• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Richdg

SC winners and the draft.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Been wondering about what it will take to get the RW's back to the top of the mountain. So I looked back to see what the past 20 winners had in common. From 1994 through 2014 there have been 20 SC won. Looking at the draft status of the talent on each of those teams.

Everyone of those teams had at least 1 guy on the team that was drafted in the top 10. About half of those top 10 picks were traded to the team that won the SC. 14 of the 20 SC winners had 4 or more guys on their roster that were top 10 picks. 1 team had 1 top 10 pick (us in 08), 5 had only 2 guys that were top 10 picks.

The makeup of those top 10 picks was a bit surprising. Only 1 was a G-MAF with Pitt. Most were in fact forwards. Very few were Dmen, and most of them are in the HOF. Stevens, Murphy, Leetch, etc.....

So what if anything can be learned from this? No not every top 10 pick turns out. A few were busts. Most however became stars in this league. Be it for the team that drafted them or later on. Every team had a top 10 pick on their team that they drafted but the 08 RW's. That means every team that won a SC over the last 20 seasons, has some crappy years to get a top 10 pick. That also means they had better drafting position overall.

Looking back at our SC winning teams we had 5 top 10 picks in 97 and 98. We only had 2 left in 02 and only 1 in 08. Currently we have 1 top 10 pick-Weiss. 2 if/when Alfie comes back. neither will be around much longer.

So what do I see from this? You win with talent. To get the top talent you have to have some guys that were drafted in the top 10. To get top 10 picks, you have to have some bad seasons, or make a trade for guys picked top 10 by other teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty well every team is gonna have at least one former top 10 pick on their roster. Of course Stanley cup winners are gonna have top 10 picks on their team. Is Edmonton gonna win a cup because their roster is loaded with top 10 picks?

The Wings top 10 pick in 2008 was Stuart. An important piece no doubt. But the guys who made that team what it was were far from top 10 picks. This is a VERY skewed way of looking at things.

There is a lot of young talent in the system. Moves will be made when they make sense. Not made for the sake of making moves. And when moves do get made, Holland will look for the right players to make the team better. Not simply trade for players because of the position they were drafted in. Talented players come from all over the place. Sure high draft picks more often than not are NHL ready at a younger age. On the flip side, sometimes they are a bust. But there are also a lot of great players out there who weren't even drafted in the first round, let alone the top 10. Sure sucking for a few years can allow a team to stock up in high draft picks in a timely manner. But that doesn't always translate to success either. There are teams who have been sucking for years, and they still do.

Detroit hasn't had the leisure of drafting a high, NHL ready prospect for a long time. So yes, they have to take the time to develop their players. But time has proved over, and over and over again that this team develops great players despite their draft position. Yeah, this particular rebuild is taking longer and hard to deal with for some fans. But that's what happens when you no longer have an all time great on the blueline to hold things together.

But sure, lets trade rosters with Edmonton. We'll have loads of top 10 picks so we'll be destined for a dynasty! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We of course can't argue the future. So we don't know how Ed. will look in 5 years. The odds are more of their guys under 25 turn out than our guys under 25 do. The question for them is, do they have the patience to wait. Some of their guys may very well turn out to be stars for other teams.

Now back to what I was writing about. 70% of the SC winners had 4 or more top 10 picks on their team when they won. Yes some were to young to help, some never made it, and some were older vets going for one more cup. But most of those players were in the prime of their careers between 26 and 32. half were drafted by the team they won the cup with. The most any team had was 7.

Now that was just top 10 picks. Most teams had between 10-13 1st round picks on each team. But again those players were pretty close in terms of drafted by the same team they won a cup with or a different team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We of course can't argue the future. So we don't know how Ed. will look in 5 years. The odds are more of their guys under 25 turn out than our guys under 25 do. The question for them is, do they have the patience to wait. Some of their guys may very well turn out to be stars for other teams.

Now back to what I was writing about. 70% of the SC winners had 4 or more top 10 picks on their team when they won. Yes some were to young to help, some never made it, and some were older vets going for one more cup. But most of those players were in the prime of their careers between 26 and 32. half were drafted by the team they won the cup with. The most any team had was 7.

Now that was just top 10 picks. Most teams had between 10-13 1st round picks on each team. But again those players were pretty close in terms of drafted by the same team they won a cup with or a different team.

Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, Franzen, Kronwall, Rafalski. All in their primes, all big time players in the cup run. None a top 10 pick. Draft number is relative. A top 10 pick tends to have a better chance of being NHL ready sooner, sure. Not gonna argue that. What I don't buy is teams with higher picks having more young players turn out than the Wings will. Wings have been great at the draft, and their prospect pool is proof of that. The kids on the team now prove they belong, the kids who got a taste have shown that they will likely develop into key players for this team over the next few seasons. Guys like Jurco. You can see there is potential there for a real special player. There is a lot to be excited for. It is simply too soon to give up assets to fill holes on a roster where many of them can just be filled with the youth getting more experience.

Anything beyond the top 10 in a lot of draft years is a crap shoot. Heck, this year you can say that about anything beyond the top 4 or 5. A lot of top 10 picks also tend to take a few years to start reaching their potential. Some never do.

Health has been a big problem for this team as of late. A lot of the older, injury prone guys will be gone. If Alfie is back, he won't play as much as last season. I'd bet money on that. Him in a reduced role can be huge come playoff time. At the same time the kids can learn a lot from guys like him. Hank fixed his back. Mark my words. He is going to have a huge season. He is gonna be healthy, he is gonna be fired up, and he will be clutch. Helm's injuries have almost all been freak injuries. Then some groin issues when finally trying to return after almost no hockey in 2 years. That was to be expected. I feel Weiss will bounce back and make a lot of Wings fans eat crow. There's your top 10 pick. There will be a lot less pressure on Franzen with the continued development of Tatar and Goose. Dekeyser will learn to protect himself better. A healthy defense with an added puck mover makes for a nice, young mobile blueline. Kronwall got a lot of flack, but he was huge for the team all year long.

So yes, even with much of the same roster as last year, there is a lot of improvements that can simply be made with better luck. Being younger to start the season will translate less injuries. Keeping the same roster together for an entire season will allow the team to grow together, and get better. I get that there are holes in the roster. Most teams have em. But when this team is on the right track as far as getting 2 points on a regular basis and staying healthy, the right moves will be made. This team is a lot better than the stats last season showed. Now the right roster will be together right from the beginning to prove that. Just gotta have a little faith! I am aware I went way off topic. But that is a rant that just started to flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been wondering about what it will take to get the RW's back to the top of the mountain. So I looked back to see what the past 20 winners had in common. From 1994 through 2014 there have been 20 SC won. Looking at the draft status of the talent on each of those teams.

Everyone of those teams had at least 1 guy on the team that was drafted in the top 10. About half of those top 10 picks were traded to the team that won the SC. 14 of the 20 SC winners had 4 or more guys on their roster that were top 10 picks. 1 team had 1 top 10 pick (us in 08), 5 had only 2 guys that were top 10 picks.

The makeup of those top 10 picks was a bit surprising. Only 1 was a G-MAF with Pitt. Most were in fact forwards. Very few were Dmen, and most of them are in the HOF. Stevens, Murphy, Leetch, etc.....

So what if anything can be learned from this? No not every top 10 pick turns out. A few were busts. Most however became stars in this league. Be it for the team that drafted them or later on. Every team had a top 10 pick on their team that they drafted but the 08 RW's. That means every team that won a SC over the last 20 seasons, has some crappy years to get a top 10 pick. That also means they had better drafting position overall.

Looking back at our SC winning teams we had 5 top 10 picks in 97 and 98. We only had 2 left in 02 and only 1 in 08. Currently we have 1 top 10 pick-Weiss. 2 if/when Alfie comes back. neither will be around much longer.

So what do I see from this? You win with talent. To get the top talent you have to have some guys that were drafted in the top 10. To get top 10 picks, you have to have some bad seasons, or make a trade for guys picked top 10 by other teams.

I'm not sure what bothers me most about your posts... The topic for discussion is non-stimulating, your logic is fragile, and your writing style is annoyingly conversational and hard to follow.

If you're going to develop a theory around the need for top-10 picks to be on your team in order to win a cup, then at least make an effort. This is pretty half-assed.

Besides, by looking back the past 20 years, you're comparing the salary cap era and the pre-salary cap era.

You're also comparing a North America-centric draft era to an ever increasing global system. Do you think Datsyuk would have gone at 171 if he were available in the 2014 draft? Maybe you could start a new topic about that.

Are you suggesting we tank it for a couple years? Relive the 80s? Get the next Yzerman? Are you saying we should package our prospects for a top-10 pick with a s***ty contract? Pay an inflated rate for a top-10 FA? I don't get what you're saying.

If you're going to try to be thought-provoking and philosophical with your threads, please spend more than 5 minutes writing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem with the original argument is that all drafts are not equal in talent depth and top 10 is really an arbitrary line to draw.

This year we have the 15th pick. All the talking head say that the talent level drops after the first few players and no one agrees on the order for players after these first few players. So the 7th choice and the 15th choice are really ranked pretty equally. Would it really help us to have the 10th pick this year? Would that mean we could then win the cup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem with the original argument is that all drafts are not equal in talent depth and top 10 is really an arbitrary line to draw.

This year we have the 15th pick. All the talking head say that the talent level drops after the first few players and no one agrees on the order for players after these first few players. So the 7th choice and the 15th choice are really ranked pretty equally. Would it really help us to have the 10th pick this year? Would that mean we could then win the cup?

Truth. In the end, the Oilers 100% debunk the original argument. If top 10 picks were key, the Oilers would be repeating their 80's success right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if the Wings were to tank. The vets would all leave to try and win elsewhere. Then our current youth would have nobody to learn from. This organization is where it is because of how the youth is developed and what they learn from veterans. You think Hank would be the player he is today without learning leadership, work ethic, and sacrificing points to become one of the best 2 way players in the world? Tanking seasons would break this. Sure you could end up becoming the next Blackhawks with a skilled, young core. But guys like Toews don't grow on trees either. People can hate on him all they want, but in 20 years from now people will look at him as one of the greatest captains in the modern era. Sure, you may find another Toews in a future draft with a top pick. Yet you may end up with a Yakupov. Tanking isn't the answer.

The team is struggling in the rebuild because we lost #5 and have a LOT of young players in the lineup at once. They'll get to play a lot more with the eurotwins this season. They will get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never take anything Richdg says seriously but this is just ridiculous. You can't actually believe that a team loaded with top 10 picks is going to be the better team. Just look at all the top 10 busts in every draft year. It would be very difficult to find a single draft that didn't include at least one complete bust taken in the top 10. It all comes down to scouting and drafting, and we have proven to be very successful at both in the past couple decades.

If there was a re-draft in 1989 when we selected Nicklas Lidstrom 53rd overall and Sergei Fedorov 74th overall they would be guaranteed to have been taken top 5 and more than likely top 2 or 3. Then there was 1994 when we selected Tomas Holmstrom 257th overall, I bet he would have been in the top 5 or 10 in his draft year as well. What about in 1998 when we selected Pavel Datsyuk 171st overall and in 1999 when we selected Henrik Zetterberg 210th overall? They would be guaranteed to be drafted top 3 if there was a re-draft in those two years.

I would be willing to bet if in 10-15 years there is a re-draft on the past 5 drafts, some of our current top prospects would be top 10-20 picks in their respective draft years. Possibly Petr Mrazek (141st in 2010), Tomas Jurco (35th in 2011), Ryan Sproul (55th in 2011), etc. And I definitely believe that Anthony Mantha could possibly be a top 5 pick in 2013 re-draft.

The point is, success in the draft comes in all rounds, right through the draft, and a top 10 pick doesn't guarantee anything, and definitely does not necessitate a great player.

Edited by krsmith17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what bothers me most about your posts... The topic for discussion is non-stimulating, your logic is fragile, and your writing style is annoyingly conversational and hard to follow.

If you're going to develop a theory around the need for top-10 picks to be on your team in order to win a cup, then at least make an effort. This is pretty half-assed.

Besides, by looking back the past 20 years, you're comparing the salary cap era and the pre-salary cap era.

You're also comparing a North America-centric draft era to an ever increasing global system. Do you think Datsyuk would have gone at 171 if he were available in the 2014 draft? Maybe you could start a new topic about that.

Are you suggesting we tank it for a couple years? Relive the 80s? Get the next Yzerman? Are you saying we should package our prospects for a top-10 pick with a s***ty contract? Pay an inflated rate for a top-10 FA? I don't get what you're saying.

If you're going to try to be thought-provoking and philosophical with your threads, please spend more than 5 minutes writing them.

The don't read the posts. Pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55

I never take anything Richdg says seriously but this is just ridiculous. You can't actually believe that a team loaded with top 10 picks is going to be the better team. Just look at all the top 10 busts in every draft year. It would be very difficult to find a single draft that didn't include at least one complete bust taken in the top 10. It all comes down to scouting and drafting, and we have proven to be very successful at both in the past couple decades.

