Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Another way to spin that is that three first-overall-picks have been Stanley Cup winners in the past 10 years. And this more accurately factors into consideration the much greater importance of the draft in the last decade, the way the game has changed since 2004, and the fact that the most recent first-overall-picks will not make much of an immediate impact. To put it another way, that's 3/5 top-picks between 2003–2007.
Sorry, but my money is on Tavares, Stamkos, and any other #1 pick not playing for the Edmonton Oilers becoming parts of championship teams at some point over the next decade.
|
Using this theory Edmonton is assured of a dynasty. I don't believe that by being a first overall pick that you are destined for greatness, for the individual player or the team. Yeah, the Penguins won the cup because of Crosby and Malkin. One is a generational talent and the other is a superstar talent. Chicago is a completely different story. The Hawks won because of the work by Toews (3rd), Seabrook (14th), Keith (54th, after Anton Babchuk at 21st), Byfuglein (245th!), Hjalmarsson (108th), Bolland (32nd), and Brower (214th!), moreso than Kane (1st overall). As a matter of fact, all of those players were drafted before the Hawks drafted Patrick Kane, so the theory you need to have that 1st overall pick to be headed toward a championship seems flawed. You need depth and you need quality. Three first round picks offers opportunity to get depth and quality in one fair swoop. The top draft pick will come. Use the picks they have to begin to build quality. Who knows? They may draft the next Corey Perry at 28th just like the Ducks did.