2015 NHL Entry Draft

[Leaflifer]

Funny thing about "team culture." It's often to pointed to as blame when a team is struggling, but it's very rarely talked about when a team is winning. In those cases, it's usually about talent, drafting and development, etc. You know, more quantifiable things.

Exactly. It's like "chemistry" or anything else of that nature. Good teams have it because they're good teams.

How do you prove that statement?

It's just psychology 101. People are happier and work better in a group when they're getting the results they want.

Which comes first? The happiness/strong work ethic or the success?

 

[Highlander]

the strong work ethic and peserverance will lead to success, happiness is more intangible, you can have success (in career),  but not be happy.  Although someone with a strong work ethic who preservers will more than likely have the intangibles figured out.

My father used to say "Son, marry a rich woman, she will make you as miserable as a poor one, but it will be easier to take"

 

[Kin]

Which comes first? The happiness/strong work ethic or the success?

I didn't say anything about "work ethic". I mentioned happiness and the ability to work as part of a group.

 

[L K]

Which comes first? The happiness/strong work ethic or the success?

I didn't say anything about "work ethic". I mentioned happiness and the ability to work as part of a group.

Even if we are going to say that work ethic is better when players are happy, it's somewhat of an irrelevant question to be honest because it's very situationally dependent. 

The conditions for a player to give a solid effort as a 19-23 year old are going to be very different from a player who is 29-40.

 

[bustaheims]

Which comes first? The happiness/strong work ethic or the success?

It's different for different people. Some are happy because they're successful. Some are successful because they're happy.

 

[skrackle]

Why have the Leafs been bad for the better part of 50 years?

It does come down to bad decisions by ownership down through management and then through scouting and coaching. The team itself at any given point in it's history, is a reflection of those decisions. But is there an over-riding factor of culture, whatever that might be, that has perpetuated the losing through such a long time?

My only thought on it is, the Leafs have never been in a position where the life of the franchise depends on them winning. If I was asked to define the culture of the Leafs, I might say, "There's always next year".

 

[Redleaf]

Why have the Leafs been bad for the better part of 50 years?

It does come down to bad decisions by ownership down through management and then through scouting and coaching. The team itself at any given point in it's history, is a reflection of those decisions. But is there an over-riding factor of culture, whatever that might be, that has perpetuated the losing through such a long time?

My only thought on it is, the Leafs have never been in a position where the life of the franchise depends on them winning. If I was asked to define the culture of the Leafs, I might say, "There's always next year".

It also comes down to the same reason the Leafs didn't win the draft lottery....plain bad luck.

 

[Highlander]

Now that the Marlies are cooked, BRING ON THE DRAFT. Please

 

[Leaflifer]

it's somewhat of an irrelevant question to be honest because it's very situationally dependent. 

The question was in response to Nik's statement :

"it's psychology 101. People are happier and work better when they are getting the results they want.

Either Nik's statement is not true or it's a relevant question to that statement. You guys can decide.

 

[Kin]

Either Nik's statement is not true or it's a relevant question to that statement. You guys can decide.

No because, again, I didn't say anything about a work ethic. I said:

People are happier and work better in a group when they're getting the results they want.

Working well in a group is not the same thing as a work ethic. Lots of people with strong work ethics don't do well in group situations.

 

[Highlander]

Nik is right, I have a huge work ethic, but won't work in a group.

 

[rdowdall]

Nik is right, I have a huge work ethic, but won't work in a group.

I don't know, I'm going to need some proof that it's your work ethic, and not some other reason, like hygiene that causes you problems when in a group.  It better be rock solid proof too.

 

[Pick]

But blaming it on 'ownership' has its problems too, because ownership changed many times over the last 45+ years...and if anything Leaf ownership has been one of the healthiest in the league for many years now capable of providing as much $$ to the hockey operation as any in the league and willing to hire highly regarded people to manage and coach the team.

And over those 45 years the team has experienced varying levels of success, as we've gone over. When they had disastrous ownership, with Ballard primarily, they essentially had no success for 25 years. With the best ownership they had, Stavros when he could pay the bills, the Leafs were a pretty successful club. There was a 10 year period where they made 4 conference finals. That's not a cup, no, but it's not nothing either.

Good ownership will yield good results and contrary to what you say next, "good ownership" doesn't just mean having money and a willingness to spend it. Recent iterations of MLSE have been willing to spend, but they've wanted to spend for immediate results, nixing any attempt to rebuild the team correctly. They've spent, and acted, impatiently and the results have been bad. No GM can turn a bad team into a good one just with money. The cap just doesn't allow that.

As ownership changed a culture persisted...and I'm not any more vague about the details as someone who was there at ice level. I end this discussion with a comment by someone who witnessed the situation from ice level. Commenting on his experience in Toronto, Paul Maurice stated "....I never had control of that team....too many people around"

Yeah, I read that in your last post. Problem is it doesn't really mean anything and certainly doesn't speak to an issue with "culture" or "environment", just sloppy management.

You keep mentioning success the team has experienced. What success?
That's the problem. You don't see the big picture. In the last 45+ years I'll bet Leafs performance is in the bottom 33% of the teams that were around in 1971. During that time no leaf has won a major trophy and only two players made it to the 1st all-star team. Every team in the league has it's ups and downs, but the 'successes' become a distraction (in your case, anyway) to seeing the big picture.  Otherwise those 'successes' are insignificant when measured against more than half the teams in the NHL.

When you begin to realize how badly this team has performed the last 45+ years then you'll begin to understand what I'm saying. I'm starting to believe it's over your head. How old are you? Have you ever worked for a large corporation?

It's easy to say Leafs lost because of sloppy play. But when that sloppy play persists for months, you have to ask "why the sloppy play?" The coach is canned, but the sloppy play continues. Players are moved but it doesn't help, so you fire the manager. Things don't get better so you have to ask "why the sloppy play?". You keep asking "why" until you find the answer. You can't fix it if you don't know what's causing it.

The very fact that Leafs have been so miserably bad for so long indicates that the last "why?" hasn't been addressed adequately. That's why you have the humiliating losses to the Bruins in the '69 playoffs and the miserable 45+ years that followed. (Even in the relatively successful '90s they missed the playoffs 3 or 4 times).

The only success this team has had in the last 60 years came off the backs of veteran teams and were run by managers who had the balls to thumb their noses at upper management. That's where the problem lies, with upper management;  and the problems persist from one regime to another -  that's precisely why we call it "culture".

 

[Highlander]

My hygiene is just fine,I shower once every 4 days and I sell mostly to French from France, they think I smell just dandy.

 

[Kin]

You keep mentioning success the team has experienced. What success?

The Stavros years. 4 Conference Finals in 10 years. Players nominated for the Vezina, Hart, Calder and winning the Selke. I genuinely could not have made that any clearer or simpler.

In the last 45+ years I'll bet Leafs performance is in the bottom 33% of the teams that were around in 1971.

As busta expertly pointed out, that's just a function of lousy ownership for the most part. The Blackhawks were in as bad a situation as the Leafs until Bill Wirtz died. The Leafs were terrible under Ballard. That's pretty simple. I really don't get why you feel the Ballard days are still relevant. 

When you begin to realize how badly this team has performed the last 45+ years then you'll begin to understand what I'm saying. I'm starting to believe it's over your head. How old are you? Have you ever worked for a large corporation?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000381998.html

They invented this new thing called the internet. Give it a look sometime.

It's easy to say Leafs lost because of sloppy play.

Sure, except I haven't. The Leafs lost because they were poorly put together because they had a general manager working from a terrible playbook. It wasn't "sloppiness". They were a poorly put together team because of impatient ownership which lead to bad drafting and development and a reliance on free agency. They weren't very good, they lost. That's not culture.

The only success this team has had in the last 60 years came off the backs of veteran teams and were run by managers who had the balls to thumb their noses at upper management. That's where the problem lies, with upper management;  and the problems persist from one regime to another -  that's precisely why we call it "culture".

Except, of course, it didn't. I'll make this as easy as I possibly can for you:

Ballard - Bad, No success
Stavros - Good, some success
MLSE - Bad(so far), no success

See? It literally can not be any simpler. Anyone whose head isn't stuck in the past can analyze it pretty clearly and simply. The team can be successful with good ownership that has patience with their hockey people.

 

[rdowdall]

My hygiene is just fine,I shower once every 4 days and I sell mostly to French from France, they think I smell just dandy.

Ah a French group, why didn't you say so. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

A look at where the Leafs have picks as compared with Corey Pronman's top 100 prospects: http://theleafsnation.com/2015/5/6/we-compared-pronman-s-top-100-prospects-to-the-leafs-draft-picks

Gives a sense of some names that may be around for the Leafs' picks outside of the top 5.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

A look at where the Leafs have picks as compared with Corey Pronman's top 100 prospects: http://theleafsnation.com/2015/5/6/we-compared-pronman-s-top-100-prospects-to-the-leafs-draft-picks

Gives a sense of some names that may be around for the Leafs' picks outside of the top 5.

