HFBoards

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

Elite talent in the draft

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2012, 09:31 AM
  #76
King peZ
Where's my Cup?
 
King peZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 420
vCash: 500
So a top 5 pick increases our chances to draft an elite player? Oh geez thanks for clearing that up

King peZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 10:05 AM
  #77
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
No, the one who has an understanding problem is you!

Top picks don't necessarily lead to SC winners. If that was the case then the Caps, the Islanders, the Blue Jackets, the Oilers, Atlanta, LA, Phoenix would all be the top contenders. And they would have dominated the SC winners ofthe last 10 years. they have won didley squat.

You and Lafleur's Guy are trying to justify an loser philosophy of intentionally tanking to get better.

I'm saying you don't need to tank to get better. Detroit won two Cups in the last 10 years. They didn't tank the decade before they won. The same with the Devils. 2 Cups. No tank. The Bruins won last year. How many times did they tank in the last decade? That's 5 SC winners in the last 10 that didn't tank.

Take the Habs case. TT drafted 18 NHLers between 03 and 07. In that time his best placings were a 10th and a 5th. Nothing extraordinary. If we had a GM who knew what he was doing, he could have traded the excess talent we had to fill the holes in our lineup - just like the Red Wings did, like the DEvils and the BRuins. Those 3 teams represent 5 of the last 10 cups.

Lafleur's isn't advocating tanking for two three years? Where the %^&* have you been the last year? That's all he has been advocating.

So go share your loser philosophy with losers. I want no part of it
]

Okay, so unless I think all NHL players are basically equivalent and a 30th pick is pretty much the same as a #3, I'm a loser with a loser philosophy. If I think elite talent is irrelevant to winning, or that getting players like Chara as UFA's is as easy as pie, then I'm a winner.

By that definition, I'll stick with being a loser, thanks. Good luck convincing others of your profound insights into how to build a winner. Lovely chatting with you.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 10:29 AM
  #78
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
What rebuilders have said is that superstars are an essential ingredient to winning cups. If you don't have at least one, it's going to be very hard to win without one. Superstars are found with top picks. The more you have, the better your chances at a superstar. Without a superstar, you probably won't win.
.
I don’t know why this part is so hard to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
More revisionist BS.

Colorado aka Quebec parlayed Lindros into a goldmine of draft picks, prospects and players. They didn't tank 4-5 years in a row.

NJ...really go take a look. Tell me how many top 3 picks they had.

Yeah right Detroit won their cups because they tanked. Go take a look at how many top 3 picks they had.

As for those other teams. Really? One player is the difference between a SC and a tank? If that was the case how come we haven't won anything. We got Price - a franchise goalie? We got Subban. We got two not one, yet we've won nothing.

Jeeze man you usually post good comments but this one is just plain silly. It's a comment I would expect from a Gainey or a Gauthier.
….

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy
New Jersey and Detroit bottomfed for years and won the cup that way. So did Quebec and so did Pittsburgh.

A look at the past few mutli cup winners:

Montreal (1970s) 3 top 4 picks in four years. Including two number ones.
Key picks: Lafleur number one. Shutt number four.

Islanders (1980s) 3 straight years with top four picks including two number ones.
Key picks: Potvin number one.

Oilers (1980s) Difficult to assess because they were a WHL team. They had Gretzky (would've been no. 1) and a team before the draft. Afterwards:
Key picks: Coffey 6th. Fuhr 8th.

Pittsburgh (1990s) 3 straight years with top 5 picks. 6 top five picks in 7 years.
Key picks: Lemieux number one. Jagr number five.

New Jersey (1990s) 7 out of 10 years with top ten picks. Including 4 straight years with top 6 picks. In that span they had 5 top five picks.
Key picks: Niedermeyer, Muller, Maclean, Guerin, Shanahan... all top five. Shanahan lost in the Stevens fiasco.

Quebec/Colorado 5 straight years with a top 5 pick including 3 straight number ones. Included in that span: 7 straight years of top ten picks.
Key picks: Sundin, Nolan, Lindros... number one. Many of these picks were dealt off for other prospects including Forsberg (6th). And later, Roy.

Detroit 5 top ten picks in seven years including 3 top five picks and a number one. They also had two 11th overall picks in that span.
Key picks: Yzerman number four. Primeau number 3. Primeau dealt for Shanahan.

The only other multi cup winning team was Montreal. They won with Roy and did not build via top picks. They had Petr Svoboda, but he wasn't the player the team was built around.

Yes, Detroit won a cup a couple of years ago without top picks. That doesn't negate all the cups they won with Yzerman or the fact that they tanked and rebuilt their team. You don't think that Niedermayer helped NJ win cups? For Pete's sake man he went to Anaheim with Pronger (another top five) and they win cups there with him winning a Conn Smythe.

So WTF are you talking about?

It's absolutely hilarious that you cite multi cup winners and forget how they got there in the first place. When you get Steve Yzerman, your odds of winning a cup go way up. Ditto with Niedermayer or Forsberg. No matter how you slice it Brian Leetch is going to help you win. Jaromir Jagr is going to help you win. For Pete's sake three of those guys won Conn Smythe trophies!

All of these guys went on to HOF careers and many are among the very best players of all-time.

Nobody had more top picks back in the 80s than Detroit except maybe New Jersey and Pittsburgh. It's not a suprise AT ALL that they all won multiple cups in the 90s. And in the 90s nobody had more number ones than Quebec... So please don't sit there and say these teams never tanked.

You don't think we'd have a better team if we had a Steve Yzerman or Jaromir Jagr? You don't think that Evgeni Malkin is going to help you win cups? You don't think our odds of winning would go way up with any of those guys?

Don't come here and try to pretend that those clubs didn't tank. They were the biggest tankers in the league.
Wow, thanks, you saved me probably half an hour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
seventieslord?!? Lost yourself?

but seriously it was good work.
Thanks man. Yeah, the history of the draft was my main area of interest just 5 short years ago, then I found the ATD.



Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Was a time that if you picked out of the top 2-3 places the chances were you didn't draft a sure fire NHLer. Nowadays, of the 30 picks in the first round 25 turn out to be decent NHLers..
Two problems with this:

1) 25 was the peak. Specifically, 2003. That was the year where 25 of 30 players became “decent NHLers”. In 2004 (the last draft that can be conclusively analyzed) it was 20, and in 2002 it was 21… much more representative of what can be expected going forward.
2) The goal isn’t just to draft a “decent NHLer”, right? And no one here claimed that drafting a “decent NHLer” has anything to do with winning a cup. Right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post

You and Lafleur's Guy are trying to justify an loser philosophy of intentionally tanking to get better.


Ladies and gentlemen, the Habs version of Carmissimo!

(dang, just one person here will get that reference…)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 10:58 AM
  #79
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
You really like to twist the facts around.
Which fact was that? Was it the one where you tried to argue that Quebec never tanked for four or five years and then I showed you they drafted number one three years in a row and top 5 for five years straight? Please tell me which facts you're referring to because you've been owned by me so many times in this thread it's hard to keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Update your info. You go back to the 70s, 80s, & 90s. I hope you realize that the hockey talent pool has changed. Since the 90s, the USA has more than doubled the number of players it sends to the NHL. Add to that the fact the Europeans started coming over in droves only in the 90s and your talent pool gets even larger and then add to that the fact within the last 20 years Swiss, more Eastern Europeans, Germans and the growth of hockey development in the Maritimes and the hockey pool is a 1000 times deeper than in the 70s, 80s or even the 90s.
And yet, the top players on average continue to be drafted top five. The linear nature of the draft has held throughout the decades and isn't changing now.

Yes, the pool is bigger. Yes, there are other countries where players will be drafted from and more Europeans in the game. All that means though is that you'll see more Europeans drafted top five and that's exactly what we've seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
What does that mean?
I can't wait to find out...
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
It means that every draft year or every second or third draft year the top pick will be an elite player as in the decades you mentioned. But in the 70s, 80s & 90s, the drop off from the top 2-3 picks to the rest of the pack was steep and drastic.

That's no longer the case. The hockey pool is deeper today. Was a time that if you picked out of the top 2-3 places the chances were you didn't draft a sure fire NHLer. Nowadays, of the 30 picks in the first round 25 turn out to be decent NHLers.

That's why I said the last 10-15 years. Hockey has changed it has truly become an international game. For crying out loud it's no longer a surprise to have top prospects come from Southern California, Texas, Georgia.
Here are the top ten scorers in the league currently:

Stamkos (1st)
Malkin (2nd)
Giroux (1st round)
Spezza (2nd)
Kessel (5th)
Kovalchuk (1st)
Karlsson (1st round)
Tavares (1st)
Hossa (1st round)
Sedin (3rd)

Not a single player outside the 1st round. 7 out of 10 are top five picks. 3 are number ones. 2 are 2nd overalls. 1 3rd. 1 5th. Kinda eerie how that mimics Seventies' draft study isn't it? The 1st has the most. The 2nd has the 2nd most. And then you've got a couple of other top five picks.

More interesting? Toews was top five in the scoring race and 2nd in goals before getting hurt. Crosby would probably be there if he was healthy too. So those two guys would knock out Hossa and Sedin making the top five look even more dominant...

Every year there are hundreds of draft picks and only 5 top five draftees. And yet, out of the thousands of drafted players over the years the top fives consistently outperform the other players.

The evidence is there. I just don't get why you continue to deny it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
So it's no longer relevant to tank. You can win a Cup without tanking 4-5-6 years in a row.
This is a straw man argument. Nobody disagrees with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
No, the one who has an understanding problem is you!
Actually, it's you. Either you don't understand what's being said or you're doing so deliberately. The more I read your posts though, the more I see that you aren't getting what we're saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Top picks don't necessarily lead to SC winners.
Congratulations. You finally wrote something that makes sense.

I've been on this forum for years btw and have over 7000 posts. Nowhere have I ever argued that top picks will necessarily lead to SC winners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
If that was the case then the Caps, the Islanders, the Blue Jackets, the Oilers, Atlanta, LA, Phoenix would all be the top contenders. And they would have dominated the SC winners ofthe last 10 years. they have won didley squat.
Making straw man arguments and knocking them down doesn't win you any credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
You and Lafleur's Guy are trying to justify an loser philosophy of intentionally tanking to get better.
Actually... no.

I've always believed in rebuilding. Trading for picks and prospects (regardless of where they were drafted) to get better. I don't care if that prospect was drafted 400th. If he's somebody you believe in then you trade for him.

When you aren't in a position to win, you deal for the future and you play your younger players. That may lead to a fall in the standings or it may not. But you don't go for quick fixes to try to get into 8th place. And you don't trade away picks to get 8th.

Yes, you'll probably sink in the standings but that's fine. You'll probably get a better player there anyway. If not, great. The prospects you're playing are obviously good enough to be competitive and you can go from there. But you don't try to go for stupid quick fixes to get 8th place finishes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
I'm saying you don't need to tank to get better.
Great. I've never said you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Detroit won two Cups in the last 10 years. They didn't tank the decade before they won. The same with the Devils. 2 Cups. No tank. The Bruins won last year. How many times did they tank in the last decade? That's 5 SC winners in the last 10 that didn't tank.

Take the Habs case. TT drafted 18 NHLers between 03 and 07. In that time his best placings were a 10th and a 5th. Nothing extraordinary. If we had a GM who knew what he was doing, he could have traded the excess talent we had to fill the holes in our lineup - just like the Red Wings did, like the DEvils and the BRuins. Those 3 teams represent 5 of the last 10 cups.
Most cup winners are rebuilds but there are many that aren't. Last years' Bruins wouldn't really be classified as a rebuild becaue Seguin and Rask weren't main cogs in that win. Roy's Habs weren't rebuilds either. It's been done before without rebuilding and it will be done again. That doesn't mean that rebuilding isn't a good strategy on how to build a cup winner.

And please don't try to use NJ as an example of a non-rebuild. You are embarassing yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Lafleur's isn't advocating tanking for two three years? Where the %^&* have you been the last year? That's all he has been advocating.
Either you genuinely don't understand my posts or you are deliberately misunderstanding them. Either way, that's not what I've advocated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
So go share your loser philosophy with losers. I want no part of it
Creating straw man arguments and then shooting them down doesn't give you any credibility. If you want to attack my philosophy... then attack it. But don't try to misrepresent what I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drizzy View Post
So a top 5 pick increases our chances to draft an elite player? Oh geez thanks for clearing that up
Seems like common sense. And yet, people continue to argue that players like Lidstrom are the rule and not the exception.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 11:08 AM
  #80
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
seventieslord?!? Lost yourself?
I found him by the side of the road. He was mumbling something about huge losing streak... it was hard for me to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
but seriously it was good work.
It really is. I was one of the few who got to see the actual spreadsheet he'd put together. Very detailed and great work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Ladies and gentlemen, the Habs version of Carmissimo!

(dang, just one person here will get that reference…)
To be fair to Onice, I haven't seen him come near the propaganda type stuff that Carm has. Carm is in a class of his own. It's actually amazing that Carm went undrafted considering what an amazing defenseman he is. "Defend, defend, defend" I heard someone once say...


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-15-2012 at 11:15 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 11:41 AM
  #81
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Here are the top ten scorers in the league currently:

Stamkos (1st)
Malkin (2nd)
Giroux (1st round)
Spezza (2nd)
Kessel (5th)
Kovalchuk (1st)
Karlsson (1st round)
Tavares (1st)
Hossa (1st round)
Sedin (3rd)
I see one player (Malkin) on that list that won a SC and if Crosby never falls to Pittsburg, I don't think he would have won one.

Elite players don't guarantee SC.

EDIT: I missed Hossa. So that's two players


Last edited by onice: 03-15-2012 at 01:18 PM.
onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 11:52 AM
  #82
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
I see one player (Malkin) on that list that won a SC and if Crosby never falls to Pittsburg, I don't think he would have won one.

Elite players don't guarantee SC.
You're repeating of the same straw man argument isn't doing anything but make you look foolish. I guess that's all you've got left though after the way you've been completely dismantled in this thread...

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 12:07 PM
  #83
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You're repeating of the same straw man argument isn't doing anything but make you look foolish. I guess that's all you've got left though after the way you've been completely dismantled in this thread...
Been a great thread apart from that sidebar, though. Thanks a lot for bringing seventieslord's work (and himself) into the discussion. Great stuff, really crystalizes the general relative value of draft picks. Enormous fluctuations in depth year-to-year, obviously, but the overall pattern is strikingly clear. Also reinforces just how proficient Timmons has been with his later round picks.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 12:26 PM
  #84
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
Been a great thread apart from that sidebar, though.
Yes it has. I'm not going to chase my tail on the "top picks don't guarantee cups" argument or respond to it any further. If Onice has something constructive to add then I'll reply, otherwise I'm done with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
Thanks a lot for bringing seventieslord's work (and himself) into the discussion. Great stuff, really crystalizes the general relative value of draft picks. Enormous fluctuations in depth year-to-year, obviously, but the overall pattern is strikingly clear. Also reinforces just how proficient Timmons has been with his later round picks.
Yeah, Timmins has been amazing. Maybe we can coax Seventies into giving us some insight into the probabilities of drafting quality (not superstars but quality) players in the later rounds. It would be neat to judge Timmins vs. the average. I suspect he'd be well above average with his picks.

Thing is though, a lot of his picks probably aren't old enough to evaluate yet. It's too soon to know how good say... Subban is going to be. You have to wait a while before you can fairly evaluate a player's career.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 12:31 PM
  #85
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Yeah it has. I'm not going to chase my tail on the "top picks don't guarantee cups" argument or respond to it any further. If Onice has something constructive to add then I'll reply, otherwise I'm done with him.

Yeah, Timmins has been amazing. Maybe we can coax Seventies into giving us some insight into the probabilities of drafting quality (not superstars but quality) players in the later rounds. It would be neat to judge Timmins vs. the average. I suspect he'd be well above average with his picks.

Thing is though, a lot of his picks probably aren't old enough to evaluate yet. It's too soon to know how good say... Subban is going to be. You have to wait a while before you can fairly evaluate a player's career.
Absolutely. We're also paying the price right now for the org's penchant for dumping 2nd round picks in the BG-PG years, both our own and any extras we managed to acquire. Factor in the first rounder we wasted for 1 year of Tanguay and Timmons has not been given that many chances to show what he can do in the higher rounds. He's had some first round mistakes, obviously (well only one flat out disaster so far) but he's had pretty smashing success in the second. Hope the org lets him use the picks we currently have.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 12:34 PM
  #86
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It's actually amazing that Carm went undrafted considering what an amazing defenseman he is. "Defend, defend, defend" I heard someone once say...
Haha, you remember that do ya?

He was my #1 defenseman on my “all Leafs Chat” team. (that was such an outstanding thread, so many great teams put forward. I remember the “All Pepto team” with the starting lineup nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea and Pepto Bismol in net. )

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 03:43 PM
  #87
CastroLeRobot
Hab-a-bouille
 
CastroLeRobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveForDrawingBlood View Post
No reason to tank...you can get elite players if you hire the good scouts and GM does his due diligence. Pacioretty was best player in his draft at 22nd overall. Giroux was best his draft year at 25th, Chara was best his draft year at 135. The secret is covering a wide base of players and being a good judge of talent.
Patrick Kane says hi

CastroLeRobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 05:00 PM
  #88
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
I see one player (Malkin) on that list that won a SC and if Crosby never falls to Pittsburg, I don't think he would have won one.

Elite players don't guarantee SC.

EDIT: I missed Hossa. So that's two players
And? :

So two players out of 10 won a stanley cup. Three others (Spezza, Giroux, Sedin) have been in the cup final.

Thats half out of a list that includes younger than 22 players, a lot of whom were picked by horrible teams just a few years ago.

Would you bet that none of Stamkos, Tavares and Karlson are never going to make it to an SC final? Wouldn't Kessel, a 23yr old PPG player in the playoffs, be useful to a decent team making a cup run? The only unknown remaining is Kovalchuk who is also one of the most skilled players in the NHL (he has 8 pts in 9 PO games, its not like he's terrible in those situations. Playing with the Trashers most of your career doesn't help a PO resume, thats all).

Do you realize how pointless your argument is now? Anything more would be incredibly overwhelming evidence since there are only about 23 players that win a cup each year and no teams can boast that many top5 picks.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 05:59 PM
  #89
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post
And? :

So two players out of 10 won a stanley cup. Three others (Spezza, Giroux, Sedin) have been in the cup final.

Thats half out of a list that includes younger than 22 players, a lot of whom were picked by horrible teams just a few years ago.

Would you bet that none of Stamkos, Tavares and Karlson are never going to make it to an SC final? Wouldn't Kessel, a 23yr old PPG player in the playoffs, be useful to a decent team making a cup run? The only unknown remaining is Kovalchuk who is also one of the most skilled players in the NHL (he has 8 pts in 9 PO games, its not like he's terrible in those situations. Playing with the Trashers most of your career doesn't help a PO resume, thats all).

Do you realize how pointless your argument is now? Anything more would be incredibly overwhelming evidence since there are only about 23 players that win a cup each year and no teams can boast that many top5 picks.
considering pretty much every team has at least one top 5 pick (even us -> Price) only half the players listed being part of a SCF team is far from impressive...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 08:52 PM
  #90
Raider917
Registered User
 
Raider917's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,560
vCash: 179
Has anyone found out how many stars were drafted 1-5 and compared that number with the amounts drafted at 6-10 and 11-15?

Raider917 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 09:05 PM
  #91
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,651
vCash: 500
It's without a doubt that a top 5 pick tends to turn out to be an impact player a lot more often than a later pick.

Therefore, we absolutely need to tank for the reminder of the season for very possibly a much brighter future for the next decade because the odds are with us.

CN_paladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 09:08 PM
  #92
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

And please don't try to use NJ as an example of a non-rebuild. You are embarassing yourself.


Just to point out to you that you're not only full of it but you got a snooty a$$ attitude.

The Devils won the cup in 2000 & 2003. Here are the first round picks for the 13 previous years to those two wins.

90 -20
91 -3
92 - 18
93 - 13
94- 25
95 - 18
96 - 10
97 - 24
98 -26
99 - 27
00 - 22
01 - 28
02 - 51

Doesn't look much better than the Habs' numbers.

So take your BS and shove it in a pipe and smoke it. The only one who is embarrassing himself is you.

Just because you've changed your terminology from tanking to rebuild, doesn't disguise the fact you've been advocating tanking for quite awhile.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 09:09 PM
  #93
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
The people who don't like the "loser strategy" of rebuilding are likely people who are satisfied with mediocrity.

In the real world, "winners" often take short-term hits. For example, people will open up new businesses expecting a loss for the first few years, it's called "building the business". Medical school students will sacrifice their social life for five to ten years so that they can become (wealthy) doctors later on. Frugal people will go out to fewer restaurants so that they have more money left for retirement.

I see it more as an attitude that investment is a virtue. To complete the analogy, I think we should avoid panic signings of overpaid, mediocre UFAs, and focus on developing youths the hard way. If we get UFAs it's for specific support roles such as backup goaltender, PK specialist, et cetera.

DAChampion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 09:16 PM
  #94
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Just to point out to you that you're not only full of it but you got a snooty a$$ attitude.

The Devils won the cup in 2000 & 2003. Here are the first round picks for the 13 previous years to those two wins.

90 -20
91 -3
92 - 18
93 - 13
94- 25
95 - 18
96 - 10
97 - 24
98 -26
99 - 27
00 - 22
01 - 28
02 - 51

Doesn't look much better than the Habs' numbers.

So take your BS and shove it in a pipe and smoke it. The only one who is embarrassing himself is you.

Just because you've changed your terminology from tanking to rebuild it still doesn't disguise the fact you've been advocating tanking for quite awhile.
What you're doing is not statistically valid.

You ended your sample at exactly the year (1989) where your argument stops being true. You are cherrypicking.

Bill Guerin was drafted 5th in 1989. Brendan Shanahan was drafted 2nd in 1987.

Bill Guerin contributed to the first cup win, and Shanahan turned into Scott Stevens, who contributed to both cup wins.

DAChampion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 09:24 PM
  #95
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Which fact was that? Was it the one where you tried to argue that Quebec never tanked for four or five years and then I showed you they drafted number one three years in a row and top 5 for five years straight? Please tell me which facts you're referring to because you've been owned by me so many times in this thread it's hard to keep up.

And yet, the top players on average continue to be drafted top five. The linear nature of the draft has held throughout the decades and isn't changing now.

Yes, the pool is bigger. Yes, there are other countries where players will be drafted from and more Europeans in the game. All that means though is that you'll see more Europeans drafted top five and that's exactly what we've seen.


I can't wait to find out...

Here are the top ten scorers in the league currently:

Stamkos (1st)
Malkin (2nd)
Giroux (1st round)
Spezza (2nd)
Kessel (5th)
Kovalchuk (1st)
Karlsson (1st round)
Tavares (1st)
Hossa (1st round)
Sedin (3rd)

Not a single player outside the 1st round. 7 out of 10 are top five picks. 3 are number ones. 2 are 2nd overalls. 1 3rd. 1 5th. Kinda eerie how that mimics Seventies' draft study isn't it? The 1st has the most. The 2nd has the 2nd most. And then you've got a couple of other top five picks.

More interesting? Toews was top five in the scoring race and 2nd in goals before getting hurt. Crosby would probably be there if he was healthy too. So those two guys would knock out Hossa and Sedin making the top five look even more dominant...

Every year there are hundreds of draft picks and only 5 top five draftees. And yet, out of the thousands of drafted players over the years the top fives consistently outperform the other players.

The evidence is there. I just don't get why you continue to deny it.


This is a straw man argument. Nobody disagrees with this.

Actually, it's you. Either you don't understand what's being said or you're doing so deliberately. The more I read your posts though, the more I see that you aren't getting what we're saying.

Congratulations. You finally wrote something that makes sense.

I've been on this forum for years btw and have over 7000 posts. Nowhere have I ever argued that top picks will necessarily lead to SC winners.

Making straw man arguments and knocking them down doesn't win you any credibility.

Actually... no.

I've always believed in rebuilding. Trading for picks and prospects (regardless of where they were drafted) to get better. I don't care if that prospect was drafted 400th. If he's somebody you believe in then you trade for him.

When you aren't in a position to win, you deal for the future and you play your younger players. That may lead to a fall in the standings or it may not. But you don't go for quick fixes to try to get into 8th place. And you don't trade away picks to get 8th.

Yes, you'll probably sink in the standings but that's fine. You'll probably get a better player there anyway. If not, great. The prospects you're playing are obviously good enough to be competitive and you can go from there. But you don't try to go for stupid quick fixes to get 8th place finishes.


Great. I've never said you do.

Most cup winners are rebuilds but there are many that aren't. Last years' Bruins wouldn't really be classified as a rebuild becaue Seguin and Rask weren't main cogs in that win. Roy's Habs weren't rebuilds either. It's been done before without rebuilding and it will be done again. That doesn't mean that rebuilding isn't a good strategy on how to build a cup winner.

And please don't try to use NJ as an example of a non-rebuild. You are embarassing yourself.

Either you genuinely don't understand my posts or you are deliberately misunderstanding them. Either way, that's not what I've advocated.

Creating straw man arguments and then shooting them down doesn't give you any credibility. If you want to attack my philosophy... then attack it. But don't try to misrepresent what I'm saying.

Seems like common sense. And yet, people continue to argue that players like Lidstrom are the rule and not the exception.
3 of these guys were selected after the 15th spot of the 1st round.

I can give you names of busts too if you want, starting with Benoit Pouliot

habitue* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 10:05 PM
  #96
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Just to point out to you that you're not only full of it but you got a snooty a$$ attitude.

The Devils won the cup in 2000 & 2003. Here are the first round picks for the 13 previous years to those two wins.

90 -20
91 -3
92 - 18
93 - 13
94- 25
95 - 18
96 - 10
97 - 24
98 -26
99 - 27
00 - 22
01 - 28
02 - 51

Doesn't look much better than the Habs' numbers.

So take your BS and shove it in a pipe and smoke it. The only one who is embarrassing himself is you.

Just because you've changed your terminology from tanking to rebuild, doesn't disguise the fact you've been advocating tanking for quite awhile.
By 1995 they are winning cups with the players they built with. And for the rest of the 90s they are contenders. Why are you showing those years when the club was already built? They are perpetual contenders by then man.

That's like looking at the Penguins now after they've already rebuilt and then trying to argue that they never tank.

By the way, even if I use your cherrypicked years here - 1991 yields HOFer Scott Niedermayer who not only wins with NJ but goes on to the Ducks wins the Conn Smythe and leads them to a cup as well. He's another example of how trading for top picks is going to help you win.

Instead of trying to fight me, how about you actually listen to what I'm trying to show you. Top picks yield better success than anywhere else. It doesn't matter if you trade for them or tank for them. Those players on average outperform other groups by a wide margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
What you're doing is not statistically valid.

You ended your sample at exactly the year (1989) where your argument stops being true. You are cherrypicking.

Bill Guerin was drafted 5th in 1989. Brendan Shanahan was drafted 2nd in 1987.

Bill Guerin contributed to the first cup win, and Shanahan turned into Scott Stevens, who contributed to both cup wins.
Even if we accept his picks... it still yields one of NJ's best players. And he goes on to win the Conn Smythe with another team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
3 of these guys were selected after the 15th spot of the 1st round.
That's right. Out of groups of about two dozen picks in multiple drafts only three make the top ten. And yet with groups of only five players taken out of multiple drafts you get 7. And out of groups of hundreds of players taken in multiple drafts... NONE are in the top ten.

Are you trying to argue that 30% is better than 70%? Or are you trying to argue that the group with more players yielding fewer top stars is better than an exponentially smaller group yielding more? Either way it's a horrible position to try to defend.

Edit: Actually you're wrong, only one was taken after the 15th spot of the 1st round... Giroux. Karlson is taken 15th and Hossa is 12th. So the group you're citing represents only one out of the top 10. And once again... it's linear. 2 are 10-15 and one is 16-30. Despite their being three times the amount of picks on the later group, you still wind up with half the players in the top ten.

I realize that this is not always going to hold true and this is a small sample size at a particlar moment in time but again... it's almost eerie how this mirrors Seventies' findings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
I can give you names of busts too if you want, starting with Benoit Pouliot
What does this prove?

Think about it, even WITH those busts the top five STILL outproduces everywhere else in the draft.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-16-2012 at 12:11 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 10:12 PM
  #97
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
considering pretty much every team has at least one top 5 pick (even us -> Price) only half the players listed being part of a SCF team is far from impressive...
1 or 2 player out of a 23 man roster is less than 10% yet these guys represent 50% of the top10 list. These guys were also some of the best players on their cup winning or finalist team. Just since the lockout ; Pronger, the Sedins, Luongo, Niedermayer, Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kane, Staal x2, Heatley, Spezza... These guys were all key to their teams achievements since the lockout and they were not alone, some solid support guys were picked in the top 5 ; Horton, Whitney, Ladd, Phillips. I'm sure I missed some, you could likely find many more guys if you included top8 or top10 picks in deeper drafts. The Red Wings escape this rule but they were lucky - they found Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Lidstrom in later round while these guys would have went top5 had european scouting been on par with what it is today.

Seriously what are we arguing here? Its undeniable that having a top5 pick is an incredible asset. If we wanted to trade for one we would likely have to part with excellent young players. We have the opportunity to acquire one now, the only cost being that we wouldn't have a strong finish which might or might not affect some players next season.

Nobody wants this team to tank for 5 years. What we want is to get a tremendous asset basically for free. Even if the guy we draft does not pan out as planned it doesn't matter since its free. We won't make the playoffs. At best we're going to tell everyone we're not as bad of a team as we seem but we know it, so whats the point? Ten games into next season everyone will have forgotten 2011-2012 and moved on - what we need a strong start to 2012-2013 and a star forward coming up so we can win something before everyone here loses all their hair and/or have entirely white heads.


Last edited by FlyingKostitsyn: 03-15-2012 at 10:30 PM.
FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 10:44 PM
  #98
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post
1 or 2 player out of a 23 man roster is less than 10% yet these guys represent 50% of the top10 list. These guys were also some of the best players on their cup winning or finalist team.

Seriously what are we arguing here? Its undeniable that having a top5 pick is an incredible asset. If we wanted to trade for one we would likely have to part with excellent young players. Now we have the opportunity to acquire one now, the only cost being that we wouldn't have a strong finish which might or might not affect some players next season.

Nobody wants this team to tank for 5 years. What we want is to get a tremendous asset basically for free. Even if the guy we draft does not pan out as planned it doesn't matter since its free. We won't make the playoffs. At best we're going to tell everyone we're not as bad of a team as we seem but we know it, so whats the point? Ten games into next season everyone will have forgotten 2011-2012 and moved on - what we need a strong start to 2012-2013.
We're also limiting those rebuild examples to impact players not passengers. It's not enough to have a Petr Svoboda to call the club a rebulid team. It has to be a key member/superstar to be able to demonstrate that top picks lead to cups.

Bottom line: It's next to impossible to win a cup without at least one superstar on your roster. It doesn't matter where those superstars come from. If you don't have one you're probably not going to win.

Rebuilding is simply a method by which you can find superstars. Hopefully you don't have to sink so low in the standings that you draft those picks by yourself. Trading for a top picks or prospects is just as good - actually it's better. And if you trade for mid 1st round picks by dealing away vets... that's good too. Just don't go for stupid quick fixes that aren't going to lead you anywhere.

It's a repeatable strategy that's worked for many teams and it's a path we can and should've taken long ago. We have the best scouting in the league and it's a freakin' shame that we haven't given Timmins more to work with.

The reason I've advocated rebuilding for so long is that we haven't been able to land superstars drafting mid rounds. We have not been able to get it via free agency. So... how do you get superstars? No club is going to give you one in his prime unless you're lucky and you can't count on luck as a strategy. Maybe Timmins can get us one in the mid rounds. Subban might actually become one, that would be nice but it's taken us 25 years to find him so I don't see this as a smart strategy either.

So... trade for as many 1st rounders as you can. Trade for as many strong prospects as you can. You won't get a superstar in his prime but you will at least get prospects out of it that may become one. The only first rounder that we've traded for in recent memory has yielded... Max Paccioretti. Our only top five pick (which was a fluke via lottery) has yielded our best player in Price.

All I'm saying is that we should do MORE of this. And we should play our younger players and be patient with them. No more quick fixes. No more trying for 8th. If we sink in the standings (and we probably will) that's fine too because it means we draft higher.

It's repeatable. It's been shown to work. We have the best scouts in the league and we don't give them enough to work with. We've avoided doing this and we've stayed mediocre... so, why AREN'T we doing more of this?


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-15-2012 at 10:58 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 10:48 PM
  #99
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
All I'm saying is that we should do MORE of this. And we should play our younger players and be patient with them. No more quick fixes. No more trying for 8th. If we sink in the standings (and we probably will) that's fine too because it means we draft higher.
Hell yes. Even second rounders have a fairly high chance of turning up good and they can be used to trade up draft picks if needed. I'm glad we have some more picks in the next two years and I just hope they won't be traded for short term band aids.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 10:55 PM
  #100
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post
Hell yes. Even second rounders have a fairly high chance of turning up good and they can be used to trade up draft picks if needed. I'm glad we have some more picks in the next two years and I just hope they won't be traded for short term band aids.
Problem is... we squandered two of our best assets this year. Cammy should've yielded a first. Kosti should've yielded a first.

Unfortunately, Cammy was sacrificed for political and panic reasons and Kosti's value was devlaued into the ground instead of showcasing him. We've done a lousy job on asset management and it's killed us. The 2nd from both of these guys will help but man, there's no way we should've made either of those trades.

I get what you're saying though and you're right. Obviously the more picks the better. Certainly I was happy with the 2nd we got for Gill. The fact that we got Geoffrion too was a nice bonus.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-16-2012 at 12:50 AM.
Lafleurs Guy 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 05:53 PM.

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.