Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
I would like to see something like this focused purely on the cap era. By starting your drafting period in 1999, you're including 4-5 years of rich teams being able to buy players instead of having to rely on the draft.
I'm not even sure starting in 2005 (the first cap season) is good enough, since it still took quite a few years to get to the point we're at today, which is almost entirely about drafting (being able to trade for a Tkachuk or sign a Gaudreau doesn't come along very often).
Edit: Also, Vegas is a massive anomaly. Saying they won a Cup without a top 3 or 4 draft pick, while technically accurate, doesn't meet the spirit of what you're looking for. No other team in history was able to be built the same way they were, as previous expansion drafts were notoriously bottom of the barrel drafts - and even Seattle's was reined in to be much less "broken" than Vegas' was.
|
Starting post cap would make for way too small of a sample size (it's already too small). And I don't think it would make much difference anyway - teams are competing for resources, and player talent gets distributed around the league. The draft was always an equalizer, even before the cap.
As for Vegas, I don't think they are that big of an anomaly. Many fans claim you need X number of top picks, VGS said hold my beer. They showed that depth is also a viable blueprint (though having a $90M payroll also helped). And nothing was 'reined in' with SEA, they had the exact same rules. Regardless, their single cup doesn't change the numbers that much.
I think most of the responses to my post show that fans have very clear biases. The stats don't back up those biases, so people try to reject the stats.