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

[Phil]

I never once said it's an automatic. I said it improves the odds of you winning.

 

 

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

[Pete]

Yea and when Detroit was winning, their best players were not first rounders.

 

Talent can be found anywhere in the draft. What this thread tells me is that the Rangers don't draft well and they should revamp their scouting Dept.

[Mike]

I never once said it's an automatic. I said it improves the odds of you winning.

 

 

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

 

Well yeah, good players do that. What I’m saying is the best players don’t always make up the best team, it’s the players that play their best together. It took Ovechkin 13 fuckin years, and they were 1 OT goal away from probably losing in round 1. It’s so easy to Monday morning qb. Truth is, no matter how good a McDavid, Crosby, Ovi, Malkin, Kane, etc ... look at 16-17 years old, your plan can not be to suck and hope to get that 1 possible generational talent. Shit, most of those teams sucked accidentally until those prospects became a year away from reality, so then the thought process was “fuck it, we’ve been bad for this long, what’s 1 more year?” Chicago was awful since Toews and Kane were bantams. It’s just an attempt to get lucky enough to get the no brainer draft picks. Anything beyond that is work, and some luck.

[The Dude]

I never once said it's an automatic. I said it improves the odds of you winning.

 

 

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

 

But you post this year's Caps roster to show that they are filled with 1st rounders...

 

You didn't say that it's automatic nor did you say it improves the chances. You kinda left it open to impression after saying it wasn't just coincidence that the Caps roster is filled with 1sts.... The impression I got was that you're saying that teams need first round talent to win a cup. Which, obviously is true in that you need talented players.

 

As I have stated, most teams are built around 1st round talent. The Caps roster make up isn't much different than the rest of the league, or the Rangers rosters of the last 4 years. Who ISN'T building around 1st round talent?

 

Also, is the Caps roster from this year much different than last year? By your logic (how I perceive it anyway, not trying to put words in your mouth) about their roster, they should have won last year too.

 

IMO, winning the cup has too many variables to try to emulate. I think luck, momentum, and hard work in the right moment is a bigger part of winning than the roster itself. I think the Rangers rode that wave for awhile and the luck and momentum ran it's course.

[Drew a Penalty]

Yea and when Detroit was winning, their best players were not first rounders.

 

Talent can be found anywhere in the draft. What this thread tells me is that the Rangers don't draft well and they should revamp their scouting Dept.

 

This is the issue, though there have been some changes to it.

[Fatfrancesa]

Maybe the point should be not to discount first round picks whether ninth or 28th. Trading them away five straight years is almost a guaranteed killer for any organization. I’m loving all the picks we have this draft and I don’t want to trade any of them unless it’s a no brainer. This is as deep a draft as any in a long time says the people who know. The rangers have 7 picks in the top 90. They may not get their future star to build around but at the very least they should come away with solid chunk of their core for the next decade. This draft is crucial. The more darts the better.

[BrooksBurner]

Maybe the point should be not to discount first round picks whether ninth or 28th. Trading them away five straight years is almost a guaranteed killer for any organization. I’m loving all the picks we have this draft and I don’t want to trade any of them unless it’s a no brainer. This is as deep a draft as any in a long time says the people who know. The rangers have 7 picks in the top 90. They may not get their future star to build around but at the very least they should come away with solid chunk of their core for the next decade. This draft is crucial. The more darts the better.

 

I agree with this. There are so many examples of late 1st round picks that wound up being studs, just like there are examples of top 10 picks who wound up busting. A guy like Evgeny Kuznetsov was a 26th pick for example.

 

There is also the factor of the Rangers historically missing A LOT with top 10 picks in the draft. Perhaps an anomaly, but it shows the risk behind throwing everything behind a single pick. If you're wrong, it sets you back years. I'd rather have "more darts" as Fat put it, than throwing all of my eggs into one basket hoping a bust isn't taken. None of these guys are no brainers - it's not a Crosby/Ovechkin/etc. situation here outside of Dahlin.