If there was a re-draft in 1989 when we selected Nicklas Lidstrom 53rd overall and Sergei Fedorov 74th overall they would be guaranteed to have been taken top 5 and more than likely top 2 or 3. Then there was 1994 when we selected Tomas Holmstrom 257th overall, I bet he would have been in the top 5 or 10 in his draft year as well. What about in 1998 when we selected Pavel Datsyuk 171st overall and in 1999 when we selected Henrik Zetterberg 210th overall? They would be guaranteed to be drafted top 3 if there was a re-draft in those two years.

I would be willing to bet if in 10-15 years there is a re-draft on the past 5 drafts, some of our current top prospects would be top 10-20 picks in their respective draft years. Possibly Petr Mrazek (141st in 2010), Tomas Jurco (35th in 2011), Ryan Sproul (55th in 2011), etc. And I definitely believe that Anthony Mantha could possibly be a top 5 pick in 2013 re-draft.

The point is, success in the draft comes in all rounds, right through the draft, and a top 10 pick doesn't guarantee anything, and definitely does not necessitate a great player.

A lot of luck involved.

No one was scouting the Russians really so we got Feds. And who would've known that the terrible skater of homer would amount to anything? There was A LOT of luck in our drafts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem with the original argument is that all drafts are not equal in talent depth and top 10 is really an arbitrary line to draw.

This year we have the 15th pick. All the talking head say that the talent level drops after the first few players and no one agrees on the order for players after these first few players. So the 7th choice and the 15th choice are really ranked pretty equally. Would it really help us to have the 10th pick this year? Would that mean we could then win the cup?

Most years there are 10 or more quality picks in the first round. But I also very clearly said that some top 10 guys are busts. The fact remains that 70% of the last 20 SC winning teams had 4 or more top 10 picks on their roster when they won the cup. That means they had top end talent. About half of those guys were drafted by the team they won with. So, 70% of the last 20 SC winners had at least 1 top 10 pick of their own. That means they had bad seasons to get that pick. But half of the top 10 guys were picked up as trades or ufa's. That tells us that no teams build 100% through the draft. Can't be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never take anything Richdg says seriously but this is just ridiculous. You can't actually believe that a team loaded with top 10 picks is going to be the better team. Just look at all the top 10 busts in every draft year. It would be very difficult to find a single draft that didn't include at least one complete bust taken in the top 10. It all comes down to scouting and drafting, and we have proven to be very successful at both in the past couple decades.

If there was a re-draft in 1989 when we selected Nicklas Lidstrom 53rd overall and Sergei Fedorov 74th overall they would be guaranteed to have been taken top 5 and more than likely top 2 or 3. Then there was 1994 when we selected Tomas Holmstrom 257th overall, I bet he would have been in the top 5 or 10 in his draft year as well. What about in 1998 when we selected Pavel Datsyuk 171st overall and in 1999 when we selected Henrik Zetterberg 210th overall? They would be guaranteed to be drafted top 3 if there was a re-draft in those two years.

I would be willing to bet if in 10-15 years there is a re-draft on the past 5 drafts, some of our current top prospects would be top 10-20 picks in their respective draft years. Possibly Petr Mrazek (141st in 2010), Tomas Jurco (35th in 2011), Ryan Sproul (55th in 2011), etc. And I definitely believe that Anthony Mantha could possibly be a top 5 pick in 2013 re-draft.

The point is, success in the draft comes in all rounds, right through the draft, and a top 10 pick doesn't guarantee anything, and definitely does not necessitate a great player.

You may be to young to remember, but in the 80's and first part of the 90's, no one was scouting eastern europe but us. Even when people knew about players, many never got drafted becasue you couldn't get them over here to play. Thus all the cloak and dagger we pulled off to get federov and klima out from behind the iron curtain. We also had pure blind luck. No one from the NHL ever had seen datsyuk play hockey. Just Andersson did. But that is getting sidetracked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your point? My point was that yes, there is a lot of luck involved in every draft and that is precisely why there are success stories in every round of every draft. Also, there is at least one player taken outside of the first round every year that should have gone in the top 5 or 10. So for anyone to come to the conclusion that we need more top 10 draft picks is beyond ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth. In the end, the Oilers 100% debunk the original argument. If top 10 picks were key, the Oilers would be repeating their 80's success right now.

I will take that bet. In 5 years after all of those top 5/10 picks have developed and matured, they will have a great team-provided they keep them all. Just like every other team that has won the SC the past 30 years. They have 5 years period of sucking, then a 5 year period were they are developing into a good team, and then a period were they dominate. happened to Pitt, Bos, Chicago, and LA as well.

