Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Our perception of recent cup winners, doesn't necessarily reflect the reality under the current rules. Pittsburgh and Chicago were built in a time when you could get multiple #1 overall picks in a row. The draft rules have changed (thank you Edmonton). For example, Pittsburgh has won 3 Stanley Cups in the Crosby era. Are they winning all three of those if the new rules were in place, at the time, and instead of drafting Malkin they draft at #3 or 4 and end up with Cam Barker or Andrew Ladd instead of Malkin?
Increasingly teams like Vegas and St. Louis, and I'd argue Tampa, are showing us that the trend is moving away from building a championship team built around generational players. It's all about solid asset management.
|
I wish they would change the draft rules even more. There is so much parity now, that it doesn't make as much sense anymore to have such a bottom heavy favoring for lottery odds. I know they tried to even it out a bit, but not enough IMO. It over compensates some teams at the expense of others.
Teams that try and barely miss the playoffs or are bubble teams tend to get stuck in that rut. It seems like an unfair system that punishes teams for trying to stay competitive. I don't think there is a huge difference between the teams that finish 17 to 27, and the ones that finish below that, usually purposely put themselves in that position. Quite often those teams also already have top young talent, but are just going through a lag period for things to come together.