HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-04-2011, 07:24 PM
  #551
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
27. Should the Instigator Rule be abolished?

Players Response: NO - 65%

28. Should fighting be completely banished in the NHL?

Players Response:
- NO - 98%
- YES - 2%

From the main board. I knew the numbers were overwhelming, but forgot how overwhelming. The players/gms coaches and every body directly involved don't share the view that many fans, especially younger fans share about fighting in hockey. If these numbers don't tell you how far outta of touch you are with how the people who are involved in the game feel, maybe you need to rethink why this is the case.

I'll take their opinions 8 days a week over the vocal minority here on HF boards.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 07:32 PM
  #552
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,951
vCash: 500
While the players want it, the real question that needs to be asked is what purpose does fighting have in the game outside of tradition?

To suggest that emotions get higher in hockey than any other sport is very ego-centric. Emotions get high in every sport, everyone wants to win, every sport is fustrating when things don't go your way. Dirty plays happen in every sport, even soccer( the game all hockey fans love to bash as if liking hockey makes people feel more manlier than if they liked soccer...as if manliness should be defining quality of a human being), where players are constantly tugging at your jersey, elbowing you when battling for the ball, kneeing and clipping etc. Watch a basketball game and you'll see that is a very dirty sport as well. I really don't see how the emotions of hockey is a way to justify fighting.

Does fighting offer protection? All the crap that happens in the nhl would suggest otherwise. It's already illegal to actually fight, that is why players are penalized for doing so. Other than entertainment value I really don't see where fighting has it's place in the game.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 07:46 PM
  #553
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
Like the team that had Horton (trade), Bergeron (second round pick), Krejci (second round pick), Marchand (third round pick), Ryder (UFA), Recchi (UFA), Kelly (trade), Peverley (trade), Lucic (second round pick), Kaberle (trade), Seidenberg (trade), Ference (trade), Boychuk (trade), Chara (UFA), McQuaid (trade) and Thomas (UFA) has their core.
add Rask to the "trade list" and Seguin, a 1st rounder they got in a trade too

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 07:52 PM
  #554
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
add Rask to the "trade list" and Seguin, a 1st rounder they got in a trade too
Well I thought that naming their top 6 D, their top 9 forward and their number one Goalie was enough, because it's really the core that got the cup.

Forsead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 08:57 PM
  #555
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
Well I thought that naming their top 6 D, their top 9 forward and their number one Goalie was enough, because it's really the core that got the cup.
for some, it never will be

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 09:23 PM
  #556
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
27. Should the Instigator Rule be abolished?

Players Response: NO - 65%

28. Should fighting be completely banished in the NHL?

Players Response:
- NO - 98%
- YES - 2%

From the main board. I knew the numbers were overwhelming, but forgot how overwhelming. The players/gms coaches and every body directly involved don't share the view that many fans, especially younger [Montreal Canadiens] fans share about fighting in hockey. If these numbers don't tell you how far outta of touch you are with how the people who are involved in the game feel, maybe you need to rethink why this is the case.

I'll take their opinions 8 days a week over the vocal minority here on HF boards.

I changed your post a little bit. I think that the majority of the anti-fighting sentiment is limited mainly to Montreal. For what reason, I dont know.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 09:27 PM
  #557
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I changed your post a little bit. I think that the majority of the anti-fighting sentiment is limited mainly to Montreal. For what reason, I dont know.
What do you think the percentages in a player poll in the 70's would have been about making players be forced to wear helmets?

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 09:48 PM
  #558
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
What do you think the percentages in a player poll in the 70's would have been about making players be forced to wear helmets?
Dont know.

Based upon some of the responses in this thread, I am sure that many of you would be happy with a no contact NHL and flag football in the NFL/CFL.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 09:53 PM
  #559
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Dont know.

Based upon some of the responses in this thread, I am sure that many of you would be happy with a no contact NHL and flag football in the NFL/CFL.
Where did you manage to read into people's thoughts that they want physical play banned because they frown upon fighting? I really don't see the jump in logic from people wanting to provide stricter sanction to fighting to wanting to ban contact in the nhl. You're just exaggerating for no reason.

All it does show is once again that people conflate toughness with fighting. Hockey can be tough without there having to be fighting...the two don't have to go hand in hand.


Last edited by Andy: 09-04-2011 at 10:16 PM.
Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 10:20 PM
  #560
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Where did you manage to read into people's thoughts that they want physical play banned because they frown upon fighting? I really don't see the jump in logic from people wanting to provide stricter sanction to fighting to wanting to ban contact in the nhl. You're just exaggerating for no reason.

All it does show is once again that people conflate toughness with fighting. Hockey can be tough without there having to be fighting...the two don't have to go hand in hand.
Well, if you ask me a totally irrelevant question (regarding helmets from the previous poster), I will give you a totally outrageous answer in return.

I left out the in my remark.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 10:29 PM
  #561
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Well, if you ask me a totally irrelevant question (regarding helmets from the previous poster), I will give you a totally outrageous answer in return.

I left out the in my remark.
I'm not so sure it was an irrelevant question.

Go back and re-read it and try to pick up what he was trying to say. His point was actually quite interesting.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 10:46 PM
  #562
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I'm not so sure it was an irrelevant question.

Go back and re-read it and try to pick up what he was trying to say. His point was actually quite interesting.
OK. I'll play.

Helmets ---> Instigator rule ---> No fighting ---> No contact

Seems like a pretty natural progression.

Maybe we can get thick styrofoam placed on the boards. Oh, and we can replace that frozen rock hard piece of rubber with a tennis ball.

But to be serious. The wearing of helmets did not make a team more or less competitive. However, physicality (including having players who are good at fighting) can improve the competitiveness of a team as it allows the forwards to play with more of an edge.

See the play of Marchand, Krejci, Ryder et al in the playoffs when they knew Thornton/Chara/McQuaid had their backs. They were not afraid to mix it up with anyone.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 10:49 PM
  #563
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,940
vCash: 500
Having players who are good at fighting does not, in fact, increase the competitiveness of a team. All it does is increase the risk of injury for the sake of entertainment. As such, the comparison with mandatory helmet is perfectly apt.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 10:55 PM
  #564
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
OK. I'll play.

Helmets ---> Instigator rule ---> No fighting ---> No contact

Seems like a pretty natural progression.

Maybe we can get thick styrofoam placed on the boards. Oh, and we can replace that frozen rock hard piece of rubber with a tennis ball.

But to be serious. The wearing of helmets did not make a team more or less competitive. However, physicality (including having players who are good at fighting) can improve the competitiveness of a team as it allows the forwards to play with more of an edge.

See the play of Marchand, Krejci, Ryder et al in the playoffs when they knew Thornton/Chara/McQuaid had their backs. They were not afraid to mix it up with anyone.
I don't think his analogy was calling into question what fighting provides in the game, rather what the meaning of the poll is and whether the information that it provides is a good argument to keep fighting in the game...namely that players approve of it. He's saying had you polled nhlers in the 60s whether they wanted to force helmets, he would expect that a similar answer would happen.

It has nothing to do with the relevance of fighting in hockey, but his question was regarding the relevance of the information of that poll. I really don't understand why you can't see this and choose to talk about irrelavent points..

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 11:19 PM
  #565
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I don't think his analogy was calling into question what fighting provides in the game, rather what the meaning of the poll is and whether the information that it provides is a good argument to keep fighting in the game...namely that players approve of it. He's saying had you polled nhlers in the 60s whether they wanted to force helmets, he would expect that a similar answer would happen.

It has nothing to do with the relevance of fighting in hockey, but his question was regarding the relevance of the information of that poll. I really don't understand why you can't see this and choose to talk about irrelavent points..
Not to get into a back and forth, but the gist of this thread is "toughness" and the lack thereof with the Canadiens.

A member posted a poll regarding the players not wanting to get rid of fighting. Fighting goes hand in hand with toughness......despite the staunch denial by some here.

Asking about a speculative poll that never happened regarding helmets on a thread about toughness is completely irrelevant. It would make as much sense in this thread if I were to ask you if you knew the poll results of players regarding the elimination of the two line pass rule.

But then again, this thread has had so many twists and turns away from the original topic that I expect nothing less.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 11:26 PM
  #566
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Having players who are good at fighting does not, in fact, increase the competitiveness of a team. All it does is increase the risk of injury for the sake of entertainment. As such, the comparison with mandatory helmet is perfectly apt.
So I will default back to one of my posts earlier.

If the risk of injury for the sake of entertainment is of concern (and yes, we are entertained when we go to a hockey game.........but then again there are some who are there for the stats and the stats only), then do not stop at fighting.

Make the NHL a non-contact sport. That will reduce injuries for the sake of entertainment. Put thick padding on the boards. No more rubber pucks (ever see how many players in the NHL are missing teeth?). Foam pucks and foam hockey sticks. Ice is slippery so remove it and play on soft padded carpet. No injuries for the sake of us being entertained while watching a game.


