That strengthens his argument, dude. Ten different winners would at least show parity. The fact three teams won multiple only makes the argument for tanking/acquiring top-of-the-draft talent even better.Originally Posted by Long live the King
That strengthens his argument, dude. Ten different winners would at least show parity. The fact three teams won multiple only makes the argument for tanking/acquiring top-of-the-draft talent even better.
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
I see it as the opposite. 10 winners would mean Florida, Edmonton, Buffalo, Arizona, and all the other teams that drafted in the top 10 for decades all had cups. But they don't. Because sucking and drafting high doesn't equal cups.
I've posted the research before. Outside of Pitt who were lucky enough to suck when Crosby and Malkin came into the league, all these teams sucked for 10, 15+ years before finally finding 1 or 2 guys able to carry them out of the gutter. It's unrealistic to think that 2-3 years of high picks will magically turn you into a cup winner.
Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk
I expect Vegas to be more like an ordinary team next year with a mix of overachievers and underachievers. The addition of some expensive UFAs may change the chemistry, and Gallant's koolaid may wear off a bit on the returnees. Every player on that team entered the year with his career on the line. Next year, not so much. I do have to say, the positional play of that team was fabulous, and Gallant can take credit. In all those situations where I was accustomed to no Ranger appearing and the opposition taking possession, a Golden Knight would inevitably appear!
Several posters have talked about Detroit winning with lower round picks. The league as a whole was not that proficient in scouting Europe in general and the Eastern Bloc in particular back then. Detroit was ahead on the learning curve there. That has changed.
What I was hoping to figure out how to say. This exactly.
My take away is here
When have we ever drafted a top and generational talent in the high end first round
I think Edmonton truly expected to be a lot more successful now than they actually are
Pete’s right they’ve done a terrible job with top in drafts in the past 20 years
I wish our pic was higher than nine but I’m willing to give Gorton a crack at this thing
It would be killer if we could draft a generational talent at number nine this year because I’ve never seen it
Acqua in bocca
EDM shouldn't be an argument in this discussion because of how bad Chiarelli has ran things over there. You got to have high draft picks with good mgmt and coaching. No need in picking first overall when you trade him for an average D.
Since the lockout, there have been 13 seasons. The cup winners were: Carolina, Anaheim, Detroit, Pittsburgh (3), Chicago (3), Boston, Los Angeles (2) and Washington. Boston and Detroit won by "not tanking first". The other 6 franchises account for 11 Cup wins. So for clarity, 2 out of 8 franchises won at least one Stanley Cup without tanking, 6 of 8 franchises won the cup in part by tanking. 2 of 13 championships without tanking, 11 of 13 with tanking.
Are we OK with that as a framework for the debate?
“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,
I would make a distinction between "sucking and drafting high" and tanking, which I take to mean falling to the absolute bottom of the league and staying out of the playoffs for at least a few additional seasons. The non-cup winners who have had a significant amount of time to build a championship after hitting rock bottom but have utterly failed so far I would argue only includes Buffalo and Edmonton. Toronto, Winnipeg and perhaps Montreal I would say are "on the clock" to compete.
Also, as I've said repeatedly, tanking is NOT a magic bullet. It's just the best way to get the high end talent in their prime to be competitive. It's not the only way (Detroit and Boston) and does not replace the need for good management, coaching and some luck (Edmonton, Buffalo).
“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,
What teams do you consider the ones that "tanked"?
Exactly. I don't consider the Ducks as winning because they tanked. They were lead by players they didn't draft in the regular season. In the playoffs, Getzlaf (19) and Perry (28) played well, but those aren't tank picks. Also they won due to Giggy's unreal play in net.
Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk
I think this finals proved there is no "recipe" for success. Washington has a generational talent but he was draft 14 years ago. I don't think that bolsters the idea that tanking is necessary. So much has changed in that time, including the league itself. They failed multiple times and achieved it in perhaps their most unlikely season in the last decade.
Vegas on the other hand is made up of bums. People other teams literally GAVE away.
If tanking was the only path to success, Edmonton, Phx, Buffalo and the perennial bottom-dwellers would be cup favorites. And people say, well they have bad management, so they don't count. Of course they count. There are multiple ways to be successful but ultimately to win you need to be lucky. You need players like DSP to have the playoff of a lifetime. You need your best players to stay healthy and perform at a high level. You need grit. You need good coaching and sometimes you need the other team to fold.
I guess what I'm saying is that the league shouldn't be a copy-cat league at all. Nobody could have predicted this.
GORTON 2020
Definitely. Lead, don't follow. Follow your own path, there are many roads to success.
Further, do all the fundamentals well. Build a well-managed organization. Surround yourself with the best subject-matter experts. Find better talent than your peers. Develop talent, maximize chemistry and coaching. Pay attention to the details, gain every competitive edge. Remember the game is evolving and everyone is improving.
Washington tanked, got Ovi, and BAM .... 14 years later it’s a Stanley Cup. Doubt that was the plan.
Hidden Content
$1080 and counting
Yet without him, BAM, they're not winning.
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
Impossible to prove.
Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk
Sure but I don't think you can call a 14 year process a successful game plan. Every single thing about that team is different, including the guy who drafted him.
If the Oilers win in 13 years are we really going to say, "See! All you have to do is tank!"
GORTON 2020
Agreed, there’s absolutely no way to prove that.
Are we really going to try and debate that the Caps would have won without the Conn Smythe Winner?
Some things we just have to admit that "I don't know it for a fact, but I know it's true."
Not what I'm saying. Sure that's true for this year. Replace Ovi with someone else maybe they win multiple cups in the past 10 years. There's no way of knowing what would have happened if they had moved on from Ovi.
Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk
You're right. I'll rephrase:
Yet without him, BAM, they're probably not winning. You know, Conn Smythe, playoff scoring leader and all.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote