLeafer
11-21-2014, 05:55 AM
You often hear it said that the Leafs have no identity. That's not really true, however.

When Brian Burke took over the Leafs, the pipeline was more or less empty. Years of trading away draft picks (including many firsts) and two of its rare high end, undeveloped prospects (Steen, Rask) left a very thin talent pool and asset base for him to work with. Say what you will about continuing this trend with the Kessel trade, he tried to fill this gaping hole through the trade market by going after formerly highly rated prospects who weren't working out for their teams. Nonis has continued this approach, though he is obviously a less adept trader.

The Leafs thus have a roster replete with other teams castaways, many of whom had character issues swirling around them. Herein lies the root of the irony often noted about Burke trying to build a team with character and ending up with the product he had. Each of the following players qualify:

Kessel
Lupul
JVR
Phaneuf
Gardiner
Franson
Bernier
Holland
Panik
Ashton
Bozak (undrafted)

That's 4 or 5 of the top 6 forward group, 3 of the top 4 blueline group, and the starting goaltender. In short, the core of this team is made up of other teams castaways. It's what defines the Leafs.

The result is a team with a good level of skill but a questionable dedication to purpose and often lacking in smarts. You can maybe get away with having a handful of these types of players filling top roles, but there's just too many reclamation projects in this core to be anything more than a stop gap measure until the pipeline is repaired.

Leafyblue
11-21-2014, 08:26 AM
Coach Willllllllllllllllsooooonn! ?

Boogmour
11-21-2014, 09:37 AM
The Leafs have a terrible track record in drafting and developing their own players. Sure, once in a blue moon they'll manage to find some half-decent player but for an organization as filthy rich as this; you'd expect a hell of a lot more. Its an embarrassment that the last impact player developed and drafted worth a damn was Wendel Clark.

The organization might as well keep trading away draft picks because the bafoons doing the draft decision making and the player development is a joke. Add in a few bad general managers throughout the years and you have a great recipe for failure and mediocrity. The way the organization works, the Leafs have a better chance at building something by obtaining talented castoffs through trades and over paying freeagency, then drafting and development their own players; as pathetic as that is.

Shannahan has a lot of work to do, coming from very successful organizations, there maybe a glimmer of hope he can employ that same organizational structure and blue print for success.

zeke
11-21-2014, 10:37 AM
meh.

seems like other teams enjoy using our castaways just fine - Rask, Steen, Stralman, Gunnar, Kuly, Schenn, Mitchell, etc. - so it's only fair that we return the favor.

Volcanologist
11-21-2014, 11:57 AM
Bringing in Hunter was a move to start addressing this. I'd imagine we'll see more changes in scouting since that is the main reason we haven't won in nearly 50 years.

CaptainBolduke
11-21-2014, 12:06 PM
You often hear it said that the Leafs have no identity. That's not really true, however.

When Brian Burke took over the Leafs, the pipeline was more or less empty. Years of trading away draft picks (including many firsts) and two of its rare high end, undeveloped prospects (Steen, Rask) left a very thin talent pool and asset base for him to work with. Say what you will about continuing this trend with the Kessel trade, he tried to fill this gaping hole through the trade market by going after formerly highly rated prospects who weren't working out for their teams. Nonis has continued this approach, though he is obviously a less adept trader.

The Leafs thus have a roster replete with other teams castaways, many of whom had character issues swirling around them. Herein lies the root of the irony often noted about Burke trying to build a team with character and ending up with the product he had. Each of the following players qualify:

Kessel
Lupul
JVR
Phaneuf
Gardiner
Franson
Bernier
Holland
Panik
Ashton
Bozak (undrafted)

That's 4 or 5 of the top 6 forward group, 3 of the top 4 blueline group, and the starting goaltender. In short, the core of this team is made up of other teams castaways. It's what defines the Leafs.

The result is a team with a good level of skill but a questionable dedication to purpose and often lacking in smarts. You can maybe get away with having a handful of these types of players filling top roles, but there's just too many reclamation projects in this core to be anything more than a stop gap measure until the pipeline is repaired.

This is just a prime example of how you must build through the draft and not give up on young talent if you want a true contender. Building a team through FA, trades and the scrap heap rarely works.

BeLeafer
11-21-2014, 01:10 PM
meh.

seems like other teams enjoy using our castaways just fine - Rask, Steen, Stralman, Gunnar, Kuly, Schenn, Mitchell, etc. - so it's only fair that we return the favor.

Uh, you missed the key point there, zeke.

Show me any other teams that rely so heavily on castaways. Majority of top six forwards and top four defensemen, as well as starting goaltender. I doubt there's one out there and certain none that have been contenders or Cup winners.

Deckie007
11-21-2014, 01:24 PM
The Bruins arguably two more important players during their cup run were both "castaways", Chara and the King of Castaways, Tim Thomas. Also Dennis Seidenberg, Nathan Horton, Michael Ryder, Tukka Rask....

MindzEye
11-21-2014, 01:24 PM
Why is Phil Kessel a castaway? Boston wanted to keep him, tried to play contract hardball with him and lost.
Why is Gardiner a cast away? Anaheim wanted a legit top pairing defender and the cost was a 1st round pick with top pairing upside.
Why is Bernier a cast away?
Why is Bozak a cast away?
Even Franson is a bit silly here, the Preds were cash strapped and were trying to save their pennies to keep Suter & Weber together
Since when is Ashton or Panik really a part of this team?


You've really stretched this argument to it's logical breaking point to make it.

Deckie007
11-21-2014, 01:29 PM
Why is Phil Kessel a castaway? Boston wanted to keep him, tried to play contract hardball with him and lost.
Why is Gardiner a cast away? Anaheim wanted a legit top pairing defender and the cost was a 1st round pick with top pairing upside.
Why is Bernier a cast away?
Why is Bozak a cast away?
Even Franson is a bit silly here, the Preds were cash strapped and were trying to save their pennies to keep Suter & Weber together
Since when is Ashton or Panik really a part of this team?


You've really stretched this argument to it's logical breaking point to make it.

It's a pointless argument. Get talent. Period. How you acquire it is irrelevant.

CTheBigPicture
11-21-2014, 01:36 PM
Get talent at key positions, surround talent with guys who buy into their roles and the system, have top to bottom continuity, and yes get lucky too.

LeafGm
11-21-2014, 02:22 PM
Why is Phil Kessel a castaway? Boston wanted to keep him, tried to play contract hardball with him and lost.
Why is Gardiner a cast away? Anaheim wanted a legit top pairing defender and the cost was a 1st round pick with top pairing upside.
Why is Bernier a cast away?
Why is Bozak a cast away?
Even Franson is a bit silly here, the Preds were cash strapped and were trying to save their pennies to keep Suter & Weber together
Since when is Ashton or Panik really a part of this team?


You've really stretched this argument to it's logical breaking point to make it.
Yeah, I have to agree. This whole argument's a pretty big stretch. The only real "castaway" on the list is Joffrey Lupul. The Ducks viewed him as a pure salary dump, and were forced to include a good prospect in Gardiner (and a 4th rounder) to get us to take him.

Volcanologist
11-21-2014, 02:24 PM
Perhaps it's the choice of term -- "castaway" -- that people object to, but the point stands.

The Leafs rely on acquiring talent from other teams instead of drafting and developing their own. This is 100% fact.

LeafGm
11-21-2014, 03:18 PM
Perhaps it's the choice of term -- "castaway" -- that people object to, but the point stands.

The Leafs rely on acquiring talent from other teams instead of drafting and developing their own. This is 100% fact.
Yeah, sure, it's a fact. But this isn't something that you can fix in a short time-frame, obviously.

The important thing to me is that they're already doing all the right things to fix this. If you look back at our last 4-5 drafts, we've made five first round picks, all of whom are still in the Leaf organization. For the most part, we've held on to our draft picks and overall, if you look at all the prospects we picked in those drafts, they're all still prospects in our organization with the exception of a few guys that we didn't sign, which means we're not continuing the Leaf tradition of dumping prospects early in their development:

Tyler Biggs - Solar Bears/Marlies
Stuart Percy - Marlies/Leafs
Josh Leivo - Marlies/Leafs
Tom Nilsson - Marlies
David Broll - Marlies
Garret Sparks - Solar Bears/Marlies
Morgan Rielly - Leafs
Matt Finn - Marlies
Connor Brown - Marlies
Ryan Rupert - Solar Bears
Victor Loov - Marlies
Frederik Gauthier - CHL
Carter Verhaeghe - CHL
Antoine Bibeau - Marlies
Andreas Johnson - SHL
William Nylander - SHL
Rinat Valiev - CHL

Sure, it'd be nice if more of these guys were on the NHL roster right now making an impact, but isn't this how we're supposed to do it? Keep your draft picks, make your draft picks and then be patient with your draft picks as they graduate from the CHL/Europe/NCAA, to the AHL, and then once they're ready on to the NHL.

And we do have guys that are making pretty encouraging progress even right now. Johnson and Nylander are lighting up the SHL as teenagers. Stuart Percy and Josh Leivo are on the cusp of being regular NHLers, after we slowly and patiently let them progress through junior, the AHL and then to the NHL. Connor Brown is off to a good start in his first season of professional hockey, as is Victor Loov in his first season in North America.

number17
11-21-2014, 03:53 PM
Young talent is what we need.

How we acquire them? Who CARES?!!

CaptainBolduke
11-21-2014, 04:07 PM
It's a pointless argument. Get talent. Period. How you acquire it is irrelevant.

I'm not sure about that. In hockey esp, building through the draft and keeping young talent seems very important. The Salary Cap plays into that as well because it's hard to buy a winner. For the most part ALL of the top teams in the NHL have built through the draft.

MindzEye
11-21-2014, 04:23 PM
I'm not sure about that. In hockey esp, building through the draft and keeping young talent seems very important. The Salary Cap plays into that as well because it's hard to buy a winner. For the most part ALL of the top teams in the NHL have built through the draft.

But does it really matter where you got the player from if they're talented and under a good contract? I mean, would we seriously be better off with Luke Schenn signed long term than JVR signed long term? Would keeping Luke Schenn be the right thing because we drafted and developed him our self, but we're guilty of taking on other team's castaways when we traded our home grown Shenn for JVR?

Any time you start applying silly blanket arguments, it's probably wrong. I've brought up the point myself recently, asking how much better we would be had we simply kept Steen & Rask and not traded them for scraps...but that has nothing to do with them being home grown, but instead everything to do with what we received for them being of significantly less talent than they possessed. If we traded Kessel for shit, it wouldn't matter that Kessel wasn't homegrown talent, but that we traded talent for no talent.

CaptainBolduke
11-21-2014, 04:29 PM
I don't think the author of this thread is that far out to lunch. It's safe to say that the good teams in the NHL have drafted well and the crappy teams haven't drafted well.

Montreal is a prime example. All of their best players were drafted by them: Subban, Price, Pacioretty, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Markov, Pleks etc.

CH1
11-21-2014, 05:08 PM
But does it really matter where you got the player from if they're talented and under a good contract? I mean, would we seriously be better off with Luke Schenn signed long term than JVR signed long term? Would keeping Luke Schenn be the right thing because we drafted and developed him our self, but we're guilty of taking on other team's castaways when we traded our home grown Shenn for JVR?

Any time you start applying silly blanket arguments, it's probably wrong. I've brought up the point myself recently, asking how much better we would be had we simply kept Steen & Rask and not traded them for scraps...but that has nothing to do with them being home grown, but instead everything to do with what we received for them being of significantly less talent than they possessed. If we traded Kessel for shit, it wouldn't matter that Kessel wasn't homegrown talent, but that we traded talent for no talent.

Agree. The following stay is probably more relevant.

mirtle @mcauz56 Leafs haven't produced a full-time NHLer they drafted later than 7th overall since 2007

rated
11-21-2014, 05:20 PM
Why is Phil Kessel a castaway? Boston wanted to keep him, tried to play contract hardball with him and lost.
Why is Gardiner a cast away? Anaheim wanted a legit top pairing defender and the cost was a 1st round pick with top pairing upside.
Why is Bernier a cast away?
Why is Bozak a cast away?
Even Franson is a bit silly here, the Preds were cash strapped and were trying to save their pennies to keep Suter & Weber together
Since when is Ashton or Panik really a part of this team?