[Sod16]

Before you read a whole lot into the Caps winning, remember that if Cam Atkinson's OT shot off the post in Game 3 of the first round goes in, the Caps are down 3-0, lose in the first round, are declared proven toast, and are dismantled. The lesson from that would be 180 degrees different from the Caps winning the Cup, and it was one post that determined between polar opposite results. I do think there is a lesson of don't be too quick to burn it down if you lose in the playoffs for a few years. As for Vegas, their situation is just so different that I don't think it offers the Rangers lesson. You can lose for 54 plus years waiting for various William Karlson's to break out.

[Guest]

Yea and when Detroit was winning, their best players were not first rounders.

 

Talent can be found anywhere in the draft. What this thread tells me is that the Rangers don't draft well and they should revamp their scouting Dept.

 

Someone always has to bring up that one time back in 2007 that it worked out differently than the other 11 of 13 most recent Stanley Cups won by teams that hit rock bottom, most for multiple seasons, before winning a Cup.

[Guest]

Before you read a whole lot into the Caps winning, remember that if Cam Atkinson's OT shot off the post in Game 3 of the first round goes in, the Caps are down 3-0, lose in the first round, are declared proven toast, and are dismantled. The lesson from that would be 180 degrees different from the Caps winning the Cup, and it was one post that determined between polar opposite results. I do think there is a lesson of don't be too quick to burn it down if you lose in the playoffs for a few years. As for Vegas, their situation is just so different that I don't think it offers the Rangers lesson. You can lose for 54 plus years waiting for various William Karlson's to break out.

 

That actually proves the point, not disproves it. The Capitals have been in contention for a lot of seasons, but one bad bounce or an inch here or there can certainly turn a series. The more kicks at the can you get, the better your chances. The more top players you draft, the more kicks at the can you get. And the best chance to get top players in the draft is at the top of it.

 

I see in this thread (not your post, Sod16) a lot of pointing to the anamolies, the 26th overall pick that ends up better than the 20 picks selected before them. Or the top-5 picks that bust. Some is scouting, but some is also just dumb luck. There is significantly more luck at top of the draft. And the more tickets you have in the draft, particularly in the first two rounds, the better chance luck lands in your favor.

 

I don't think anyone's preaching a magic, "if you do this, you will 100% win a Cup". Detroit and Boston bucked that trend for sure. Edmonton, Buffalo and Toronto have sucked and not won. It took Washington what, 13 years to finally do it? But they did.

[Phil]

ThankYou.gif

 

 

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

[Vodka Drunkenski]

That doesn't matter. Where they were taken does. The more first-round picks you have in your lineup, the better your chances of being good. The higher they're taken, the better the chances of them being really good.

 

 

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

 

So explain to me again why you didn?t want Tampa to beat the Caps to give us another 1st rounder next year?

[The Dude]

That actually proves the point, not disproves it. The Capitals have been in contention for a lot of seasons, but one bad bounce or an inch here or there can certainly turn a series. The more kicks at the can you get, the better your chances. The more top players you draft, the more kicks at the can you get. And the best chance to get top players in the draft is at the top of it.

 

I see in this thread (not your post, Sod16) a lot of pointing to the anamolies, the 26th overall pick that ends up better than the 20 picks selected before them. Or the top-5 picks that bust. Some is scouting, but some is also just dumb luck. There is significantly more luck at top of the draft. And the more tickets you have in the draft, particularly in the first two rounds, the better chance luck lands in your favor.

 

I don't think anyone's preaching a magic, "if you do this, you will 100% win a Cup". Detroit and Boston bucked that trend for sure. Edmonton, Buffalo and Toronto have sucked and not won. It took Washington what, 13 years to finally do it? But they did.

 

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?

[Phil]

So explain to me again why you didn?t want Tampa to beat the Caps to give us another 1st rounder next year?

 

Because the hockey fan in me wanted to, and is glad to have seen, Ovechkin win. Like I've said for years, I'm a hockey fan first and a Rangers fan second. If the Rangers ceased to exist tomorrow I'm not tapping out on the sport.

 

 

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

[Pete]

Someone always has to bring up that one time back in 2007 that it worked out differently than the other 11 of 13 most recent Stanley Cups won by teams that hit rock bottom, most for multiple seasons, before winning a Cup.

 

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Phil]

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

[Pete]

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.

[Long live the King]

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.

[Phil]

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?

[Pete]

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.

[Phil]

That aren't explained away by those extraneous factors? I can't think of one.

[Pete]

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.

[Phil]

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.