Define a Core

[GreenLantern2814]

We talk about core players a lot, but it’s not an especially well defined term. So let’s try to do that.

For me, the core is something like this:

-Your two best centres
-Your two best wingers
-Your two best defensemen
-Your goalie

For starters, if you don’t have a goalie that you consider a core piece, you are in no position to trade 1st round picks. Arguably, without the goalie, the other pieces are irrelevant.

The core skaters represent everyone you’d have out in the last minute of a game to save your season. This is why it’s important to not have an excessive amount of money tied up on the blue line - at most, you’re only ever going to have two D out in any crunch time situation, and they’re going to spend the entire time 45-60 feet away from the cage.

So don’t have an extra $5M or 6M defenseman when you can have an extra $6M forward that you can put within 20 feet of the cage when you absolutely have to have a goal.

Have two higher-priced D, who don’t play with each other, and fill out the rest of the blue line with unspectacular, but functional, role players who know how to get in the way and disrupt an attack. Your #1 has to be able to play 27 minutes a night in the playoffs at MVP levels - he has to be a player with that next gear in the post season.

You have to look at your top two centres and ask yourself if they’re good enough to beat Crosby and Malkin. If the answer is no, you don’t have core centres, and you shouldn’t be married to them.

The wingers are the easiest part. You can acquire 1st line wingers for relatively little, when the time is right- you can spend a 1st round pick, you can sign a Hossa caliber UFA - if you’re a self evident contender, that option is going to be available to you, regardless of perceptions about playing in Canada. Players will come here to win, but they won’t come here just to here.

The most important question to ask, always, is “can you win a Stanley Cup if X is your Y”.

With all this said, let’s apply it to the Flames.

Goalie - Talbot. Can you win a championship with Talbot as a starter? I say no.

D1 - Gio. The still-reigning Norris trophy winner. Can you win a championship with him as your #1D? Probably not.

D2 - Rasmus. Kid is a nice player. Can you win with Rasmus Andersson as your 2nd best D? Not at his current level, and not if Gio is the #1.

W1 - Gaudreau. Best single season point production for the franchise this century just a season ago. Can you win a championship with Johnny as your best winger? Maybe, if he was the third most important player on that line.

W2 - Tkachuk. Yes, you can win with him as your #2 LW, and any group we put together in the next eight years has a better chance with him than without. Core piece.

C1 - Monahan. Maybe just maybe you can win if he’s your #2, but obviously he’s not a #1C in the NHL playoff.

C2 - Lindholm. I put Lindy here because he’s a core piece if he’s your #2C. You’re not winning a goddamn thing with Elias Lindholm as your #1C, and if Backlund is your 2nd best centre, you’re the definition of a pretender. Now, of course, we just have to start playing Elias down the middle.

So near as I can tell, we’re 1/8. We have a 2nd Winger, and possibly a #2C if we ever decide to play him at the position.

Needs work.

[TheScorpion]

A terrible movie with Aaron Eckhart and Hillary Swank?

In all seriousness, I don't really like looking at teams as having a core. That just makes it harder to justify moving underachieving players. The Blackhawks got sucked into extending Brent Seabrook because he was a "core piece" and they got burned. You could call Benn, Seguin, and Radulov Dallas' core, but I don't think they deserve the majority of the credit for the Stars making it to the Final. Sure you can call guys like Crosby and Ovechkin core players if you want but those players are exceedingly few and far between. Almost everybody else is expendable to some degree.

[MrMike]

noun
1.
the tough central part of various fruits, containing the seeds.
"quarter the pears, remove the cores then slice again into wedges"

2.
the central or most important part of something.

[Harry Lime]

If we took your example but added the stipulation of who I would be the least likely to trade.

C1 - Monahan (He is a glue guy on the team. He has skills we haven't seen since his rookie season because he defers to Johnny. Can he get it back with Johnny gone?)
C2 - Bennett (Backlund ages himself out of this one. It happens to the best of us. Bennett is finally at his natural position after six years of...)
W1 - Tkachuk (leader on the ice.)
W2 - Dube (just scratching the surface.)
D1 - Andersson (player can actually do it all. Very impressed.)
D2 - Valimaki (Andersson left side?)
G1 - Wolf (please god)

[Cecil Terwilliger]

The core are the players who you absolutely do not want to trade and believe that complementary pieces/assets should be sought after.

They are the foundation of your team that you build around. Ideally it’s spread between O, D and G but not necessarily.

I also don’t think they always have to be your best 2-5 players but usually are. There should also be some contract certainty. A player on a 1 or 2 year deal is rarely part of the core unless RFA.

[TheIronMaiden]

A core of an NHL team functionally is the players that you have signed for three or more years that you have no intention of trading under normal circumstances. As such these players become those who have the longest tenure on your team and perpetuate the team culture, teaching newer or more transient players the way.

Who those players actually are likely varies greatly from year to year if not even month to month. I don't think that any GM has the same "core" in mind over a long period of time.

Under that definition the Flames core right now is Monahan, Lindolm, Tkachuck (because of his rfa status), Hanifin and Andersson.

I didn't include Lucic or Backlund because they would get traded, if any team was willing to give value back.

Gaudreau and Gio are not a part of the core because their contracts expire soon ish. Although Gio probably deserves to be called a part of the core because he will likely retire a Flame.

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

...

The core skaters represent everyone you’d have out in the last minute of a game to save your season. This is why it’s important to not have an excessive amount of money tied up on the blue line - at most, you’re only ever going to have two D out in any crunch time situation, and they’re going to spend the entire time 45-60 feet away from the cage.

So don’t have an extra $5M or 6M defenseman when you can have an extra $6M forward that you can put within 20 feet of the cage when you absolutely have to have a goal.

Have two higher-priced D, who don’t play with each other, and fill out the rest of the blue line with unspectacular, but functional, role players who know how to get in the way and disrupt an attack. Your #1 has to be able to play 27 minutes a night in the playoffs at MVP levels - he has to be a player with that next gear in the post season.

You have to look at your top two centres and ask yourself if they’re good enough to beat Crosby and Malkin. If the answer is no, you don’t have core centres, and you shouldn’t be married to them.

...

The whole thing seems designed to have teams fail to like their core. It's a common trend in posts, but a lot of these analyses strike me as things championship teams would fail until they'd won a championship. Would the Blues have looked good against this list until they won it all?

Anyway, I'll just take this one quoted section and say that it doesn't work for me. The idea that who you would have on the ice with your goalie (even though the other players are "irrelevant" without them) pulled is the best reflection of your core seems silly. If we're talking about building an ideal team then why is it based on an empty net save yourself situation? Also, can you beat Crosby and Malkin in a series without two incredible centres? Montreal just did. And, Pittsburgh have lost a lot of series over the years to teams that had two centres that did a good enough job but weren't necessarily the driving force of their team.

I think building through the middle (goalie, top 2 D, good centres) is a good model, but there are many ways to build teams and still many ways to build championship teams.

[GioforPM]

https://www.coreshopping.ca/

[Macho0978]

I would evaluate based on ice time. My core is the guys you lean on to play a majority of the game. For goalies are you a #1 who plays 50+ games. Forwards do you play 18+ mins a game. D 20+.

Flames core is:

Tkachuk
Gaudreau
Monahan
Lindholm
Backlund
Gio
Rasmus
Hanifin

I typically look at contract too. If the player is probably not resigning and is in last year of deal maybe no longer part of core.

I also like to add long term deals that are overpriced and not movable. Imo lucic should be added as he has to be considered when evaluating your core.

[MrMike]

Tkachuk
Lindholm
Andersson

The only real three players that no one ever uses in trade talk around here, EVER.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Tkachuk
Lindholm
Andersson

The only real three players that no one ever uses in trade talk around here, EVER.

Hanifin should be.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by timbit

Hanifin should be.

I’ve heard his name come up a few times, even in the OEL thread. I could see an offer come up and Hanifin be used in the right situation.

I don’t see that ever happening with the three I just named.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by MrMike

I’ve heard his name come up a few times, even in the OEL thread. I could see an offer come up and Hanifin be used in the right situation.

I don’t see that ever happening with the three I just named.

He’s younger than Andersson and as good , if not better.

[MrMike]

I see much more in Andersson but thats just my opinion.

[SebC]

Core doesn't mean untouchable. There are very few untouchables in the league, far fewer than there are core players.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I didn't include Lucic or Backlund because they would get traded, if any team was willing to give value back.

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

[David Struch]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I didn't include Lucic or Backlund because they would get traded, if any team was willing to give value back.

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.)

[JurassicChamp]

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

[VilleN]

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.)

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

[Vinny01]

I feel like if a team shells out big money and term to a player they deem him a core piece. So in the summer of 2018 they added 3 core pieces in Lindholm, Hanifin, Neal. Neal played himself out of the core and off the team in a season.

This season/offseason we see Rasmus solidify his position on the core of the team and Brodie and Hamonic likely transitioning out of the core