You've really stretched this argument to it's logical breaking point to make it.

^^ This.

This thread is silly & pointless.

MindzEye
11-21-2014, 05:24 PM
I don't think the author of this thread is that far out to lunch. It's safe to say that the good teams in the NHL have drafted well and the crappy teams haven't drafted well.

Montreal is a prime example. All of their best players were drafted by them: Subban, Price, Pacioretty, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Markov, Pleks etc.

Would it matter if they hadn't been though? If that same core had been assembled by a different method, would it matter?

Drafting is the "easiest" way to get your hands on good players, but it's not the only one.

CH1
11-21-2014, 05:27 PM
http://iblog.dearbornschools.org/iraniha/wp-content/uploads/sites/436/2013/08/chemistry.jpg

BeLeafer
11-21-2014, 09:44 PM
Huh, the responses to this are a bit surprising.

A few things ...

1. I guess no one thinks there's a character issue with this roster. Strange, given the seemingly widespread perception that this team has an unusual level of fragility.

2. It's telling that those denying there's any issue with the castaways, fail to produce a single example of another team thusly composed.

3. If it's only about talent, why does every NHL team spend time interviewing prospects before the draft?

MindzEye
11-21-2014, 10:52 PM
Huh, the responses to this are a bit surprising.

A few things ...

1. I guess no one thinks there's a character issue with this roster. Strange, given the seemingly widespread perception that this team has an unusual level of fragility.

I'd like to see them under a different coach who doesn't have a hilariously bad track record for defensive systems before I indict the club for this.


2. It's telling that those denying there's any issue with the castaways, fail to produce a single example of another team thusly composed.

I don't recall any of them even trying.


3. If it's only about talent, why does every NHL team spend time interviewing prospects before the draft?

Because they think that the personality of an 18 yr old matters for some strange reason? A bunch of your "castaways" are top 20 picks in the NHL draft...surely they were interviewed, right?

CaptainBolduke
11-22-2014, 12:49 AM
Huh, the responses to this are a bit surprising.

A few things ...

1. I guess no one thinks there's a character issue with this roster. Strange, given the seemingly widespread perception that this team has an unusual level of fragility.

2. It's telling that those denying there's any issue with the castaways, fail to produce a single example of another team thusly composed.

3. If it's only about talent, why does every NHL team spend time interviewing prospects before the draft?

The responses shouldn't be surprising. Certain posters don't have the ability to understand view points other than the ones they already have.

Most people here think a certain way and will only think that way. Adaptability is not a common trait in these parts.

BeLeafer
11-22-2014, 09:33 AM
I'd like to see them under a different coach who doesn't have a hilariously bad track record for defensive systems before I indict the club for this.
You can blame the coach for a lot of stuff but it only goes so far. You seem almost willfully blind to some of this. Allowing yourself to be beat like a rented mule two games in a row is neither normal nor just the same thing as losing two one-goal games. This team has a demonstrated adeptness for imploding and a sorry lack of anything resembling leadership. Many nights they hardly even try. It's not the coach that causes guys like Bozak and JVR to float around without a care in the world or Jake and Dion to have regularized braincramps, though he could mitigate the damage they cause by limiting their ice time.


I don't recall any of them even trying.
Hard to recall what you could never know. The reason no one has produced a similar example is because there is none.


Because they think that the personality of an 18 yr old matters for some strange reason? A bunch of your "castaways" are top 20 picks in the NHL draft...surely they were interviewed, right?
You miss the point. They are interviewed because character does matter. Teams sometimes unload highly talented players early in their careers because they discover things about their character that they think will be anathema to contending.

MindzEye
11-22-2014, 01:03 PM
You can blame the coach for a lot of stuff but it only goes so far. You seem almost willfully blind to some of this. Allowing yourself to be beat like a rented mule two games in a row is neither normal nor just the same thing as losing two one-goal games.

Like when the Los Angeles Kings lost by a total of 13-5 in the first two games...of the ****ing playoffs...last season?

It really feels that a whole pile of you people don't actually pay attention to what else is going on in the league. Good teams...****, great teams get thumped like this pretty regularly



This team has a demonstrated adeptness for imploding and a sorry lack of anything resembling leadership.

Because "leadership" is over rated. System counts for a hell of a lot more than a tough guy speech ever will, and our defensive system blows.


Many nights they hardly even try. It's not the coach that causes guys like Bozak and JVR to float around without a care in the world or Jake and Dion to have regularized braincramps, though he could mitigate the damage they cause by limiting their ice time.

Again, it really feels like a lot of you people just don't watch other teams play.



Hard to recall what you could never know. The reason no one has produced a similar example is because there is none.

Nonsense, the other Stanley Cup finalist from last season is constructed extremely similar to how we are. Nash, St Louis, McDonagh, Brassard, Richards...all "cast aways" by your criteria.

If I can only use Stanley Cup winning clubs, then the Carolina Hurricanes were loaded with "cast aways" like Justin Williams, Cory Stillman, Rod Brind'Amour, Ray Whitney, Matt Cullen, Kaberle, Hedican, Weight

So no, it's not because there are none, it's because nobody has bothered to try. I know this because I've found two while barely trying.



You miss the point. They are interviewed because character does matter. Teams sometimes unload highly talented players early in their careers because they discover things about their character that they think will be anathema to contending.

No, I don't miss the point at all. Teams interview these kids because they think that character matters. But we have tons of examples of players drafting for their character turning out to be marginal contributors at best, and players knocked for their character going on to being franchise level players. A fantastic example of character is the dry island fiasco. Philly unloaded Carter and Richards allegedly due to poor character, LAK picked them up and both became playoff heroes. So was Philly wrong, or is character not this D&Desque constant attribute? Character is in a player's work habits and performance, how do you interview to determine that?

Another really awesome example of these interviews is from basketball. Andrea Bargnani scored off the ****ing charts for the psychological testing that NBA clubs do during their interviewing process for their draft, and he turned out to be a soft malcontent, the exact opposite of what the interviewing said he was. Trying to determine the character of a person when they're 18 is a ****ing fools errand.

With that said though...JVR 2nd, Kessel 5th, Phaneuf 8th

were they not interviewed too?