White/Stephens/Harkins wouldn't be very high on the list of guys that I want. I'd go with Meier if that's how the draft played out. Svechnikov (who Pronman has 9th but likely won't go anywhere near that high), Sprong, Bracco, and Beauvillier would be the group that I hope we pick from. I'm sure at least one of those guys will still be available at 22-24. Merkley and Kylington too but I don't think they'll drop that far.

 

[rdowdall]

Pronmans report on Marner, Strome and Hannifin.  I have access to the top 30 if someone wants to see someone else:

3. Mitch Marner
C, London (OHL)
DOB: 5/5/97 | Ht: 5-11 | Wt: 163
2014-15 GP: 63 | G: 44 | A: 82

Marner had a fantastic 17-year-old season in the OHL, racking up an absurd amount of points. He's a shifty player, and is tough for a defense to stop. His speed, acceleration and edge control are all high-end, and because of that, you rarely saw an OHL defenseman land a clean check on Marner. His puck skills are elite, and he can make great in-tight plays to evade pressure, dekes in full stride to get around a defender or puck plays off the half-boards that create offense in bunches.

Marner is also an incredible passer, making quick reads with the ability to stretch the ice or move it across laterally through traffic with consistency. While small, his defensive game is solid, and improved quite notably over the course of the OHL season to where he became one of London's better penalty killers. He's also quite an effective forechecker, not in terms of physical play, but rather how well he forces plays and is sneaky on takeaways.

Ranking explanation: Marner and Dylan Strome were both among the very top scorers in the OHL this season, and both had under-18 seasons that were among the very best of the past 10 years in terms of statistical production.

It's a push in terms of pure hockey sense, although they're better in different ways: Marner is a little more creative and a little better in his defensive reads, while Strome's vision is probably a notch higher. Marner's skating is significantly better than Strome's especially in terms of speed, but Strome has a good four inches on Marner. Marner's production was aided by playing on a stacked London team, while Strome played with McDavid -- albeit typically just on the power play.

The skating difference is really what sways me, even with the size discrepancy, given their puck skills are close and Marner has shown he can defend. Skating kills in the NHL, in terms of being able to gain the zone with control of the puck, and Marner is ahead there.

4. Dylan Strome
C, Erie (OHL)
DOB: 3/7/97 | Ht: 6-3 | Wt: 187
2014-15 GP: 68 | G: 45 | A: 84

Strome was one of the very top scorers in the OHL this season, and while many point to the teammate effect with McDavid on the same team, he didn't play with him much at even strength, yet still managed a roughly 1.5 points-per-game pace when McDavid was hurt.

"He's a big center with high-end skill. You're never going to find that anywhere but the top of the draft" said one scout.

Strome is a great stick handler, especially for a 6-3 player, but he's also smart with the puck. He slows the play down very well, operates well in tight spaces and has the offensive instincts to evade pressure at a high level. He's not great defensively yet, although he's fine on the draw and could project to have decent defensive value down the line.

Strome's main weakness is his skating, as he lacks an explosive top gear and is just roughly average in that area overall.

Ranking explanation: The ranking of Marner and Strome ahead of Noah Hanifin was discussed in depth here.

5. Noah Hanifin
D, Boston College (Hockey East)
DOB: 1/25/97 | Ht: 6-2 | Wt: 205
2014-15 GP: 37 | G: 5 | A: 18

Hanifin is an elite all-around defenseman who has a real chance to be in the NHL next season should he choose to leave Boston College. He's a high-end skater who moves incredibly well for a player of his size. His first few steps are explosive, with as much power out of his pivots and crossovers as you'll see in a defenseman, making him very dangerous in transition.

His puck skills and offensive IQ don't blow you away, but he's very good in those areas. Hanifin can make the quick passes, lead a rush in a dynamic way and makes good decisions with the puck.

Defensively, he closes his gaps well, uses his stick effectively and projects as a player who can stop good forwards. Overall, his game is a high-tempo, high-energy style, though he's not the most bruising defender.

Ranking explanation: Despite the positional differences and the value it gives Mathew Barzal, overall there is a talent drop-off here. Hanifin's accomplishments during the past two years have been extremely impressive, and it's only because of the incredible seasons of the four players ranked ahead of him that he's slotted No. 5.

On pure talent, Barzal is not too far away from Hanifin. They're both elite skaters, Barzal is better with the puck, and both are very smart. However, Hanifin has a major size edge, and is very good defensively. At the end of the day, output wins out. As an under-18 defenseman in Hockey East, Hanifin has been spectacular, and he was impressive as a double underage at the IIHF World Junior Championships. Barzal's talent level is high-end, and I love the upside, but he just doesn't have the same resume, as he was pretty good but not amazing in 2014-15.

 

[princedpw]

It sounds like we will be very lucky to get either Strome or Marner, whichever one falls to us.