How to build a hockey-team?

This is a very often discussed question and I read a lot about team-chemistry, about players who can play within a certain system and fit to other players, fit to a coach, fit to certain philosophies. Fair enough, I guess all these aspects are true a little bit but... just a little bit.

Basically I have a very simple answer to this question. You have to find the very best player to all different positions in hockey. If you have all the best players you most probably will win. I’m a very strong believer in this very simple strategy. Actually this strategy is very simple just on first sight, but more on this later. Of course I do know all these Cynderella-Stories like „Miracle on Ice“, smaller teams win Championships here and there – and all these stories are true and not just theses or fantasies. But... I do stand to it... if you have the best players you most probably will win. Let’s turn the page to Soccer: In the most famous European leagues always dominate the clubs with the most money. And in this European Club-Soccer-System it’s as simple as that: If you have the most money you can buy the best players. Unfortunately this system didn’t copy the great North American Pro-Sports with their draft-, trade, and some sort of salary-cap-system. The richest teams (Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Manchester United, Milan, Inter, Bayern München)...these teams are the richest (forgive me if I did forget the one or the other) and by far the most succesful. We have thousands of other teams competing with much better team-chemistry, much better game-strategies, much better atmosphere and much more disciplined workers on the field... but they never will have a chance vs these most rich teams with the very best players. Wins vs these teams were and always will be exceptions. In the European hockey-leagues it’s the same story, at least in the tendency. The richer teams have basically the better players and are more succesful, again... always with exceptions...but as the word exception tells...there are exceptions.

In NHL-Hockey it’s not so obvious because of the great system with the yearly draft, trades and salary-cap. This is a absolutely clever and exciting pro-sport-system, I admire it. It makes this business so much more interesting! But in the very end....I come to the same simple conclusion: If you have the best players, you most probably will win! Earlier I did tell that this simple strategy is just simple on first sight because you have never endless money and you have the draft. So all your decisions will show you another side of the coin. You pay a price for everything you do and all this means that you have to be very clever – and be lucky - to build a winner!

So what would I do to try to build a winner within budget-restrictions – such as salary-caps – or working within a European team with just small money because I just can’t take the best players? First of all I would ask myself critical questions?

1  Shall I spend multimillions for star-players and then have less money compared to other teams to spend for complementary-players?

2.   What positions are the most important ones? For what positions I shall spend most money?

3.   How important is experience? Shall I pay players for what they did achieve in the past? Do they bring this extra to the team? How valuable is it to have this experience compared to the sometimes lack of energy when they are older?

4.   How important is the coaching-staff? Means, how much money is it worth to spend for coaches?

My answers:

I would start with a nucleus of 9 really good players. If you have 9 really good players you can survive as a hockey-team. So I would concentrate to spend my money fully on these nine players in the following priority:

1.1 Most important for me are the No1. and No.2 defensemen! I

      would spend most money for them.

1.2 You need two very good centermen and at least one very good,

      productive winger

    1.3 Then again I would go for a d-man (No. 3).

    1.4 It’s time now for the No.1-goalie. To survive you need decent

          goaltending.

    1.5 I would go for another two wingers who bring something

          special to the table (e.g. speed or strength or shooting, or excellent two-
          way-play).

After that you have to fill your basket with complementary-players. Personally I would have just very small money left for these complementary-players. Even in Europe – where people are much more sensitive to big differencies in salaries – I wouldn’t care about – and I would try to find players who don’t care about too much – who will be just proud to play with certain star-players and are more or less free of jealousy. My complementary-players would be either very strong character-players and/or young or even very young players. I don’t see a big enough quality-difference between an average skilled player and a below-average skilled player with great character. I don’t see a big enough quality-difference between an experienced average skilled player and a promising young or very young player who has a good character. Of course – as I told earlier – it’s always a question of compromises and in the very end – I would definitely loose some quality with my players 10-22. But the key-question is: Would I lose more than I did theoretically win with my 1-9 strategy?

I guess I did answer already the questions 1 and 2. What is my answer to the question No. 3?

Experience is slightly overrated in my eyes and what I absolutely don’t like about experience is to pay a player for what he did achieve in his career before. I don’t want to pay for what a player did do in the past, maybe even for another team. I would be prepared to pay good or even very good money for the present performance and even extra bonuses if something unexpected positive will happen. Examples what support my theses that experience is slightly overrated: The Pittsburgh Penguins did win the Stanley Cup with extremely young key-players and you actually can tell the same about the Chicago Blackhawks.

Coming to my question No. 4: How important is the coaching-staff? It’s very important in my eyes but not so much as it seems to be e.g. in European Soccer and in Swiss hockey where coaches are sometimes even better payed than the best players. An excellent head-coach has in my eyes an approx. value of a decent second or very good third-line-player. So, of course, it’s very important to choose the right coach, you can’t take this decision serious enough but on the other hand don’t let yourself get fooled by unrealistic expectations if you have a good coach. It’s more important to have the best players than to have the best coach. Various studies from American pro-sports support this theses. The questions and answers about what is a good coach will be the subject of one my next blogs. In the tendency underrated is the value of a good assistant-coach. I guess the coaching-package (combination of head-coach and assistant-coach) is very important. The assistant-coach basically should complement the head-coach and brings everything to the table what a head-coach is missing. E.g. if the headcoach is a extroverted, impulsive, emotional guy it’s important that the assistant is more introverted, analytical and the other way round. If a head-coach has very good knowledge about forwards it’s a good idea to hire an assistant who is specialized about defensemen and so on.

Another aspect is hiring of players, trading for players and drafting for players. There are two theories about this: Always drafting, trading or hiring players for what you actually need in terms of position - what your team is lacking - or do the same with the philosophy „best player available“. I’m a strong believer in the theory „best player available“ because all your players, especially your best players are always also assets on the trade-market. Of course it’s a complicated way to get just indirectly what you actually need, it takes time and energy but if you want to be best you have to pay this price. So I would always go for the best player available, either in the draft or in trades. I might end up with having three No.1-centermen and just one of them can fill this role in my team. So what? I will trade them and I will have an excellent return on invest if I’m a good trader. If I’m actually looking for a reliable and steady defensive d-man and a good one is on the market but at the same time a very good centerman is on the market for a comparable price, I definitely would go for the centerman and then would try to turn him into not only a reliable/steady defensive-defenseman but into an excellent defensive defenseman. This strategy needs time and will cause some pain on the way down the road but in the end, in my eyes, it will be the more succesful strategy in the big picture.

So, all this is my theory what you should think of if you try to build a succesful hockey-team. Yes, it’s theory, I do know very well from my life-experience – but I also don’t overrate my life-experience...smile... – that theory and what happens in reality are not always the same pair of shoes and we all have to be flexible in our minds and react sometimes fast to unexpected happenings. But still, you should have a certain strategy and I tried to paint mine. Looking forward to discuss this!


Thomas Roost / Central Scouting Europe, NHL