I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying that the Blues drafting a disappointing player #1 overall in 2006, and trading that player away in 2011, did nothing to help them win the Cup in 2019. People are talking about having top-3 draft picks on your roster. Well, Erik Johnson was not on the Blues' roster when they won the Stanley Cup, and neither were any of the players they traded him for.
there have a been a number of exceptions in the last 20 years; I think people have already conceded that teams like STL, Detroit and the Bruins (since Seguin wasn't a huge contributor on their run) are exceptions to that.
Every other team has had top 3 players that have made major contributions to their SC wins.
Sure, you can find and develop elite talent as non top 3 picks, but we are talking about probability here.
Calgary has been doing the 'non tank' method for the last 30 years and frankly, I don't see anyone close on those rosters since the 90s that were drafted by Calgary and turned into elite NHL players close to being a Kucherov, Point or Pasternak.
I think Monny getting 55 points next year with good health and not playing on the big line would have way more value in a trade than right now.
Unlikely? Yeah, probably.
But his trade value is so low right now, I don’t think it’s that risky.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If Monahan got 55pts next year on a second line he wouldn't need a trade. He's not going to get that, and what potential second line players would you want on his line next year? He's not going to make them better like backlund might. He's a liability at this point, addition by subtraction is a real conversation with him now.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jimdon For This Useful Post:
there have a been a number of exceptions in the last 20 years; I think people have already conceded that teams like STL, Detroit and the Bruins (since Seguin wasn't a huge contributor on their run) are exceptions to that.
Every other team has had top 3 players that have made major contributions to their SC wins.
Sure, you can find and develop elite talent as non top 3 picks, but we are talking about probability here.
Calgary has been doing the 'non tank' method for the last 30 years and frankly, I don't see anyone close on those rosters since the 90s that were drafted by Calgary and turned into elite NHL players close to being a Kucherov, Point or Pasternak.
Every other team huh. Kopitar was an 11th and Quick was a 72nd leaving only Doughty as a "top 3 pick" at 2nd overall. Exceptions to your rule are demonstrating your "rule" isn't a rule at all.
You go ahead and "tank" yourself at work and see how that goes. Tanking to loose IS for losers.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying that the Blues drafting a disappointing player #1 overall in 2006, and trading that player away in 2011, did nothing to help them win the Cup in 2019. People are talking about having top-3 draft picks on your roster. Well, Erik Johnson was not on the Blues' roster when they won the Stanley Cup, and neither were any of the players they traded him for.
Actually, if you follow the EJ trade tree, it lead to 1/3 of the pieces they used to acquire Schenn (EJ-->Shattenkirk-->27OA pick (that became Morgan Frost);
they added Lehtera (2 yrs to UFA) and a 2018 top 10 protected 1st to acquire Schenn.
The year after trading EJ, they beat the Sharks in 5 before getting swept by the Kings (SCC). Then 5 more years of playoffs; out 3 straight in 6, then they made it to game 6 of the WCF and game 6 of round 2 (losing to the SCF both years). Then they missed in 2018 and the 2019 we know the story.
Another pre-requisite for winning a cup is recent playoff success. The Kings are the lone exception; every other winner in the cap era won multiple rounds in the preceding 3-4 years.
People love to trot out WAS as "it can happen eventually". And it's true; but WAS never lost a 1st rd series in less than 7 games in 15 years (missing the PO's once). STL never lost in less than 6.
I'd argue STL found themselves in mediocrity purgatory (92, 90, 87 pts in the yrs preceding EJ trade). EJ+top 10 protected 1st+McLement for Shattenkirk+Christ Stewart+2nd (ended up 32OA - Ty Rattie).
Oh for #### sake. Erik Johnson was drafted in 2006 and hasn't played a game for the Blues since 2011! He had ZERO bearing on the Blues winning the Stanley Cup. Correlation does not equal causation and this example is proof of that. Again, using that incredibly deluded thinking, the Oilers, Sabres, Panthers, Leafs, Devils, and Rangers all have Stanley Cups in their futures. Forget playing games, just give them Stanley Cups because they are certain to happen. Wait, maybe that's a dumb idea, because many of these 1st overall picks, or top five picks for that matter, don't achieve their potential. The Edmonton Oilers and Buffalo Sabres completely destroy this theory.
What you really need to win a cup is depth, and lots of it. You have to be successful at drafting in all rounds and you have to develop a critical mass of players who all peak at the same time. That's how you build a winner.
The new draft rules instituted by the NHL make the top three hypothesis pretty much impossible to achieve. Not only are you limited in the number of times you can win the draft and move up, but the odds of you winning the draft by sucking are actually stacked against you. You are better off competing and having good scouting and development programs so you can draft good talent and then develop it into something good. Most importantly, keep your damn draft picks and don't trade them away for diminishing returns. That is the recipe for success, not drafting first overall.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
No one said top 3 picks are a guarantee for success. They are the highest probability for drafting an elite player. End of story. Everyone realizes you still need to assemble a great team around them which requires strong drafting and developing beyond those picks. Also don't be so laser focused on top 3. Pietrangelo was a 4th overall. Brayden Schenn was a 5th used to get Mike Richard's. Jack Johnson was a 3rd used to get Carter. Without those top picks they likely don't win cups. Those are also exceptions. And AGAIN you need BOTH. Kopitar was a steal but Doughty was a top pick. Rantanen was a steal but Mackinnon, Landeskog, Makar, all top picks. So no top picks do not guarantee success on their own but pretty much every elite team needs them to win cups and most importantly they are your highest probability at drafting elite players...which you need to win cups.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hackey For This Useful Post:
Oh for #### sake. Erik Johnson was drafted in 2006 and hasn't played a game for the Blues since 2011! He had ZERO bearing on the Blues winning the Stanley Cup. Correlation does not equal causation and this example is proof of that. Again, using that incredibly deluded thinking, the Oilers, Sabres, Panthers, Leafs, Devils, and Rangers all have Stanley Cups in their futures. Forget playing games, just give them Stanley Cups because they are certain to happen. Wait, maybe that's a dumb idea, because many of these 1st overall picks, or top five picks for that matter, don't achieve their potential. The Edmonton Oilers and Buffalo Sabres completely destroy this theory.
What you really need to win a cup is depth, and lots of it. You have to be successful at drafting in all rounds and you have to develop a critical mass of players who all peak at the same time. That's how you build a winner.
The new draft rules instituted by the NHL make the top three hypothesis pretty much impossible to achieve. Not only are you limited in the number of times you can win the draft and move up, but the odds of you winning the draft by sucking are actually stacked against you. You are better off competing and having good scouting and development programs so you can draft good talent and then develop it into something good. Most importantly, keep your damn draft picks and don't trade them away for diminishing returns. That is the recipe for success, not drafting first overall.
To add to this, if you believe that a team need a #1 center to be truly competitive than you should make sure your scouts are spending more time reviewing center prospects than other players.
Second, teams should be taking more chances on centers, and looking at more home run type center projects in the 2-4 rounds to maximize their chances at drafting a #1 center.
Third, teams should make sure that they are spending the time and energy on their center prospects. Teams drafting centers should make sure that they are brought through the development system and taught how to become elite centers if they have the hockey IQ and skill set. They should not be rushed or brought in the NHL to soon or put into situations where they cannot be pushed to their potential.
Bennett is a great case for this. He should have been in junior and the minors in all top line center roles to develop his potential instead of being second or third line winger just because he was talented enough to play in the NHL. Lazar is another example of an organization rushing a player because he could play instead of developing him to his maximum potential.
Scouting, drafting, and developing will provide teams with the depth and talent needed to be competitive. Only when you hit a saturation point do you start trading picks and prospects for high end talent that will upgrade and fill holes.
Flames problem is that they jumped to filling holes before they had the depth of talent needed to be truly competitive.
__________________ 'Skank' Marden: I play hockey and I fornicate, 'cause those are the two most fun things to do in cold weather. - Mystery Alaska
The Following User Says Thank You to shutout For This Useful Post:
Flames just need to not deal draft picks for like 3 or 4 years. Absolutely stuff the cupboards with the amateur scouting department they have. Its a strength.
Stop bleeding picks trying to fill holes before the core is ready.
Its simple.
