Can the Flames become a contender without tanking?

[442scotty]

Absolutely. Years from now people will talk about the Conroy method.

[Goriders]

Reality is chances are you are not going to win the cup even if you do have top draft picks. Stanley Cup is the hardest championship to win.

[Bingo]

I think there is a lot of forest for the trees in how some fans view this stuff.

Hockey is a very random sport, and sometimes you get more than the sum of your parts.

The Flames built this team to not compete this year, but the players pushed back and here they are. Lots of season to play lets see where it goes.

Last year there were many saying "see they're not going to suck" through January only to end up top ten and draft Parekh (shed UFAs)

This year they may miss that fall. Or maybe the Zary injury starts a wave that has them drafting top ten again.

Make good decisions. That's all you can control. They've been on a 20 month run of good decisions, in my mind, so I don't see the point in worrying about this on a daily basis. The head of the snake is doing the right thing.

[Vinny01]

People have different opinions on what tanking is. The last time the flames did a rebuild they picked in the top 6 of the draft 3x.

Had Treliving not butchered that team and keep the core of Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Bennett, Monahan, Lindholm, Hanifin together I think this team is still pushing for division titles and would be a contender.

It could be flipped to ask if the flames can become a contender by tanking? I guess it would make more sense to put a timeline on that because the Oilers became a contender but also drafted in the top 10 11x in 13 seasons. Buffalo has picking top 10 since 2013. There is a chance the Flames go into tank mode and fail to come out like so many teams have tried to do recently.

[Wastedyouth]

No.

[Roof-Daddy]

Of course they can. They need to draft and develop elite players, and you can do that from any part of the draft. The higher you draft, the more likely you find those elite players, but you can find them without it.

They key is having an overabundance of picks. The more you have, the more mud you can throw at the wall.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Players I think you've missed:
2019:
HM: Seider(6), Boldy(12), Caufield(15), Harley(18), Wolf(214)
2018: Svechnikov(2), Bouchard(10), Dobson(12), Marchenko(49).
2017: Heiskanen(2), Necas(12)
HM: Suzuki(13), Oettinger(26), Swayman(111), Batherson(121)
2016: Keller(7), McAvoy(14), Thompson(26), Fox(66), Bratt(162)
HM: Laine(2), Sergachev(9), Chychrun(16), Kyrou(35), DeBrincat(39)
2015: K. Connor(17)
HM: Hintz(49), Strome(3), Werenski(8), Barzal(16), Konecny(24), Terry(148)
2014: Ekblad(1), Demko(36), Toews(108), Shesterkin(118),
HM: Fiala(11), Larkin(15), Tuch(18), Montour(55), Sorokin(78), Forsling(126)

I'll stop here. As you mentioned, what makes a franchise player is subjective, but a lot of D and G get ignored because they don't put up points. Moreover, even the 2018, and 2019 drafts will have players breakout and become stars, like Marchenko and Wolf this year.

Finally, there's still a lot of quality top-pair, all-star quality players that might not fit the definition of a franchise player. They can certainly be found later in the draft.

Some of those guys I considered and could add in but I think a bunch of the players you listed are good but not franchise. Franchise I feel like has to be the top 1 or 2 on the team that drives the team. Thomas Harley for example isn't that. Patrick Laine isn't that. Chychrun, Debrincat, Sergachev, etc.

At the end of the day I'm curious to try and figure out what actually is the likelihood we find out franchise players later on the draft. Other names mentioned like Iginla or Nieuwendyk could be considered but then you have to add all the extra players who were also drafted in those years to find the real numbers. I didn't add in goalies which I probably should have but goalie feels a position you can fill easier not using the draft. A number one D or C likely needs to come through the draft.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Fans rooting for tanking is one of the most negative trends in sports. I get it the reasons why, but something if fundamentally broken when fans are upset that their team tried to win (e.g. Patriots last win of the season).
Which is why I favor doing something dramatic to increase the randomization of the lottery even further (for non playoff teams) or using reverse standings of some sort (e.g. based on point percentage after teams have been eliminated).
Do something to take tanking off the table as a possible tactic.

[just_tim]

Here’s the list of Number One overall NHL draft picks who have gone on to win the Stanley Cup:
- Guy Lafleur (1971 - Montreal Canadiens) Stanley Cups: 5 (1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979)
- Mario Lemieux (1984 - Pittsburgh Penguins) Stanley Cups: 2 (1991, 1992)
- Patrick Kane (2007 - Chicago Blackhawks) Stanley Cups: 3 (2010, 2013, 2015)
- Alex Ovechkin (2004 - Washington Capitals) Stanley Cup: 1 (2018)
- Sidney Crosby (2005 - Pittsburgh Penguins) Stanley Cups: 3 (2009, 2016, 2017)

That’s 14 cups shared by 5 players over 53 years. It’s a simplified way to illustrates that drafting high is in no way a guaranteed way to build.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Fans rooting for tanking is one of the most negative trends in sports. I get it the reasons why, but something if fundamentally broken when fans are upset that their team tried to win (e.g. Patriots last win of the season).
Which is why I favor doing something dramatic to increase the randomization of the lottery even further (for non playoff teams) or using reverse standings of some sort (e.g. based on point percentage after teams have been eliminated).
Do something to take tanking off the table as a possible tactic.

I go back and forth on that one. The NHL has pretty high parity so a bad team shouldn’t be stuck forever but it would sure suck to finish bottom 5 multiple times in a row and miss on high picks.

[BoLevi]

Aren't the stats wildly in favour of a team needing at least one top three drsfted players on their team to win a cup?

Since those are hard to get via trade or even UFA without being busts already, then your chances of winning without I've are basically zero. (With one, your chances are merely just very very low).

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Which is why I favor doing something dramatic to increase the randomization of the lottery even further (for non playoff teams) or using reverse standings of some sort (e.g. based on point percentage after teams have been eliminated).

Them you basically have the best non-playoff teams with the best draft picks.

It will be the death of small market teams, as they are the teams that will routinely fall to the bottom of the standings, especially if they aren't going to get the best chances of draft picks.

And a team gets eliminates with one game to go in the year, and wins their next game, gets rewarded with the best draft pick?

The point of the draft is to give the worse teams the best chance of getting better. The lottery is to take the certainty of the order away to some extent, but it's always in the best interest of the NHL to give the worse teams the best odds.

[Enoch Root]

You can add Gretzky to that list, and the numbers would be 6 guys winning 19 cups in 53 years. Same argument, just trying to be fair about it.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by just_tim

Here’s the list of Number One overall NHL draft picks who have gone on to win the Stanley Cup:
- Guy Lafleur (1971 - Montreal Canadiens) Stanley Cups: 5 (1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979)
- Mario Lemieux (1984 - Pittsburgh Penguins) Stanley Cups: 2 (1991, 1992)
- Patrick Kane (2007 - Chicago Blackhawks) Stanley Cups: 3 (2010, 2013, 2015)
- Alex Ovechkin (2004 - Washington Capitals) Stanley Cup: 1 (2018)
- Sidney Crosby (2005 - Pittsburgh Penguins) Stanley Cups: 3 (2009, 2016, 2017)

That’s 14 cups shared by 5 players over 53 years. It’s a simplified way to illustrates that drafting high is in no way a guaranteed way to build.

Nothing guaranteed, but those odds are better than those teams that draft 20th I assume.

Posters here against tanking can find all sorts of reasons why tanking guarantees nothing. But drafting in the middle guarantees even less.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Nothing guaranteed, but those odds are better than those teams that draft 20th I assume.

Posters here against tanking can find all sorts of reasons why tanking guarantees nothing. But drafting in the middle guarantees even less.

No one is arguing differently.

But as Bingo said, all you can do is control what you can control. The most efficient path to success (building a contender) is to draft well, develop well, and manage your assets well. And that is all you can control.

And hope to get lucky (because you need that too).

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No one is arguing differently.

But as Bingo said, all you can do is control what you can control. The most efficient path to success (building a contender) is to draft well, develop well, and manage your assets well. And that is all you can control.

And hope to get lucky (because you need that too).

You may not be, but many others see it differently.

[The Yen Man]

I mean, Flames were a disallowed goal in 2004 in proving you can, and Oilers (puke) a Dwayne Roloson injury away from proving you can in 2006. So yah, you can win without tanking for a top 5 pick. Just need a bit of luck (in drafting a high end player outside of top 5, which history has shown, is not a big a leap), and the sum of all your parts coming together.

[Rhett44]

It is nearly impossible to win a cup without tanking. I cannot even name a recent cup winner that didn't have at least one top 4 pick.

You can say some of it is random and that you cannot ask the players to tank. While this is true, the current trajectory has us not on track to be a contender any time soon. Unless we start losing.

[Braden]

Originally Posted by just_tim

Here’s the list of Number One overall NHL draft picks who have gone on to win the Stanley Cup:
- Guy Lafleur (1971 - Montreal Canadiens) Stanley Cups: 5 (1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979)
- Mario Lemieux (1984 - Pittsburgh Penguins) Stanley Cups: 2 (1991, 1992)
- Patrick Kane (2007 - Chicago Blackhawks) Stanley Cups: 3 (2010, 2013, 2015)
- Alex Ovechkin (2004 - Washington Capitals) Stanley Cup: 1 (2018)
- Sidney Crosby (2005 - Pittsburgh Penguins) Stanley Cups: 3 (2009, 2016, 2017)

That’s 14 cups shared by 5 players over 53 years. It’s a simplified way to illustrates that drafting high is in no way a guaranteed way to build.

Where did you come up with this list?

Your just going to ignore Marc-André Fleury, Steven Stamkos, Nathan McKinnon? And that's just off the top of my head... I'm sure there's more If you were that thorough.

[Enoch Root]

As for the list of players in the OP, the question I would pose is: how many of that caliber of player do you need?

VAN has 3, TOR has 4 - are they contenders? Of the top 4 teams in the standings right now, VGS has 3, but WSH has 2 and WPG and MIN each have 1. Are they not contenders?

I would argue that CGY almost certainly has 1 (Wolf), and maybe has another (Parekh). There is always a chance that one of the other prospects becomes a star, but it is impossible to quantify that. So how many more do they need? What is the magic number?

There isn't one. You have to build a good TEAM. And the cap is always your enemy in that regard. And Canadian teams have an additional enemy.