What's your point? My point was that yes, there is a lot of luck involved in every draft and that is precisely why there are success stories in every round of every draft. Also, there is at least one player taken outside of the first round every year that should have gone in the top 5 or 10. So for anyone to come to the conclusion that we need more top 10 draft picks is beyond ridiculous.

14 of the last 20 SC winners disagree with you. Each of those teams including us in 97 and 98 had 4 or more top 10 picks. As I also mentioned earlier, when you pick in the top 10 in the first your whole draft is going to be better in every round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To think that we NEED to miss the playoffs for a few years to stock pile some top 10 draft picks is absolutely crazy. Our scouts are still more than capable of finding great players in the later rounds. But it's a lot more than just our scouts, it's the way we groom our players, and make sure they are good and ready before they step into the NHL. We don't have one of the top prospect pools in the entire league by accident, the Detroit Red Wings organization does it right, and that definitely does not involve tanking for top 10 draft picks. Besides, I guarantee at least two or three of our current top prospects will be viewed as a top 10 draft pick in their draft year in 10-15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will take that bet. In 5 years after all of those top 5/10 picks have developed and matured, they will have a great team-provided they keep them all. Just like every other team that has won the SC the past 30 years. They have 5 years period of sucking, then a 5 year period were they are developing into a good team, and then a period were they dominate. happened to Pitt, Bos, Chicago, and LA as well.

14 of the last 20 SC winners disagree with you. Each of those teams including us in 97 and 98 had 4 or more top 10 picks. As I also mentioned earlier, when you pick in the top 10 in the first your whole draft is going to be better in every round.

Would you though? The Oilers are the laughing stock of the league and have been for some time. Take a look at their drafts since 09. The only good pick really they've got from the bunch has been Taylor Hall. Paajarvi was essentially a bust and he was drafted at 10. Nugent-Hopkins the jury is still out on, but it's not great if you ask me, especially for a number 1 pick. And Yakupov? What you're essentially trying to say is that we need more top 10 picks, when really do we actually? I think we've been able to acquire ample amounts of talent without drafting in the top 10 for years. And really, I don't want to see this team tank for a couple of years ala Colorado just to get a couple of kids that then wouldn't be able to help us for another 3 years or so because then we're looking at nearly half a decade, probably longer of mediocrity, when in reality right now if we let our current group of prospects grow and develop and add the right pieces we can be right in the hunt.

To think that we NEED to miss the playoffs for a few years to stock pile some top 10 draft picks is absolutely crazy. Our scouts are still more than capable of finding great players in the later rounds. But it's a lot more than just our scouts, it's the way we groom our players, and make sure they are good and ready before they step into the NHL. We don't have one of the top prospect pools in the entire league by accident, the Detroit Red Wings organization does it right, and that definitely does not involve tanking for top 10 draft picks. Besides, I guarantee at least two or three of our current top prospects will be viewed as a top 10 draft pick in their draft year in 10-15 years.

Exactly. This organisation has consistently shown you don't need to tank to get good players. It's a lot more than that, and tbh I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So teams are bad, get high draft picks, and become good. Wow. Looks like the draft is serving its purpose.

If anything we should be happy we've been able to not pick in the top 10 in like 30 years and yet still be competitive. People talking about us tanking can take a hike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55

Oilers added Nikitin wind if he is their answer?? Lol.

I believe their issues is more of management than the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We of course can't argue the future. So we don't know how Ed. will look in 5 years. The odds are more of their guys under 25 turn out than our guys under 25 do. The question for them is, do they have the patience to wait. Some of their guys may very well turn out to be stars for other teams.

Now back to what I was writing about. 70% of the SC winners had 4 or more top 10 picks on their team when they won. Yes some were to young to help, some never made it, and some were older vets going for one more cup. But most of those players were in the prime of their careers between 26 and 32. half were drafted by the team they won the cup with. The most any team had was 7.

Now that was just top 10 picks. Most teams had between 10-13 1st round picks on each team. But again those players were pretty close in terms of drafted by the same team they won a cup with or a different team.

Yeah, I really don't think this data is significant what-so-ever. Go back and check how many top 10 picks the worst team in the league had each year, I bet you find similar results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every year there are 10 top ten picks. Let's say they each stay in the league for a meager 5 years (probably more because top players usually last longer). That means there are at least 50 top ten picks around at one time. On average that is at least 1-2 per team, probably more if their careers are longer.

This is another correlation does not equal causation trap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this