HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Habs management doesn't get it...(umpteenth toughness thread)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-03-2011, 10:29 AM
  #501
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Things evolves. Yes, those professionnals believed that fighting had and still has a role. Yet, don't you see that those professionnals who believed in the McGrattan of this world, starts to beleive less and less in it. With the shootouts in place, you do realize that they might start to want to add those kind of specialists more and more now. That the "goons who can't play hockey" who had a significant place on EVERY team, are not as popular as they were? So if that route is taken....possible that they go a little further?

I'm sorry, but if as a league I'd believe in fighting, I'd remove the instigator penalty. You can't believe in fighting and the "great" it does to the game, and be as strict as they are now. To me, it might show a way to regulate it so that without removing it on their own, the job is done by the inside. And actually, you see it happening.
Believe it or not, it's common misconception that the instigator rule actually deters fighting. I don't see the rule being of much significance at all. I don't agree that a league who condones fighting can't/won't coexist with the instigator, but I would be in favor of dropping it to see if it changes anything at all. I suspect it wouldn't change a thing.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 10:47 AM
  #502
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Irony, no, not at all. I'm not referring to fans of other teams, more so experts, hockey analysts. Myself, if we lost for a few years, I couldn't give rats ass what other fans think if it improves our chances. The results speak for themselves, they have no reason to rank us in the upper echelon. My comment about the habs was aimed towards analysis, not what other teams think. Sure rebuilding doesn't guarantee anything, but all you can do is attempt to optimize your chances, I think this would give us a better chance, although I agree it guarantees nothing, however, with our superior drafting, I would be hesitant to compare our results with NYI/Atl/Col ect.

I'm kinda playing both sides here for the interest of debate. I can see the rationale behind both sides, but I'll concede there is no right or wrong way to approach this, but there are preferred methods that enhance your chances imo.

I don't like people calling it tanking, it's a nice buzz word used to demean the other posters view, then the mob comes in and attacks based of this loosely defined premise. We don't need to tank, we don't wanna suck bla bla, I wouldn't mind being bad for a couple of years if it sets us on the right path. We lose every year already.

Look at the Jays, would you call Anthopolous a tanker, or a GM attempting to optimize his chances the best way he can? He is being considered the best GM in baseball already by American papers/writers. The baseball market in toronto is a lot more volatile than the hockey market in montreal. I don't buy the argument that the habs can't rebuild or the fans will go nuts. The fans will accept losing for a few years if they see positive improvements. Obviously the jays/habs have different circumstances surrounding them, but the idea that fans wouldn't tolerate a rebuild is absurd. Hockey is a religion in montreal, they would survive with ease.
This is a very very good, reasoned post. For all of you who keep screaming Tanking! in every response, read the bloody post above.

I value high picks. I never said we had to tank for them. I said we have to find a way to get them. High picks, good development, and timely UFA signings. That is what does it, and will continue to do it.

I simply do not understand the rabid anger at posters here who suggest that the Habs will have a very hard time winning cups without high picks. What is the frigging problem with this? It is bloody obvious.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 11:05 AM
  #503
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
This is a very very good, reasoned post. For all of you who keep screaming Tanking! in every response, read the bloody post above.

I value high picks. I never said we had to tank for them. I said we have to find a way to get them. High picks, good development, and timely UFA signings. That is what does it, and will continue to do it.

I simply do not understand the rabid anger at posters here who suggest that the Habs will have a very hard time winning cups without high picks. What is the frigging problem with this? It is bloody obvious.
Tell that to the Bruins or to Detroit.

Peoples need to understand that there is an infinite way to win, not one or two. Drafting is still important in every way though, but you don't need to have a lot of high picks (top 5 or top 10 ones ) look at our second round pick record.

Forsead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 11:12 AM
  #504
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I simply do not understand the rabid anger at posters here who suggest that the Habs will have a very hard time winning cups without high picks. What is the frigging problem with this? It is bloody obvious.
I don't see much anger. Maybe frustration? It's a tedious topic that has been pushed by a few people with an agenda here for a couple of years. It might have been an interesting discussion the first few times, but ultimately, it is as the poster above me stated: there are numerous ways to become a contender. High picks is certainly one way, albeit with many of its own drawbacks.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 11:29 AM
  #505
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
Tell that to the Bruins or to Detroit.

People need to understand that there is an infinite way to win, not one or two. Drafting is still important in every way though, but you don't need to have a lot of high picks (top 5 or top 10 ones ) look at our second round pick record.
We're going round in circles!

I always like your posts, and you are correct. Bruins and Wings did not stack high picks to win the cup. This does happen, just not that often anymore, and in my opinion less in the future.

I will now bold my rebuttal: The majority of cup winning teams since the the Pens won with Lemuiex, and before that for some time, have won with high picks. Our chances of winning the cup are in my opinion much higher with high picks than without.

Why are so many of you not accepting this evidence? And why do so many of you automatically assume we are suggesting tanking to get high picks?

We are not suggesting tanking, but we are definitely stating that high picks will significantly increase our chance at cups. There is a massive amount of empirical evidence the last 40 years to show that this is true.

Why are you guys so bothered by this? Why don't you instead suggest ways the Habs can get high picks without tanking?

Wake up! The Habs have a real problem in this NHL:

1. Teams that are average every year do not get high picks.

2. High picks are in the great majority of cases very important to cup winning teams.

How do you suggest we solve this problem? Please tell us, because all you've been doing so far is denying an obvious and true condition:

The Habs are in the worst condition you can be in in today's NHL, a mediocre yet just good enough team that never gets high picks, year after year.

Please tell us what to do about this. We've been making suggestions, I want to hear your ideas.

Otherwise: When the Oilers win the cup in 4 years, I'll be the frigging first to say 'told you so'.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 11:38 AM
  #506
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,398
vCash: 500
Post Lockout:

2006 Carolina. Eric Staal was their only recent early-round pick. Price could be our comparible.

2007 Anaheim. No early round picks.

2008 Detroit. No early round picks

2009 Pittsburgh. Tankers

2010 Chicago. Tankers

2011 Bruins. No early round picks.


4 of the last 6 cup winners are not what I would consider tankers. I'd say the logic is flawed at best. Our young core of Price, Subban, Pacioretty and Eller have the potential to make great strides in development. It's already well-established in a 2007 re-draft that Subban easily goes top-10, if not top 5.

JGRB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 11:43 AM
  #507
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I don't see much anger. Maybe frustration? It's a tedious topic that has been pushed by a few people with an agenda here for a couple of years. It might have been an interesting discussion the first few times, but ultimately, it is as the poster above me stated: there are numerous ways to become a contender. High picks is certainly one way, albeit with many of its own drawbacks.
1. I am a Habs fan.

2. Ergo I want the Habs to win cups. Not finish 8th and get knocked out in the first round.

3. There is a structural problem in the NHL drafting system that is evidently hurting the Habs chances of winning cups.

4. If the NHL won't change and reward consistent payoff teams with higher picks, than the Habs need to adapt and find a way to solve this problem. The Habs have failed to do so.

Therefore: The reason we keep bringing this up is because it is a real and present problem, and it is not going to go away.

You must identify the problem. Most here have not done so. Enjoy the mediocrity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
Post Lockout:

2006 Carolina. Eric Staal was their only recent early-round pick. Price could be our comparible.

2007 Anaheim. No early round picks.

2008 Detroit. No early round picks

2009 Pittsburgh. Tankers

2010 Chicago. Tankers

2011 Bruins. No early round picks.


4 of the last 6 cup winners are not what I would consider tankers. I'd say the logic is flawed at best. Our young core of Price, Subban, Pacioretty and Eller have the potential to make great strides in development. It's already well-established in a 2007 re-draft that Subban easily goes top-10, if not top 5.
I did not say Tank. And why don't you check the last 20 years. Go ahead.


Last edited by Habsfan18: 09-03-2011 at 11:52 AM. Reason: merged
bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 11:50 AM
  #508
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
1. I am a Habs fan.

2. Ergo I want the Habs to win cups. Not finish 8th and get knocked out in the first round.

3. There is a structural problem in the NHL drafting system that is evidently hurting the Habs chances of winning cups.

4. If the NHL won't change and reward consistent payoff teams with higher picks, than the Habs need to adapt and find a way to solve this problem. The Habs have failed to do so.

Therefore: The reason we keep bringing this up is because it is a real and present problem, and it is not going to go away.

You must identify the problem. Most here have not done so. Enjoy the mediocrity.
1 and 2 =

3 and 4 = Wrong

Detroit and other teams not getting high picks are doing fine. I can't understand why people have not notice the constent progression of our team. The Habs past problems were bad management. Rejean Houle screwed us badly for over a decade and it took almost a decade to recover. Hard to do something whit what he left, which was a poor NHL team in terms of talent with poor prospects.

The "system" as nothing to do with it. Some teams are doing fine under that system, and so are the Habs in the past few years. This team is just getting better due to changes at management.

You are mxing apples and oranges.

Just my 0.02 !

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 11:58 AM
  #509
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post

I will now bold my rebuttal: The majority of cup winning teams since the the Pens won with Lemuiex, and before that for some time, have won with high picks. Our chances of winning the cup are in my opinion much higher with high picks than without.

Why are so many of you not accepting this evidence?
What evidence, exactly? You've posted a statement; you have not provided any evidence. If we use your cut-off of Mario Lemieux-won Cups (arbitrary?):

'93: Damphousse (traded), Roy (2nd rounder), Muller (traded), Bellows (traded), Keane (undrafted signing), Desjardins (2nd rounder), Carbonneau (3rd rounder)
'94: Messier (traded), Richter (2nd rounder), Zubov (5th rounder), Graves (traded, 2nd rounder), Leetch (9th overall), Larmer (traded), Kovalev (15th overall)
'95: Brodeur (20th overall), Stevens (traded, essentially), Niedermayer (3rd overall), C. Lemieux (2nd rounder), Richer (traded, 2nd rounder), Maclean (6th overall), Broten (traded, 3rd rounder)
'96: Sakic (15th overall), Forsberg (traded, 6th overall), Kamensky (7th rounder), Ozolinsh (2nd rounder), Deadmarsh (14th overall), Roy (traded)
'97: Fedorov (4th rounder), Yzerman (4th overall), Shanahan (traded), Lidstrom (3rd rounder), Konstantinov (11th rounder), Murphy (traded), Vernon (traded)
'98: same core

So without continuing further to demonstrate the evidence that you claim exists here, in those 6 years only two (2) players were drafted by their Cup-winning clubs in the top-5. Two.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post

We are not suggesting tanking, but we are definitely stating that high picks will significantly increase our chance at cups. There is a massive amount of empirical evidence the last 40 years to show that this is true.
Of course there is. Just as there's evidence that shows having multiple top-20 scorers increases your chance at winning the Cup. The correlation? Good players help teams win Cups. And players drafted in the top-5 tend to be good players.

I think the point is abundantly clear that top-5 picks are a positive asset. I don't think the Canadiens have made a point of avoiding the acquisition of top-5 picks. However, the assertion that a team ought to strip its assets bare and build to a future, falling in the standings sufficiently to be among the worst 5 teams in the league is a far cry from a winning strategy in my mind. There is ample evidence of teams employing such strategies (intentionally or not) and failing miserably.

The recent rash of success enjoyed by Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington are not the norm: Chicago was in a peculiar situation where they had been bad for a long time, and had numerous young players emerge at once. Indeed, these young players included top-5 selections (Toews, Kane), but also many others (Byfuglien, Ladd, Versteeg, Hjalmarsson, Bolland, Sharp, Keith). These 'many others' gave the team the necessary depth to overwhelm any opposition. Many of these 'others' came out of nowhere (witness: Carolina giving up on Ladd; Philly on Sharp; Boston on Versteeg), and others were late-rounders that emerged like Byfuglien. The result? They were all on cheap contracts, as were the core of Toews, Kane, Seabrook and Keith. This is an unsustainable situation and, frankly, an incredibly rare situation (never happened in the cap-era). To have top-5 pick talent emerge coinciding with developing dark horse talent is such an ideal situation that it's, frankly, silly to have that as an objective.

Washington and Pittsburgh are in equally unique situations since Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin are such exceptional talents that no team ought to expect to obtain such talents in the top-5.

Consequently, if we remove these three teams from the equation for the aforementioned reasons, what clubs in recent memory have excelled employing such a strategy whereby top-5 picks are paramount?


Last edited by Mike8: 09-03-2011 at 12:14 PM.
Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 11:58 AM
  #510
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I did not say Tank. And why don't you check the last 20 years. Go ahead.
We have two players I consider early round picks in Price and Subban (despite being a 2nd rounder).

I honestly don't understand what your trying to argue, that having early round helps your chance of winning? No ****, they generally turn into better players. There is a number of ways to build a team and I am very confident in the way this team is currently structured in terms of it's youth moving forward.

How do you feel about the early picks that teams like Florida and Columbus have picked up over the past 10 years that led to absolutely no where? Atlanta? The Isles? There is so much more to just picking early. A lot of it is luck. A lot of it is player development. A lot of it is the structure of the organization.

For every team that has success with early picks there is another 2 teams not unlike them that have failed with the very same strategy. It may be a factor, but it's hardly the deciding factor at all.

JGRB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 12:05 PM
  #511
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
We're going round in circles!

I always like your posts, and you are correct. Bruins and Wings did not stack high picks to win the cup. This does happen, just not that often anymore, and in my opinion less in the future.

I will now bold my rebuttal: The majority of cup winning teams since the the Pens won with Lemuiex, and before that for some time, have won with high picks. Our chances of winning the cup are in my opinion much higher with high picks than without.

Why are so many of you not accepting this evidence? And why do so many of you automatically assume we are suggesting tanking to get high picks?

We are not suggesting tanking, but we are definitely stating that high picks will significantly increase our chance at cups. There is a massive amount of empirical evidence the last 40 years to show that this is true.

Why are you guys so bothered by this? Why don't you instead suggest ways the Habs can get high picks without tanking?

Wake up! The Habs have a real problem in this NHL:

1. Teams that are average every year do not get high picks.

2. High picks are in the great majority of cases very important to cup winning teams.

How do you suggest we solve this problem? Please tell us, because all you've been doing so far is denying an obvious and true condition:

The Habs are in the worst condition you can be in in today's NHL, a mediocre yet just good enough team that never gets high picks, year after year.

Please tell us what to do about this. We've been making suggestions, I want to hear your ideas.

Otherwise: When the Oilers win the cup in 4 years, I'll be the frigging first to say 'told you so'.
Well the important thing for my argument is that first I don't think it's high picks that make teams winning, but instead it's good young players/prospects. Some will say that it's equal, but I don't think so, you can draft studs without having high picks. That's probably where our opinions are differents. Look at the players on the Bruins lineup, Krejci, Lucic, Marchand, Bergeron, that's the big part of the core that make them won the cup and none of them are first round pick. It's sure that having high picks helps (just because it give good young players), but if you have good young players you don't need it.
Also when you are selling veterans to have high picks you sell something that is also essential to win the cup. I prefer to get good young players or prospects that getting picks it's way better since some development has been already done and you know a little more what you get by this. I think that with our big cap space while the cap is always higher, we will be able without trouble to keep all our good young players and even adding some veterans to helps (like we did this season with Cole). We need IMO to make one or two trade for one or two young players/prospects with some sandpaper and grit and we could be set for years by adding some good veterans on this core.

Forsead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 01:40 PM
  #512
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
...

Of course there is. Just as there's evidence that shows having multiple top-20 scorers increases your chance at winning the Cup. The correlation? Good players help teams win Cups. And players drafted in the top-5 tend to be good players.
That's what it boils down to.

It doesn't matter how you acquire them, there's no evidence to suggest one way is better than another. If you can get a guy who can contribute as much as a Zetterberg in the 7th round, it's as good as trading for a guy like Shanahan who was picked 2nd overall. At the end of the day you still have that talent on your roster, regardless of where it came from.

I took the liberty of making a table of every Cup winner since 1993, with how many top 5 and top 10 picks they had on their roster when they won the Cup and how many of those players they drafted. I also threw in last year's edition of the Habs for fun. When I scramble them all, can anybody really tell me which of these 19 teams didn't win the Cup simply by looking at the number of high picks they had on their team?

Top 5 Top 10 Top 5 (Drafted) Top 10 (Drafted)
5 7 1 1
4 6 2 3
4 6 0 0
5 5 4 4
4 5 0 0
3 5 1 2
4 5 1 2
2 4 1 1
1 4 1 3
3 4 1 2
3 4 1 1
3 3 2 2
1 3 1 1
3 3 1 1
2 3 1 1
2 2 1 1
0 2 0 0
1 2 1 1
1 1 0 0

If you actually look at the names behind the numbers, it's even more telling. I mean, it's just silly to lump names like Steve Yzerman, Oleg Tverdovsky and Aaron Ward together, but when you just look at the numbers there's no difference between the three.

Bill McNeal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 02:09 PM
  #513
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
1 and 2 =

3 and 4 = Wrong

Detroit and other teams not getting high picks are doing fine. I can't understand why people have not notice the constent progression of our team. The Habs past problems were bad management. Rejean Houle screwed us badly for over a decade and it took almost a decade to recover. Hard to do something whit what he left, which was a poor NHL team in terms of talent with poor prospects.

The "system" as nothing to do with it. Some teams are doing fine under that system, and so are the Habs in the past few years. This team is just getting better due to changes at management.

You are mxing apples and oranges.

Just my 0.02 !
I disagree. Detroit is the outlier here, not the other way around.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 03:56 PM
  #514
ECWHSWI
Spartan mic'
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Otherwise: When the Oilers win the cup in 4 years, I'll be the frigging first to say 'told you so'.

Sure you will, although it will mean nothing... I mean, pretty much every single team (minus maybe 2 or 3) have at least one or two top 5 pick in their ranks (we have Price, he doesnt count or what?)...

so yeah, one of the 27 or 28 teams with a top 5 pick on the roster might win the cup next season... woopidoo! against all odds, the 10% who doesnt have a top pick didnt win! who would have thought huh!

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 04:51 PM
  #515
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,198
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
Bill's post-graph 2 up.

You don't have to tank like the Oilers to win if you have the cash to spend up to the cap.

The modern NHL comes down to your personal. We got Subban in the 2nd round. He's a top 5 type pick, we have Price that 2 & Pax if Healthy came at what 18? Throw in guys like Cole... The GM is what really matters.... Sam Pollack should have a main Street named after him in Montreal, that's for sure.

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 05:11 PM
  #516
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
1. I am a Habs fan.

2. Ergo I want the Habs to win cups. Not finish 8th and get knocked out in the first round.

3. There is a structural problem in the NHL drafting system that is evidently hurting the Habs chances of winning cups.

4. If the NHL won't change and reward consistent payoff teams with higher picks, than the Habs need to adapt and find a way to solve this problem. The Habs have failed to do so.

Therefore: The reason we keep bringing this up is because it is a real and present problem, and it is not going to go away.

You must identify the problem. Most here have not done so. Enjoy the mediocrity.


I did not say Tank. And why don't you check the last 20 years. Go ahead.

Look at the list of coaches that we have had since the last time we won a Cup. Then look at the list of GM's that we have had as well.

The drafting system is not the problem. Management is.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 05:24 PM
  #517
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The problem lies there. No proof has come forward that this is more efficient then say, finishing 8th, then 6th, then battling for division and possibly being a contender.
There's tons of proof here... what are you talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
There's nothing that guarantees we would be anywhere ahead of where we are today.
No kidding. Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
All in all, that's the point, there isn't any guarantee. LG likes to make it seems as if it's a better and more proven route, but it isn't. If he just said he believes it's better, then fine, he's entitled to his opinion, like you and me. But he tries to pass it up as a fact.
I have never said it's a guarantee. Go show me where I have.

What I have shown you is that it has worked for most previous cup winners. Nowhere in the time that I've been here have I ever said that drafting high is a guarantee of success and you know this. So please, stop misrepresenting the position.

I've also said it's not the only way too. As for the method being more proven... absolutely it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
To remove fighting is to basically call the NHL soccer on ice.
I don't think so.

Fighting has probably had it's day. It's pretty much already gone from the game. The only thing that's left is two goons who ask each other 'if they want to go' before the puck drops... it's all for show and it's pretty much a waste of time. I don't care very strongly one way or the other but I don't think the game is going to suffer if there's no fighting. If that was the case, folks would've stopped coming a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
I'm sorry but I have enough of the "When is he going to answer the call" nonsense. Hey, a guy like Subban gives hard checks and talk sometimes.....MY GOD! HE HAS TO FIGHT!!!!! Total and stupid nonsense. You remove fighting, you remove that "answering the call" think. And you let players play their game without thinking that they have to give a sideshow as well.
And you don't have to remove the hitting or physical aspects of the game either. If two guys lose it on each other and decide to fight, so be it. But you're gone from the game just like you would be in any other sport.

I agree with you, I have a hard time believing that people will stop watching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
This is exactly why I was so frustrated by the Souray situation. We were walking knife edge between being a non playoff team and just making it, the worst place to be for dealing valuable vets at the deadline.

I am NOT saying it would have been better had we tanked, of course not, no one wants the Habs to suck, (including LG by the way.)

It's just so damn frustrating to be on that knife edge though. And I know, I still know, that Gainey ****ed up big time not trading Souray that year. I said it then. Look it up. I said it many times. He was so hot that year, a fist round pick was a definite possibility. Maybe a prospect too.

Souray was a big giant gift box for us that one year to gain good picks. And we blew it. We really did.
Yup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
1 and 2 =

3 and 4 = Wrong

Detroit and other teams not getting high picks are doing fine. I can't understand why people have not notice the constent progression of our team. The Habs past problems were bad management. Rejean Houle screwed us badly for over a decade and it took almost a decade to recover. Hard to do something whit what he left, which was a poor NHL team in terms of talent with poor prospects.

The "system" as nothing to do with it. Some teams are doing fine under that system, and so are the Habs in the past few years. This team is just getting better due to changes at management.

You are mxing apples and oranges.

Just my 0.02 !
Well, Detroit is the only club that I can think of that has drafted true superstars in the late rounds with any kind of regularity. We have not been able to do this and we've done a great job drafting late. I don't see how you could think this is a repeatable strategy.

As for the other winners, look at the Ducks: Niedermayer came over because his little brother played there. That is pure luck. We could try to draft Ovechkin's little brother and maybe see if he could come over but it's still not likely to happen.

They also got Selanne who appeared to be washed up and then suddenly turned back into a 50 goal scorer. And finally, Chris Pronger inexplicably wanted out of Edmonton and would only go to certain teams (Montreal was not on that list.) So as I've said before, Burke fell out of the luck tree and hit every branch on the way down. If you think we can do this, I'd say that you're probably wrong.

That doesn't mean I'm against getting Norris calibre defensemen if they are available on the FA market. I'm all for it, who wouldn't be? But there have been a handful of true superstars who've become FAs in their prime and one of them only did so in order to play with his brother. Pronger's done it so has Chara (who also won a cup with Boston and was a FA.) It happens occasionally but I don't think we can really count on this. If a superstar did become a FA though, I'd certainly be happy with us signing them with the club we have now, who wouldn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
What evidence, exactly? You've posted a statement; you have not provided any evidence. If we use your cut-off of Mario Lemieux-won Cups (arbitrary?):

'93: Damphousse (traded), Roy (2nd rounder), Muller (traded), Bellows (traded), Keane (undrafted signing), Desjardins (2nd rounder), Carbonneau (3rd rounder)
'94: Messier (traded), Richter (2nd rounder), Zubov (5th rounder), Graves (traded, 2nd rounder), Leetch (9th overall), Larmer (traded), Kovalev (15th overall)
'95: Brodeur (20th overall), Stevens (traded, essentially), Niedermayer (3rd overall), C. Lemieux (2nd rounder), Richer (traded, 2nd rounder), Maclean (6th overall), Broten (traded, 3rd rounder)
'96: Sakic (15th overall), Forsberg (traded, 6th overall), Kamensky (7th rounder), Ozolinsh (2nd rounder), Deadmarsh (14th overall), Roy (traded)
'97: Fedorov (4th rounder), Yzerman (4th overall), Shanahan (traded), Lidstrom (3rd rounder), Konstantinov (11th rounder), Murphy (traded), Vernon (traded)
'98: same core

So without continuing further to demonstrate the evidence that you claim exists here, in those 6 years only two (2) players were drafted by their Cup-winning clubs in the top-5. Two.
We also include prospects and picks that were traded for. It would be silly not to.

Rangers: Leetch 9th
Devils: Niedermayer, Maclean Guerin. Niedermayer is a superstar the other two are very good. Stevens came over because of Shanahan.
Avs: Forsberg 6th (Traded for in the Lindros deal)
Det: Yzerman 4th

And why aren't Dallas (Modano) or Tampa (Lecavalier) here?

Please also notice that the multi cup winners (Det, NJ, Col) listed here all went through extended periods of drafting high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Of course there is. Just as there's evidence that shows having multiple top-20 scorers increases your chance at winning the Cup. The correlation? Good players help teams win Cups. And players drafted in the top-5 tend to be good players.

I think the point is abundantly clear that top-5 picks are a positive asset. I don't think the Canadiens have made a point of avoiding the acquisition of top-5 picks. However, the assertion that a team ought to strip its assets bare and build to a future, falling in the standings sufficiently to be among the worst 5 teams in the league is a far cry from a winning strategy in my mind. There is ample evidence of teams employing such strategies (intentionally or not) and failing miserably.
Nobody is saying that right now. We have had windows in the past to do this but nobody is saying to do this now. That doesn't mean though that we can't trade away a Markov if there's a great guy to build around out there. It makes sense for us to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
The recent rash of success enjoyed by Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington are not the norm: Chicago was in a peculiar situation where they had been bad for a long time, and had numerous young players emerge at once. Indeed, these young players included top-5 selections (Toews, Kane), but also many others (Byfuglien, Ladd, Versteeg, Hjalmarsson, Bolland, Sharp, Keith). These 'many others' gave the team the necessary depth to overwhelm any opposition. Many of these 'others' came out of nowhere (witness: Carolina giving up on Ladd; Philly on Sharp; Boston on Versteeg), and others were late-rounders that emerged like Byfuglien. The result? They were all on cheap contracts, as were the core of Toews, Kane, Seabrook and Keith. This is an unsustainable situation and, frankly, an incredibly rare situation (never happened in the cap-era). To have top-5 pick talent emerge coinciding with developing dark horse talent is such an ideal situation that it's, frankly, silly to have that as an objective.

Washington and Pittsburgh are in equally unique situations since Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin are such exceptional talents that no team ought to expect to obtain such talents in the top-5.

Consequently, if we remove these three teams from the equation for the aforementioned reasons, what clubs in recent memory have excelled employing such a strategy whereby top-5 picks are paramount?
Yes it is.

Years back before these guys had won anything, I kept saying that they were building with top picks and were probably going to have great teams with the players they were drafting. Everyone on this forum kept arguing that 'none of them have won anything yet' so there was no evidence that it worked.

Now folks can only say that about Washington because they're the only one of the three that haven't won a cup... yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill McNeal View Post
That's what it boils down to.

It doesn't matter how you acquire them, there's no evidence to suggest one way is better than another.
Well, yes and no. Here's a quote from stats guru and 'Hockey History' admin Seventieslord and his statistical study on draft picks and how they shake out. I thought you'd like this because you seem to be a stat guy. Seventies has all kinds of charts on this and it's very interesting to read.

"Between 1969 and 2000, there have been 160 top-5 picks. 35 of those have become superstars. (using 8.5 on the HF scale as a cutoff).

During that time, there have been 672 11th-30th picks. 23 of those have become superstars, using the same cutoff.

50% more superstars in 1/4 the picks, hmmm...

the actual sucess rates of these blocks of picks work out to 21.9% and 3.4%.

You can talk about Brodeur, Sakic, Hossa, Ignila, MacInnis all you want, but the truth is, they are 5 of the 23 superstars drafted out of 672 picks.

If your goal is to just get a "good" or better NHL player - (a 7.0 or higher, meaning 2nd line, 2nd pairing, or average/journeyman starter), you're looking at 112/160 in the top 5, or 70%. In the 10th-30th slots, you;re looking at 169/672, or 25%.

Or maybe you just want to make sure you get a player who will become a full-time NHLer for at least a few seasons (5 or higher, at worst, Belak). Drafting top-5, you're looking at 148/160, or 92.5%. In 10th-30th, 398/672, or 59.2%, hardly a guarantee that you'll even get an NHL player.

If you have 10 picks in the 10-30 slots, there is actually a 71% chance that you WON'T get a superstar player. (a 29% chance that you will) If you have 3 picks in the top 5, there is a 47% chance that you'll end up without a superstar, but a 53% chance that you will."

"I thought I'd add a fun little note - get outside of the top 30 and there have only been 24 players (EVER!) drafted outside of the top 30 who qualify as superstars, this is from a pool of 6141 picks for a success rate of 0.4%.

In case you're wondering, these players are, in order of greatness:
Roy, Hasek, Messier, Lidstrom, Chelios, Hull, Langway, Fedorov, Kurri, Mogilny, Bure, Blake, Smith, Gilmour, Recchi, Zetterberg, Greschner, Richards, Bondra, Elias, Chara, Kiprusoff, Fleury, Robitaille."


So yes, it only matters on whether or not you have a superstar but as you can see here, it's a heck of a lot easier to find them in the upper part of the draft.

You'll also notice that there are a few players missing here from the list like Oates and St. Louis. That's because they weren't drafted. Feel free to add them to the list, it doesn't change the fact that it's very difficult to get these guys later on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill McNeal View Post
If you can get a guy who can contribute as much as a Zetterberg in the 7th round, it's as good as trading for a guy like Shanahan who was picked 2nd overall. At the end of the day you still have that talent on your roster, regardless of where it came from.
Sure.

But talent is in the top end of the draft far more often than in the bottom. Everyone knew Shanahan would be a superstar. Nobody knew Zetterberg would be. If they did, he would've been drafted earlier. The later rounds of the draft are a total crapshoot. If you get a star (or even a useful player) great... but you can't count on this happening and you can't just sit back and build your team with low picks and expect to draft a bunch of superstars. It's not likely to happen.

And btw, even if we compare where most 'franchise players' (this is even higher than superstar level and neither Zetterberg or Shanahan would qualify) come from, it becomes even more impossible to find them in the later rounds. More from Seventieslord:

"Suppose we're looking for a "true franchise player" who is 9.0 or over instead of a mere "superstar" at 8.5+.

There have been 36 of these in total.

