The Shanaplan - Building the Leafs Toward Stanley Cup Contention

[Kin]

Kind of illustrative of the problem I have with the current group. So long as everything they say is so vague, everything can be interpreted to be "part of the plan". So a move like the Andersen move, which doesn't seem to fit with the idea of a patient rebuild, is a part of the plan because they say it is. But so could a Stamkos signing or a big offer sheet or....anything really.

It was probably too much expecting a sort of transparency so I guess I'll have to do with this front office what I did with all the other ones. That doesn't give me a great deal of comfort.

 

[TBLeafer]

I specifically like the dismissal of a timeline, the quip about his management resume and him finally making it clear (I hope), that he will go after players to improve the team by any means they deem necessary.

 

[jonlleafs]

Kind of illustrative of the problem I have with the current group. So long as everything they say is so vague, everything can be interpreted to be "part of the plan". So a move like the Andersen move, which doesn't seem to fit with the idea of a patient rebuild, is a part of the plan because they say it is. But so could a Stamkos signing or a big offer sheet or....anything really.

It was probably too much expecting a sort of transparency so I guess I'll have to do with this front office what I did with all the other ones. That doesn't give me a great deal of comfort.

I honestly don't care if they are transparent about what their "plan" is as long as I can see appreciable improvement in the roster and we're not selling our future for now and for over-the-hill veterans like we did in the past.  Our cupboards are starting to get filled and we are probably on the uptrend now as far as competitiveness goes.

 

[nutman]

Kind of illustrative of the problem I have with the current group. So long as everything they say is so vague, everything can be interpreted to be "part of the plan". So a move like the Andersen move, which doesn't seem to fit with the idea of a patient rebuild, is a part of the plan because they say it is. But so could a Stamkos signing or a big offer sheet or....anything really.

It was probably too much expecting a sort of transparency so I guess I'll have to do with this front office what I did with all the other ones. That doesn't give me a great deal of comfort.

I honestly don't care if they are transparent about what their "plan" is as long as I can see appreciable improvement in the roster and we're not selling our future for now and for over-the-hill veterans like we did in the past.  Our cupboards are starting to get filled and we are probably on the uptrend now as far as competitiveness goes.

Agreed...

 

[Kin]

I honestly don't care if they are transparent about what their "plan" is as long as I can see appreciable improvement in the roster and we're not selling our future for now and for over-the-hill veterans like we did in the past.  Our cupboards are starting to get filled and we are probably on the uptrend now as far as competitiveness goes.

Yeah, I'm going to have a slightly higher standard for what I think is excellent Front Office work than "better than JFJ".

 

[Zee]

Kind of illustrative of the problem I have with the current group. So long as everything they say is so vague, everything can be interpreted to be "part of the plan". So a move like the Andersen move, which doesn't seem to fit with the idea of a patient rebuild, is a part of the plan because they say it is. But so could a Stamkos signing or a big offer sheet or....anything really.

It was probably too much expecting a sort of transparency so I guess I'll have to do with this front office what I did with all the other ones. That doesn't give me a great deal of comfort.

I honestly don't care if they are transparent about what their "plan" is as long as I can see appreciable improvement in the roster and we're not selling our future for now and for over-the-hill veterans like we did in the past.  Our cupboards are starting to get filled and we are probably on the uptrend now as far as competitiveness goes.

I agree, I don't think there's any requirement for management to tell us what the plan is.  There's no magic way to build a team, you can't just draft top 3 every single season and hope it works out (see Oilers).    They'll always be opportunities to add other players through trades or free agency that could help along the overall process.  I think getting Andersen as a competent option in goal can have an overall positive effect on the team.  If Andersen plays well, it helps the rest of the team play with confidence and maybe some of those young players thrive.  Same goes for Stamkos, although I'm on the fence with him, he's not ancient in hockey terms, far from it, and if the Leafs get him we hope we can produce well into his 30s and show leadership that younger guys like Matthews, Marner and Nylander can learn from.  Again I don't think that's counter-intuitive to a "patient plan" approach.  If you have the opportunity to add an elite player like Stamkos at 26/27, you have to think hard about it, those guys don't come along every day.

 

[jonlleafs]

I honestly don't care if they are transparent about what their "plan" is as long as I can see appreciable improvement in the roster and we're not selling our future for now and for over-the-hill veterans like we did in the past.  Our cupboards are starting to get filled and we are probably on the uptrend now as far as competitiveness goes.

Yeah, I'm going to have a slightly higher standard for what I think is excellent Front Office work than "better than JFJ".

Yeah but the thing is, Shanahan doesn't really care about your "higher standards".  He's not accountable to you or any of us.  He's going to do what he thinks is right and as far as I can see, I like this path we are taking right now.  Burke was saying all the right things until he traded for Kessel and that's when things went downhill.  Shanahan hasn't done that.  He hasn't mortgaged the future for now. 

 

[Kin]

Yeah but the thing is, Shanahan doesn't really care about your "higher standards".

Well, leaving aside that Shanahan spends a good part of the article responding to criticisms he's apparently aware of he cares equally about you liking the direction of the team, which is to say, not much. But this is a place where we discuss the goings on of the team even if we don't think that the people we're talking about take it to heart.

 

[jonlleafs]

Kind of illustrative of the problem I have with the current group. So long as everything they say is so vague, everything can be interpreted to be "part of the plan". So a move like the Andersen move, which doesn't seem to fit with the idea of a patient rebuild, is a part of the plan because they say it is. But so could a Stamkos signing or a big offer sheet or....anything really.

It was probably too much expecting a sort of transparency so I guess I'll have to do with this front office what I did with all the other ones. That doesn't give me a great deal of comfort.

I honestly don't care if they are transparent about what their "plan" is as long as I can see appreciable improvement in the roster and we're not selling our future for now and for over-the-hill veterans like we did in the past.  Our cupboards are starting to get filled and we are probably on the uptrend now as far as competitiveness goes.

I agree, I don't think there's any requirement for management to tell us what the plan is.  There's no magic way to build a team, you can't just draft top 3 every single season and hope it works out (see Oilers).    They'll always be opportunities to add other players through trades or free agency that could help along the overall process.  I think getting Andersen as a competent option in goal can have an overall positive effect on the team.  If Andersen plays well, it helps the rest of the team play with confidence and maybe some of those young players thrive.  Same goes for Stamkos, although I'm on the fence with him, he's not ancient in hockey terms, far from it, and if the Leafs get him we hope we can produce well into his 30s and show leadership that younger guys like Matthews, Marner and Nylander can learn from.  Again I don't think that's counter-intuitive to a "patient plan" approach.  If you have the opportunity to add an elite player like Stamkos at 26/27, you have to think hard about it, those guys don't come along every day.

Agreed.  They have spoken about sustainability and for sustainability to work, you have to continually add pieces along the way as well as hold onto your draft picks.  We can do that and continue the uptrend.  I think the argument that Stamkos is going to hinder us cap-wise is bogus because you don't know what the situation will be in 3yrs when Matthews and Marner need raises.  You deal with the situation at that time.  Much like how Detroit was able to get out of the Datsyuk contract, there will always be opportunities to do these things.  If we haven't already learned from our own past (i.e. Clarkson) we can maneuver our way out of cap issues if needed.  We shouldn't be prevented to do something because what might be.  AFAIK, Stamkos is the safest bet we can make for an elite player as there were any.  This is no Clarkson.

 

[TBLeafer]

Kind of illustrative of the problem I have with the current group. So long as everything they say is so vague, everything can be interpreted to be "part of the plan". So a move like the Andersen move, which doesn't seem to fit with the idea of a patient rebuild, is a part of the plan because they say it is. But so could a Stamkos signing or a big offer sheet or....anything really.

It was probably too much expecting a sort of transparency so I guess I'll have to do with this front office what I did with all the other ones. That doesn't give me a great deal of comfort.

I honestly don't care if they are transparent about what their "plan" is as long as I can see appreciable improvement in the roster and we're not selling our future for now and for over-the-hill veterans like we did in the past.  Our cupboards are starting to get filled and we are probably on the uptrend now as far as competitiveness goes.

I agree, I don't think there's any requirement for management to tell us what the plan is.  There's no magic way to build a team, you can't just draft top 3 every single season and hope it works out (see Oilers).    They'll always be opportunities to add other players through trades or free agency that could help along the overall process.  I think getting Andersen as a competent option in goal can have an overall positive effect on the team.  If Andersen plays well, it helps the rest of the team play with confidence and maybe some of those young players thrive.  Same goes for Stamkos, although I'm on the fence with him, he's not ancient in hockey terms, far from it, and if the Leafs get him we hope we can produce well into his 30s and show leadership that younger guys like Matthews, Marner and Nylander can learn from.  Again I don't think that's counter-intuitive to a "patient plan" approach.  If you have the opportunity to add an elite player like Stamkos at 26/27, you have to think hard about it, those guys don't come along every day.

Agreed.  They have spoken about sustainability and for sustainability to work, you have to continually add pieces along the way as well as hold onto your draft picks.  We can do that and continue the uptrend.  I think the argument that Stamkos is going to hinder us cap-wise is bogus because you don't know what the situation will be in 3yrs when Matthews and Marner need raises.  You deal with the situation at that time.  Much like how Detroit was able to get out of the Datsyuk contract, there will always be opportunities to do these things.  If we haven't already learned from our own past (i.e. Clarkson) we can maneuver our way out of cap issues if needed.  We shouldn't be prevented to do something because what might be.  AFAIK, Stamkos is the safest bet we can make for an elite player as there were any.  This is no Clarkson.

Agreed.

 

[TBLeafer]

Shanahan on "pain"

"I think quite honestly until the day you actually get handed the Stanley Cup it gets harder and harder," he said. "The only time you can really say there's no pain and today's a good day is the day somebody actually hands you the Stanley Cup because you've earned it."

Atta boy Shanny!

 

[cabber24]

Shanahan on "pain"

"I think quite honestly until the day you actually get handed the Stanley Cup it gets harder and harder," he said. "The only time you can really say there's no pain and today's a good day is the day somebody actually hands you the Stanley Cup because you've earned it."

Atta boy Shanny!

On the topic of pain:

http://www.thesportster.com/hockey/15-most-heartbreaking-moments-for-maple-leafs-fans-since-1967/?utm_source=TS-FB-B&utm_medium=Facebook-Distribution&utm_campaign=TS-FB-B&view=lista

A gut wrenching list if you ask me. I am sure we will have to add to this list before they could actually win. If they ever do win it will be well deserved. The sad thing is, all the pain and anxiety caused by this list never lead to championship nor is it applicable to the current group because they were not there.

 

[Zee]

Shanahan on "pain"

"I think quite honestly until the day you actually get handed the Stanley Cup it gets harder and harder," he said. "The only time you can really say there's no pain and today's a good day is the day somebody actually hands you the Stanley Cup because you've earned it."

Atta boy Shanny!

On the topic of pain:

http://www.thesportster.com/hockey/15-most-heartbreaking-moments-for-maple-leafs-fans-since-1967/?utm_source=TS-FB-B&utm_medium=Facebook-Distribution&utm_campaign=TS-FB-B&view=lista

A gut wrenching list if you ask me. I am sure we will have to add to this list before they could actually win. If they ever do win it will be well deserved. The sad thing is, all the pain and anxiety caused by this list never lead to championship nor is it applicable to the current group because they were not there.

I don't need to even click on that link to know what #1 is, it stays in my memory always.

 

[Al14]

Shanahan on "pain"

"I think quite honestly until the day you actually get handed the Stanley Cup it gets harder and harder," he said. "The only time you can really say there's no pain and today's a good day is the day somebody actually hands you the Stanley Cup because you've earned it."

Atta boy Shanny!

On the topic of pain:

http://www.thesportster.com/hockey/15-most-heartbreaking-moments-for-maple-leafs-fans-since-1967/?utm_source=TS-FB-B&utm_medium=Facebook-Distribution&utm_campaign=TS-FB-B&view=lista

A gut wrenching list if you ask me. I am sure we will have to add to this list before they could actually win. If they ever do win it will be well deserved. The sad thing is, all the pain and anxiety caused by this list never lead to championship nor is it applicable to the current group because they were not there.

I don't need to even click on that link to know what #1 is, it stays in my memory always.

It was 4-1 Leafs!  FOUR TO ONE!

 

[Zee]

Shanahan on "pain"

"I think quite honestly until the day you actually get handed the Stanley Cup it gets harder and harder," he said. "The only time you can really say there's no pain and today's a good day is the day somebody actually hands you the Stanley Cup because you've earned it."

Atta boy Shanny!

On the topic of pain:

http://www.thesportster.com/hockey/15-most-heartbreaking-moments-for-maple-leafs-fans-since-1967/?utm_source=TS-FB-B&utm_medium=Facebook-Distribution&utm_campaign=TS-FB-B&view=lista

A gut wrenching list if you ask me. I am sure we will have to add to this list before they could actually win. If they ever do win it will be well deserved. The sad thing is, all the pain and anxiety caused by this list never lead to championship nor is it applicable to the current group because they were not there.

I don't need to even click on that link to know what #1 is, it stays in my memory always.

It was 4-1 Leafs!  FOUR TO ONE!

That's not number one.

 

[CML]

Everyone raises Edm as an example of how not to conduct a rebuild. 

One team I find particularly interesting that doesn?t get much attention is Colorado.  Are there any lessons for the ?Shanaplan? from the recent history of the Avs?

The Avs have highly touted forwards from the top of the draft (Duchene #3 in 2009, Landeskog #2 in 2011 and Mackinnon #1 in 2013).  From a draft ranking perspective, that?s even better than Marner (#4), Nylander (#8) and Matthews (#1). 

Yet no one believes that the Avs are a Stanley Cup contender or even on the cusp of joining the league?s upper echelon.  Having that many high end draft choices is no guarantee that a contender is around the corner, or even that your team will consistently make the playoffs.

Some theories on where the Avs went wrong:

1. They used too many high draft picks on forwards and neglected defence and goaltending.  The Avs haven?t drafted a D in the 1st round since 2008 (Cameron Gaunce).  (Exacerbated by the fact that they may need to jettison their best D, Tyson Barrie).
 
2. You?ve got to hit on some later round picks.  They have no depth to complement Duchene, Landeskog and MacKinnon.  As with Edm, they haven?t hit on anything outside of the 1st round in a long time.

3. Patience ? maybe we just need to give them more time?  MacKinnon could elevate his play to another level and maybe Mikko Rantanen is the real deal?
 
4. Hiring local heros and ex-players (Roy, Sakic) to run a team is a bad idea (see also: MacTavish, Kevin Lowe).

5. Failed to hang onto home grown talent ? letting go of Ryan O?Reilly and Kevin Shattenkirk has not panned out. 

It just goes to show that you can have picks consistently at the top of the draft and still screw up a rebuild pretty easily.  The Avs are almost as egregious as the Oilers in my opinion.  Any other lessons that Shanny and Co could take from the Avs?

 

[Kin]

Couple of minor points:

- I don't know how much can be attributed to them "neglecting" goaltending. I think Varlamov is pretty good and don't know if investing much draft pick wise would have helped them

- I don't think the O'Reilly or Shattenkirk trades are that bad. I think Johnson, not Barrie, is actually Colorado's best defenseman and roughly as good as Shattenkirk. The  O'Reilly one looks so-so now but that's because it was almost entirely a trade for futures. I think Grigorenko and Zadorov have real potential and JT Compher is a pretty good prospect.

Other than that I think you've more or less covered the bases.

 

[TBLeafer]

Everyone raises Edm as an example of how not to conduct a rebuild. 

One team I find particularly interesting that doesn?t get much attention is Colorado.  Are there any lessons for the ?Shanaplan? from the recent history of the Avs?

The Avs have highly touted forwards from the top of the draft (Duchene #3 in 2009, Landeskog #2 in 2011 and Mackinnon #1 in 2013).  From a draft ranking perspective, that?s even better than Marner (#4), Nylander (#8) and Matthews (#1). 

Yet no one believes that the Avs are a Stanley Cup contender or even on the cusp of joining the league?s upper echelon.  Having that many high end draft choices is no guarantee that a contender is around the corner, or even that your team will consistently make the playoffs.

Some theories on where the Avs went wrong:

1. They used too many high draft picks on forwards and neglected defence and goaltending.  The Avs haven?t drafted a D in the 1st round since 2008 (Cameron Gaunce).  (Exacerbated by the fact that they may need to jettison their best D, Tyson Barrie).
 
2. You?ve got to hit on some later round picks.  They have no depth to complement Duchene, Landeskog and MacKinnon.  As with Edm, they haven?t hit on anything outside of the 1st round in a long time.

3. Patience ? maybe we just need to give them more time?  MacKinnon could elevate his play to another level and maybe Mikko Rantanen is the real deal?
 
4. Hiring local heros and ex-players (Roy, Sakic) to run a team is a bad idea (see also: MacTavish, Kevin Lowe).

5. Failed to hang onto home grown talent ? letting go of Ryan O?Reilly and Kevin Shattenkirk has not panned out. 

It just goes to show that you can have picks consistently at the top of the draft and still screw up a rebuild pretty easily.  The Avs are almost as egregious as the Oilers in my opinion.  Any other lessons that Shanny and Co could take from the Avs?

Nice first post.

I wouldn't go that far.  They are only 2 years removed from 1st in their Division with 112 points.  They as it stands right now are only 2 seasons removed from playoffs.  They're another season or two away from actually finding out if Roy is building his team poorly.  The Lightning yo-yo'd since drafting Stamkos for quite a few seasons before finding playoff consistency and annual contention.  I wouldn't put them in Oiler territory yet.

 

[Kin]

Just about anyone who's big on analytics called out that one playoff season they had as being unsustainable. I don't think it's that meaningful when looking at the Avs.

 

[TBLeafer]

Yes and the Leafs the year before and Calgary in 2014-15 and the Habs last season (collapse predicted).  Doesn't mean the Avs are the Oilers yet and they do have some good young pieces to continue to build around.  I think they have to finish a few consecutive seasons below 80 points to even begin to approach Oiler territory.