Thats doesnt mean you dont deal picks if a deal like the Hamilton trade pops up, thats a good kind of trade. Its the Hamonic, Elliott, Gustavsson, Forbort trades that nip you in the butt. Or any deal that send out 2nd round picks like the Flames have a penchant for.
Every other team huh. Kopitar was an 11th and Quick was a 72nd leaving only Doughty as a "top 3 pick" at 2nd overall. Exceptions to your rule are demonstrating your "rule" isn't a rule at all.
You go ahead and "tank" yourself at work and see how that goes. Tanking to loose IS for losers.
So Doughty didn't have a huge impact? oh, ok...
Speaking of losers, Calgary has gotten out of the first round all of 2 times in the last 30 years.
This is a really stupid argument. Let me settle it for you. The higher you pick the better the chance of getting that franchise player. "But Buffalo, Edmonton..." They are run by morons and have been for years (decades?). So... don't be run by morons. If you are run really well, maybe you can even succeed without a top 2 picks. Sadly, the Flames have had neither the picks, nor been well run. Thus, here we are.
Oh for #### sake. Erik Johnson was drafted in 2006 and hasn't played a game for the Blues since 2011! He had ZERO bearing on the Blues winning the Stanley Cup. Correlation does not equal causation and this example is proof of that. Again, using that incredibly deluded thinking, the Oilers, Sabres, Panthers, Leafs, Devils, and Rangers all have Stanley Cups in their futures. Forget playing games, just give them Stanley Cups because they are certain to happen. Wait, maybe that's a dumb idea, because many of these 1st overall picks, or top five picks for that matter, don't achieve their potential. The Edmonton Oilers and Buffalo Sabres completely destroy this theory.
What you really need to win a cup is depth, and lots of it. You have to be successful at drafting in all rounds and you have to develop a critical mass of players who all peak at the same time. That's how you build a winner.
The new draft rules instituted by the NHL make the top three hypothesis pretty much impossible to achieve. Not only are you limited in the number of times you can win the draft and move up, but the odds of you winning the draft by sucking are actually stacked against you. You are better off competing and having good scouting and development programs so you can draft good talent and then develop it into something good. Most importantly, keep your damn draft picks and don't trade them away for diminishing returns. That is the recipe for success, not drafting first overall.
Why so mad?
I didn't say anywhere they had to play for the same team they were drafted for. You either have to make or acquire a top 3 pick to win a cup since 2004. That's a fact outside of 1 season. The trade tree that lead to Schenn, who did play a role in the cup win, did come from that same pick.
I will retract my statement when it becomes untrue.
I didn't say anywhere they had to play for the same team they were drafted for. You either have to make or acquire a top 3 pick to win a cup since 2004. That's a fact outside of 1 season. The trade tree that lead to Schenn, who did play a role in the cup win, did come from that same pick.
I will retract my statement when it becomes untrue.
Is there a way to check how many teams had a top 3 pick on their roster during that timeframe? I’m just thinking that at any point there are probably 30-40 top 3 picks in the league. Now if for example 28 teams have a top 3 player and 2-3 don’t, then it’s more likely that one of the 28 teams wins the cup, than one of the 2-3 teams.
Oh for #### sake. Erik Johnson was drafted in 2006 and hasn't played a game for the Blues since 2011! He had ZERO bearing on the Blues winning the Stanley Cup. Correlation does not equal causation and this example is proof of that. Again, using that incredibly deluded thinking, the Oilers, Sabres, Panthers, Leafs, Devils, and Rangers all have Stanley Cups in their futures. Forget playing games, just give them Stanley Cups because they are certain to happen. Wait, maybe that's a dumb idea, because many of these 1st overall picks, or top five picks for that matter, don't achieve their potential. The Edmonton Oilers and Buffalo Sabres completely destroy this theory.
The player who had the most bearing on the Blues winning the Cup (or 2nd most if you think they just rode a hot goalie) is Pietrangelo, who was drafted 4th overall.
Drafting elite players isn’t guaranteed if you rebuild. Nor does it guarantee you’ll be able to build an elite team around an elite core. But it’s very hard to build an elite team without an elite core, and those players are typically (not always, but typically) drafted high in the first round.
You can look at it conceptually like this:
Rebuild
40 per cent chance become elite
30 per cent sustained mediocrity
30 per cent wander the wilderness
Never rebuild
20 per cent chance become elite
60 per cent chance sustained mediocrity
20 per cent chance wander the wilderness
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
The player who had the most bearing on the Blues winning the Cup (or 2nd most if you think they just rode a hot goalie) is Pietrangelo, who was drafted 4th overall.
Drafting elite players isn’t guaranteed if you rebuild. Nor does it guarantee you’ll be able to build an elite team around an elite core. But it’s very hard to build an elite team without an elite core, and those players are typically (not always, but typically) drafted high in the first round.
You can look at it conceptually like this:
Rebuild
40 per cent chance become elite
30 per cent sustained mediocrity
30 per cent wander the wilderness
Never rebuild
20 per cent chance become elite
60 per cent chance sustained mediocrity
20 per cent chance wander the wilderness
Or, you know, the guy who won the Conn Smythe Trophy as the MVP of the playoffs....who was acquired via trade and was a 2nd round draft choice.
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
Or, you know, the guy who won the Conn Smythe Trophy as the MVP of the playoffs....who was acquired via trade and was a 2nd round draft choice.
That was also by luck. Not denying that ROR was a big factor if not the biggest factor to the SC win in 2019, but Blues lucked out from some incompetent Buffalo management. Perhaps the Flames can do the same with Eichel, or Reinhart to a lesser extent/backup plan.
Pietrangelo was still a beast and was part of the Blues’ core.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan
That was also by luck. Not denying that ROR was a big factor if not the biggest factor to the SC win in 2019, but Blues lucked out from some incompetent Buffalo management. Perhaps the Flames can do the same with Eichel, or Reinhart to a lesser extent/backup plan.
Pietrangelo was still a beast and was part of the Blues’ core.
Of course...it takes a whole team to win the SC.
What I'm saying is that deliberately making your team the laughing stock of the league is not some sure fire way to get your team back into the mix of SC contention.
In fact, it can breed continuous misery for the organization and its fans.
I am all about drafting and developing to the point where you get close to the elite level and at that point, sure...push the chips in and trade futures for the final pieces.
But in the mean time you do what you can to develop a winning attitude among those guys you want to grow and win with so they can pass it on to all newcomers and veteran acquisitions.
"Tanking", as it were, is the complete and utter opposite of that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
What I'm saying is that deliberately making your team the laughing stock of the league is not some sure fire way to get your team back into the mix of SC contention.
In fact, it can breed continuous misery for the organization and its fans.
I am all about drafting and developing to the point where you get close to the elite level and at that point, sure...push the chips in and trade futures for the final pieces.
But in the mean time you do what you can to develop a winning attitude among those guys you want to grow and win with so they can pass it on to all newcomers and veteran acquisitions.
"Tanking", as it were, is the complete and utter opposite of that.
Colorado outright tanked in 2013 and 2017.
Tampa did in 2013. These teams were both far too good to be finishing that low in the standings.
It wouldn't be surprising to see those teams, the past two President Trophy winners, in the finals.
Palat, Stamkos, Hedman, Johnson weren't negatively affected be being on the losing 2013 team. MacKinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog and many others didn't become "losers' by being on that 2017 team.
If a team has talent, it's going to win. Don't worry about having a losing culture if it holds back the accumulation of talent.
I did the research about how many teams drafted in the top 3 in the last little while, or have players playing for them that were drafted in the top 3. You might find it interesting. I looked at all the drafts from 2003, with a couple of HMs.
HM:
2001.2 Spezza – OTT -> TOR
1997.1 Thorton – BOS -> TOR
1997.2 Marleau – SJS
Just drafted in the top 3 - 26/31 teams.
Currently have a player that was drafted in the top 3 – 24/31 teams.
Either or – 29/31 teams.
As a result I don't think you can quantify that having a top 3 pick is a requirement. Chances are that one random team with a top 3 draft pick winning are 84%. Chances for a team that either has a top 3 pick or acquired one are 94%.
Last edited by gvitaly; 05-28-2021 at 11:06 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to gvitaly For This Useful Post:
