Canucks News N Notes 26-27

[Ronning's Ghost]

...the Canucks are trying to build a roster around a system?

The best coach is a guy like AV who can pivot based on the talent. Otherwise, you are like Tockey -- who is not a bad coach with the right guys, but also a coach that can sap the superlatives for the "wrong" guys for his system. I think Tocchet saw that in his coaching, too, I just don't know that he'll ever be able to put in practice what he knows intellectually to be true.

So, with respect to my overall question with respect to roster construction and coaching/system choice, it seems like most of NHL follows its own model, and that is part way between the NFL (you build a team around the system of the coach you hired) and community sports (the coach builds a system around the players who showed up). Most NHL teams build the roster they can out of series of Best Available (through whatever means) Players, and then hire a coach whose system fits most of that roster, with the exception of top tier coaches who have the ability to adjust. And that would explain why coaching changes are so common in the NHL: much of what is happening is experiments with different coaching styles to see if they better fit a roster that's harder to change than the coach. Does that sound right?

I think this is the wrong way to do things.

I would agree with your points, and want to amplify on them with respect to this specific tactical approach and the kind of centre it needs.

In a Cap league, a team winds up paying for everything every player brings to the team. You want your centre to have good ice-vision and playmaking ability -- you pay for that. You want him to have a good enough shot that he is a plausible threat to shoot instead of pass -- you pay for that. You want him to be good at face-offs, have defensive awareness, have superior top speed, great puck handling, win physical battles, etc. etc. -- you're paying for all of it.

Now you take all of that, and add the requirement for a very specific type of athlete with a large wingspan and a quick first couple of strides (thanks for making it more specific, Lancer) -- attributes that are considered desirable in hockey players generally -- in a position that is also widely coveted, and I think you wind up with a recipe for paying a premium for what you need. (Yes, all good centres are at a premium. I mean beyond the usual extent.) That would lead to an inefficient allocation of cap space -- the opposite of money-puck, if you will.

One way around that might be to sacrifice some other attribute you want in a centre to stay within budget, and try to pick it up at another position, where it is usually found cheaper. In that case, what do you sacrifice, and where else do you get it? For example, do posters know of a few modern examples of play-making wingers, and is that ability usually cheaper in a winger than in a centre?