How about our character moves from the recent past? Mike Komisarek, Colby Armstrong, David Clarkson....how does putting a premium on character over skill really look at the end of the day? It looks just like that.

Metalleaf
11-22-2014, 02:24 PM
Here's a Shattenkirk braincramp...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYR5GGzijLU&list=UUqFMzb-4AUf6WAIbl132QKA

Metalleaf
11-22-2014, 02:27 PM
At 1:10, Seabrook and Keith looking lost in their own end....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2BdE9Ng_rY&list=UUqFMzb-4AUf6WAIbl132QKA

Phaneuf ain't the only good defenceman to suffer from brain-cramps.

MindzEye
11-22-2014, 04:29 PM
PK Subban could fill an entire video of his own.


Like I said...a whole lot of people here apparently only watch Leaf games, and only seem to pay attention to the games that the Leafs look bad in. Duncan Keith looked shit the last time we played Chicago.

BeLeafer
11-22-2014, 04:51 PM
Like when the Los Angeles Kings lost by a total of 13-5 in the first two games...of the ****ing playoffs...last season?

It really feels that a whole pile of you people don't actually pay attention to what else is going on in the league. Good teams...****, great teams get thumped like this pretty regularly

Funny stuff. Let's first take note that you're comparing the Leafs to the Stanley Cup ****ing Champions.

Then we'll note that the largest margin of defeat the Kings suffered last season was 5 goals (to the 7th best offensive unit in the league). It happened once.

It feels like you don't actually watch the games. The first of those two games by the Kings was a 6-3 loss. It was a two goal margin with a minute left, as they'd stormed back with three straight early goals in the third. This was against the 5th best offensive team in the NHL.

In what way, shape or form does this even remotely resemble what happened in either the Sabres or Preds game?

The second game was a 5 goal margin, again against one of the best offensive teams in the league.

The Leafs, if you must make such a silly comparison, lost by a total of 11 goals ... to two of the very worst offensive teams in the league. They were thoroughly and roundly outplayed in both games. That did not happen in either of the two games you've cited, even though the competition was MUCH stiffer.


Because "leadership" is over rated. System counts for a hell of a lot more than a tough guy speech ever will, and our defensive system blows.

I guess it's not too surprising that you'd underrate leadership. You wouldn't even recognize it if you saw it. Tough guy speech ... lmao.



Again, it really feels like a lot of you people just don't watch other teams play.
Yeah, I haven't watched much hockey in my life.


Nonsense, the other Stanley Cup finalist from last season is constructed extremely similar to how we are. Nash, St Louis, McDonagh, Brassard, Richards...all "cast aways" by your criteria.

If I can only use Stanley Cup winning clubs, then the Carolina Hurricanes were loaded with "cast aways" like Justin Williams, Cory Stillman, Rod Brind'Amour, Ray Whitney, Matt Cullen, Kaberle, Hedican, Weight

So no, it's not because there are none, it's because nobody has bothered to try. I know this because I've found two while barely trying.
You need to revisit what it was I termed a "castaway". Maybe I didn't spell it out clearly enough in my first post. These are skilled young players and prospects that teams give up on fairly early in their NHL developmental curves. I clearly did not mean anyone that had been traded or signed as a UFA. Willful blindness or whatever, you missed the point of the thread.

If the skill is there, why do they give up on them? Maybe sometimes they are right about this. But no, you think that if someone mentions character or leadership, they are immediately placing a premium on it or overrating it. Taking this approach, you may as well say it is irrelevant. Is it okay to talk about it? Do you think this has nothing to do with the way this core has performed over the past three years?


No, I don't miss the point at all. Teams interview these kids because they think that character matters.

Good. Not sure who you're arguing with in this blather though.


But we have tons of examples of players drafting for their character turning out to be marginal contributors at best, and players knocked for their character going on to being franchise level players. A fantastic example of character is the dry island fiasco. Philly unloaded Carter and Richards allegedly due to poor character, LAK picked them up and both became playoff heroes. So was Philly wrong, or is character not this D&Desque constant attribute? Character is in a player's work habits and performance, how do you interview to determine that?

Another really awesome example of these interviews is from basketball. Andrea Bargnani scored off the ****ing charts for the psychological testing that NBA clubs do during their interviewing process for their draft, and he turned out to be a soft malcontent, the exact opposite of what the interviewing said he was. Trying to determine the character of a person when they're 18 is a ****ing fools errand.

With that said though...JVR 2nd, Kessel 5th, Phaneuf 8th

were they not interviewed too?

How about our character moves from the recent past? Mike Komisarek, Colby Armstrong, David Clarkson....how does putting a premium on character over skill really look at the end of the day? It looks just like that.

Who said anything about putting a premium on character over skill or acquiring "character players"? Did anyone say that teams are highly accurate in measuring and assessing this dimension?

You're arguing with a boogeyman here.

Montana
11-22-2014, 05:22 PM
I miss PTBNL threads.

MindzEye
11-22-2014, 05:22 PM
Funny stuff. Let's first take note that you're comparing the Leafs to the Stanley Cup ****ing Champions.

Was just to illustrate a point. Nobody here gives a **** when a good/great team gets stomped out a few games in a row, it doesn't even register. When it happens to the Leafs though, it's proof positive of their being fundamental flaws with the make up of the club.




It feels like you don't actually watch the games.

I would wager a lot of money, that I spend more time watching western conference games than you do.

A lot.


In what way, shape or form does this even remotely resemble what happened in either the Sabres or Preds game?

Again, just an illustration that good teams get shit stomped too. Was the lowest hanging fruit to find, and an apt comparison whether you want to admit it or not.



The Leafs, if you must make such a silly comparison, lost by a total of 11 goals ... to two of the very worst offensive teams in the league.

The Sabres, sure. The Preds though, have been above average offensively this season.




I guess it's not too surprising that you'd underrate leadership. You wouldn't even recognize it if you saw it. Tough guy speech ... lmao.

I under rate "leadership" because year after year we see the most talented clubs going deepest into the playoffs. You see clubs like Chicago ignoring Patrick Kane punching out cab drivers while shit faced, ignoring Kris Versteeg being a smarmy ****, etc because of talent. We see LAK ignoring the alleged lack of leadership from players like Carter & Richards...we see them winning SC's with their #2 defender being a violent wife beater.

