Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 90

Thread: In a Copy Cat League, What Does Vegas and Washington Mean for the Rangers?

  1. #41
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,542
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    Meh, but on the other hand you have the Rangers whom didn't have top tier draft picks and have been the more successful team in the playoffs over that same time period. One of those bounces or inches and the Rangers have a cup or 2.

    Are there any teams NOT built or building around top tier draft picks? Who's disputing that you need to draft or trade good?
    Yes, the Rangers came within 3 wins of it being 10 of 13 Cup winners sucking the suck to win a championship rather than 11 of 13. It's probably part of the math, to be honest. The vast majority of teams that don't suck to build a championship only get a couple of real contention shots each before they end up with the overpriced, aging free agent signings who are a drag on their cap. When you combine those kind of teams all together, you'll get a stray Cup. But then when you look at the teams that do...I know some people hate the word tank, but those teams, they get 5, 6 or 7 solid contention seasons or more over a 20 year span. They're going to win more Cups as a group. And it's not theory. It's fact.

    And every season another few teams get those top draft picks. And they are getting a good shot at a player who will be a superstar in the league, who they'll get for their peak years and some of those at a reduced cost. When they do that for a few years in a row, now they can end up with a few star players, and maybe a generational talent, to build their team around. After that, you need good drafting in later spots and rounds, you need the right free agent signings, some deadline deal trades. Good coaching. Good goaltending. And then you get your 6 or 7 shots over the course of those star players' top years.
    “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― Neil Gaiman,

  2. #42
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,542
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Yea, except this isn't that.

    You guys also drone on about tanking a majority of teams who got top 3 picks just legitimately sucked and we're trying to. You think Chicago was trying to be bad to get Toews and Kane?

    I guess you get to have your spin when it helps you, but you're quick on the trigger when someone else points out the flaw in your board-adopted air-tight logic.

    Detroit was competitive for years with a core of late round picks. 5 posts down you talk about the most kicks at the can being what's important. Make up your mind.
    They weren't trying to lose. The players didn't step out on the ice to lose. The coaches didn't coach to lose. Management stripped the teams to the bones so that they simply couldn't be competitive. If you want to see teams that legitimately sucked without management orchestrating that, you'll find Carolina, Florida and Arizona as examples. There, ownership and management were just plain bad, and those teams continue to pay the price.

    Look back at the Chicago and Penguins rosters in the seasons they sucked. It's a who's who of who? That's intentional.
    “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― Neil Gaiman,

  3. #43
    If you ain't first, you're last! BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    84,331
    Rep Power
    404

    In a Copy Cat League, What Does Vegas and Washington Mean for the Rangers?

    This an issue of terminology. Substitute tank for something less deliberate and there's less of an issue IMO.

    Call it strategically losing. Delayed success/winning. Whatever. There's no arguing with the math, is the point that matters. For the highest odds/probability, you need to be bad to be good.


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  4. #44
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    75,435
    Rep Power
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    They weren't trying to lose. The players didn't step out on the ice to lose. The coaches didn't coach to lose. Management stripped the teams to the bones so that they simply couldn't be competitive. If you want to see teams that legitimately sucked without management orchestrating that, you'll find Carolina, Florida and Arizona as examples. There, ownership and management were just plain bad, and those teams continue to pay the price.

    Look back at the Chicago and Penguins rosters in the seasons they sucked. It's a who's who of who? That's intentional.
    I'm sorry but Chicago specifically did not have some Grand Master plan to be bad in order to be good one day. They had a shit owner...just like the Mets today.

    Pittsburgh was more calculated but they're the real anomaly.

    I don't even believe what's happening in Edmonton is intentional. They should have been good by now. They have awful leadership. Same with Colorado.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,948
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    Yes, the Rangers came within 3 wins of it being 10 of 13 Cup winners sucking the suck to win a championship rather than 11 of 13. It's probably part of the math, to be honest. The vast majority of teams that don't suck to build a championship only get a couple of real contention shots each before they end up with the overpriced, aging free agent signings who are a drag on their cap. When you combine those kind of teams all together, you'll get a stray Cup. But then when you look at the teams that do...I know some people hate the word tank, but those teams, they get 5, 6 or 7 solid contention seasons or more over a 20 year span. They're going to win more Cups as a group. And it's not theory. It's fact.

    And every season another few teams get those top draft picks. And they are getting a good shot at a player who will be a superstar in the league, who they'll get for their peak years and some of those at a reduced cost. When they do that for a few years in a row, now they can end up with a few star players, and maybe a generational talent, to build their team around. After that, you need good drafting in later spots and rounds, you need the right free agent signings, some deadline deal trades. Good coaching. Good goaltending. And then you get your 6 or 7 shots over the course of those star players' top years.
    Your math is extra flawed. You should consider that of those cups you're referring to, 8 were won by 3 teams. The success of Pitt, Chi, and LA is offset by the perpetual suckiness of Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, etc that have spent decades drafting in the top 10 and haven't won.

  6. #46
    If you ain't first, you're last! BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    84,331
    Rep Power
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    I'm sorry but Chicago specifically did not have some Grand Master plan to be bad in order to be good one day. They had a shit owner...just like the Mets today.

    Pittsburgh was more calculated but they're the real anomaly.

    I don't even believe what's happening in Edmonton is intentional. They should have been good by now. They have awful leadership. Same with Colorado.
    But these are ancillary factors. Poison in the well, if you will.

    I mean, fundamentally, do you not agree that multiple first-round picks, especially those at the top of the draft, dramatically increases your chances of landing game-breaking talent? And as a result, the more of it you have, the better you are on paper?
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  7. #47
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    75,435
    Rep Power
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    But these are ancillary factors. Poison in the well, if you will.

    I mean, fundamentally, do you not agree that multiple first-round picks, especially those at the top of the draft, dramatically increases your chances of landing game-breaking talent? And as a result, the more of it you have, the better you are on paper?
    There are as many examples of yes as no.

  8. #48
    If you ain't first, you're last! BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    84,331
    Rep Power
    404
    That aren't explained away by those extraneous factors? I can't think of one.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  9. #49
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    75,435
    Rep Power
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    That aren't explained away by those extraneous factors? I can't think of one.
    What extraneous factors? It takes more than picks. Shrewd picks, moves and development.

    When has this front office stole a pick? Or developed a stud? Or better homegrown players all spent very little time in our development system.

  10. #50
    If you ain't first, you're last! BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    84,331
    Rep Power
    404
    I don't want to speak for Dave, but I don't think either of us believes that.

    Of course, it takes more than just the picks. I agree. Edmonton, for example, is a prime example of why strong, progressive leadership is also a factor. But the picks are critical. They're the cake mix to the everything else being some variation of icing. Without it, you're making a really pretty cake-shaped batch of awful.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  11. #51
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    5,814
    Rep Power
    59

    In a Copy Cat League, What Does Vegas and Washington Mean for the Rangers?

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    Yes, the Rangers came within 3 wins of it being 10 of 13 Cup winners sucking the suck to win a championship rather than 11 of 13. It's probably part of the math, to be honest. The vast majority of teams that don't suck to build a championship only get a couple of real contention shots each before they end up with the overpriced, aging free agent signings who are a drag on their cap. When you combine those kind of teams all together, you'll get a stray Cup. But then when you look at the teams that do...I know some people hate the word tank, but those teams, they get 5, 6 or 7 solid contention seasons or more over a 20 year span. They're going to win more Cups as a group. And it's not theory. It's fact.

    And every season another few teams get those top draft picks. And they are getting a good shot at a player who will be a superstar in the league, who they'll get for their peak years and some of those at a reduced cost. When they do that for a few years in a row, now they can end up with a few star players, and maybe a generational talent, to build their team around. After that, you need good drafting in later spots and rounds, you need the right free agent signings, some deadline deal trades. Good coaching. Good goaltending. And then you get your 6 or 7 shots over the course of those star players' top years.
    If that were true, Edmonton, Arizona, Toronto, Carolina, Buffalo, Islandersand all the other teams that have sucked for the last decade would be in contention by now.

    It's really not some exact science of sucking and tanking to get generational talents. Do you trust this franchise to draft generational talents? Do you think they have the luck to get a #1 overall pick once never mind more than once? Maybe doing what they did the last 8 or so years is what works for them.

  12. #52
    Member Mite Division Rosenvold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    93
    Rep Power
    6
    Well, Washington is built around the same formula as Pittsburgh, Chicago etc., so no news there. The formula of having the best top players still works. It makes a big difference whether you have Kreider+Stepan or Ovechkin+Backstrom. It's still a matter of having the pointiest stick.

    What is REALLY interesting is that a team went to the Finals with the complete opposite roster set-up. Vegas has NO player paid more than 6 million and no defenseman paid more than 4 million.

    Of course, it could be said that it was exactly the most expensive players that put Washington above Vegas, but that's besides the point. Vegas got very, very close to winning the Cup with a star-less team (again - whether Fleury counts as a star or not is besides the point)

    This could be a new trend. Is it better to throw away your best players when their payday comes and build around outcasts from around the League? Could it be better to field four "middle-six" lines than a clear 1-2-3-4? That' the interesting discussion to have from here on.
    Last edited by Rosenvold; 06-12-2018 at 03:59 AM.

  13. #53
    Keep your fkin head up BSBH Veteran
    Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    30,043
    Rep Power
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenvold View Post
    Well, Washington is built around the same formula as Pittsburgh, Chicago etc., so no news there. The formula of having the best top players still works. It makes a big difference whether you have Kreider+Stepan or Ovechkin+Backstrom. It's still a matter of having the pointiest stick.

    What is REALLY interesting is that a team went to the Finals with the complete opposite roster set-up. Vegas has NO player paid more than 6 million and no defenseman paid more than 4 million.

    Of course, it could be said that it was exactly the most expensive players that put Washington above Vegas, but that's besides the point. Vegas got very, very close to winning the Cup with a star-less team (again - whether Fleury counts as a star or not is besides the point)

    This could be a new trend. Is it better to throw away your best players when their payday comes and build around outcasts from around the League? Could it be better to field four "middle-six" lines than a clear 1-2-3-4? That' the interesting discussion to have from here on.
    Vegas doesn’t have 4 middle six lines. They have 5 guys that are 4th liners on most teams. What they do have is a good coach that players trust, which goes a long way. However, you can’t keep asking Gallant to make whipped cream out of shit every season. They will need to add pieces.
    Hidden Content
    $1080 and counting

  14. #54
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Flynn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Down South
    Posts
    1,593
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Vegas doesn’t have 4 middle six lines. They have 5 guys that are 4th liners on most teams. What they do have is a good coach that players trust, which goes a long way. However, you can’t keep asking Gallant to make whipped cream out of shit every season. They will need to add pieces.
    Wouldn't shock me one bit if Vegas misses the playoffs next year. There will be turnover, the room changes from year to year, the level of trust vacillates.. They may look more like an expansion team next year than a returning cup finalist.

  15. #55
    If you ain't first, you're last! BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    84,331
    Rep Power
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenvold View Post
    Well, Washington is built around the same formula as Pittsburgh, Chicago etc., so no news there. The formula of having the best top players still works. It makes a big difference whether you have Kreider+Stepan or Ovechkin+Backstrom. It's still a matter of having the pointiest stick.

    What is REALLY interesting is that a team went to the Finals with the complete opposite roster set-up. Vegas has NO player paid more than 6 million and no defenseman paid more than 4 million.

    Of course, it could be said that it was exactly the most expensive players that put Washington above Vegas, but that's besides the point. Vegas got very, very close to winning the Cup with a star-less team (again - whether Fleury counts as a star or not is besides the point)

    This could be a new trend. Is it better to throw away your best players when their payday comes and build around outcasts from around the League? Could it be better to field four "middle-six" lines than a clear 1-2-3-4? That' the interesting discussion to have from here on.
    What trend? Only sign castoffs to one-year deals and trade for RFAs with one year on their deal so everyone is playing for a contract? Yeah, that's not happening.


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  16. #56
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,542
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    Your math is extra flawed. You should consider that of those cups you're referring to, 8 were won by 3 teams. The success of Pitt, Chi, and LA is offset by the perpetual suckiness of Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, etc that have spent decades drafting in the top 10 and haven't won.
    How is winning multiple Cups a flaw? It proves just how effective drafting multiple star/superstar players at the top of the draft sets those teams far above the rest. As to your list of teams that were perpetually terrible, you're right to a degree. Simply drafting top players isn't enough. It's step one. You have to take the additional steps of bringing in the right UFAs, trades and coaching. To your list, though:

    Arizona - Just never got the 1st or 2nd picks they needed. They got a 3rd overall in 2007 (Kyle Turris) and series of picks between 6 and 13. Couple competitive seasons. Then some bubble finishes and then 3rd overall again in 2015 (Dylan Strome). They didn't suck hard enough, basically.

    Carolina won the Cup in 2006 with Eric Staal (2nd), Andrew Ladd (4th) and Jack Johnson (3rd). Since then, they've been similar to Arizona. 5th overall picks were the highest they managed.

    Buffalo and Edmonton - These are the cautionary tale. You have to have good management and coaching. There are no gaurantees.

    Ottawa. Not even the same conversation. Highest they've picked since the lockout is 6th (Zibanejad).

    Winnipeg - They're just coming out of the process. Laine was picked 2nd overall in 2016. Before that they had a couple top 10 picks.
    “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― Neil Gaiman,

  17. #57
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,542
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    There are as many examples of yes as no.
    There are two methods to build a contender since the lockout.

    Suck and draft multiple top picks, then manage and coach well.

    Manage and coach well.

    I would argue that yes, both can produce a championship as we've seen. One has produced 11 of the last 13. The other has produced 2 of the last 13.

    So yes, there are examples of sucking for picks not working.

    There are many, many more examples of just trying to build a championship without sucking that haven't worked.
    “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― Neil Gaiman,

  18. #58
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,542
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    If that were true, Edmonton, Arizona, Toronto, Carolina, Buffalo, Islandersand all the other teams that have sucked for the last decade would be in contention by now.

    It's really not some exact science of sucking and tanking to get generational talents. Do you trust this franchise to draft generational talents? Do you think they have the luck to get a #1 overall pick once never mind more than once? Maybe doing what they did the last 8 or so years is what works for them.
    As I explained above, it's not a Do this and 100% you will win a Cup. What I'm saying is that do this and the chance you can win a cup (or more than one) dramatically increases. And the evidence (11 of 13 Cup wins) kind of shows that's the case.
    “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― Neil Gaiman,

  19. #59
    Senior Member Midget Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,667
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Vegas doesn’t have 4 middle six lines. They have 5 guys that are 4th liners on most teams. What they do have is a good coach that players trust, which goes a long way. However, you can’t keep asking Gallant to make whipped cream out of shit every season. They will need to add pieces.
    I agree in parts about your take on Vegas, but throughout the year many "experts" consistently pointed out that Vegas was fielding one of the best top lines in the league. And that did not change throughout the playoff, even against Schiefele/Wheeler/Connor, until the Caps series. Until then, Marchessault was on fire playing like Martin St Louis in his prime. He was excellent in Florida too. He was a Conn Smythe leader until the Finals. Carlsson surprised everyone, but played like a top liner and Smith has continued to improve and meshed well.

    Then they had Neal, still an excellent 2nd liner with Tuch, a real up and comer and they had a quality second line. Great depth throughout, as good 4th liners sat in the pressbox. Theodore, Schmidt and Miller are way underrated simply because they are young. But they're real talents and would easily grab top pair status on our club. Fluery is terrific, they were healthy, motivated and well-coached. Young, fast and energetic too.

    I have managed to stay out of this thread because this discussion gets too formulaic based on small sample sizes in an ever evolving game. Even the rules change, there wasn't a lottery a few years back and it keeps getting more watered down to the point that even a winless team could easily end up at #4.

    Besides winning it all is tough and it takes a confluence of things to go well. Sure it is all about talent. Sure the higher, more and better picks provide more chance at talent across the board. Sure good mgmt maximizes talent and the roster construction. Development and coaching is key. Then you have contracts and injuries and sophomore slumps and assorted others obstacles competitive teams throw at you every series, including the best players in the world making great plays. Everybody loses except one.

  20. #60
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,948
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    How is winning multiple Cups a flaw? It proves just how effective drafting multiple star/superstar players at the top of the draft sets those teams far above the rest. As to your list of teams that were perpetually terrible, you're right to a degree. Simply drafting top players isn't enough. It's step one. You have to take the additional steps of bringing in the right UFAs, trades and coaching. To your list, though:

    Arizona - Just never got the 1st or 2nd picks they needed. They got a 3rd overall in 2007 (Kyle Turris) and series of picks between 6 and 13. Couple competitive seasons. Then some bubble finishes and then 3rd overall again in 2015 (Dylan Strome). They didn't suck hard enough, basically.

    Carolina won the Cup in 2006 with Eric Staal (2nd), Andrew Ladd (4th) and Jack Johnson (3rd). Since then, they've been similar to Arizona. 5th overall picks were the highest they managed.

    Buffalo and Edmonton - These are the cautionary tale. You have to have good management and coaching. There are no gaurantees.

    Ottawa. Not even the same conversation. Highest they've picked since the lockout is 6th (Zibanejad).

    Winnipeg - They're just coming out of the process. Laine was picked 2nd overall in 2016. Before that they had a couple top 10 picks.
    Because when you continually say 10 out of 13 cup winners, you sell it as 10 different teams sucked to win. It wasn't 10 teams. It was 3.

    Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •