26th straight??

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

22 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Your point that one team in the last how many years won a Cup without multiple high picks while the two teams that won more than one used high picks to build the teams?

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Is it possible to build a cup contending team without high picks?

[kliq 3,755]

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

Your point that one team in the last how many years won a Cup without multiple high picks while the two teams that won more than one used high picks to build the teams?

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

My point is that tanking and rebuilding is not the ONLY way to build a cup contender.

- The Wings in 2008, and the Bruins in 2011 both did it.

-  Sure Pittsburgh tanked, but the Crosby pick was pure luck (draft lottery after the lockout where every team had an equal chance). So you can credit "tanking" but you are ignoring the extremely good luck they had with that pick. Whichever team landed that generational pick was likely going to win a cup over the next decade. They dont get that pick, I dont think they win a cup.

- Chicago got Kane and Towes by tanking, though without Seabrook (14th overall) and Keith (54th overall) I dont think they win anything either. Again, you can say its because of tanking, I say its more due to really good drafting by Tallon and co.

- LA did suck for a long time so you could argue they tanked as well, but other then DD I don't think they had any top 10 players that they drafted. There team was a result of good drafting in the later rounds and trades.

If we don't ONLY allow cup winners into this conversation, plenty of deep talented teams that have gone far in the playoffs and have done so without tanking, that is why I brought up SJ and NYR. Though I get why you refuse to acknowledge that, it simply doesn't fit your narrative.

I am not saying that tanking doesn't sometimes work, what I am saying is that it is not the only way. If you are building a team, there is nothing you can do that guarantees a championship, all you can do is set your team up to be contenders. NYR and SJ both did that. The fact they they blew it last minute doesn't negate the fact they will were built and had success.

At the end of the day we have a very small sample size of cup winners over the last 9 seasons with only 5 winners during that time. When you break it down, of those 5 teams, 3 arguably tanked, 2 didnt and since the 3 that did have multiple championships it makes it look like tanking is the only way. Ask the other teams that tried it how it worked out for them, but keep sidestepping with your cynical quips.

[kickazz 5,459]

The word "Edmonton" just completely makes this entire tnaking argument baseless.

 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Edmonton is run by buffoons. A smart GM with a couple high picks should build the team properly.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[Echolalia 2,961]

These are all the top 5 draft picks that have played for championship teams dating back to the 1998 draft, that were relevant in some way to the Stanley Cup winning teams (that means some guy who was drafted in the top five but didn't contribute the year the team won the cup OR the players he was traded for didn't contribute the year the team won the cup I didn't include in the list).  Usually when talking about tanking we think top 1 or 2 picks but I'll be a bit more generous with my definition and look at top 5.

Pittsburgh: Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Jordan Staal, Ryan Whitney (traded for Kunitz)
Chicago: Toews, Kane, Cam Barker (traded for Kim Johnson and Nick Leddy)
LA: Schenn, Doughty
Bruins: Kessel(traded for Seguin, Knight, Hamilton.)  (Seguin was the only one to play in Boston's championship year.  He scored 22 points in regular season, 7 points in playoffs.)
Carolina: Andrew Ladd (scored 11 points in regular season, 5 in playoffs), Eric Staal
Anaheim: Vishnevskiy (traded for Carl Stewart)
Tampa Bay: Vinny Lecavalier, Alexander Svitov (Traded for Sydor)
Detroit: none

Looking at the above, Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Carolina, and Tampa Bay all had at least one self-drafted top 5 pick making an impact for their respective teams, although Carolina and Tampa Bay were essentially one top 5 pick and a supporting cast established from other sources, while the other three were multiple top picks.  Anaheim, Boston, and Detroit all didn't have much top 5 representation in their cup championship rosters.  So at least in recent history its definitely possible to construct a Stanley cup team without relying on tanking.  Three teams tanked hard and long (lol) and drafted guys that all became core players.  They won multiple cups.  Two teams may have tanked long and hard, but only ended up with one difference maker, and only won once each.  Three teams had essentially no self-drafted top five help and won once each.  So Stanley Cup winning teams are a bit more likely to have come from the result of tanking.  Having said that, its hardly a guarantee, as Edmonton, Toronto, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Columbus, Islanders, Colorado, Vancouver, Florida, Nashville, Calgary, Buffalo, and Arizona can tell us.  Out of all the teams to tank in the time frame I looked at there was a 5/17 success rate (So ~29% of teams to tank won a cup).  Those teams who didn't have any representation in the top 5 had a 3/13 success rate (~23% of teams to not tank in recent history won a cup).  Again it slightly favors tanking.  And to be fair, you can break down the data in a bunch of different ways and get different results.  Maybe tanking is only top 1 or 2 picks.  Maybe its 10.  Maybe tanking just means missing the playoffs.  Maybe you want to look at all players drafted since 1990.  Maybe you want to look at just post salary cap.  So take the above with a grain of salt cuz I imagine the numbers will sway when you tinker with the variables.

TL;DR: At least in recent history the data seems to favor tanking, but not by a whole lot. 

 

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

12 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Edmonton is run by buffoons. A smart GM with a couple high picks should build the team properly.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Again, you side step the question. Do you actually have a point youd like to make or are you just going to avoid discussion until no one takes you seriously?

[kliq 3,755]

1 hour ago, Echolalia said:

These are all the top 5 draft picks that have played for championship teams dating back to the 1998 draft, that were relevant in some way to the Stanley Cup winning teams (that means some guy who was drafted in the top five but didn't contribute the year the team won the cup OR the players he was traded for didn't contribute the year the team won the cup I didn't include in the list).  Usually when talking about tanking we think top 1 or 2 picks but I'll be a bit more generous with my definition and look at top 5.

Pittsburgh: Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Jordan Staal, Ryan Whitney (traded for Kunitz)
Chicago: Toews, Kane, Cam Barker (traded for Kim Johnson and Nick Leddy)
LA: Schenn, Doughty
Bruins: Kessel(traded for Seguin, Knight, Hamilton.)  (Seguin was the only one to play in Boston's championship year.  He scored 22 points in regular season, 7 points in playoffs.)
Carolina: Andrew Ladd (scored 11 points in regular season, 5 in playoffs), Eric Staal
Anaheim: Vishnevskiy (traded for Carl Stewart)
Tampa Bay: Vinny Lecavalier, Alexander Svitov (Traded for Sydor)
Detroit: none

Looking at the above, Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Carolina, and Tampa Bay all had at least one self-drafted top 5 pick making an impact for their respective teams, although Carolina and Tampa Bay were essentially one top 5 pick and a supporting cast established from other sources, while the other three were multiple top picks.  Anaheim, Boston, and Detroit all didn't have much top 5 representation in their cup championship rosters.  So at least in recent history its definitely possible to construct a Stanley cup team without relying on tanking.  Three teams tanked hard and long (lol) and drafted guys that all became core players.  They won multiple cups.  Two teams may have tanked long and hard, but only ended up with one difference maker, and only won once each.  Three teams had essentially no self-drafted top five help and won once each.  So Stanley Cup winning teams are a bit more likely to have come from the result of tanking.  Having said that, its hardly a guarantee, as Edmonton, Toronto, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Columbus, Islanders, Colorado, Vancouver, Florida, Nashville, Calgary, Buffalo, and Arizona can tell us.  Out of all the teams to tank in the time frame I looked at there was a 5/17 success rate (So ~29% of teams to tank won a cup).  Those teams who didn't have any representation in the top 5 had a 3/13 success rate (~23% of teams to not tank in recent history won a cup).  Again it slightly favors tanking.  And to be fair, you can break down the data in a bunch of different ways and get different results.  Maybe tanking is only top 1 or 2 picks.  Maybe its 10.  Maybe tanking just means missing the playoffs.  Maybe you want to look at all players drafted since 1990.  Maybe you want to look at just post salary cap.  So take the above with a grain of salt cuz I imagine the numbers will sway when you tinker with the variables.

TL;DR: At least in recent history the data seems to favor tanking, but not by a whole lot. 

Very well written. The funny thing is, I am not saying that tanking doesn't work, what I am arguing is that tanking isn't an absolute must in order to win the cup, something that you have definitely proven in the post above. IMO the key to winning a cup is smart drafting. The higher you pick definitely gives you a better chance, but there are many other important variables at play.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Its definitely easier to get a franchise player from the draft if you're picking in the top 5, probably moreso these days because they don't get traded or go to free agency the way they used to in the 90s, but you can certainly find franchise guys deeper down.  Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Getzlaf, Perry, Keith, Chara, Bergeron, were all drafted outside the top 10, and that's hardly an exclusive list.  Of course there's a certain amount of luck that also goes into finding hidden gems, but the more times you roll the better your odds are.  That's why I generally approve of trading down for multiple second round picks in deeper drafts.  Imagine if the Wings ended up hitting that diamond in the rough this upcoming draft in the second or third round and pick up the next Duncan Keith or Shea Weber.  That team three years down the road with veterans Larkin, Mantha, and whoever else you want to pick up to compliment the team has the potential to be real solid.  And there's no requirement that the Wings even miss the playoffs this year in this scenario.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

41 minutes ago, Echolalia said:

Its definitely easier to get a franchise player from the draft if you're picking in the top 5, probably moreso these days because they don't get traded or go to free agency the way they used to in the 90s, but you can certainly find franchise guys deeper down.  Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Getzlaf, Perry, Keith, Chara, Bergeron, were all drafted outside the top 10, and that's hardly an exclusive list.  Of course there's a certain amount of luck that also goes into finding hidden gems, but the more times you roll the better your odds are.  That's why I generally approve of trading down for multiple second round picks in deeper drafts.  Imagine if the Wings ended up hitting that diamond in the rough this upcoming draft in the second or third round and pick up the next Duncan Keith or Shea Weber.  That team three years down the road with veterans Larkin, Mantha, and whoever else you want to pick up to compliment the team has the potential to be real solid.  And there's no requirement that the Wings even miss the playoffs this year in this scenario.

We really need a stud Dman on this team. There are none on the roster and none coming up. I think we will see a slow trade deadline for us, and then if we miss the playoffs, a much more aggressive than normal Holland at the draft. Especially with the weirdness of the expansion draft coming. I expect a lot of extra dealing and swapping on all teams parts. Might be time to pony up for a Dman if one becomes available. 

[Texas luvs the Wings 1]

Lidstrom is my all-time favorite Red Wing, so I'm obviously a fan of great defense.  If this were football or basketball, I could make a recommendation to possibly improve this team because I grew up with those sports and understand the intricacies better than hockey, which is much newer (and way more exciting) to me.  This is why I defer questions like this to you hockey experts and I appreciate all of you chiming in.

[Barrie 900]

Forget the streak, it's time to rebuild.

[Echolalia 2,961]

3 hours ago, Texas luvs the Wings said:

Lidstrom is my all-time favorite Red Wing, so I'm obviously a fan of great defense.  If this were football or basketball, I could make a recommendation to possibly improve this team because I grew up with those sports and understand the intricacies better than hockey, which is much newer (and way more exciting) to me.  This is why I defer questions like this to you hockey experts and I appreciate all of you chiming in.

lol some people here know less that it would seem.  Don't confuse loudness with knowledge.

[kickazz 5,459]

9 hours ago, Echolalia said:

lol some people here know less that it would seem.  Don't confuse loudness with knowledge.

What if you're knowledgeable and loud 

Edited January 26, 2017 by kickazz