In the top 5: 16 out of 160 picks or 10%
In 6-10: 5 out of 160 picks or 3.1%
In 11-30: 7 out of 640 or 1.1%
In 30-end of draft: 8 out of 6142 or 0.13%

It's worth mentioning, as well, that only two of these came after the 74th pick: Brett Hull and Dominik Hasek. So i could make two brackets out of that bottom one:
31-90: 6 out of 1920 or 0.31%
91-end of draft: 2 out of 0.047%

In the top 5, you are 322% as likely to get a franchise guy as in the 6-10 slots. In 6-10 you are 281% as likely to get one as in 11-30. In 11-30 you are 355% as likely to get one as you are in 31-90, and in 31-90 you are 660% as likely to find one than past the 90th pick.

And comparing the 91st pick and onwards to the top 5 shows you just how hard it is. You are 212 times as likely to find a franchise player in the top 5 compared to 91st and on."


It's not just a question of one being as good as the other... it's a question of ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO FIND that player. In the top five they are much more common and in the late rounds of a draft it's like a needle in the haystack (if they are there at all.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill McNeal View Post
I took the liberty of making a table of every Cup winner since 1993, with how many top 5 and top 10 picks they had on their roster when they won the Cup and how many of those players they drafted. I also threw in last year's edition of the Habs for fun. When I scramble them all, can anybody really tell me which of these 19 teams didn't win the Cup simply by looking at the number of high picks they had on their team?

Top 5 Top 10 Top 5 (Drafted) Top 10 (Drafted)
5 7 1 1
4 6 2 3
4 6 0 0
5 5 4 4
4 5 0 0
3 5 1 2
4 5 1 2
2 4 1 1
1 4 1 3
3 4 1 2
3 4 1 1
3 3 2 2
1 3 1 1
3 3 1 1
2 3 1 1
2 2 1 1
0 2 0 0
1 2 1 1
1 1 0 0

If you actually look at the names behind the numbers, it's even more telling. I mean, it's just silly to lump names like Steve Yzerman, Oleg Tverdovsky and Aaron Ward together, but when you just look at the numbers there's no difference between the three.
Seventies actually has done a study on the outcome of each team for every season in the NHL since 1970. It's a striking difference on how teams that have more top picks playing on it (regardless on how they were acquired or how good they were) fair against those without those kinds of picks.

He's on vacation now but I'm going to ask him to start on OT thread here because I think people like you would like it. Seventies is all about stats and data and he's made some pretty cool studies on this in the past.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 09-03-2011 at 05:49 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 05:43 PM
  #518
mix1home
Registered User
 
mix1home's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto,ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
We're going round in circles!

I always like your posts, and you are correct. Bruins and Wings did not stack high picks to win the cup. This does happen, just not that often anymore, and in my opinion less in the future.

I will now bold my rebuttal: The majority of cup winning teams since the the Pens won with Lemuiex, and before that for some time, have won with high picks. Our chances of winning the cup are in my opinion much higher with high picks than without.

Why are so many of you not accepting this evidence? And why do so many of you automatically assume we are suggesting tanking to get high picks?

We are not suggesting tanking, but we are definitely stating that high picks will significantly increase our chance at cups. There is a massive amount of empirical evidence the last 40 years to show that this is true.

Why are you guys so bothered by this? Why don't you instead suggest ways the Habs can get high picks without tanking?

Wake up! The Habs have a real problem in this NHL:

1. Teams that are average every year do not get high picks.

2. High picks are in the great majority of cases very important to cup winning teams.

How do you suggest we solve this problem? Please tell us, because all you've been doing so far is denying an obvious and true condition:

The Habs are in the worst condition you can be in in today's NHL, a mediocre yet just good enough team that never gets high picks, year after year.

Please tell us what to do about this. We've been making suggestions, I want to hear your ideas.

Otherwise: When the Oilers win the cup in 4 years, I'll be the frigging first to say 'told you so'.
For the moment there I thought I was on Leafs boards. Ha-ha.
I don't see tanking as option really. Not in Toronto or Montreal anyway. There will be 90% pissed fans when product on the ice is not good enough.
I see these ways to improve without high picks in cap league:

1. Invest in management team, doctors, facilities, playing and training arenas for AHL / prospect players.
2. Invest in pro and amateur scouting in NA and Europe.
3. Invest in coaching. Make sure that style of affiliate team play is somewhat similar to NHL club.
4. Be patient with your top prospects.
5. Try to trade for young players that their teams gave up on in violation of point 4. (see also point 2.)
6. Try to capitalize on bad situations within other teams to get their good players / promising prospects.
7. Get 1st round picks from other teams whenever possible as you never know where they will finish.
8. Get some FA signings that will compensate in areas your team lacking.
9. Celebrate the Cup.

mix1home is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 06:07 PM
  #519
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Look at the list of coaches that we have had since the last time we won a Cup. Then look at the list of GM's that we have had as well.

The drafting system is not the problem. Management is.
The coaching list really isn't all that bad, especially considering the Habs limit the pool of candidates they can choose from. Three guys who have won Jack Adams trophies and a Cup winner. Stacks up better than most teams.

GMs, it's hard to argue with the results. Team just hasn't won enough for any of them to be labeled a clear success. The verdict is still out on Gauthier. He's still building 'his' team. But the funny thing about rating GMs is they're never good until they win something, and once they win they rarely do it again. It's very hard to build multiple Cup winning teams, and I'm not sure if it's actually ever been done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
...
I may have been a bit unclear on what I meant by my statement about 7th rounders and 1st rounders. I definitely agree with you that it's much easier to get elite talent early in the draft, but my point was that it doesn't matter where it came from once you have it. Detroit got Shanahan via trade and Zetterberg through a 7th round pick, in the end they got two very good players without having a top pick themselves.

My table was to illustrate that Cup winners don't have a set recipe of how many higher picks they have on their roster, and even the ones they do have vary greatly in value. You will see a team like Pittsburgh with 4 top 5 picks, all of which they drafted with their own picks, having great success but there's a sacrifice they had to make. They had a horrible team for many, many years, with no real assets to make themselves better other than the picks they'd receive at the end of the season. Teams that don't tank by definition have better assets and can use them, if they're shrewd, to improve themselves. Obviously crappy organizations won't be able to turn those average teams into better ones, but on that same note there are a number of tanking teams that haven't been able to use that method to produce results. Either way, you need a good GM to make your team into a contender.

On the topic that you brought up of team composition analysis done by Seventieslord, that would be of to interest me. I've always wanted to dig deeper into just exactly how contenders are built, but I'm far too lazy.

Bill McNeal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 06:13 PM
  #520
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Years back before these guys had won anything, I kept saying that they were building with top picks and were probably going to have great teams with the players they were drafting.
This is pretty absurd. I hope you don't think you were one of the first to think of tanking. Or one of the first to think that teams who go through prolonged periods of terrible rosters wind up drafting good players. It doesn't negate the fact that Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin are exceptional talents and that believing a team can land these types of talents just by virtue of drafting in the top five for a few seasons is fantasy. Nor does it negate what I've stated about Chicago's highly unique situation which is, again, fantasy to think of that as an objective; nevermind the fact that it's a wholly unsustainable objective (and unattainable).

But I've gone around this merry-go-round with you a few times before and, as much as I like you as a poster, I've expressed my feelings of being bored with the topic since we fundamentally disagree and cannot seem to find any common ground.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 06:32 PM
  #521
Boris Le Tigre
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
 
Boris Le Tigre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: More Toast !
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 5,404
vCash: 500
Fighting is not allowed really. It is a major penalty the same as any other. A coach could just easily send a player out to slash someone, etc.... And the samr result. All of these plays and especially fighting will be in play in pro hockey.. Its an emotional and physical sport, right?

You don't have to get a designated fighter but having can be good, and considering our rivals line ups I want a guy... Or ten of them. A guy that can be a doorman for our top guys, especially Price. And a guy who can send a message to an opposing team if we are done a couple goals. The: this isn't gonna be easy message.

Boris Le Tigre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 09:01 PM
  #522
ECWHSWI
Spartan mic'
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
There's tons of proof here... what are you talking about?
only in your mind there's any proof it works (wether it worked in the 50s 60s or 70s is irrelevant, different eras)

and the reason for this is pretty simple, you completely ignore the teams it didnt work for...

since lock out half the team who tanked won a Cup ? big deal, what about the other half ?

worked for Chicago and Pittsburgh ? good for them...

but what about Vancouver and the twins (both top 5 picks), Luongo (4th overall) and Malhotra (7th overall)

and what about Columbus who drafted top eight for close to a decade ?

and Phoenix drafting Wheeler, Mueller and Turris within four years ?

and LA who drafted between 1 and 7 from 84 to 88 (on top of Robitaille drafted in the 9th in 84) ?

and the Panthers with Bowmeester, Weiss and Horton drafted in the top 4 ?

or the Trashers who drafted top 2 (not top five, top TWO) four years in a row ?

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 10:41 PM
  #523
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill McNeal View Post
I may have been a bit unclear on what I meant by my statement about 7th rounders and 1st rounders. I definitely agree with you that it's much easier to get elite talent early in the draft, but my point was that it doesn't matter where it came from once you have it. Detroit got Shanahan via trade and Zetterberg through a 7th round pick, in the end they got two very good players without having a top pick themselves.
Okay, I'd agree with this.

My point is that you can't rely on those later picks turning into anything but you're right, if you get Lidstrom in the 5th round it doesn't really matter...Actually, it's better if you can get him in the 5th round because that means that you got to use your earlier picks on other players who are more likely to be productive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill McNeal View Post
My table was to illustrate that Cup winners don't have a set recipe of how many higher picks they have on their roster, and even the ones they do have vary greatly in value. You will see a team like Pittsburgh with 4 top 5 picks, all of which they drafted with their own picks, having great success but there's a sacrifice they had to make. They had a horrible team for many, many years, with no real assets to make themselves better other than the picks they'd receive at the end of the season. Teams that don't tank by definition have better assets and can use them, if they're shrewd, to improve themselves. Obviously crappy organizations won't be able to turn those average teams into better ones, but on that same note there are a number of tanking teams that haven't been able to use that method to produce results. Either way, you need a good GM to make your team into a contender.

On the topic that you brought up of team composition analysis done by Seventieslord, that would be of to interest me. I've always wanted to dig deeper into just exactly how contenders are built, but I'm far too lazy.
He's done a study on this and the results were pretty interesting. Like I said, I'll get him to post the study because it was really neat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
This is pretty absurd. I hope you don't think you were one of the first to think of tanking. Or one of the first to think that teams who go through prolonged periods of terrible rosters wind up drafting good players. It doesn't negate the fact that Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin are exceptional talents and that believing a team can land these types of talents just by virtue of drafting in the top five for a few seasons is fantasy. Nor does it negate what I've stated about Chicago's highly unique situation which is, again, fantasy to think of that as an objective; nevermind the fact that it's a wholly unsustainable objective (and unattainable).

But I've gone around this merry-go-round with you a few times before and, as much as I like you as a poster, I've expressed my feelings of being bored with the topic since we fundamentally disagree and cannot seem to find any common ground.
Okay Mike, fair enough.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 06:15 AM
  #524
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mix1home View Post
For the moment there I thought I was on Leafs boards. Ha-ha.
I don't see tanking as option really. Not in Toronto or Montreal anyway. There will be 90% pissed fans when product on the ice is not good enough.
I see these ways to improve without high picks in cap league:

1. Invest in management team, doctors, facilities, playing and training arenas for AHL / prospect players.
2. Invest in pro and amateur scouting in NA and Europe.
3. Invest in coaching. Make sure that style of affiliate team play is somewhat similar to NHL club.
4. Be patient with your top prospects.
5. Try to trade for young players that their teams gave up on in violation of point 4. (see also point 2.)
6. Try to capitalize on bad situations within other teams to get their good players / promising prospects.
7. Get 1st round picks from other teams whenever possible as you never know where they will finish.
8. Get some FA signings that will compensate in areas your team lacking.
9. Celebrate the Cup.
I don't know if you know this, but the Leafs have sucked for years and the Leaf fans are completely fine, they seem to be especially content now that they have some faith in Burke. The rest of your post is pretty good, but Toronto has been unofficially tanking for years. Already a lottery pick team once, yet they sell out every night.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 07:42 AM
  #525
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
What evidence, exactly? You've posted a statement; you have not provided any evidence. If we use your cut-off of Mario Lemieux-won Cups (arbitrary?):

'93: Damphousse (traded), Roy (2nd rounder), Muller (traded), Bellows (traded), Keane (undrafted signing), Desjardins (2nd rounder), Carbonneau (3rd rounder)
'94: Messier (traded), Richter (2nd rounder), Zubov (5th rounder), Graves (traded, 2nd rounder), Leetch (9th overall), Larmer (traded), Kovalev (15th overall)
'95: Brodeur (20th overall), Stevens (traded, essentially), Niedermayer (3rd overall), C. Lemieux (2nd rounder), Richer (traded, 2nd rounder), Maclean (6th overall), Broten (traded, 3rd rounder)
'96: Sakic (15th overall), Forsberg (traded, 6th overall), Kamensky (7th rounder), Ozolinsh (2nd rounder), Deadmarsh (14th overall), Roy (traded)
'97: Fedorov (4th rounder), Yzerman (4th overall), Shanahan (traded), Lidstrom (3rd rounder), Konstantinov (11th rounder), Murphy (traded), Vernon (traded)
'98: same core

So without continuing further to demonstrate the evidence that you claim exists here, in those 6 years only two (2) players were drafted by their Cup-winning clubs in the top-5. Two.




Of course there is. Just as there's evidence that shows having multiple top-20 scorers increases your chance at winning the Cup. The correlation? Good players help teams win Cups. And players drafted in the top-5 tend to be good players.

I think the point is abundantly clear that top-5 picks are a positive asset. I don't think the Canadiens have made a point of avoiding the acquisition of top-5 picks. However, the assertion that a team ought to strip its assets bare and build to a future, falling in the standings sufficiently to be among the worst 5 teams in the league is a far cry from a winning strategy in my mind. There is ample evidence of teams employing such strategies (intentionally or not) and failing miserably.

The recent rash of success enjoyed by Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington are not the norm: Chicago was in a peculiar situation where they had been bad for a long time, and had numerous young players emerge at once. Indeed, these young players included top-5 selections (Toews, Kane), but also many others (Byfuglien, Ladd, Versteeg, Hjalmarsson, Bolland, Sharp, Keith). These 'many others' gave the team the necessary depth to overwhelm any opposition. Many of these 'others' came out of nowhere (witness: Carolina giving up on Ladd; Philly on Sharp; Boston on Versteeg), and others were late-rounders that emerged like Byfuglien. The result? They were all on cheap contracts, as were the core of Toews, Kane, Seabrook and Keith. This is an unsustainable situation and, frankly, an incredibly rare situation (never happened in the cap-era). To have top-5 pick talent emerge coinciding with developing dark horse talent is such an ideal situation that it's, frankly, silly to have that as an objective.

Washington and Pittsburgh are in equally unique situations since Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin are such exceptional talents that no team ought to expect to obtain such talents in the top-5.

Consequently, if we remove these three teams from the equation for the aforementioned reasons, what clubs in recent memory have excelled employing such a strategy whereby top-5 picks are paramount?
A very good and reasoned post. I'm certainly not 100% correct. And you have provided evidence of this. I'm also not here to win arguments, I'm here like you guys because I want the Habs to win, and to have some fun with debate.

However I still stand by a strategy of not tanking and yet still seeking high picks. I still think the Habs should find a way to do this more often.

The Habs need to draft higher, somehow, much more often!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
We have two players I consider early round picks in Price and Subban (despite being a 2nd rounder).

I honestly don't understand what your trying to argue, that having early round helps your chance of winning? No ****, they generally turn into better players. There is a number of ways to build a team and I am very confident in the way this team is currently structured in terms of it's youth moving forward.

How do you feel about the early picks that teams like Florida and Columbus have picked up over the past 10 years that led to absolutely no where? Atlanta? The Isles? There is so much more to just picking early. A lot of it is luck. A lot of it is player development. A lot of it is the structure of the organization.

For every team that has success with early picks there is another 2 teams not unlike them that have failed with the very same strategy. It may be a factor, but it's hardly the deciding factor at all.
Very good post. As I've said,of course I'm not 100% correct. There are other ways to build a cup contending team, and you have described this.

What I am saying is why not go for both? Develop well, pick UFA's carefully, do not tank, and draft high, as much as possible. Find a way to draft high even if you finish top 16 every year. I really believe this is very important.

I like the Habs right now by the way, never said I did not. This is a good, young and exciting team. I'm pretty happy with the general direction of things also. I'm not gonna hang myself guys, things are OK.

But they could be better, and the Habs should strive for that next level too.

But one top 5 pick in 25 years is not excusable. It just isn't. All of us should at least agree on this!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill McNeal View Post
That's what it boils down to.

It doesn't matter how you acquire them, there's no evidence to suggest one way is better than another. If you can get a guy who can contribute as much as a Zetterberg in the 7th round, it's as good as trading for a guy like Shanahan who was picked 2nd overall. At the end of the day you still have that talent on your roster, regardless of where it came from.

I took the liberty of making a table of every Cup winner since 1993, with how many top 5 and top 10 picks they had on their roster when they won the Cup and how many of those players they drafted. I also threw in last year's edition of the Habs for fun. When I scramble them all, can anybody really tell me which of these 19 teams didn't win the Cup simply by looking at the number of high picks they had on their team?

Top 5 Top 10 Top 5 (Drafted) Top 10 (Drafted)
5 7 1 1
4 6 2 3
4 6 0 0
5 5 4 4
4 5 0 0
3 5 1 2
4 5 1 2
2 4 1 1
1 4 1 3
3 4 1 2
3 4 1 1
3 3 2 2
1 3 1 1
3 3 1 1
2 3 1 1
2 2 1 1
0 2 0 0
1 2 1 1
1 1 0 0

If you actually look at the names behind the numbers, it's even more telling. I mean, it's just silly to lump names like Steve Yzerman, Oleg Tverdovsky and Aaron Ward together, but when you just look at the numbers there's no difference between the three.
Excellent work. Of course it is true that you don't always win the cup with your own high picks, but your research does show you certainly do win with top picks by trade and UFA.

I will then say that it is damn tough to pick up top 5 pick type players these days, and it is far more prudent to draft them, if possible.


Last edited by Mike8: 09-04-2011 at 07:56 AM. Reason: merge
bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.