Define a Core

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Was that a joke? I have never heard this before... Calgary seems to have an average amount of Swedish players.

Last year 5 counting Kylington who didn’t play much. And Gustafsson is likely gone. It’s probably on the high side of the NHL, but I see no evidence they are targeting Swedes. I’d rather have more Swedes than Russians considering flight risk.

[mrkajz44]

To me the "core" is the group of guys that define how well your team does. If your core is playing well and excelling, then the team is winning. If your core is not playing well, then you are losing. They are the key pieces to success.

[EVERLAST]

Core....can't be rotten in the middle.

Guys who aren't coach killers and tune out coach after coach after coach when things don't go right.

Core to me is guys willing to do whatever necessary to win....examples would be things like ...putting on the foil, forechecking, blocking shots , playing 60 minutes every night, not being a passenger, getting dirty, commitment and accountability to teammates, listening to the coach and not being a James Neal type of me me me player.

We've heard it all....the answer is in the room. Who will be the hero....it takes more than one damn guy.

Core....examples of cores....1986 Flames, 1989 Flames, 2004 Flames

3 times in 40 years we weren't mediocre and no one wanted to play us.

Thats a core.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by JurassicChamp

A core should be top 7 forwards, top 2dmen and 1 goalie.

Goalies shouldn't be core pieces. Their performance is remarkably inconsistent and too difficult to separate from team performance.

You're also overvaluing forwards over defensemen IMO

You probably want three core defensemen, and five core forwards.

1A C
1B C
1A W
1B W
3C or 2 W
1 D
2A D
2B D

So in our case that's probably

Backlund

One of Lindholm/Monahan, depending who you want down the middle going forward. I don't see both players as core because I believe one of them has to go, and I'd lean towards keeping Lindholm for his defensive play.

Bennett, I think at this point our single best playoff performer across 30 games has to be considered core.

Gaudreau

Tkachuk

Giordano / Valimaki if he replaces Gio

Brodie / Whoever replaces Brodie, if someone is actually good enough to do so, which I doubt

Andersson

[The Professor]

Your core players are your best players, who you build around. Any more complex definition won’t be accurate.

[GreenLantern2814]

I’m not hearing a ton of pushback against the idea that the Calgary Flames, as currently constituted, do not have a core of players to build around.

That’s not good under the best of circumstances, and it’s even less ideal in a cap system.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I’m not hearing a ton of pushback against the idea that the Calgary Flames, as currently constituted, do not have a core of players to build around.

That’s not good under the best of circumstances, and it’s even less ideal in a cap system.

I view those as two questions.
Who is your core?
Is it a good core?

Every team has a core. Not every team has a good core.

Not sure if the point of your thread was to establish what a core is, or theorize if the Flames' core isn't good enough. Perhaps both?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I think Backlund certainly has value. Doubt the Flames are looking at trading him at all unless they get something good back.

My point is they wouldn't get anything good back, but if they could they would be all over it. The bottom line is that no one is looking to add a career 40 point player who is 31. Never mind the fact he is going to make 5.3 million for four more seasons.



I'm not saying he sucks now, but in two seasons he will be an overpaid fourth line.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't look at the core in terms of 'top line' + 'top pairing D' + goalie. Some teams don't have enough good players to fill every spot, and some teams have more than that.


I do think that the Flames have a good core of players, but they need to add to that core. In my opinion, this is the Flames' 'core':


Gaudreau
Monahan
Lindholm
Tkachuk
Backlund
Giordano
Brodie (though they will likely lose him)
Hanifin
Andersson


They don't have a goalie that I think is a core piece - though Rittich may develop into one (his high danger chance shot saves are really strong IIRC, but he allows some weak goals at times, but these I think can be fixed).


If Bennett sees substantial improvement this season over the previous seasons, I would add him to the list, especially since when you look at the core group, there is no sandpaper there. Bennett is unquestionably a core player in the playoffs, though that doesn't exactly fit the definition completely.


Signing someone like Hall will add to the core group. Losing Brodie subtracts from the core group. Giordano will start dropping away from the core group (though the death of Giordano is greatly exaggerated).



Mangiapane and Dube (and Bennett right now) are not part of the core. They are, however, players in the organization (along with Valimaki) who are the most likely to grow into core players.


This is just how I view the core. Some people look at Monahan and don't see a #1 Centre. I see a bona-fide #1 Centre. Maybe not 'elite', but certainly a #1 centre. What is elite? What's a franchise player? These are all questions that have varying answers with lots of overlap. It makes it difficult to accurately come up with a certain definition. A lot of people will have different opinions, and few of them will be wrong, because they stick to their own definitions of what core, elite, franchise, etc., are.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by David Struch

These were the two guys leading the Flames this past playoffs, Backlund would be captain if Giordano wasn't here. (Calgary is trying to add so many of his Swedish buddies, it's pretty obvious.)

Curious, which one of Backlund's buddies did the Flames add? Or are all Swedes friends, like us Canadians?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Curious, which one of Backlund's buddies did the Flames add? Or are all Swedes friends, like us Canadians?

https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/coun...ub/c-315520022

This article doesn't suggest any were tight outside of joining the team. Considering the age range that's not surprising.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I view those as two questions.
Who is your core?
Is it a good core?

Every team has a core. Not every team has a good core.

Not sure if the point of your thread was to establish what a core is, or theorize if the Flames' core isn't good enough. Perhaps both?

First to establish some parameters, broad though they may be, to determine if the Flames are doing the right thing.

It seems only logical that if the core is not up to standard, the problem is the core, not the rest of the team. The rest of the team can be a problem too, but without the horses, it’s difficult for me to fault players like Reider, Rinaldo etc.

Are our best players, collectively, good enough that we could win a championship with them as our best players? The evidence points to “no”.

So we need new best players. It’s probably better to attempt to acquire them via 1st and 2nd round draft picks rather than blow our brains out to give Taylor Hall $10M a year.

[bubbsy]

"Core" to me is the members of the team that you expect a team to hold and build around for the next 3-5 seasons.

That's what makes this offseason so interesting. The only players that are under contract 3 seasons from now are: Monahan, Backlund, Lindholm, Hanafin, Andersson, Lucic.

I think that's a pretty fair representation, though Lucic is not really core, but there due to circumstance. I also do not believe Hanafin is, or should be deemed "core" at all.

I'd definitely throw Tkachuk with the caveat that he'll be an RFA in 2 seasons, and maybe Dube into that mix. It's hard to put Valimaki in that group, given that we've barely seen him play.

So that works out to:
Forwards:
Monahan, Backlund, Lindholm, Tkachuk, Dube(maybe)

Defense:
Andersson, Valimaki(maybe)

Goaltenders:
none

When looking around the Pacific/western conference, I don't see that being a highly competitive core. Hence, It is really really crucial to ensure the GM has a sound asset management plan in place for the players outside of this list. Turning those into solid, if not future core pieces, will be extremely important. Or we're likely heading back to a bottoming out rebuild state again soon.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

First to establish some parameters, broad though they may be, to determine if the Flames are doing the right thing.

It seems only logical that if the core is not up to standard, the problem is the core, not the rest of the team. The rest of the team can be a problem too, but without the horses, it’s difficult for me to fault players like Reider, Rinaldo etc.

Are our best players, collectively, good enough that we could win a championship with them as our best players? The evidence points to “no”.

So we need new best players. It’s probably better to attempt to acquire them via 1st and 2nd round draft picks rather than blow our brains out to give Taylor Hall $10M a year.

Yeah I've been consistent that I don't think this core is set up to win. But it's hard to assess how far you go with that. Do you need to change out all of the core, 50% of it, 25% of it? Not sure.

I would start with moving out 1-2 of the inner core pieces, and see if that's enough to re-shape things.

[SebC]

I've thought about this for awhile and have yet to come up with a definition that I'm totally satisfied with, but I think the closest I've gotten is that 'core' is who you prioritize within your present and future budget. They're the guys about whom you'd say "these guys will cost $X" before you say "that leaves us with $Y to finish the team" even if you could trade them away for no cost or asset.

This definition passes a few sanity checks. It successfully includes quality players on ELCs once they reach a point where you have to consider their next deal in your cap structure, but excludes any replacement level or non-NHL prospects. It successfully excludes players who would be cap dumps, like Lucic. It allows for non-core players to play on the top line, and core players to play smaller roles if it's anticipated that they will outgrow those roles.

This definition may, however, lean towards being overly broad.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I don't look at the core in terms of 'top line' + 'top pairing D' + goalie. Some teams don't have enough good players to fill every spot, and some teams have more than that.


I do think that the Flames have a good core of players, but they need to add to that core. In my opinion, this is the Flames' 'core':


Gaudreau
Monahan
Lindholm
Tkachuk
Backlund
Giordano
Brodie (though they will likely lose him)
Hanifin
Andersson


They don't have a goalie that I think is a core piece - though Rittich may develop into one (his high danger chance shot saves are really strong IIRC, but he allows some weak goals at times, but these I think can be fixed).


If Bennett sees substantial improvement this season over the previous seasons, I would add him to the list, especially since when you look at the core group, there is no sandpaper there. Bennett is unquestionably a core player in the playoffs, though that doesn't exactly fit the definition completely.


Signing someone like Hall will add to the core group. Losing Brodie subtracts from the core group. Giordano will start dropping away from the core group (though the death of Giordano is greatly exaggerated).



Mangiapane and Dube (and Bennett right now) are not part of the core. They are, however, players in the organization (along with Valimaki) who are the most likely to grow into core players.


This is just how I view the core. Some people look at Monahan and don't see a #1 Centre. I see a bona-fide #1 Centre. Maybe not 'elite', but certainly a #1 centre. What is elite? What's a franchise player? These are all questions that have varying answers with lots of overlap. It makes it difficult to accurately come up with a certain definition. A lot of people will have different opinions, and few of them will be wrong, because they stick to their own definitions of what core, elite, franchise, etc., are.

This is the same core I listed minus Brodie as he is a UFA. IMO too many people are listing what we WANT our core to look like and not listing our true core. I came to this core using players ice time as I believe you have to be considered core if you play a lot. Seems like common sense to me. Lots are leaving Backlund of their list despite the fact that during the last 2 playoffs he and Lindholm and leading forwards in ice time. Hey Backlund, we don't consider you part of our core but to make it up to you we will play you more than the guys that we do list on our core? I don't see how this make any sense.

If you want to evaluate the core using ice time as how you make the list.

Monahan - I list him as a borderline #1 center. Lots of debate on this as to how good he is. But fact is he plays 18 mins a game. He is not elite and if he was and the Flames could lean on him to play 21-22 a game in the playoffs then maybe Backlund slips to below 18 mins a game because we have a horse that we can lean on to play big minutes

Gio - at his age he isn't a 25 min dman. If we had a guy like Hedman who is we then could maybe knock off Hanifin as a core guy because he isn't being asked to play 20+ mins a game.

Gaudreau - also not a 20 min a game forward. This is why we have so many guys that we need to rely on as some games these guys are out for 17 mins.

Maybe this is the coaches fault but when you face a guy like Mackinnon I see why Backlund plays so much as he is the guy that plays the best against stars like Mackinnon.

When you evaluate the core and Lindholm and Backlund are the guys playing 20+ then you need to consider improving this core.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Last year 5 counting Kylington who didn’t play much. And Gustafsson is likely gone. It’s probably on the high side of the NHL, but I see no evidence they are targeting Swedes. I’d rather have more Swedes than Russians considering flight risk.

BT seems to not be big on targeting Russians or Francophones

[delayedreflex]

I agree your core needs to be solid but it certainly doesn't seem like it needs to be elite in order to win.

Would anyone have said that the following core was enough to lead a cup-winning team prior to last year?
O'Reilly
Schenn
Tarasenko
Steen
Pietrangelo
Parayko
Binnington

People see O'Reilly as a top-tier centre now, but I'd say he was viewed more at Monahan-level prior to joining the Blues. Tarasenko and Pietrangelo are undoubtedly elite, and Parayko very solid but arguably most of the rest would have been considered below average for their supposed position within the core. Binnington had a magic season last year and seems pretty average now.

The reality I see is that there are multiple ways of winning in this league - having a stacked core works for teams like the Pens and Bruins, while having good depth and having a cohesive team structure works for other teams like the Blues.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by delayedreflex

I agree your core needs to be solid but it certainly doesn't seem like it needs to be elite in order to win.

Would anyone have said that the following core was enough to lead a cup-winning team prior to last year?
O'Reilly
Schenn
Tarasenko
Steen
Pietrangelo
Parayko
Binnington

People see O'Reilly as a top-tier centre now, but I'd say he was viewed more at Monahan-level prior to joining the Blues. Tarasenko and Pietrangelo are undoubtedly elite, and Parayko very solid but arguably most of the rest would have been considered below average for their supposed position within the core. Binnington had a magic season last year and seems pretty average now.

The reality I see is that there are multiple ways of winning in this league - having a stacked core works for teams like the Pens and Bruins, while having good depth and having a cohesive team structure works for other teams like the Blues.

O’Reilly was on the 2016 World Cup team.

The first time I ever saw Parayko play, I thought I was looking at a young, cleaner Chris Pronger - also played in the World Cup for North America.

Tarasenko is as elite a goal scorer as you can find this side of Ovechkin.

Steen has been a stud ever since the Leafs traded him.

Pietrangelo was on the 14 Olympic team and the World Cup squad.

Schenn is a tier below but he’s certainly excellent.

I wouldn’t have ever said they’re my presumptive favorites, but they were also the sort of team that wasn’t necessarily a surprise to break through. Veteran, talented, well coached - they needed a goalie, and they found one.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by delayedreflex

I agree your core needs to be solid but it certainly doesn't seem like it needs to be elite in order to win.

Would anyone have said that the following core was enough to lead a cup-winning team prior to last year?
O'Reilly
Schenn
Tarasenko
Steen
Pietrangelo
Parayko
Binnington

People see O'Reilly as a top-tier centre now, but I'd say he was viewed more at Monahan-level prior to joining the Blues. Tarasenko and Pietrangelo are undoubtedly elite, and Parayko very solid but arguably most of the rest would have been considered below average for their supposed position within the core. Binnington had a magic season last year and seems pretty average now.

The reality I see is that there are multiple ways of winning in this league - having a stacked core works for teams like the Pens and Bruins, while having good depth and having a cohesive team structure works for other teams like the Blues.

Prior to joining the Blues, I bet most people wouldn't think that ROR was on the same level as Monahan. I think there probably would have been few people on this board that would have been happy for a Monahan - ROR swap. Even beyond age and output, Monahan was clearly seen as a 'guy you win with' and ROR was seen as "you can't win with".


Circumstances changed, and somehow their roles reversed in the eyes of many. I guess we will see how they compare in the future.