What factors made Florida two time Stanley Cup Champions?

[Camronius]

I'd be interested to explore player pedigree and age as it relates to cup runs and success.

I look at Colorado when they won the cup. Colorado had 12 former first round players on their cup winning team. Florida had 9 each year. To extend it slightly further each team's complementary players also had some high 2nd rounders.

It would be interesting to see if this theory could be challenged by teams that have been significantly unsuccessful with a high level of player pedigree. Or perhaps just an understanding that most teams are made up of a significant amount of former first rounders (is this just the standard makeup?)

The LA Kings 2013-14 cup run also had 10 former 1st rounders on their team, with several high second rounders as well.

Washing had 12 for their cup run in 2017/2018.

Edmonton has been really close to the cup two years in a row with 10 first rounders.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Camronius

I'd be interested to explore player pedigree and age as it relates to cup runs and success.

I look at Colorado when they won the cup. Colorado had 12 former first round players on their cup winning team. Florida had 9 each year. To extend it slightly further each team's complementary players also had some high 2nd rounders.

It would be interesting to see if this theory could be challenged by teams that have been significantly unsuccessful with a high level of player pedigree. Or perhaps just an understanding that most teams are made up of a significant amount of former first rounders (is this just the standard makeup?)

The LA Kings 2013-14 cup run also had 10 former 1st rounders on their team, with several high second rounders as well.

Washing had 12 for their cup run in 2017/2018.

Edmonton has been really close to the cup two years in a row with 10 first rounders.

No you can't learn anything from counting former 1st round picks. The gap in value between 2nd overall and 22nd overall is enormous! This is why people break it down into top 3s top 5s and top 10s . The difference between a mid to late 1st and an early 2nd is a matter of which team is making the selections as many scouts have varying lists.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Camronius

I'd be interested to explore player pedigree and age as it relates to cup runs and success.

I look at Colorado when they won the cup. Colorado had 12 former first round players on their cup winning team. Florida had 9 each year. To extend it slightly further each team's complementary players also had some high 2nd rounders.

It would be interesting to see if this theory could be challenged by teams that have been significantly unsuccessful with a high level of player pedigree. Or perhaps just an understanding that most teams are made up of a significant amount of former first rounders (is this just the standard makeup?)

The LA Kings 2013-14 cup run also had 10 former 1st rounders on their team, with several high second rounders as well.

Washing had 12 for their cup run in 2017/2018.

Edmonton has been really close to the cup two years in a row with 10 first rounders.

I think it needs to broken down further into where in the 1st round because like you suggested, most teams have a lot of 1st rounder on them.

Take the 2013 draft for example, the one where Florida changed their fortunes by getting a franchise center at 2nd OA. The centers drafted in the 1st round are:

1. MacKinnon
2. Barkov
-----
5. Lindholm
6. Monahan
-----
12. Domi
14. Wennberg
-----
17. Lazar
21. Gauthier
25. McCarron
27. Dano
29. Dickinson


There are some pretty steep drop-offs after each tier. Where would Colorado and Florida be if instead of MacKinnon and Barkov, they drafted Lindholm and Monahan respectively? Both fine players and worth their draft pedigree, but not franchise level players that carry a team. Sure both teams made subsequent moves that pushed them over, but those picks definitely gave them the foundation to make those moves.

Every draft is a little different, but generally speaking the tiers follow more or less the same trend. Of course, franchise level players might not be available every draft either, so you may need a few shots to get such a player.

You can also look at the 2014 draft where Florida got their franchise defenseman 1st OA. There were a lot of misses outside of the top 3 or 4. A few points in the standings and slightly different lottery odds, and the fate of the franchise would be a lot different. The drop off from defensemen went from Ekblad to Fleury, Honka, Sanheim, and DeAngelo.

[curves2000]

American vs Canadian aggressiveness in sports and business. This is evident everywhere and can be seen in ownership groups in the NHL between the 2 countries and amongst businesses across the board.

When Jeff Vinick bought the Lightening for dirt cheap in 2010, he looked at the situation with Stamkos, the arena, city, tax advantages and more and was perplexed at a single Cup victory against some cinderella Flames team back in 2004. He got to work and hired Steve Yzerman and has gone on to an embarrassing amount of winning in regular season, post season series wins, multiple final appearances and back to back cups.

His buddy in Vinny Viola looked down the road a few hundred miles away and got jealous with his sad, dying NHL club and tried to copy the formula with the Panthers. When your a billionaire male that is accustomed to getting what you want, motivation is a driving factor. I am convinced one of the reason why Canadian NHL teams haven't won in decades is because nobody is looking at the other guy with any sort of motivation or jealousy. There isn't the same level of aggressiveness.

[Jay Random]

There are basically two ways of becoming a billionaire: by taking risks in a new market, or by eliminating risk in an established market. American billionaires, by and large, tend to do it the first way. Every Canadian billionaire I can think of did it the second way. Neither the size of the Canadian market, nor the Canadian banking or legal system, nor the Canadian culture, encourage people to take risks on the scale required to build new businesses worth billions of dollars.

There's a reason why Elon Musk, after spending several years in Canada, chose the U.S. as the country in which to do business.

When your richest men got that way by avoiding risk, you can expect them to run their toy hockey teams in a similarly risk-averse manner.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There are basically two ways of becoming a billionaire: by taking risks in a new market, or by eliminating risk in an established market. American billionaires, by and large, tend to do it the first way. Every Canadian billionaire I can think of did it the second way. Neither the size of the Canadian market, nor the Canadian banking or legal system, nor the Canadian culture, encourage people to take risks on the scale required to build new businesses worth billions of dollars.

There's a reason why Elon Musk, after spending several years in Canada, chose the U.S. as the country in which to do business.

When your richest men got that way by avoiding risk, you can expect them to run their toy hockey teams in a similarly risk-averse manner.

I don't want to derail this thread, but he chose the US because the government gave him a ton of money. It's not exactly a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" kind of mentality there.

[Rhett44]

Look at how fast the Leafs fans turned on Marner. Why on earth would anyone want to play for a big Canadian market like that given all the tax and weather disadvantages as well.

[Shazam]

Musk went to U Penn, not sure he started any sort of business in Canada.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Pellanor

I ran into a member of the player development team on the weekend. One thing he said is that the team is going to have to be more patient than the fans like. They need to make sure they get the full potential out of the prospects we have, and not repeat the mistakes we made with Bennett.

Of course, it's the fans' fault. lol.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Of course, it's the fans' fault. lol.

Yeah such a wierd take. Bennett should have been playing top line center for us as early as his rookie year. What's the worse that would have happened, we had to draft Auston Matthews instead of Matthew Tkachuk? risk-averse patience is how you bury a guy down the lineup for half a decade. I sure hope we don't have to watch third pair parekh fizzle out. Would rather he be a -100 and just get better