[News] LeBrun/Dreger - Flames open for Business

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yeah, but those high picks don't count because reasons.

They don't count because they are discarded players the team didnt want - And hence why they are available and traded or let walk as UFA's.

How you can't wrap your head around the difference in a 1st overall being on your roster you drafted and kept vs picking Niels Yakopov off waivors astonishes me.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Spurs

No they "don't count" because they don't fit the requirements of drafted by the team that won the Cup.

This is my point exactly, and GioforPM's, and Textcritic's. Almost every team in the league fits those criteria, but only one team a year wins the Stanley Cup.

It is not a NECESSARY condition, because teams have won the Cup without meeting it. It is not a SUFFICIENT condition, because many teams have met it without ever getting a sniff at the Cup.

There is NO surefire way to win the Stanley Cup, but there are many different ways that it has been done.

That's the whole point. That's it. That's all.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This is my point exactly, and GioforPM's, and Textcritic's. Almost every team in the league fits those criteria, but only one team a year wins the Stanley Cup.

It is not a NECESSARY condition, because teams have won the Cup without meeting it. It is not a SUFFICIENT condition, because many teams have met it without ever getting a sniff at the Cup.

There is NO surefire way to win the Stanley Cup, but there are many different ways that it has been done.

That's the whole point. That's it. That's all.

But there arent a lot of different ways. You are just making that part up! Please tell me the different way? You keep preaching the different way. Enlighten me! Let me know the blueprint to win a Stanley Cup since the cap era that didnt involve drafting a 1st or 2nd overall franchise player?

There's one team - St.L. And they were in last in the NHL until the greatest goalie streak since Kipper. One team in the cap era. One.

The way you win is draft a franchise player 1st or 2nd overall

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I can only because the owners will push hard to be able to do it.



I think that 12-16M highr in 4 years is pretty rosy. $3-4M increase per year? (If you are right, buyouts will be far less needed anyway).

To be compliant with what?

The only reason there have been compliance buyouts, was because the cap went down. That means labour stoppage.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

They don't count because they are discarded players the team didnt want - And hence why they are available and traded or let walk as UFA's.

Like Eichel, you mean? Sorry, you're trying to have it both ways again and it won't wash. If a player has to be on the team that drafted him, you can't count Eichel. If a player isn't a proper star unless he stays on the team that drafted him, you can't explain Eichel.

How you can't wrap your head around the difference in a 1st overall being on your roster you drafted and kept vs picking Niels Yakopov off waivors astonishes me.

How you can't wrap your head around the fact that most teams drafting in the top two picks don't win championships is what astonishes me.

THERE IS NO GUARANTEE. NONE. Picking in the top 2 does not guarantee you a championship. Not picking in the top 2 does not guarantee that you don't win a championship. You are trying to set up a hard cause-and-effect relationship that simply does not exist.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

13 of the last 15 Cup winners have a top 2 that they drafted. You dont need to go top 5. Its very clear.

LV - None (Eichel #2 demands trade though and they get in prime)
COL - McK, Landeskog
TB - Stamkos, Hedman
TB - Stamkos, Hedman
STL - NONE - Peitrangelo was lowest at 4th overall
WASH - Ovy
PITT - Malkin Crosby Fleury? Staal ? (dont remember when they left)
PITT- Malkin Crosby Fleury? Staal ? (dont remember when they left)
CHI -Kane
LA -Doughty
CHI- Kane
LA-Doughty
BOS - Seguin (Although he wasnt really a factor)
CHI- Kane
PITT- Malkin Crosby Fleury Staal

How many of the teams that didn’t win also had a top 2 they drafted in that time period?

How many of those teams didn’t win until well after any normal rebuild period from when they picks high (say 4-6 years)?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

But there arent a lot of different ways. You are just making that part up! Please tell me the different way?

St. Louis did it. Vegas did it. Detroit did it repeatedly. I AM NOT MAKING ANYTHING UP!!!!!!!! You just don't want to see it, because you want to see yourself as the guy who knows everything, unlike the idiots who actually run hockey teams.

Oh, and by the way, Eichel wasn't the big star on that Vegas team that just won the cup. The Conn Smythe trophy was won by a player who not only wasn't drafted in the top 2, but WAS NEVER DRAFTED AT ALL. Try and fit that with your pet theory!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How many of the teams that didn’t win also had a top 2 they drafted in that time period?

Forget about it. Jason14h isn't capable of understanding how that is relevant.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This is my point exactly, and GioforPM's, and Textcritic's. Almost every team in the league fits those criteria, but only one team a year wins the Stanley Cup.

It is not a NECESSARY condition, because teams have won the Cup without meeting it. It is not a SUFFICIENT condition, because many teams have met it without ever getting a sniff at the Cup.

There is NO surefire way to win the Stanley Cup, but there are many different ways that it has been done.

That's the whole point. That's it. That's all.

That may be true but the reason the Flames players didn't count on the list was because the list had guys drafted by their team and it was pointed out that LV's guys weren't.

Again I think everyone agrees there is no guaranteed way to win the Cup, if there was it would be easy everyone would do it and everyone would win the Cup, yay! But there is no argument that drafting your own elite players is the best way to win the Cup or that the best way to get elite players is to draft them top 3.

I don't see many ways to win the Cup, I haven't seen that to be shown at all. It is clear there is no way to win the Cup without elite talent. Nobody has done that. The closest would be the Blues, I think Pietrangelo was a top 10 defenseman when they won, and Vegas depending on your views on Eichel and Stone both who are better than anything we have upfront and again Pietrangelo maybe not top 10 at this point but again better than any defenseman we have.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

They don't count because they are discarded players the team didnt want - And hence why they are available and traded or let walk as UFA's.

How you can't wrap your head around the difference in a 1st overall being on your roster you drafted and kept vs picking Niels Yakopov off waivors astonishes me.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Like Eichel, you mean? Sorry, you're trying to have it both ways again and it won't wash. If a player has to be on the team that drafted him, you can't count Eichel. If a player isn't a proper star unless he stays on the team that drafted him, you can't explain Eichel.



How you can't wrap your head around the fact that most teams drafting in the top two picks don't win championships is what astonishes me.

THERE IS NO GUARANTEE. NONE. Picking in the top 2 does not guarantee you a championship. Not picking in the top 2 does not guarantee that you don't win a championship. You are trying to set up a hard cause-and-effect relationship that simply does not exist.

IIRC, every team that has won the Stanley Cup since expansion has been an NHL team. Therefore, to win the cup, you need to be an NHL team. QED

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

St. Louis did it. Vegas did it. Detroit did it repeatedly. I AM NOT MAKING ANYTHING UP!!!!!!!! You just don't want to see it, because you want to see yourself as the guy who knows everything, unlike the idiots who actually run hockey teams.

Oh, and by the way, Eichel wasn't the big star on that Vegas team that just won the cup. The Conn Smythe trophy was won by a player who not only wasn't drafted in the top 2, but WAS NEVER DRAFTED AT ALL. Try and fit that with your pet theory!

2 in 15. 2 in 15.

And one was an expansion team.

Guess the Flames should either become an expansion, or pray Wolf has one time Binnington type run!

Great plan. Do you work for the Flames

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

St. Louis did it. Vegas did it. Detroit did it repeatedly. I AM NOT MAKING ANYTHING UP!!!!!!!! You just don't want to see it, because you want to see yourself as the guy who knows everything, unlike the idiots who actually run hockey teams.

Oh, and by the way, Eichel wasn't the big star on that Vegas team that just won the cup. The Conn Smythe trophy was won by a player who not only wasn't drafted in the top 2, but WAS NEVER DRAFTED AT ALL. Try and fit that with your pet theory!

Are we going back to Detroit in a different era Capwise?

Vegas a unique team because of the expansion draft?

St. Louis didn't do it differently, they had their own top 5 draft pick in their team.

Edit: Eichel was the leading scorer in the regular season and play-offs, how is that not a big star?

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

But there arent a lot of different ways. You are just making that part up! Please tell me the different way? You keep preaching the different way. Enlighten me! Let me know the blueprint to win a Stanley Cup since the cap era that didnt involve drafting a 1st or 2nd overall franchise player?

There's one team - St.L. And they were in last in the NHL until the greatest goalie streak since Kipper. One team in the cap era. One.

The way you win is draft a franchise player 1st or 2nd overall

Detroit in 2008 doesn't count?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

2 in 15. 2 in 15.

And one was an expansion team.

Now run the numbers. How many teams that did NOT win the Stanley Cup also fit your criteria? Most of them!!!!!!!!

Do you even know what the word ‘correlation’ means?

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Buff

Detroit in 2008 doesn't count?

They shouldn't.

But how far back are we going to go? That Detroit Red Wings team was built in an NHL that is much different from what we have now. The core of Datsyuk, Lidstrom, Zetterberg was drafted at a time when teams did not do the same level of scouting in Europe as they did now. Do you think it is likely or even possible a team is getting that level of players now?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

How you can't wrap your head around the fact that most teams drafting in the top two picks don't win championships is what astonishes me.

I dont think you understand what a blueprint for success means.

It doesn't mean every team that follows it wins. It means if you don't follow it, you very rarely win.

The blueprint to win a marathon includes eating healthy, training, and hydrating. But everyone who does that doesn't win a Marathon. One person does.

Does that mean your shouldn't do those things if you are trying to win the Marathon because "Lots of people do and still don't win"

Thats your argument that makes no sense - Of course everyone who draft's in the top 2 wont win the cup. Its mathematically impossible.

But without a drafted top 2 players your chances are 6% unless you are an expansion team who has the only top 2 drafted player deamand a trade, in which case its 12%.

Two teams. Out of the last 15. Play those odds if you want.

[Spurs]

Are other fans this delusional when it comes to their teams that they will ignore clear facts to defend the terrible approach, that has clearly been shown not to work, that their team has taken and justify staying mediocre?

[Fuzzy14]

2 out of the last 15 didn't draft in the top 2 isn't a ringing endorsement for the "you don't need to draft high to win a cup" reasoning. Especially when 1 of the 2 happened to trade for a top 2 pick, and that was a pretty unique situation that isn't exactly easy to repeat...

If you go back to the lockout in 05, I think Detroit, LA and Boston are the only teams that didn't have a player on their roster drafted Top 2? And in the case of Boston and Detroit, they both have players who would arguably go top 3 or 4 in a redraft in Datsyuk and Bergeron? Edit: Forgot about Seguin.

So ultimately, is it a requirement? No. And looking at the prior 1st and second overall picks, it isn't a guarantee. Buutttttt it helps?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Are we going back to Detroit in a different era Capwise?

Was there no cap in 2008?

Vegas a unique team because of the expansion draft?

You don't get to say ‘YOU CAN ONLY EVER POSSIBLY WIN THIS WAY,’ and then just dismiss the exceptions.

St. Louis didn't do it differently, they had their own top 5 draft pick in their team.

So has every other team. That's the point!!!!!!!

Edit: Eichel was the leading scorer in the regular season and play-offs, how is that not a big star?

He wasn't THE big star, or he would have won the Conn Smythe. Jason14h's damn fool theory does not allow for the existence of players like Marchessault.

I repeat: He is not saying that you need elite talent to win the Stanley Cup. He is saying that it ONLY counts as elite talent if you draft it with the TOP TWO PICKS. And then he ignores all the top-two picks that never won anything, and the teams that won the Cup without having top-two picks. His entire argument is totally illogical, and it comes from ignoring this bit which I posted earlier:

An awful lot of people seem fixated on Cup winners. They look at a winning team and ask, ‘How can we build a team just like this?’ Instead they should be looking at them alongside all the other teams and ask, ‘What made the winners different from the rest?’

Jason14h hasn't pointed out anything that SEPARATES winners from non-winners. There are winners in the small group of teams that don't meet his criteria. There are many, many losers in the large group of teams that do. His analysis does not account for the facts. This is what is known in highly technical language as ‘being wrong’.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Are other fans this delusional when it comes to their teams that they will ignore clear facts to defend the terrible approach, that has clearly been shown not to work, that their team has taken and justify staying mediocre?

Nobody is defending the Flames here. Nobody. We're taking issue with a particularly lazy and stupid take on what makes a team win the Stanley Cup.