Well yes to some extent... despite winning their division 5 times in the last 8 seasons they haven't done much since they won the Cup in 03. They need some "post season post lockout".
But yeah they have managed to stay competitive year in and out.
It's hilarious when people suggest that the Penguins are a "model" or "blueprint" of how to build a franchise, considering their current success hinges at least partly on their "ability" to a win a 30 team random weighted lottery.
I actually 100% agree. Nobody who is a true Penguins fan and went through those times would say 'follow that route!' It's just ridiculous and the writer is a complete joke. We got lucky and then Shero came in and made some great moves to build the team.
Also give the organization some credit for bringing guys like Talbot, Kennedy, Scuderi, etc. up along the way. In fact, all 3 of those guys mentioned were the true heroes in games 6 and 7. I know we got lucky, but still have to give credit where credit is due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VooX
ColePens, although there is no denying that the Pens had some very difficult years off-ice, the fact remains that Pittsburgh now has a history of tanking for draft picks.
You mention other teams have top 5 picks and squander them, but let's put this in perspective. The Pens had 5 consecutive top 5 draft spots culminating in a 1st, 2nd, 1st, and 2nd overall picks in consecutive years. And in some of the deepest drafts for talent ever. Fleury, Staal, Malkin, and Rosby are no-brainer picks for any squad, even Atlanta.
And stepping back further to when I was a kid, the Pens intentionally tanked spectacularly to first get Lemieux, suck for five years (still top-7 draft position), and then tank again to get Jagr. The Penguins' only success comes through tanking.
And then I have to read Pens' fans post all over the net that their team is a model franchise and is a dynasty. It is enough to make me throw up a little in my mouth each time I read such trite.
1) You can't say we tanked for Jagr because we were 1 goal away from the postseason that year. The 1989-90 season we had to beat Buffalo in the season finale to either go to the playoffs or go home. We lose 3-2 in OT. Unfortunate for us, at the time, we came so close just to miss the playoffs. Little did we know that actually helped us be successful in the long run by drafting Jagr. I don't see how you can call that tanking. I'm 100% sure we wanted to be in the postseason.
2) There is no denying that the four year stretch of top 5 picks helped us be successful for the future. I will not argue that or act as if it didn't help. I will argue that almost losing the team is never the way to go. We got lucky on so many different levels that it would take a long time to write it all out. I'm thankful for that every day and love that my team stayed in Pittsburgh. If a team was in the same position as the Penguins were, I'm sure the team would have left over half of the times.
3) We have a group of great posters over at our board and like any other fan base, we have our group of fanboys who shouldn't be posting. I would just suggest you ignore those idiots as we do and have discussion w/ the guys that know their hockey and have been a fan of the team for longer than the Sidney Crosby era. It sickens us too. Trust me..
I won't stand here and tell you we deserved everything we got. Hell our fan base should be more than blessed with just how lucky we are. We dodged tons of bullets and had some great luck along the way. We are in no means a model organization, but we do deserve a little bit of credit when it comes to these discussions. I'm right with you that Detroit should be the model organization and idiot writers who say the we are make it very frustrating to like the Pittsburgh Penguins. I completely understand that.
3) We have a group of great posters over at our board and like any other fan base, we have our group of fanboys who shouldn't be posting. I would just suggest you ignore those idiots as we do and have discussion w/ the guys that know their hockey and have been a fan of the team for longer than the Sidney Crosby era. It sickens us too. Trust me..
I try, or I like to think I do, but it's not easy when every criticism of anything even remotely penguins related, such as saying you received poor service in a Pittsburgh restaurant is met with "Yeah well we won the cup, so what does that tell you about our dining establishments".
I actually 100% agree. Nobody who is a true Penguins fan and went through those times would say 'follow that route!' It's just ridiculous and the writer is a complete joke. We got lucky and then Shero came in and made some great moves to build the team.
Also give the organization some credit for bringing guys like Talbot, Kennedy, Scuderi, etc. up along the way. In fact, all 3 of those guys mentioned were the true heroes in games 6 and 7. I know we got lucky, but still have to give credit where credit is due.
1) You can't say we tanked for Jagr because we were 1 goal away from the postseason that year. The 1989-90 season we had to beat Buffalo in the season finale to either go to the playoffs or go home. We lose 3-2 in OT. Unfortunate for us, at the time, we came so close just to miss the playoffs. Little did we know that actually helped us be successful in the long run by drafting Jagr. I don't see how you can call that tanking. I'm 100% sure we wanted to be in the postseason.
2) There is no denying that the four year stretch of top 5 picks helped us be successful for the future. I will not argue that or act as if it didn't help. I will argue that almost losing the team is never the way to go. We got lucky on so many different levels that it would take a long time to write it all out. I'm thankful for that every day and love that my team stayed in Pittsburgh. If a team was in the same position as the Penguins were, I'm sure the team would have left over half of the times.
3) We have a group of great posters over at our board and like any other fan base, we have our group of fanboys who shouldn't be posting. I would just suggest you ignore those idiots as we do and have discussion w/ the guys that know their hockey and have been a fan of the team for longer than the Sidney Crosby era. It sickens us too. Trust me..
I won't stand here and tell you we deserved everything we got. Hell our fan base should be more than blessed with just how lucky we are. We dodged tons of bullets and had some great luck along the way. We are in no means a model organization, but we do deserve a little bit of credit when it comes to these discussions. I'm right with you that Detroit should be the model organization and idiot writers who say the we are make it very frustrating to like the Pittsburgh Penguins. I completely understand that.
I think most non-Pens fans have problems with the new Pens fans that jumped on the band wagon 2 or 3 years ago. On another thread many Pens fans aren't humble enough to admit that they were very lucky with 4 of the best players in the history of the NHL that landed with the Pens and turned the franchise around. 2 of those picks saved the franchise 20 years apart.
Also give the organization some credit for bringing guys like Talbot, Kennedy, Scuderi, etc. up along the way.
Now that I agree with. I also agree that Shero made some nice moves/trades in completing the roster.
But I see Pitt as a flawed product only because they have so much money tied up in Malkin, Crosby, Fleury and Staal. That is the core of the team and it will always be good enough to make the playoffs and be a threat, but not always be a contender if the sitting GM doesnt make all the right moves every offseason to fill in the (constant, never-ending) holes in the lineup.
Dont get me wrong, any team with Malkin and Crosby is going to be a contender just on the basis that either one of them can completely dominate at any given time (and theyre still young!). But it doesnt change the fact that Gonchar isnt going to play forever and the good picks like Scuderi and Talbot will end up costing too much to keep, imo.
Ultimately, every franchise needs a little luck to rise to the top, whether it be drafting, a lucky bounce, or a lucky call (or lack of one). Even the wings get lucky. Say what you will, but to have so many studs come from our late round picks is lucky. Credit is definitely deserved by the scouting and developing staff for putting the wings in the best position to be lucky (Whats the old saying? You have to be good to be lucky), but no team can EXPECT late rounders to be future superstars.
Hats off to the pens, they may have been lucky to get Sid and Malkin, but they've since built a good team around them. Luck will only get you so far ultimately, it's what you do with the opportunities when they present themselves that separates the champions from the also rans.
As for the "model' of success. Well, if the rest of the league wants to follow the Pens, they are more than welcome to. Funny how this year the model is the pens. Last year the model was to play a high skilled puck possession game. The year before that it was to have a tough gritty team. Idiots in the media like to spout off this nonsense like they've made some great discovery, when in reality all the article is is a list of qualities of the previous season winner. Congrats, you've managed to write an article telling even the most dense of hockey fans something they already know. If the apocalypse occurs and Phoenix wins this year, they'll be telling us that the model of success is to take your club into bankruptcy court and drag the league through a lengthy legal battle. Maybe if they analyzed the past couple of winners and tried to find a common theme they'd have something worth reading, but that sounds a bit too much like work for most of the talking heads. In the meantime, I think i'm just fine with what Kenny's been doing the last decade plus. Seems to have worked out fairly well, so I suspect the wings will stick to their model.
But I see Pitt as a flawed product only because they have so much money tied up in Malkin, Crosby, Fleury and Staal. That is the core of the team and it will always be good enough to make the playoffs and be a threat, but not always be a contender if the sitting GM doesnt make all the right moves every offseason to fill in the (constant, never-ending) holes in the lineup.
Dont get me wrong, any team with Malkin and Crosby is going to be a contender just on the basis that either one of them can completely dominate at any given time (and theyre still young!). But it doesnt change the fact that Gonchar isnt going to play forever and the good picks like Scuderi and Talbot will end up costing too much to keep, imo.
That is a very good point and we will have to see what happens in the future. Maybe Shero can keep bringing in young guys to fill roles, maybe we lack depth in the future. Only time will be able to tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitokiri
As for the "model' of success. Well, if the rest of the league wants to follow the Pens, they are more than welcome to. Funny how this year the model is the pens. Last year the model was to play a high skilled puck possession game. The year before that it was to have a tough gritty team. Idiots in the media like to spout off this nonsense like they've made some great discovery, when in reality all the article is is a list of qualities of the previous season winner. Congrats, you've managed to write an article telling even the most dense of hockey fans something they already know. If the apocalypse occurs and Phoenix wins this year, they'll be telling us that the model of success is to take your club into bankruptcy court and drag the league through a lengthy legal battle. Maybe if they analyzed the past couple of winners and tried to find a common theme they'd have something worth reading, but that sounds a bit too much like work for most of the talking heads. In the meantime, I think i'm just fine with what Kenny's been doing the last decade plus. Seems to have worked out fairly well, so I suspect the wings will stick to their model.
The funny thing is, the Penguins (mostly Dan Bylsma) modeled their system off of Detroit. We aren't an exact carbon copy of the Wings but we changed our style when we saw Detroit have so much success. Why doesn't the media know this??? Well, probably because it doesn't take much anymore to write an article. You don't need credentials, you need an opinion that can bring enough readers in whether they agree or not. Hell, some of the writers w/ the most success have the most unpopular opinions and get readers to disagree and argue their ridiculously one-sided view.
I think we can all agree that the writer of the article is absolutely worthless and the Penguins aren't a model franchise. If teams want to go through bankruptcy, fight to keep their team in the city through our state government, bank on a casino to help pay for some of the arena, and take a chance on some of the things that fell right for the Pittsburgh Penguins, then go right ahead. It won't be a success all the time. In fact, it won't work most of the time.
I actually 100% agree. Nobody who is a true Penguins fan and went through those times would say 'follow that route!' It's just ridiculous and the writer is a complete joke. We got lucky and then Shero came in and made some great moves to build the team.
Also give the organization some credit for bringing guys like Talbot, Kennedy, Scuderi, etc. up along the way. In fact, all 3 of those guys mentioned were the true heroes in games 6 and 7. I know we got lucky, but still have to give credit where credit is due.
Oh believe me, I do. I'm not one of these morons who thinks the Penguins' Cup win is somehow less legitimate because they got lucky with getting some high draft picks at the right time. They still had to build a successful team around those players, and make smart management decisions. Full credit to Shero and the Penguins for making the most out of what was given to them.
My only criticism, and it sounds like you agree, is with the media and the league talking about them as if they are some model to be copied by other teams that want to be successful. As someone else pointed out this isn't unique to the Penguins either; last year it was the Wings, and the year before it was the Ducks (because we all know if it worked once then it must work again for someone else!). Actually come to think of it, the most obnoxious example was the several years where the media were treating the Flames like the model franchise because they made it to the finals once.
Actually, the Penguins followed the Detroit model in "tanking" (suffering through years of poor management) to get a generational player and ride said player to success. Within the first five or six years of his career, Steve Yzerman led the Wings to consecutive WCF appearances only to be beaten by Gretzky's Oilers. Sure Crosby got the Pens the Cup a little quicker, and for that the team deserves all due credit, the real test for Sid, Gino, MAF, and especially Shero is to try and keep it up for another 10-15 years, including the years after Crosby retires and Malkin defects to the Motherland. The Wings model is no longer "tank for talent", but "Win. Now. Lottery picks be damned!" That's a reputation to be proud of.
off-track a bit but the "generational talant" thing has me wondering: does the talant matter if the career is side tracked for some reason? Seeing Ovechkin/Crosby/Malkin mentioned makes me think of how guys like Bure and Lindros were once viewed. Both were game changers, both were capable of putting up monster stats and both were capable of putting their teams on their backs and elevating the players around them (a healthy Lindros might have made John LeClair a HoFer). But injuries effectively destroyed their careers and they are looked at as "might have beens." Then you have a guy like Selanne who put up huge numbers early before levelling off.
Maybe I'm nitpicking this but I look at Malkin/Crosby/Ovechkin and I don't see someone who will necessarily be any better than Lindros/Bure/Selanne and who will almost certainly not be the impact on the game that Orr/Howe/Gretzky were. None of this is meant to take away from their immense talant - they are clearly gifted players - but I wonder if we'll still see these guys in the same light in ten years and what it says about how we view players in the long term.
off-track a bit but the "generational talant" thing has me wondering: does the talant matter if the career is side tracked for some reason? Seeing Ovechkin/Crosby/Malkin mentioned makes me think of how guys like Bure and Lindros were once viewed. Both were game changers, both were capable of putting up monster stats and both were capable of putting their teams on their backs and elevating the players around them (a healthy Lindros might have made John LeClair a HoFer). But injuries effectively destroyed their careers and they are looked at as "might have beens." Then you have a guy like Selanne who put up huge numbers early before levelling off.
Maybe I'm nitpicking this but I look at Malkin/Crosby/Ovechkin and I don't see someone who will necessarily be any better than Lindros/Bure/Selanne and who will almost certainly not be the impact on the game that Orr/Howe/Gretzky were. None of this is meant to take away from their immense talant - they are clearly gifted players - but I wonder if we'll still see these guys in the same light in ten years and what it says about how we view players in the long term.
All of this I agree with. Bure especially. But injuries are injuries, rightly or wrongly.
Lindros is a "could-have been" and had he never had any real health problems like he did, I think we would be including him in the generational talent debate because when he was at his best, he was the best. Clearly, the Flyers organization thought he was a once-in-a-lifetime player too judging by what they gave for him.
Malkin/Crosby/Ovechkin are all generational talents as of now, injuries could certainly derail any one of them, though. I mean...cmon...theyre all scoring over 100pts a season in a league where they are the only 3 doing it.
Hell, one of them could "only" score 50 goals and it would be considered a "down year" for him. Thats just insane and the very definition of generational.
successfull blueprint? pittsburgh had a lucky shot, thats all.
let's call tanking rebuilding and lets see how many teams doing this. kings doing it for 15 years or so and got some good but not great players. nobody is complaining about that because they sucked all the time. now they have accumulated some talented players. let them dominate the pacific and everybody will call them tankers.
so, how can this be a successfull blueprint? tampa bay, la, atlanta and many other teams must be a dynasty team too. the difference is nothing but luck.
pittsburgh has been tanking (rebuilding) from 2001-2005 and got 4 super talents in fleury, staal, malkin and crosby. they land lemieux and jagr with tanking too. but they landed malkin and crosby only because the lockout. looks like good luck to me.
let pittsburgh play without malkin and they will suck again and nobody is calling them tankers anymore. they will call them rebuilders.
not tanking makes a team a tanking team. it's success with tanking whats making a team a tanking team.
and pittsburgh is by far not the only team what was tanking (rebuilding).
as long as the last team get the top pick you will ever have rebuilding teams. give the top picks to the number 9 placed teams at the end of the season then you will have really competition for playing hockey not for beeing the worst team in the nhl.
Actually, the Penguins followed the Detroit model in "tanking" (suffering through years of poor management) to get a generational player and ride said player to success. Within the first five or six years of his career, Steve Yzerman led the Wings to consecutive WCF appearances only to be beaten by Gretzky's Oilers. Sure Crosby got the Pens the Cup a little quicker, and for that the team deserves all due credit, the real test for Sid, Gino, MAF, and especially Shero is to try and keep it up for another 10-15 years, including the years after Crosby retires and Malkin defects to the Motherland. The Wings model is no longer "tank for talent", but "Win. Now. Lottery picks be damned!" That's a reputation to be proud of.
If Crosby had been the only "generational" talent that Pittsburgh had drafted, this would be a very different story. The Red Wings didn't do crap with Yzerman alone, and the Pens would've done similarly in their "rebuild" had they not had the succession of picks that they had. This is in no way comparable to the Wings. In the '81 Draft, the Wings didn't have a 1st rounder. In the '82 Draft, their first pick was #17. Then in '83, their first pick was #4 (Yzerman), and after that, their first pick was #7.
Also, lets remember that Pittsburgh won a lottery pick based essentially on standings that were one to three years removed from the present - to get Sidney Crosby of all people. That, in itself, is as flukey as it gets. If anyone else wins that pick, then we aren't having this "model" discussion right now, because Pittsburgh doubtfully has won the cup yet.
The biggest problem I have with Pittsburgh is that they've ridden high PRIMARILY on their drafting position in the past 3-6 years. There aren't more important players to their core than Crosby, Malkin, Staal, and Fleury, although you could now make a case for Gonchar. Nonetheless, 4/5 is unreal. Are the likes of Letang, Scuderi, and Talbot strong players? Yes. But thats not anything out of the ordinary in comparison to plenty of other teams in the NHL.
Credit should go to Shero for making some strong, shrewd moves, but I truly think if most other GMs in the NHL had a core of Malkin, Crosby, Fleury, and Staal to work with, that they'd be able to compose a roster of essentially secondary (and tertiary) players to fill out the roster, both via FA/trade, and through the draft.
I've always had a problem with calling multiple players from the same generation as "generational talents". By definition a generational talent only comes along ONCE in a generation, not 3-5 times.
But injuries effectively destroyed their careers and they are looked at as "might have beens." Then you have a guy like Selanne who put up huge numbers early before levelling off.
Actually, Selanne is essentially in the same camp as Lindros and Bure when it comes to reasons for "might have been". His career just wasn't destroyed in the same way - he had some damage earlier but never had to quit. You don't have to have your career end or even miss games to be seriously hampered by injuries. A recent and extreme example of the latter would be Brendan Morrison, who was already well into his (now very apparent) deterioration via injuries before his streak of 542 consecutive games ended.
Anyway, just look at the timings of Selanne's various injuries and his production, and it should be very obvious. He never came close to those 76 goals and 132 points after his severe Achilles tendon injury, basically because he never was quite as lightning fast again. When his further decline started from the 100 point territory all the way to 32 points, the worsening knee was an obvious reason. Remember, it took a whole year (the lockout) to rehabilitate after the reconstructive surgery. Afterwards, he was as good as he was in his late twenties.
So he didn't just "level off", he just never was completely healthy again. Or could have been after the lockout, dunno, but he's pushing 40 anyway.
