A Shot at the Cup or a Shot at Lafreni?re?

If they lose to Carolina, they get some playoff experience and a chance at the number one pick. If they don't beat Carolina, they get even more playoff experience, but no chance at the number one pick. Since I don't see them winning the Cup, the playoff experience and a chance at the number one pick is a little more enticing. I mean, say they get to the third round and lose. Yeah, they get even more experience, and it's still a win of a season in my book, but they lose a chance at an excellent player. This team is still headed in the right direction, but considering where they still are, another top pick certainly wouldn't hurt.

So this was actually the impetus for the thread. The question isn't so much whether you want a 1st overall pick or a Cup. If you told me I would be GUARANTEED a Stanley Cup in exchange for forfeiting all first round picks for the next decade and having an average roster age of 35, I'd do it in a heartbeat. The Cup is the end that justifies all means.

This being said, likelihood and probability must be factored into the calculus. This is why I was so opposed to the MSL/Yandle/Staal trades. The "one last piece" myth can really screw you up if you're not as close as you think you are. And we all know losing on purpose isn't really an option here. It's not like the Rangers can choose to mail it in and pray for the draft lottery to go their way.

But this is uncharted territory. It's the Wild West of playoffs. There's no raucous Garden crowd, just as there are no blaring airhorns (still convinced that's piped in by the arena, by the way) followed by "Let's go Caps!" There is no home ice advantage, no momentum, and hell, you could even argue that experience is out the window too. Sure, Zdeno Chara knows what it takes to win more than Kakko does. Does that matter as much when literally nothing is the same as it normally is for playoff purposes?

The players will be counting on each other to get up for each match. They will feed their own momentum, not the crowd. This is why I don't necessarily agree with the assertion that if we get past Carolina (which is a big "if") we're dead in the water. There's nothing more dangerous than a team that believes in its own magic, and these playoffs were tailor-made for a Cinderella story. In my opinion, younger rosters have the edge here as it won't take them as long to get up to speed.

We were one of the hottest teams in the whole league going into the pause. It's not so much a matter of being better than the Bruins as it is a simple question of whether you believe, regardless of opponent, we are capable of winning 19 out of 33 possible games (57.58%). And for a team that I think went on a 16-6 run (I believe) after Shesterkin took over, anything is possible.

I think our chances are better now than they will be in even three years when the defense looks drastically different. The question is though, knowing that beating Carolina effectively eliminates the possibility of drafting another franchise player, do you think our chances of winning it all are greater than 12.5%? Shockingly, for me, who has always been a "glass half empty" kind of guy, the answer is yes.

So this was actually the impetus for the thread. The question isn't so much whether you want a 1st overall pick or a Cup. If you told me I would be GUARANTEED a Stanley Cup in exchange for forfeiting all first round picks for the next decade and having an average roster age of 35, I'd do it in a heartbeat. The Cup is the end that justifies all means.

 

This being said, likelihood and probability must be factored into the calculus. This is why I was so opposed to the MSL/Yandle/Staal trades. The "one last piece" myth can really screw you up if you're not as close as you think you are. And we all know losing on purpose isn't really an option here. It's not like the Rangers can choose to mail it in and pray for the draft lottery to go their way.

 

But this is uncharted territory. It's the Wild West of playoffs. There's no raucous Garden crowd, just as there are no blaring airhorns (still convinced that's piped in by the arena, by the way) followed by "Let's go Caps!" There is no home ice advantage, no momentum, and hell, you could even argue that experience is out the window too. Sure, Zdeno Chara knows what it takes to win more than Kakko does. Does that matter as much when literally nothing is the same as it normally is for playoff purposes?

 

The players will be counting on each other to get up for each match. They will feed their own momentum, not the crowd. This is why I don't necessarily agree with the assertion that if we get past Carolina (which is a big "if") we're dead in the water. There's nothing more dangerous than a team that believes in its own magic, and these playoffs were tailor-made for a Cinderella story. In my opinion, younger rosters have the edge here as it won't take them as long to get up to speed.

 

We were one of the hottest teams in the whole league going into the pause. It's not so much a matter of being better than the Bruins as it is a simple question of whether you believe, regardless of opponent, we are capable of winning 19 out of 33 possible games (57.58%). And for a team that I think went on a 16-6 run (I believe) after Shesterkin took over, anything is possible.

 

I think our chances are better now than they will be in even three years when the defense looks drastically different. The question is though, knowing that beating Carolina effectively eliminates the possibility of drafting another franchise player, do you think our chances of winning it all are greater than 12.5%? Shockingly, for me, who has always been a "glass half empty" kind of guy, the answer is yes.

This is about right, though I disagree with our chances being better now than later. We might have salary issues coming up - but now every team does. The hard cap combined with the minimized flexibility likely opens more doors for us than it closes - somewhat paradoxically. It imposes some ceilings that wouldn't have existed and creates some interesting trade dynamics. A story for another thread, perhaps.

I'm thinking this through as follows:

If we beat Carolina, awesome. I'm glad we got Zibanejad, Kreider, and the veterans tasting success again, and I'm really glad we get Kakko, Panarin, Fox, Shesty etc a chance to feel success so quickly.

If we go further, even better. While I think we make the dance if the season continued as normal, even being in the playoffs is gravy for this year. We're a zero-expectations, "playing with house money" team if we get beyond Carolina. That, plus the talent level we're starting to see makes us dangerous, and a very hard out.

If we lose to the Canes...so be it. They're way more veteran, way more experienced, and we get to start banking the experience to be that team in a few years. Plus, we get a lottery ticket that would frankly, if we won, would be a luxury add to the team.

So this was actually the impetus for the thread. The question isn't so much whether you want a 1st overall pick or a Cup. If you told me I would be GUARANTEED a Stanley Cup in exchange for forfeiting all first round picks for the next decade and having an average roster age of 35, I'd do it in a heartbeat. The Cup is the end that justifies all means.

 

This being said, likelihood and probability must be factored into the calculus. This is why I was so opposed to the MSL/Yandle/Staal trades. The "one last piece" myth can really screw you up if you're not as close as you think you are. And we all know losing on purpose isn't really an option here. It's not like the Rangers can choose to mail it in and pray for the draft lottery to go their way.

 

But this is uncharted territory. It's the Wild West of playoffs. There's no raucous Garden crowd, just as there are no blaring airhorns (still convinced that's piped in by the arena, by the way) followed by "Let's go Caps!" There is no home ice advantage, no momentum, and hell, you could even argue that experience is out the window too. Sure, Zdeno Chara knows what it takes to win more than Kakko does. Does that matter as much when literally nothing is the same as it normally is for playoff purposes?

 

The players will be counting on each other to get up for each match. They will feed their own momentum, not the crowd. This is why I don't necessarily agree with the assertion that if we get past Carolina (which is a big "if") we're dead in the water. There's nothing more dangerous than a team that believes in its own magic, and these playoffs were tailor-made for a Cinderella story. In my opinion, younger rosters have the edge here as it won't take them as long to get up to speed.

 

We were one of the hottest teams in the whole league going into the pause. It's not so much a matter of being better than the Bruins as it is a simple question of whether you believe, regardless of opponent, we are capable of winning 19 out of 33 possible games (57.58%). And for a team that I think went on a 16-6 run (I believe) after Shesterkin took over, anything is possible.

 

I think our chances are better now than they will be in even three years when the defense looks drastically different. The question is though, knowing that beating Carolina effectively eliminates the possibility of drafting another franchise player, do you think our chances of winning it all are greater than 12.5%? Shockingly, for me, who has always been a "glass half empty" kind of guy, the answer is yes.

All good points, and honestly, they probably do have a greater chance of winning it all than they do the top pick. Like you said, this is a unique circumstance, and makes this arguably the most wide open Stanley Cup playoffs ever because of it. I'm not too worried about guys like Panarin and Zibanejad getting back into things quickly, even though they, and the team had a lot of momentum before the pause. I'm still expecting Shesterkin to start. Right now, he's their best goaltender and this is the playoffs. He's one of the reasons they were sniffing a playoff berth before COVID. Playoff hockey with no crowd is going to suck, though. But, like you said, perhaps some teams more than others rely on that. There are definitely arenas that are tougher to play in because of it.

Why can't we just have both? ;)

I'm still liking what I said here....just more in the future, that's all!! :rofl: