|
Post by socca10 on Mar 28, 2018 13:25:16 GMT
No.
Everybody has a player or 2 resulting in a great pick. Throughout the league. Therefore it really isn't the domain of champs.
[b So you’re saying sucking for a few years to get a few high picks isn’t the place to start for 9/10 champions? First, "9/10" is misleading: as you said yourself, that's just 4 teams. And I think your argument really supports what Book was saying in the first place, which wasn't "you can't have a top draft pick and win" it was more tanking for a year or three to rebuild solely through top picks in the draft has not been the recipe for success in the NHL. You need a holistic, organizational approach that includes lower and even undrafted guys, veterans willing to buy in and carry you through the lean years, and the right combination of coaching/management to get to the top of the mountain. The Bruins aren't even close to the type of team Book described (tank/pick/reload) and Sequins was hardly elite while he was here. Getting "elite talent" isn't enough on its own.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Mar 28, 2018 13:34:59 GMT
[b So you’re saying sucking for a few years to get a few high picks isn’t the place to start for 9/10 champions? First, "9/10" is misleading: as you said yourself, that's just 4 teams. And I think your argument really supports what Book was saying in the first place, which wasn't "you can't have a top draft pick and win" it was more tanking for a year or three to rebuild solely through top picks in the draft has not been the recipe for success in the NHL. You need a holistic, organizational approach that includes lower and even undrafted guys, veterans willing to buy in and carry you through the lean years, and the right combination of coaching/management to get to the top of the mountain. The Bruins aren't even close to the type of team Book described (tank/pick/reload) and Sequins was hardly elite while he was here. Getting "elite talent" isn't enough on its own. You’re missing the logic train. Tanking doesn’t guarantee a championship, but it’s almost impossible to win a championship without tanking. Book was knocking the tanking strategy, but Boston is the only team to find success without it. It’s not that 9/10 tankers win, but that 9/10 winners tanked.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 28, 2018 15:21:18 GMT
No.
Everybody has a player or 2 resulting in a great pick. Throughout the league. Therefore it really isn't the domain of champs.
[b So you’re saying sucking for a few years to get a few high picks isn’t the place to start for 9/10 champions? I'm saying you're mis-reading it based on two outliers because the odds of drafting 1-2-1-2 over a four year span and having the players be Fleury, Malkin, Crosby and Staal are far more narrow than the dynastic success of a couple of teams makes it appear. There are far more Floridas, Edmontons, Colorados than Chicagos and Pittsburghs. I think you're gaming the system a bit when you start throwing in 10th and higher picks, too. Now you're in a different world of bubble teams that tried but weren't there rather than a team deliberately tanking or emptying the decks. From 10-25 or so, there's also a lot more volatility in who is available and what order they go, and that's also very different from the top half of the top ten. Tracking back to Kessel and giving credit to Seguin is also bogus. Boston sucked the year they got Kessel - legitimately. But they didn't wheel all of their veterans and it wasn't the end of a long cycle of stink (except JTS's playoff performances). They actually dealt for players, not a bevvy of picks, and turned it around on the strength of mid-to late second rounders and above for the most part, combined with signings and trades. As for the only way to get that secondary scoring being a high pick...that's the weirdest thing you've ever said. So now teams shouldn't aim to suck for a few high picks, they should suck long enough that they can have a 2nd round pick buried on their roster until half way through the third round of the playoffs.... Remember that Marchand was a rookie that year, too, so maybe do a solid job of building depth in your organization is a better option than sucking until you don't. There's no doubt that having players like the Chicago, Pitt, and LA cores is a contributing factor to success, but you have to get purely lucky to suck at the time when those generational players are available for it to work, and you have to do it more than once. And even in Pittsburgh's case, you have to look at how hard it was for them to build a team around those guys - and it would have been even harder if Sid and Geno didn't take slightly team friendly deals. Similarly, in Chicago, you have to factor in that the back-diving bs that Keith has in his contract, that Hossa had in his, is no longer possible when considering how you replicate their example. Especially in a world where "bridge deal" means a bad investment offer to a 21 yr old with 1.5 good seasons in who just signed a $66M extension coming off his ELC.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Mar 28, 2018 16:31:46 GMT
[b So you’re saying sucking for a few years to get a few high picks isn’t the place to start for 9/10 champions? I'm saying you're mis-reading it based on two outliers because the odds of drafting 1-2-1-2 over a four year span and having the players be Fleury, Malkin, Crosby and Staal are far more narrow than the dynastic success of a couple of teams makes it appear. There are far more Floridas, Edmontons, Colorados than Chicagos and Pittsburghs. I think you're gaming the system a bit when you start throwing in 10th and higher picks, too. Now you're in a different world of bubble teams that tried but weren't there rather than a team deliberately tanking or emptying the decks. From 10-25 or so, there's also a lot more volatility in who is available and what order they go, and that's also very different from the top half of the top ten. Tracking back to Kessel and giving credit to Seguin is also bogus. Boston sucked the year they got Kessel - legitimately. But they didn't wheel all of their veterans and it wasn't the end of a long cycle of stink (except JTS's playoff performances). They actually dealt for players, not a bevvy of picks, and turned it around on the strength of mid-to late second rounders and above for the most part, combined with signings and trades. As for the only way to get that secondary scoring being a high pick...that's the weirdest thing you've ever said. So now teams shouldn't aim to suck for a few high picks, they should suck long enough that they can have a 2nd round pick buried on their roster until half way through the third round of the playoffs.... Remember that Marchand was a rookie that year, too, so maybe do a solid job of building depth in your organization is a better option than sucking until you don't. There's no doubt that having players like the Chicago, Pitt, and LA cores is a contributing factor to success, but you have to get purely lucky to suck at the time when those generational players are available for it to work, and you have to do it more than once. And even in Pittsburgh's case, you have to look at how hard it was for them to build a team around those guys - and it would have been even harder if Sid and Geno didn't take slightly team friendly deals. Similarly, in Chicago, you have to factor in that the back-diving bs that Keith has in his contract, that Hossa had in his, is no longer possible when considering how you replicate their example. Especially in a world where "bridge deal" means a bad investment offer to a 21 yr old with 1.5 good seasons in who just signed a $66M extension coming off his ELC. Again, when 8/9 teams did a 5-year suck to build their talent base, it’s not an outlier. A suck strategy by no means guarantees a championship, but it is a key component 90% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Mar 28, 2018 16:34:03 GMT
First, "9/10" is misleading: as you said yourself, that's just 4 teams. And I think your argument really supports what Book was saying in the first place, which wasn't "you can't have a top draft pick and win" it was more tanking for a year or three to rebuild solely through top picks in the draft has not been the recipe for success in the NHL. You need a holistic, organizational approach that includes lower and even undrafted guys, veterans willing to buy in and carry you through the lean years, and the right combination of coaching/management to get to the top of the mountain. The Bruins aren't even close to the type of team Book described (tank/pick/reload) and Sequins was hardly elite while he was here. Getting "elite talent" isn't enough on its own. You’re missing the logic train. Tanking doesn’t guarantee a championship, but it’s almost impossible to win a championship without tanking. Book was knocking the tanking strategy, but Boston is the only team to find success without it. It’s not that 9/10 tankers win, but that 9/10 winners tanked.post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The way you've written the bold, shows it's just a meaningless stat. We only have 4 cup winners over the last decade, out of at least 40 tankers. Pittsburgh, was one of those teams, and went 7 years between Championships. Tanking had zero effect on the last 2. It also had no effect on why the got beat from 09 til 2016.
most hockey players have brown eyes. the fact that McDavid and Gretzky don't, is true. It's also of no competitive relevance.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 28, 2018 16:58:44 GMT
I'm saying you're mis-reading it based on two outliers because the odds of drafting 1-2-1-2 over a four year span and having the players be Fleury, Malkin, Crosby and Staal are far more narrow than the dynastic success of a couple of teams makes it appear. There are far more Floridas, Edmontons, Colorados than Chicagos and Pittsburghs. I think you're gaming the system a bit when you start throwing in 10th and higher picks, too. Now you're in a different world of bubble teams that tried but weren't there rather than a team deliberately tanking or emptying the decks. From 10-25 or so, there's also a lot more volatility in who is available and what order they go, and that's also very different from the top half of the top ten. Tracking back to Kessel and giving credit to Seguin is also bogus. Boston sucked the year they got Kessel - legitimately. But they didn't wheel all of their veterans and it wasn't the end of a long cycle of stink (except JTS's playoff performances). They actually dealt for players, not a bevvy of picks, and turned it around on the strength of mid-to late second rounders and above for the most part, combined with signings and trades. As for the only way to get that secondary scoring being a high pick...that's the weirdest thing you've ever said. So now teams shouldn't aim to suck for a few high picks, they should suck long enough that they can have a 2nd round pick buried on their roster until half way through the third round of the playoffs.... Remember that Marchand was a rookie that year, too, so maybe do a solid job of building depth in your organization is a better option than sucking until you don't. There's no doubt that having players like the Chicago, Pitt, and LA cores is a contributing factor to success, but you have to get purely lucky to suck at the time when those generational players are available for it to work, and you have to do it more than once. And even in Pittsburgh's case, you have to look at how hard it was for them to build a team around those guys - and it would have been even harder if Sid and Geno didn't take slightly team friendly deals. Similarly, in Chicago, you have to factor in that the back-diving bs that Keith has in his contract, that Hossa had in his, is no longer possible when considering how you replicate their example. Especially in a world where "bridge deal" means a bad investment offer to a 21 yr old with 1.5 good seasons in who just signed a $66M extension coming off his ELC. Again, when 8/9 teams did a 5-year suck to build their talent base, it’s not an outlier. A suck strategy by no means guarantees a championship, but it is a key component 90% of the time. Again, neither the Bruins nor the Kings tanked. The Kings, in the window leading up to the drafting of their current key players and Schenn, were making trades to acquire veterans, not divesting themselves of veterans. They didn't make a single "stockpile" trade leading up to that era except divesting themselves of Pavol Demitra. Of their top 10 picks, Doughty is a generational defenseman, but Hickey is no better than a depth guy they let walk for a wheel of brie and Schenn, while important to the trade for Richards, wasn't exactly the key to the deal considering Simmonds and a second also went the other way. At the time, Schenn was a bit of a mystery and potentially a fail as a 5th overall considering he was two years past his draft year and had to go back to Jr because he wasn't ready for either the NHL or the AHL. So it's not like they traded the #5 overall for a key piece of their puzzle. They traded a prospect with promise but a few warts along with a bona fide NHL power forward (already obvious at the time of the trade) and a high pick. Chicago and Pittsburgh are two franchises whose cores are high picks, but those high picks are all top100 in NHL history. That doesn't happen every time to fail on purpose. Usually, you fail on purpose and the hockey gods hand you Jack Eichel - he of the tantrum about being in the draft lottery again but the lack of self awareness to realize his extended slumps have something to do with that. Good luck building a winner around that. Counting dynasties as multiple examples is just silly considering the question. Nobody tanks hoping to squeeze out one cup and then Jeffrey Loria it. I think there's a pile of bad logic in looking at the Malkin-Crosby/Kane-Toews effect and thinking that's the path a team should pursue.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Mar 30, 2018 13:52:28 GMT
Again, when 8/9 teams did a 5-year suck to build their talent base, it’s not an outlier. A suck strategy by no means guarantees a championship, but it is a key component 90% of the time. Again, neither the Bruins nor the Kings tanked. The Kings, in the window leading up to the drafting of their current key players and Schenn, were making trades to acquire veterans, not divesting themselves of veterans. They didn't make a single "stockpile" trade leading up to that era except divesting themselves of Pavol Demitra. Of their top 10 picks, Doughty is a generational defenseman, but Hickey is no better than a depth guy they let walk for a wheel of brie and Schenn, while important to the trade for Richards, wasn't exactly the key to the deal considering Simmonds and a second also went the other way. At the time, Schenn was a bit of a mystery and potentially a fail as a 5th overall considering he was two years past his draft year and had to go back to Jr because he wasn't ready for either the NHL or the AHL. So it's not like they traded the #5 overall for a key piece of their puzzle. They traded a prospect with promise but a few warts along with a bona fide NHL power forward (already obvious at the time of the trade) and a high pick. Chicago and Pittsburgh are two franchises whose cores are high picks, but those high picks are all top100 in NHL history. That doesn't happen every time to fail on purpose. Usually, you fail on purpose and the hockey gods hand you Jack Eichel - he of the tantrum about being in the draft lottery again but the lack of self awareness to realize his extended slumps have something to do with that. Good luck building a winner around that. Counting dynasties as multiple examples is just silly considering the question. Nobody tanks hoping to squeeze out one cup and then Jeffrey Loria it. I think there's a pile of bad logic in looking at the Malkin-Crosby/Kane-Toews effect and thinking that's the path a team should pursue. True. Malkin-Crosby, Toews-Kane, Jagr-Lemieux. That's not draft/tanking strategy, that's pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow luck. The one thing you MAY be able to infer from those combo's is that if you are able to build your core on at least two elite talents then you can compete in the long term and maybe win some cups. I think McDavid-Draisaitl may be the next 1-2 punch to win a couple cups The Bruins are a little more spread out talent wise, but the 2011 cup was Chara-Bergy-Krecji-Thomas. This year's team is again pretty balanced, but you have to throw Marchand in the mix now as the straw that stirs the drink (he was key in 2011 as well). Like in 2011, if we win this year it will be due to being the deepest team in the league and having contributions from both the top forward line in the league as well as a bunch of rookies who were total unknowns 18 months ago (and Rask playing like he can)
|
|