Why? Because talent.



You need to revisit what it was I termed a "castaway". Maybe I didn't spell it out clearly enough in my first post. These are skilled young players and prospects that teams give up on fairly early in their NHL developmental curves. I clearly did not mean anyone that had been traded or signed as a UFA. Willful blindness or whatever, you missed the point of the thread.

Nope. You didn't do your homework....or are they only cast aways the first time they leave an organization?

Brind'Amour - "cast away" by St Louis at 20 yrs old
Justin Williams - "cast away" by Philly at 21 yrs old
Whitney cast away at 24
Hedican at 23

I could go on...but all let go of at a young age, only to go on to be veteran leaders of a Stanley Cup winning club later in their career.



Who said anything about putting a premium on character over skill or acquiring "character players"? Did anyone say that teams are highly accurate in measuring and assessing this dimension?

But that is the exact point of your argument...that other teams have rightfully "cast away" this group of young players. My point of course being that 1) Teams are typically shitty judges of "character" & 2) often look silly for trading away talented players that they find lacking in character.



You're arguing with a boogeyman here.

Nope, it seems that I understand your point better than you do. It's just tremendous bullshit from the onset is all.

zeke
11-22-2014, 05:36 PM
So let me get this straight - what this thread is saying is that the problem with this team isn't talent or systems, but that they need a....wait for it.....CULTURE CHANGE?

hilarious.

get me more talent and a better coach.

enough with the ridiculous CULTURE CHANGEs.

Blueman
11-22-2014, 05:59 PM
I think the definition of castaway as presented is flawed. Teams can do hockey trades value for value and it is not necessarily 'giving up on a player'.

Metalleaf
11-22-2014, 06:12 PM
Yeah if you trade player A for player B, because player B addresses a need on your team, is player A considered a castaway? I don't think so. JVR wasn't a castaway, it was a need for need trade that benefited the Leafs.

MindzEye
11-22-2014, 06:17 PM
Yeah if you trade player A for player B, because player B addresses a need on your team, is player A considered a castaway? I don't think so. JVR wasn't a castaway, it was a need for need trade that benefited the Leafs.
Nah man, you clearly don't get it....Philly identified a young player with no character and got rid of him.

rated
11-22-2014, 06:43 PM
Nah man, you clearly don't get it....Philly identified a young player with no character and got rid of him.

it works for boston lol

Habsy
11-22-2014, 08:14 PM
So let me get this straight - what this thread is saying is that the problem with this team isn't talent or systems, but that they need a....wait for it.....CULTURE CHANGE?

hilarious.

get me more talent and a better coach.

enough with the ridiculous CULTURE CHANGEs.
You mock culture but not all fungi are created equal.

leafman101
11-23-2014, 09:22 AM
The issue isn't that the Leafs built their team though castaways. The issue is that they had to. They haven't got much from the draft until recently. From 1999 to 2007 they didn't produce anything in the first few rounds that is impacting their team right now. Imagine if they had Steen, Rask, Tlusty and Eller (or whoever they would have drafted in 2007) instead of the nothing they got from those players. The Kings have Kopitar, Quick and Brown from the first 3 rounds of those drafts. Three extra good free players is a lot. You can't produce no high end talent from the draft for a decade and not be set back by that.

When guys like Kadri, Rielly, Percy, Nylander, Finn hit their primes the Leafs won't be better because now they aren't a bunch of castaways. They will be better because the utilized an important part of team building that wasn't being utilized before and are a more talented team.

BeLeafer
01-06-2015, 10:25 PM
I had time over the holidays to put together some data on castaways. First, a couple of clear definitions:

Castaway = a player traded, waived or otherwise let go before 25 years of age.

Core = top 9 forwards, top 4 blueliners, starting goaltender.

The Leafs have both the largest collection of these types of players and, most significantly, the largest number among the core of their team when compared against any other reasonably good teams in the NHL. Maybe it's just a coincidence that winning teams have relatively few of these players and the Leafs have a pile of them filling key roles?




Number
Percentage



Leafs




Total CAs
(van Riemsdyk, Lupul, Ashton, Phaneuf, Franson, Gardiner, Holland, Bernier, Kessel, Santorelli, Panik)
11
48%


Core CAs
10
71%



Bruins




Total CAs
(Soderberg, Smith, Bartkowski, Chara, Krug, Seidenberg, Rask)
7
30%


Core CAs
6
43%



Habs




Total CAs
(Prust, Eller, Parenteau, Weise, Bournival, Gilbert, Tokarski)
7
30%


Core CAs
2
14%



Ducks




Total CAs
(Maroon, Colgiano, Thompson, Silfverberg, Beauchemin, Brewer, Robak)
7
30%


Core CAs
4
29%



Blues




Total CAs
(Steen, Porter, Fraser, Lindstrom, Shattenkirk, Butler)
6
26%


Core CAs
2
14%



Wild




Total CAs
(Niederreiter, Sutter, Coyle, Spurgeon, Ballard, Bickel)
6
26%


Core CAs
2
14%



Sharks




Total CAs
(Torres, Sheppard, Brown, Dillon)
4
17%


Core CAs
4
7%



Hawks




Total CAs
(Versteeg, Sharp, Carcillo)
3
13%


Core CAs
2
14%



Pens




Total CAs
(Kunitz, Sutter, Downie)
3
13%


Core CAs
2
14%



Kings




Total CAs
(Williams, Regehr, McNabb)
3
13%


Core CAs
1
7%



Wings




Total CAs
0
0%


Core CAs
0
0%



It's also noteworthy that you won't find very many top end players among this group. There's some, but most guys who get traded before they're 25 turn out to be middling if not marginal players -- if they stick in the NHL.

Does this not suggest that the odds of building a contender out of such players has a low probability of success? Over 70% of the Leafs core is made up of these players. The next closest is the Bruins (who added to this over the past year) at 43%. The average is well below that.

Deckie007
01-06-2015, 10:44 PM
I miss PTBNL threads.

.

MindzEye
01-07-2015, 12:31 AM
Whenever your analysis considers it a bad thing to be traded for Chris ****ing Pronger, or a bad thing to turn Luke Schenn into JVR, and ridiculously meaningless arbitrary cut offs (so Joe Thornton isn't a castaway because he was traded at 26, but for a bag of ****ing pucks) it's a trash evaluation that gets no more key strokes than exactly this many.

Deckie007
01-07-2015, 12:41 AM
Whenever your analysis considers it a bad thing to be traded for Chris ****ing Pronger, or a bad thing to turn Luke Schenn into JVR, and ridiculously meaningless arbitrary cut offs (so Joe Thornton isn't a castaway because he was traded at 26, but for a bag of ****ing pucks) it's a trash evaluation that gets no more key strokes than exactly this many.

Or signing Chara as a FA or Krug as a college FA or trading Raycroft for Rask or getting Soderberg for a backup goalie or getting Steen for Lee Stepniak or Franson for Lebda. So basically BL is saying don't make good transactions.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 12:43 AM
Whenever someone makes utterly illogical inferences it deserves fewer than this many keystrokes.

MindzEye
01-07-2015, 12:45 AM
Whenever someone makes utterly illogical inferences it deserves fewer than this many keystrokes.

If your intent was to embarrass yourself, you should have saved yourself the time over the holidays and just got pissed up at a family event.

Pure rubbish BL, c'mon man.

Deckie007
01-07-2015, 12:46 AM
Whenever someone makes utterly illogical inferences it deserves fewer than this many keystrokes.

Indeed.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 12:51 AM
If your intent was to embarrass yourself, you should have saved yourself the time over the holidays and just got pissed up at a family event.

Pure rubbish BL, c'mon man.

It's pure rubbish because you inferred that I concluded that such players should never be obtained or that they are inherently poor players. Swoosh.

Deckie007
01-07-2015, 12:55 AM
So what is the point? You posted a list of good-impact players, including multiple award winners that were important pieces of cup winning teams as examples of "Cast Aways". What is the ****ing point other than your desire to create a wall of text?

mbow30
01-07-2015, 12:57 AM
i don't know what conclusion there is to draw besides this being an unusual way to assemble a team.

GGpX
01-07-2015, 12:58 AM
Habs
Total CAs
(Prust, Eller, Parenteau, Weise, Bournival, Gilbert, Tokarski) 7 30%
Core CAs 2 14%

While I understand your definition of "core", Eller & Parenteau? They're both middling third line players, although PAP often is forced onto the top-6 for lack of a better option.

I see the Habs core as: Price, Subban, Markov, Pacioretty, Gallagher, Galchenyuk & Plekanec.

Anyway, I don't completely disagree with your premise, only because a team full of players traded is closer to a team of UFAs, unless those players were moved to said team while still young & before they made it to the NHL.

I don't believe you can build a team through mostly trades because for one, trades are too hard to make these days. For two, I'm a believer in having players grow up with each other in their younger years. The occasional trade / UFA signing works, but a team built through mostly trades and/or UFAs looks more like a team of mercenaries. Unless, again, the players that were traded for are young enough to be molded & grow up with the other young players in your organization.

mbow30
01-07-2015, 12:58 AM
in any event, deckie and ME are being pricks because at least BL is trying to foster some discussion/debate.

also, some of you guys are so far up this team's ass it's hilarious. this isn't a good team. i know carlyle is an easy whipping boy. and he deserved to be fired. but you're just burying your heads in the sound about this team. the core of this team stinks something rotten.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 12:59 AM
So what is the point? You posted a list of good-impact players, including multiple award winners that were important pieces of cup winning teams as examples of "Cast Aways". What is the ****ing point other than your desire to create a wall of text?

My point is quite simple. The Leafs have built the core of the team through this method. It's largely Burke's doing. I'm merely raising the question that this may be related to the poor performance.

What the ****? This place really is intolerable.

mbow30
01-07-2015, 01:00 AM
Habs
Total CAs
(Prust, Eller, Parenteau, Weise, Bournival, Gilbert, Tokarski) 7 30%
Core CAs 2 14%

While I understand your definition of "core", Eller & Parenteau? They're both middling third line players, although PAP often is forced onto the top-6 for lack of a better option.

I see the Habs core as: Price, Subban, Markov, Pacioretty, Gallagher, Galchenyuk & Plekanec.

Anyway, I don't completely disagree with your premise, only because a team full of players traded is closer to a team of UFAs, unless those players were moved to said team while still young & before they made it to the NHL.

I don't believe you can build a team through mostly trades because for one, trades are too hard to make these days. For two, I'm a believer in having players grow up with each other in their younger years. The occasional trade / UFA signing works, but a team built through mostly trades and/or UFAs looks more like a team of mercenaries. Unless, again, the players that were traded for are young enough to be molded & grow up with the other young players in your organization.

well, kessel, phaneuf and jvr were all traded before they turned 25... phaneuf had already been a norris finalist. kessel had a 37 goal season. jvr was only 21.

there was plenty of time to mould them.

i think there are legitimate questions about why those guys were dealt so young, though.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 01:02 AM
Habs
Total CAs
(Prust, Eller, Parenteau, Weise, Bournival, Gilbert, Tokarski) 7 30%
Core CAs 2 14%

While I understand your definition of "core", Eller & Parenteau? They're both middling third line players, although PAP often is forced onto the top-6 for lack of a better option.

I see the Habs core as: Price, Subban, Markov, Pacioretty, Gallagher, Galchenyuk & Plekanec.

Anyway, I don't completely disagree with your premise, only because a team full of players traded is closer to a team of UFAs, unless those players were moved to said team while still young & before they made it to the NHL.


Yeah, some of my choices as core players are guesses (not really sure who gets the top 9/top 4 roles on all teams).

zeke
01-07-2015, 01:04 AM
I don't get the criteria.

Hossa, sharp, Richards, oduya, aren't core castaways for the Hawks?

Carter, Richards, gaborik aren't for the kings?

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 01:08 AM
I don't get the criteria.

Hossa, sharp, Richards, oduya, aren't core castaways for the Hawks?

Carter, Richards, gaborik aren't for the kings?

I think people get hung up on the admittedly cheesy name I used ... castaways.

The criteria is simple --- a player that was waived/traded/released before hitting 25 years of age. You can debate this, but the reasoning is, I thought, fairly straightforward: most players hit the end of their developmental curve by 25. Teams have had an opportunity to get a close look and decided to unload them. I'm not saying all such decisions are made because they were all considered problems (that would be erroneous and undoubtedly false).

GGpX
01-07-2015, 01:09 AM
well, kessel, phaneuf and jvr were all traded before they turned 25... phaneuf had already been a norris finalist. kessel had a 37 goal season. jvr was only 21.

there was plenty of time to mould them.

i think there are legitimate questions about why those guys were dealt so young, though.

Sure, but all three of them were established NHLers with at least three full seasons played. There was no more real "growing up" to do because they've made it to the NHL and they're not going anywhere. All three trades were great for the Leafs and I wish the Habs could have done something like Emelin to JVR. JVR is literally the type of player the Habs have been missing for 20 years.

However, the problem with those three is that none of them are "the" guy, but that is what is expected from them (although that's more for Kessel & Phaneuf that JVR). They would all be great adds if there was already a core to add to, like say if the Leafs had their equivalent of Toews + Keith. I know you guys (well, most of you) love Phaneuf, but I don't think he's nearly as good as you say he is. I don't think he's a #1. He's definitely not a #1 on a great team. Kessel's a great scorer, but great at nothing else. He can't be the go-to player. If he could be shielded a little bit, you'd be great. I think JVR is a really good power forward, but is he a legitimate first line winger or a product of playing with Kessel?

As for why they were traded, sure, there might be something to it. I don't know the background behind their trading, though.

Deckie007
01-07-2015, 01:18 AM
I hate that we Leaf fans have to keep driving at this, but Kessel is a great playmaker as well. 98 assists in the past 2 seasons + this season.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 01:22 AM
I think the big issue with some of these players is, forgive me for sounding like Carlyle, work ethic. This team has for the entire tenure of this core, or most key elements of it, shown a glaringly inconsistent effort. It's not even a game to game inconsistency; it's period by period and highly regular.

How much of this can be ascribed to the coach will be found out. Certainly part of his job is motivational. But when we kept hearing about the mindboggle, Carlyle was taking about getting these guys to do what he asked. You can't put it on a spreadsheet, but you can't deny that there are clear variations in the consistency of effort across players.

zeke
01-07-2015, 01:29 AM
I think people get hung up on the admittedly cheesy name I used ... castaways.

The criteria is simple --- a player that was waived/traded/released before hitting 25 years of age. You can debate this, but the reasoning is, I thought, fairly straightforward: most players hit the end of their developmental curve by 25. Teams have had an opportunity to get a close look and decided to unload them. I'm not saying all such decisions are made because they were all considered problems (that would be erroneous and undoubtedly false).

Pretty sure hossa, carter, richards were traded at 25.

Who else are you missing?

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 01:32 AM
Pretty sure hossa, carter, richards were traded at 25.

Who else are you missing?

They were. I didn't miss them. The criteria is prior to 25 years of age. I noted guys who got waived/dealt/released at 25 years of age and there aren't that many of them ... it doesn't change the picture: Leafs have far more of these players than any of the good teams in the NHL.

Edit: actually, Hossa was 26 when Ottawa traded him to Atlanta. Carter and Richards were also 26.

GGpX
01-07-2015, 01:37 AM
Oh. I would consider Kyle Quincey a Detroit castaway because he was placed on waivers by them, acquired by LA, went to Colorado before being traded back to Detroit.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 01:40 AM
Oh. I would consider Kyle Quincey a Detroit castaway because he was placed on waivers by them, acquired by LA, went to Colorado before being traded back to Detroit.

Yep, missed him. That gives Detroit 1 such player. It's remarkable the way they develop players throughout their roster.

Deckie007
01-07-2015, 01:42 AM
Forgot Danny Dekeyser on the Wings. College FA. Plays 21 + mins per game.

zeke
01-07-2015, 01:43 AM
If your criteria for castaways doesn't include players like those three, then imo it's pretty meaningless.

Cared and richards should be the definition of castaways.

GGpX
01-07-2015, 01:43 AM
Detroit is my model organization. I love how all of their young players are brought up together for long periods of time and to make it to the NHL, they have to force management's hand.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 01:46 AM
Forgot Danny Dekeyser on the Wings. College FA. Plays 21 + mins per game.

He was never traded/waived or released ... hence, not a castaway.

Deckie007
01-07-2015, 01:48 AM
Bah, thought you included undrafted guys....carry on.

zeke
01-07-2015, 01:49 AM
Detroit is still living on their ancient core....and those guys are already starting to sputter this year.

Their kids are all complementary pieces. That team is still all dats zetts kronwall, and there'should moody to replace them.

Deckie007
01-07-2015, 01:50 AM
If your criteria for castaways doesn't include players like those three, then imo it's pretty meaningless.

Cared and richards should be the definition of castaways.

Brent Burns was traded at 26 as well.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 01:51 AM
If your criteria for castaways doesn't include players like those three, then imo it's pretty meaningless.

Cared and richards should be the definition of castaways.

Again, you can define castaway however you like.

How about I change the thread title to Young Castaways? The point is simply that Burke tried to rebuild the team this way because the cupboard was largely bare when he got here. It's not a bad idea from an asset acquisition and cap management POV, given the circumstances. But I'd say that the proof is before us that it's no way to build the core of a contender.

zeke
01-07-2015, 01:52 AM
So Dallas is going to regret the Seguin trade?

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 01:53 AM
Brent Burns was traded at 26 as well.

No, like Richards, Carter and Hossa, he was 26.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 01:54 AM
So Dallas is going to regret the Seguin trade?

Again, I did not say that trading for young players is a bad thing nor did I suggest it.

Deckie007
01-07-2015, 01:56 AM
Again, I did not say that trading for young players is a bad thing nor did I suggest it.

http://i.imgur.com/M5JlyCP.gif

zeke
01-07-2015, 02:09 AM
No, like Richards, Carter and Hossa, he was 26.

Convenient random cutoff age you have there.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 02:13 AM
Convenient random cutoff age you have there.

It's only random if you choose to ignore the reason I provided.

I don't expect many here to get this. There was near universal agreement with Burke's method while he was here and after. It was an attempt to shortcut a team build. Another coach may prove me wrong, but I don't think it's any way to build a team. You have to be patient, hold on to your draft picks and develop your players.

UWHabs
01-07-2015, 05:48 AM
It's an interesting analysis, although one point I have is that once labelled as such, they stay that way forever. So you have Prust counted there, but Montreal acquired him as a free agent years after he was casted away. He's the sort of guy who it feels like should have shed that label.

I'd also likely argue that any player who was clearly a prospect and dealt for a much better/more established player shouldn't be counted either. So guys like Gardiner and Eller I wouldn't count as castaways, as they were not necessarily thrown aside, but used to fill a more immediate need. I don't know where to draw the line on guys like that (does prospect for prospect count? What about Bournival who was dealt for O'Byrne?), but to me they should fall under a different category, as I don't feel that their teams necessarily "gave up" on them.

leafman101
01-07-2015, 08:36 AM
You can't completely build a team through free agency and trades, which Burke tried to do because there was nothing in the cupboards and he was impatient. Trades for guys like Kessel, and Seguin are few and far between.

Drafting and developing talent is the life blood of an organization, and the Leafs didn't start to do that until Burke came in with the Kadri draft. Since then they've moved two firsts, but they have made some good picks, and held on to them. Kadri, Rielly, Percy, Biggs, Gauthier, Nylander, Rielly. It remains to be seen just how good some of those players turn out to be. But at least they finally have a group of talented, home grown players.

You can wait for the right players to be available to add to that core. But if you are trying to build strictly though trades and free agency you'll end up with more so called castaways than you wanted, and you'll never have enough talent.

Trades aren't bad. But they can't be your only source for good players.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 08:39 AM
It's an interesting analysis, although one point I have is that once labelled as such, they stay that way forever. So you have Prust counted there, but Montreal acquired him as a free agent years after he was casted away. He's the sort of guy who it feels like should have shed that label.

I'd also likely argue that any player who was clearly a prospect and dealt for a much better/more established player shouldn't be counted either. So guys like Gardiner and Eller I wouldn't count as castaways, as they were not necessarily thrown aside, but used to fill a more immediate need. I don't know where to draw the line on guys like that (does prospect for prospect count? What about Bournival who was dealt for O'Byrne?), but to me they should fall under a different category, as I don't feel that their teams necessarily "gave up" on them.

Yeah, those are two weaknesses.

It probably has diminishing relevance with age and the key point of the analysis is that the Leafs tried to build a team this way -- meaning that they were acquiring young assets to help fill the developmental pipeline. It probably makes better sense to only focus on those players who were acquired at the age cutoff.

In terms of prospects, I'm not so sure. All teams get a closer look at players starting immediately after the draft. Most of them get at least to the point of minor pro, where teams work directly with them. To my mind, the red flag on such players is that teams got a close up look and thought them expendable despite their potential.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 08:55 AM
You can't completely build a team through free agency and trades, which Burke tried to do because there was nothing in the cupboards and he was impatient. Trades for guys like Kessel, and Seguin are few and far between.

Drafting and developing talent is the life blood of an organization, and the Leafs didn't start to do that until Burke came in with the Kadri draft. Since then they've moved two firsts, but they have made some good picks, and held on to them. Kadri, Rielly, Percy, Biggs, Gauthier, Nylander, Rielly. It remains to be seen just how good some of those players turn out to be. But at least they finally have a group of talented, home grown players.

You can wait for the right players to be available to add to that core. But if you are trying to build strictly though trades and free agency you'll end up with more so called castaways than you wanted, and you'll never have enough talent.

Trades aren't bad. But they can't be your only source for good players.

Yeah, I agree with this.

Burke changed gears after the first two years. He stopped giving up firsts and actually acquired a few. Still don't like that Nonis later gave up picks for short-term gain. You just can't afford to do that without replacing them while trying to build a core. The Leafs still haven't had a full complement of draft picks since 2011.

I'd like to see them acquire some before this season is out.

soco22
01-07-2015, 12:19 PM
Shouldn't this be a thread about us drafting and developing players? That's the core of our issue that was brought up earlier in the thread causing for us to trade for a core.

zeke
01-07-2015, 12:32 PM
I hate the word "core".

We traded for good players. Nothing wrong with that.

If we switched Kessel Phaneuf Bernier with Kane Seabrook Crawford we'd still be bubble and the Hawks would still be Champs.

Complain about bad trades (rask steen) or our inability to draft or develop even one proven top line player, sure. Makes sense. But trading for Kessel jvr Lupul phaNeuf Bernier is not a bad thing.

Philosophy is not the issue.

BeLeafer
01-07-2015, 07:55 PM
I hate the word "core".
Top 9 forwards + top 4 blueliners + starting goalie ... feel free to suggest another name.


We traded for good players. Nothing wrong with that.

If we switched Kessel Phaneuf Bernier with Kane Seabrook Crawford we'd still be bubble and the Hawks would still be Champs.

Complain about bad trades (rask steen) or our inability to draft or develop even one proven top line player, sure. Makes sense. But trading for Kessel jvr Lupul phaNeuf Bernier is not a bad thing.

Philosophy is not the issue.

The philosophy is precisely the issue. You can try to build a team this way and you get what you see. Blame the coach, the goalie all you like, it doesn't work.

If you don't believe me, feel free to review what the successful teams do. Not one of them today or ever has built a winner by eschewing drafting/development and filling the lineup with other teams young castaways.

GGpX
01-07-2015, 11:48 PM
You can't completely build a team through free agency and trades, which Burke tried to do because there was nothing in the cupboards and he was impatient. Trades for guys like Kessel, and Seguin are few and far between.

Drafting and developing talent is the life blood of an organization, and the Leafs didn't start to do that until Burke came in with the Kadri draft. Since then they've moved two firsts, but they have made some good picks, and held on to them. Kadri, Rielly, Percy, Biggs, Gauthier, Nylander, Rielly. It remains to be seen just how good some of those players turn out to be. But at least they finally have a group of talented, home grown players.

You can wait for the right players to be available to add to that core. But if you are trying to build strictly though trades and free agency you'll end up with more so called castaways than you wanted, and you'll never have enough talent.

Trades aren't bad. But they can't be your only source for good players.

I agree. Good post.