So which is it? Removal of injuries from a sport where the participants volunteer to engage in it? Or just your disdain for fighting because of YOUR own personal beliefs?

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 11:36 PM
  #567
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
A member posted a poll regarding the players not wanting to get rid of fighting. Fighting goes hand in hand with toughness......despite the staunch denial by some here.
I don't agree that fighting goes hand in hand with toughness. You don't need to fight to be considered tough. How many times does Pronger fight a year and some considering him among the toughest players in the nhl. There are many many tough players in the nhl who don't fight yet are considered tough.

Toughness can include fighting, but it's not limited to it.

Quote:
Asking about a speculative poll that never happened regarding helmets on a thread about toughness is completely irrelevant. It would make as much sense in this thread if I were to ask you if you knew the poll results of players regarding the elimination of the two line pass rule.
Talking about tanking in a thread about toughness is equally irrelevant, but it's been the topic for the last 6-7 pages. As far as the speculative poll....once again, I think you've missed the point in what he was trying to say when he questioned what players would have tought in the 70s had they been polled for helmets. I guess what he is saying that what the players think they want, isn't always necessarily best for them. I'm not saying I agree with his questioning the results by suggesting a hypothetical but it is interesting nonetheless.

These players grew and are accustomed to a certain system and are comfortable with it, but just because you are comfortable with it, doesn't mean it's good for you or beneficial or even necessary. The players might not want to have stricter sanctions on fighting, but that doesn't mean keeping fighting is a necessity. Likewise, players in the 70s probably didn't think it important to implement a rule that would force new players in the nhl to wear helmets, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't necessary to do so.

The debate around fighting will only grow imo...the talk is already quite advanced from where it used to be just a couple of years ago imo. So yes, I think his hypothetical poll is interesting because just because players don't think it necessary to ban it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned. A lot more goes into hockey than simply taking into account what the players think. Hockey is a business and image is everything, if they feel fighting would be beneficial to the league in terms of saftey on the ice and marketability, I think the league would care very little of what the players think.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 11:39 PM
  #568
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
If the risk of injury for the sake of entertainment is of concern (and yes, we are entertained when we go to a hockey game.........but then again there are some who are there for the stats and the stats only), then do not stop at fighting.
Don't be silly. All sports strive to strike a balance between safety and entertainment/action, and all sports, including non-contact sports, incur the inherent risk of injury. One can get hurt playing golf. What it is is a balancing act.

The problem with fighting is twofold: first, it's not actually hockey. The goal of hockey is to get the puck in the opposing net using a stick; there are rules about how much contact is permitted, as well as things like offsides, icing, et ceatera. Fighting is not part of this, does not contribute to this, and in fact is an infraction to the rules of the game.

Second, and more importantly, it's known to cause permanent, traumatic injury (in the form of actual brain damage) with serious impact on the quality of life of players. All that for something that is, as I pointed out, against the rules of the game.

It causes a disproportionate amount of long-term injury, it is an illegal action, and it grants no competitive advantadge towards the actual objective of the game, which last I checked was still to outscore the opponent. What's the point?

(As an aside, it just occured to me that there is an inherent contradiction in the traditionalist view that views the shootout, which involves skating with a pick and scoring a goal with a stick, against a goalie, as a travesty against the very nature of hockey, yet enthusiastically endorse fighting, which doesn't involve either sticks, pucks, or goals. Yet shootouts somehow "aren't hockey" and fighting is inseparably part of it. It becomes even odder when you consider that the main argument against the shootout is that it's a one-on-one showdown in a game dedicated to teamwork, whereas fighting is... a one-on-one showdown. A good clue that the traditional view is fueled more by conservatism than good sense.)

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 11:40 PM
  #569
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,310
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
So I will default back to one of my posts earlier.

If the risk of injury for the sake of entertainment is of concern (and yes, we are entertained when we go to a hockey game.........but then again there are some who are there for the stats and the stats only), then do not stop at fighting.

Make the NHL a non-contact sport. That will reduce injuries for the sake of entertainment. Put thick padding on the boards. No more rubber pucks (ever see how many players in the NHL are missing teeth?). Foam pucks and foam hockey sticks. Ice is slippery so remove it and play on soft padded carpet. No injuries for the sake of us being entertained while watching a game.


So which is it? Removal of injuries from a sport where the participants volunteer to engage in it? Or just your disdain for fighting because of YOUR own personal beliefs?
The difference of course being that hitting (legally) isn't against the rules in the NHL but fighting is. That's not to mention all the other aspects you brought up result in accidental injuries (sometimes even self-inflicted ones) whereas the sole purpose of fighting is to beat your opponent into submission.

In fact, when you think about it if you're a proponent of fighting you already have a sweet deal when it comes to injuries. When's the last time a player was suspended for injuring an opponent in a fight? Any other successful effort to injure an opponent while breaking the rules will at least garner a review by the league. Cross-checks, hits from behind, hits to the head, late hits, slashing even (considering Cammalleri was suspended for as much).

Bill McNeal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 11:41 PM
  #570
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
So I will default back to one of my posts earlier.

If the risk of injury for the sake of entertainment is of concern (and yes, we are entertained when we go to a hockey game.........but then again there are some who are there for the stats and the stats only), then do not stop at fighting.

Make the NHL a non-contact sport. That will reduce injuries for the sake of entertainment. Put thick padding on the boards. No more rubber pucks (ever see how many players in the NHL are missing teeth?). Foam pucks and foam hockey sticks. Ice is slippery so remove it and play on soft padded carpet. No injuries for the sake of us being entertained while watching a game.


So which is it? Removal of injuries from a sport where the participants volunteer to engage in it? Or just your disdain for fighting because of YOUR own personal beliefs?
The thing is, fighting is already illegal...hence the penalties. Checking your opponent within the rules is not.

Moreover, checking actually provides a direct purpose in the outcome in the game(rather than the debatable indirect purpose fighting is claimed to have which cannot be proven) namely that it seperates your opponent from the puck.

I think your extending the logic way too far where it just looks like you have no argument. If they took out fighting from the game tomorrow, it would still be hockey, the same way the playoffs are still hockey and the Olympics are still hockey(cue the bunch that say "of course olympics are exciting, the best players in the world are playing each other"...sure, but a Latvia-Switzerland game is still very exciting without any fighting and players are still playing the old-tough game that fans of contact like).

No one is asking for checking to be banned or sticks. They are saying fighting is useless and currently serves no purpose, so remove it.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 11:44 PM
  #571
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Okay, okay, I know I've said several times that I'm tired of this debate, but I just took a look at this and it's a slightly different debate and I'm intrigued.

I'd love to see the actual list of stars from the top-5 and 6-30 (why is it 11 to 30?).
He broke it out in three ways to show you that even from 6-10 you'll still get a better rate than in the rest of the 1st round. It's done to show that the draft has been fairly predictable in the rates of superstars and where they have been drafted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I'm a little surprised by this list of 24 players outside the top 30 list. Considering what's listed there, why are Datsyuk and Markov not there? Why is Kiprusoff there, but not Vokoun? Or Khabibulin? Or Weight? Lehtinen, Timonen, Alfredsson, Foote, Amonte, LeClair, Konstantinov, Desjardins, Schneider, Numminen, Nieuwendyk, Richter, Richer, Gary Suter, Kevin Stevens, Rick Tocchet, Verbeek, Hextall, Vanbiesbrouck, Naslund, Hunter, Trottier, Mark Howe, Larry Robinson, Bobby Clarke? There seems to be an awful lot of omissions. Am I missing something? There's at least 40 others that are in the same class of player listed above that I haven't named. What gives? What criteria could possibly include Bondra, but not Larry Robinson? Or Bondra, but not Naslund? Or Elias, but not Alfredsson?
8.5 is the rating that 70s used which is HOF player quality. Guys like Rick Tocchet while very good, doesn't warrant an 8.5 and neither would a guy like Kirk Muller (2nd) or Roman Hamrlyk (1st).

Also, I'm not sure why you're listing guys like Trottier and Robinson, both were drafted before pick 31. In fact, the actual HOF guys that you listed here: Howe, Trottier, Robinson, Clarke are all cases where they went before 31. The rest that you've listed are players who had good careers but weren't HOF superstars.

The one omission that did come up at the time was Glenn Anderson. There was debate on whether or not to include him but he was omitted because many felt he was a marginal HOFer.

Also keep in mind that this was from a few years back when Kiprusoff was amazing and it was assumed he'd continue on that path. He'd probably be less than an 8.5 now too. Then again, you could make the case for Alfredsson who might qualify. All and all though, even if you were to add 5 more players, it still doesn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of percentages and the players you'd be adding would be marginal compared to the ones that are clearly 8.5 and above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Further, of these top-5 superstar selections, how many of their teams wound up winning any time in the short-term (say, the next 8-10 years)? I see Potvin, Lafleur, Lemieux, Jagr, Lindros (Colorado due to his being traded), and Niedermayer. Anyone else?
I don't know. But when you draft a guy like Yzerman and you're basically starting from scratch the way the Wings did, it's probably going to take you longer to win. Yzerman's first season was '83-84 and it took Detroit about 8 years to become a strong team. But then it took them about another five to actually win.

What's important is if the player was a key component to the cup win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
And how does that compare to how many of them have been traded in that same time span? McDonald, Thornton, Luongo, Lindros, Dionne, McDonald (if he counts), Murphy, Scott Stevens, Hawerchuk, Shanahan, Lafontaine, Barrasso, Turgeon, Sundin, Ron Francis, Chris Pronger, Jovanovski (no superstar), Paul Kariya, Heatley and Gaborik.
I have no idea and it's beyond the scope of what 70s pulled together.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Did any of these players' original drafting club benefit from the trade so much so that they became a perennial contender and/or won the Cup? Boston has won the Cup after dealing Thornton, but that trade had nothing to do with it. Colorado won post-Lindros and the trade directly led to the Cup victory. Colorado won post-Sundin, but I don't see that trade as having impacted their Cup victory. I think that about covers it.

In other words: over that entire span, only 4 teams have won a Cup with their top-5 selection (5 players, but Jagr and Lemieux were on the same team).
If you limit it to top five it becomes lower. If you have top ten it's higher. Edmonton and the Rangers were top ten cases and Edmonton had a weird situation where their they got Gretz who would've been a number one in a normal year.

The others: Mtl, Isles, Pitts, Col, NJ, Det all won multiple cups. Dallas also won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
So from 1969-2000, only 4 teams won the Cup with their top-5 selections.
No. The Montreal clubs of the 70s won 4 cups all on their own. We also don't include cup winners before 1975 because the modern draft era began in 1970. We gave it five years because clubs like Boston can't were led by Bobby Orr who came in via C-form and before the draft.

Next, you're making a mistake by only counting four teams in 20 years. That's not correct. Many teams won multiple cups over those seasons. It's silly to count only 4. Additionally, a guy like Forsberg was traded for and never played a game for Philly. We include prospects traded for as well. However, I will add him to the top ten group for you as he was drafted 6th.

Total cups won: 25
Top five: 15
Top ten: 6
Non-rebuild: 4

From 1975:
Montreal (top 5) wins 4 cups.
Islanders (top 5) win 4 cups.
Edmonton (top 10 and Gretz) win 4 cups.
Cgy (Lots of 1st rounders but not a rebuild) 1 cup
Mtl (not a rebuild) win 2 cups with Roy
Edm (not a rebuild) win 1 cup without those picks
Pitts (top 5) win 2 cups
Rangers (top 10) win 1 cup
Devils (top 5) win 2 cups
Colorado (top 10) win 1 cup
Detroit (top 5) win 2 cups
Dallas (top 5) win 1 cup

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Meanwhile, 20 superstars or star players were traded away from their club, and only 1 such trade benefited the original franchise to such an extent as to catapult them to contender status. Those numbers aren't great. So while these franchises may be doing a terrific job at drafting superstars, their rate of success in enjoying contender or Cup-wins is low.
It makes sense to trade away top picks/prospects when you become a contender.

Shanahan was a number 2 and was lost in the Stevens fiasco with the Blues. He wasn't intentionally traded but they don't get Stevens without him. And the Wings dealt away another top pick (Brind'Amour) to get him later on. Those kinds of deals make sense when you're a contender. Ditto with the Iginla deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Now let's look at players drafted 6-30 and see if the story is the same. Of the 'superstars' in this category (bear in mind that I don't have the list that Seventies made, and am using my own makeshift list): Brodeur, Sakic, Hatcher, Roenick, Leetch, Maclean (no superstar), Neely, Coffey, Bourque, Fuhr, MacInnis, Bossy, and Gainey were part of their original drafting club's Cup win or Cup appearance within 8-10 years of having been drafted. That's 11-13 players (depending on whether Maclean or Gainey can be included) out of the 23. That's roughly 50%, as opposed to the 5 of 35 players in the top-5 that enjoyed contender/Cup win status with their drafting club. Rough numbers for the top-5 crowd.

Iginla was traded and that directly impacted his original drafting club's Cup win and contender status.

In other words: the list of superstars drafted 6-30 were more likely to:
1) stay with the club that drafted them;
2) win the Cup or at least enjoy contender status with the club that drafted them
Apart from the problems that your arguments have (ie. your list of superstars is arbitrary and incomplete.) You're still missing the point. Teams will always be made up of non-top five picks. They HAVE to be. There are only five to go around every year. Of course you're going to find more players drafted later on clubs that win cups, it's a matter of quantity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
What does all of this mean? It seems to me that teams drafting in the top-5 tend to draft higher quality players with greater frequency but have less success and win, or contend, significantly less than teams drafting 6-30. And this doesn't mean that these clubs drafting 6-30 were simply in better positions: a number of the players listed above were drafted in the 6-10 range, meaning they were only marginally better than the worst 5 clubs in the league.

It also seems to indicate that these higher quality players drafted in the top-5 are more easily obtainable via trade or other means.
Teams will be mostly made up of guys OUTSIDE the top 5 for the simple reason that there are more of those players available. You're trying to compare a list of 5 vs 25. And who's to say that they're more likely to stay? Clubs (esp in the 70s where the first round ended much earlier) would have multiple players from the 6 to 30 range on them.

As for it 'being easier to acquire' outside the top five... you're kind of missing the point here too. Absolutely it's easier to get a 15th overall pick than a 5th. But the likelyhood that this player is actually going to result in a superstar is much, much lower. As for them being more transient... you're making up a list off the top of your head here. I'm sure there are tons of guys out there who were drafted 6-30 who were traded away as well. It still doesn't take away from the fact that the clubs that DID win, actually had top 5 or top 10 on their rosters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Conclusion: drafting in the top-5 is no better recipe for team success than other methods mentioned earlier in the thread.
Your conclusion is wrong. You're sitting there saying only 4 cup winners in 25 years came from teams with top five guys leading the way, it isn't 4 it's 15. And it would be 4 more if we include Gretz... Moreover, I've argued that trading for top prospects makes sense as well... Forsberg qualifies too.

Even if we stick with your stringent qualifications though, its still 15 cups out of 25.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
On another note: I'd like to know specifically why you cite Pittsburgh, Washington and Chicago as models for employing the rebuilding strategy you desire when it is abundantly clear that such models are predicated on either: a) generational talents rarely available in the top 5; b) incredible luck in Chicago's situation (see: my response to bsl above on the circumstances surrounding Chicago's perfect season).
I'm not sure what I can say to you here that I haven't said already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
So what have we decided then guys? Montreal will never win the cup because they're not tough...and they will really never win the cup because they never get any high draft picks.

Is that about rihgt?
Not big enough and not talented enough... Yeah, I'd say so. That's been were we've been for a long time.

Hopefully PK and Price will help us win one in the future but it makes sense to get them a better supporting cast as well as some size in the top 6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
Yup. Pretty much.

The fact AK was 3 inches from eliminating the Bruins in OT of game 7, we are not tough enough to compete (despite missing our #1 D-man, our #1 Power FWD and our #2 Def-Dman).
3 inches away from eliminating the Bruins is not the same thing as being 3 inches away from winning a cup. Please don't pretend otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
Until we fill this roster with 6'5 tough guys and early round picks we aren't going anywhere.
I think most people would be happy if we just stop filling our top 6 with Smurfs.

I wasn't a huge fan of the Cole signing but he is a physical player so maybe this is a sign that management will pay more attention to this. I certainly hope so because it hasn't been fun watching us get thrown around for the past decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Tanking/rebuilding or whatever flowery term you want to use to cover up what is actually going on, is just one method amongst others in order to increase your chances at winning a cup. Looking at recent years, it doesn't even look like it's more proven then other methods. Sure you can cite Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA and Washington, but for everyone of these successful teams, you can name a handful of crap ones who have been in the gutter for years using the same method(Atlanta, Islanders, Columbus, Florida).
First, 29 teams don't win every year. Some are rebuilds some aren't. That's not the point...

Secondly, the clubs you listed managed to draft superstars with their top picks. The Islanders actually could've had a cup contending team if they just didn't make stupid mistakes and kept their picks and prospects.

Atlanta had rotten luck when Heatley killed a teammate but they still drafted two 50 goal scorers and along with Columbus drafted a Richard winner. Their problem wasn't drafting high... it was management. You don't trade away Roberto Luongo for a sack of old shoes.

Atlanta didn't become a losing team BECAUSE they drafted Heatley and Kovalchuk, they lost DESPITE drafting them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Likewise, for every team that is unsuccessful in trying to win a cup by rebuilding through trades and signing, you have a Boston or Anaheim.
Except that hasn't been the case. Go look at the cup winners and stop ignoring the facts. Dude, there are so many things wrong with your post, I'm going to have to go point by point here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Even if you do get superstars on your team, it still takes a competant GM to surround them with appropriate talent.
Absolutely it does. Who would argue otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I think attributing cup wins to single players based on draft position is really shallow. It takes more than that to win.
Of course it does. Again, nobody would say otherwise.

What we're saying is that top picks are more often than not ALSO a key ingredient to cup wins. They aren't the ONLY reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Look at Carolina, sure they had Staal, but people also forget that they had a stacked top 9 line at the forward position with a goalie that played on top of his head. They had Rob Brind'Amour, Staal, Recchi, Weight, Matt Cullen, Corey Stillman, Justin Williams, Ray Whitney.
But they don't win it WITHOUT Staal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Even the Chicago team was stacked. Keith and Seabrooke on defense. Versteeg, Hossa, Brouwer, Byfuglien, Ladd, Sharp, Bolland. Again these wins went beyond just Toews and Kane.
Of course they did. But Toews and Kane played key roles in making them contenders and winning the cup. You can't just ignore their significance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
All drafting high does is give you a better chance at acquiring a star player.
Exactly! And star players help you win cups.

Also, you make this statement as though 'star players' aren't important. They ARE. And when you don't have them, you aren't going to win anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
But even at that, just because you have a star player doesn't mean you're guarenteed success
Nobody said it does... But try to win a cup without one. Most teams have multiple HOF talents on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
because for every Staal, Crosby and Toews that win a cup, there is a Nash, Kovalchuk, Eric Johnson, Joe Thorton, Nathan Horton, Vanek, Dany Heatley, Marian Gaborik, Spezza...that cannot win cups with their originally drafted teams.
Sure... and it will be that way forever. There are 29 teams, most won't win. Most players in the league won't win. But those that HAVE won, usually have top pick stars in their lineups leading the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Moreover, sometimes you don't even need to have drafted a top 5 pick to win. Look at the Red Wings, the Ducks and the Bruins.
Absolutely. You can add Roy's Habs and the Flames to that list too. Sure it happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
What's interesting about the ducks is that they had three key players that weren't even drafted at all. Kunitz, Penner and Macdonald all went undrafted and three played a pretty key role all season. In fact most of that team was assembled through trades and signings.(Pronger, Scott Neidermayer, Selanne were all signed and traded for).
Actually, what's interesting about the Ducks is how incredibly lucky they were in getting those three guys as I said earlier in this thread.

Problem is, that this is not a repeatable strategy. Rebuilding via top prospects and picks is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Also I'd like to point out that not trading quality players for picks and prospects when your team is in 6th-7th-8th or 9th place is not something unique to the Canadiens. Almost no team in the nhl trades impending UFAs when they are in or close to a playoff spot. It just doesn't happen.
It doesn't happen very often, but it has happened.

Even if it hadn't though... it doesn't matter. That doesn't mean it's not a smart thing to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
We can sit here and argue until we're blue in the face about how trading UFAs(quality ones) for picks and prospects, while at the same time making your team worse so that you can get higher draft picks in hopes that you will better team in the future, is a better method.....but in reality it just doesn't happen. There is just so much uncertainty with such a method when you're actually above average team that the risk is not worth the potential payout because you can be stuck in perpetual rebuild mode.
Well, we've done it your way and we've built with FAs and mid-round picks. It hasn't gotten us anywhere. We build with good but not great prospects, we sign good but not great FAs and we build good but not great teams. That's the cycle we've been in for a long time. We haven't had superstars in a long time and the last time we had a scorer even make the top ten it was the mid 80s.

And trading away a Markov isn't going to send us back to the dark ages. We've made the playoffs two years in a row without him. We can afford to lose him for a player that we can build a future around. Nobody is suggesting that we trade absolutely everyone away and start over. We don't need to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
When you're already terrible, finishing 12th-15th place year in and year out, I can see why trading quality players for makes seems attractive, but when you're an above average team it doesn't make sense, whether you have star players or not.
It makes sense if you aren't a contender to do something to make yourself one in the future.


Anyways, this thing came up about five pages ago when somebody asked me what I would've done a few years back... I tried to get off this topic back then but folks kept coming back at me on it. None of this has anything to do with the toughness topic. I'm leaving this one alone for now. I'll ask 70s to post the study in an OT on the board and if people are interested they can pick up the rebuild discussion there.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 09-05-2011 at 12:55 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:57 AM
  #572
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
27. Should the Instigator Rule be abolished?

Players Response: NO - 65%

28. Should fighting be completely banished in the NHL?

Players Response:
- NO - 98%
- YES - 2%

From the main board. I knew the numbers were overwhelming, but forgot how overwhelming. The players/gms coaches and every body directly involved don't share the view that many fans, especially younger fans share about fighting in hockey. If these numbers don't tell you how far outta of touch you are with how the people who are involved in the game feel, maybe you need to rethink why this is the case.

I'll take their opinions 8 days a week over the vocal minority here on HF boards.
That is interesting. I'm surprised the players are so in favour of fighting even today.

I personally don't feel strongly about it one way or the other and as others have pointed out here, I don't feel like we need a goon in the lineup.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 03:55 AM
  #573
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
What we're saying is that top picks are more often than not ALSO a key ingredient to cup wins. They aren't the ONLY reason.
common sense Charlie, common sense... every single team in the NHL has a top 5 pick on their roster, if not more...

saying team X won because they had top 5 pick(s) is like saying they won cause they have a goalie...

wake up Charlie, every team has at least one.

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 04:59 AM
  #574
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
While the players want it, the real question that needs to be asked is what purpose does fighting have in the game outside of tradition?

To suggest that emotions get higher in hockey than any other sport is very ego-centric. Emotions get high in every sport, everyone wants to win, every sport is fustrating when things don't go your way. Dirty plays happen in every sport, even soccer( the game all hockey fans love to bash as if liking hockey makes people feel more manlier than if they liked soccer...as if manliness should be defining quality of a human being), where players are constantly tugging at your jersey, elbowing you when battling for the ball, kneeing and clipping etc. Watch a basketball game and you'll see that is a very dirty sport as well. I really don't see how the emotions of hockey is a way to justify fighting.

Does fighting offer protection? All the crap that happens in the nhl would suggest otherwise. It's already illegal to actually fight, that is why players are penalized for doing so. Other than entertainment value I really don't see where fighting has it's place in the game.
I think you would have to be pretty naive to think the players want fighting in the game, just because. Until you play hockey at a competitive level, you really can't question their motives.

I believe hockey has so many other factors compared to any other sport that it's silly to draw comparisons to football, which is a series of 10 second plays, hockey players are carrying weapons on skates. Instead of retaliating with a fight, players would take liberties with their sticks, the players believe that fighters/fighting offers them some sort of protection, even our own star player, Tomas Plekanecs has stated he would welcome a tough guy.

You'd have to ask them why them why they feel it's still an integral part of the sport, they are overwhelmingly on the same page. I believe it gives your skilled players more freedom to deal with playing skilled hockey, more so than pure protection, although I do think it provides some. PK Subban, Gomez, Gionta should not be the ones in scrums defending their teammates on a regular basis, that message needs to be sent by those who can be taken seriously.

Yes there are still injuries to players of teams who have enforcers, but that number may be even greater without them. There is absolutely zero chance it will be completely abolished from the NHL.

I, for one am glad for that.

Concussions are on the rise, but not because of fighting, they are on the rise due to the new rule changes, extreme speed of the game. If you really want to be serious about concussion crackdown, then we should should revisit some of the rules prior to the lockout. Let a dman slow down a forechecker, allow goalies to venture into the trapezoid to play the puck, so dman aren't hung out to dry and punish those illegal hits that result in serious injuries more effectively.(Max Pacioretty) The players of today have little respect for one another.


Last edited by habsjunkie2*: 09-05-2011 at 05:11 AM.
habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 05:06 AM
  #575
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Having players who are good at fighting does not, in fact, increase the competitiveness of a team. All it does is increase the risk of injury for the sake of entertainment. As such, the comparison with mandatory helmet is perfectly apt.
I usually support your views, especially your stats based views, but some of your personally opinions are out of touch.

Rarely is a player injured from fighting, so site it as an increased risk for injury is a stretch.

Making helmets mandatory isn't remotely comparable to banning fighting. One is protective equipment and the other is in game impact, be equivalent to having a poll about making players wearing cups, which I think they would be 100% in favor of, instead of 98% like they are for fighting.

habsjunkie2* 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 01:59 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.