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

[The Dude]

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.

[Rosenvold]

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.

[Mike]

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.

[Flynn]

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.

[Phil]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Giacomin]

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.

[Long live the King]

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 app powered by Tapatalk

[Phil]

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 app powered by Tapatalk

 

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.

[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.

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 app powered by Tapatalk

[Sod16]

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.

[The Dude]

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 app powered by Tapatalk

 

What I was hoping to figure out how to say. This exactly.

[Slobberknocker]

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

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

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.

[Guest]

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 app powered by Tapatalk

 

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?

[Guest]

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 app powered by Tapatalk

 

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).

[Pete]

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?

What teams do you consider the ones that "tanked"?

[Long live the King]

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 app powered by Tapatalk

[ThirtyONE]

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.

[Giacomin]

shouldn't be a copy-cat league at all.

 

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.

[Mike]

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?

 

Washington tanked, got Ovi, and BAM .... 14 years later it’s a Stanley Cup. Doubt that was the plan.

[Phil]

Yet without him, BAM, they're not winning.

 

 

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

[Long live the King]

Yet without him, BAM, they're not winning.

 

 

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

Impossible to prove.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk