Chicago and Pittsburgh didn't magically become good because of being bad. We became good because our management got their collective heads out of there *****.
Versteeg was acquired for Brandon Bochenski.
Byfuglien was a NINTH round pick.
Niemi was a free agent out of Europe.
Sharp was aquired for a second round pick and an AHL vet.
Havlat and Smolinski were aquired for a collection of youth that played itself out of the NHL within two years.
Chicago and Pittsburgh didn't magically become good because of being bad. We became good because our management got their collective heads out of there *****.
Versteeg was acquired for Brandon Bochenski.
Byfuglien was a NINTH round pick.
Niemi was a free agent out of Europe.
Sharp was aquired for a second round pick and an AHL vet.
Havlat and Smolinski were aquired for a collection of youth that played itself out of the NHL within two years.
Yep, This. 100% in agreement.
On, one more thing- Inb4 another "tanking works/Pittsburgh,Chicago/top talent/rebuilding" post.
Chicago and Pittsburgh didn't magically become good because of being bad. We became good because our management got their collective heads out of there *****.
Versteeg was acquired for Brandon Bochenski.
Byfuglien was a NINTH round pick.
Niemi was a free agent out of Europe.
Sharp was aquired for a second round pick and an AHL vet.
Havlat and Smolinski were aquired for a collection of youth that played itself out of the NHL within two years.
It takes longer then 1 year and 1 single draft to turn the team around. Why do you break down these teams over a 5 year span? Sure helped Chicago, Pittsburgh, Washington amongst others.
It wasn't JUST Crosby that turned Pittsburgh into a powerhouse don't forget Staal Malkin and Fleury they all contributed to the championship and were acquired through "tanking".
...And a fan who doesn't read threads he posts in.
Repost numner 6534543:
You keep reposting this list but it doesn't make much sense because you're not taking into account the other picks they made in previous years and in years after.
You're just listing first overall picks what about top 5 picks? Obviously you're never going to turn around a terrible team with one single player. Doesn't matter who he is.
MacKinnon is very highly touted and could be an extremely good player almost instantly.
So either have a superstar locked up for 10 years or get destroyed in the playoffs and continue spinning your wheels like Calgary? Hmmm...
It takes longer then 1 year and 1 single draft to turn the team around. Why do you break down these teams over a 5 year span? Sure helped Chicago, Pittsburgh, Washington amongst others.
It wasn't JUST Crosby that turned Pittsburgh into a powerhouse don't forget Staal Malkin and Fleury they all contributed to the championship and were acquired through "tanking".
You are right. It wasn't JUST Crosby. But does it prove anything else than going crazy about single prospect is even more laughable ?
Common wisdom says that Chicago and Pittsburgh "tanked" for "studs" in "the draft", so therefore they won a cups. Why people are ignoring other changes around organisations that happend during "tanking" period ? Where are FLA/NYI/CBJ dynasties then ?
Quote:
MacKinnon is very highly touted and could be an extremely good player almost instantly.
So either have a superstar locked up for 10 years or get destroyed in the playoffs and continue spinning your wheels like Calgary? Hmmm..
.
MacKinnon never played single game in NHL. But all people knows he is gonna be a stud. No matter how will he be coached, managed, how NHL team enviroment will affect him, he WILL be a stud, and even retarded ape could coach him/be a GM of his team and collect the glory.
Quote:
You're just listing first overall picks what about top 5 picks? Obviously you're never going to turn around a terrible team with one single player. Doesn't matter who he is.
You may as well do "top5 list". Actually im sure it would prove my point even stronger How many dynasties build by "tanking" will we have then ? Not many. But for some reason we would see many perennial top5 drafting teams, wich, I don't know why, are "tanking" since 10 or even 20 years and can't tank their way to glory.
I'd rather finish 30th than 9th (in my conference) for a season, but I'd rather make the playoffs than tank.
I mean, it depends I guess.
If I was a team like Columbus, I'd probably rather tank though, because the team is so terrible that they need to tank several years in a row before they can be considered a legit cup threat anyways.
A team like Toronto isn't THAT bad. They just need a few pieces. No need to pull a Pittsburgh, Chicago or Edmonton just yet.. lol
On the flip side, look at teams who have been consistently good since the lockout... How many of them were built through a stream of good draft picks? Vancouver, Detroit, San Jose, Washington, Pittsburgh are the best 5 teams since the lockout. Only Pittsburgh was built through a lot of high picks.
A competent GM trumps good draft spots 9 times out of 10.
Uh, might want to research that a bit mate. Vancouver had two top three picks back in 99 and guess who they opted for. I'll give you a hint, they look alike. Detroit managed to pluck all stars from nothing picks because at the time teams had largely ignored European players. San Jose acquired Thornton is one of the worst trades in NHL history, while Marleau was the second pick overall in 97. Washington picked Ovechkin with the first overall in 04, in what world are they not similar to Pittsburgh?
Basically, every team you named built through the draft at some point. Detroit is the only exception and only because management took advantage of other GM's Canadian bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acor
You are right. It wasn't JUST Crosby. But does it prove anything else than going crazy about single prospect is even more laughable ?
Common wisdom says that Chicago and Pittsburgh "tanked" for "studs" in "the draft", so therefore they won a cups. Why people are ignoring other changes around organisations that happend during "tanking" period ? Where are FLA/NYI/CBJ dynasties then ?
Those teams are lacking another key component to building a contender; good management. Take Vancouver's development system and compare to Columbus. It's not hard to see how enormously superior ours is. The same can be said for the majority of elite teams, especially those with supposedly fringe or bottom six players who became stars. Most players do not have elite talent out the gate and need to be surrounded by success at all levels, on the ice, management, everywhere. Columbus, Florida, Long Island and etc have yet to have that.
Last edited by Bourne Endeavor: 04-01-2012 at 02:25 PM.
If I was a team like Columbus, I'd probably rather tank though, because the team is so terrible that they need to tank several years in a row before they can be considered a legit cup threat anyways.
They are soo terrible that they need to be even more terrible. But dem gunna hav a studz ho will win dem a cup.
Columbus is "tanking" basically since beginning of their existance. If they can't tank their way to glory, maybe, just MAYBE its about something else than lack of prospects.
On the flip side, look at teams who have been consistently good since the lockout... How many of them were built through a stream of good draft picks? Vancouver, Detroit, San Jose, Washington, Pittsburgh are the best 5 teams since the lockout. Only Pittsburgh was built through a lot of high picks.
A competent GM trumps good draft spots 9 times out of 10.
Vancouver - Sedin twins, top 5 picks.
Pittsburgh - Tons of top 5 picks
Washington - Tons of top 5 picks
San Jose - Even the sharks had top 5 picks three times in a row in the late nineties.
Obviously Detroit has had ridiculously good drafting, so if you're point is that you have to have scouting as good as Detroit to be good, I think getting some top 5 picks sounds pretty enticing.
You are right. It wasn't JUST Crosby. But does it prove anything else than going crazy about single prospect is even more laughable ?
Common wisdom says that Chicago and Pittsburgh "tanked" for "studs" in "the draft", so therefore they won a cups. Why people are ignoring other changes around organisations that happend during "tanking" period ? Where are FLA/NYI/CBJ dynasties then ?
.
MacKinnon never played single game in NHL. But all people knows he is gonna be a stud. No matter how will he be coached, managed, how NHL team enviroment will affect him, he WILL be a stud, and even retarded ape could coach him/be a GM of his team and collect the glory.
You may as well do "top5 list". Actually im sure it would prove my point even stronger How many dynasties build by "tanking" will we have then ? Not many. But for some reason we would see many perennial top5 drafting teams, wich, I don't know why, are "tanking" since 10 or even 20 years and can't tank their way to glory.
There's more to building a winner then selecting first overall and getting a sure fire superstar. Like you said it takes some good trades, solid signings and some luck to take a team from 30th overall to playoff contention.
The thing is with a franchise like Toronto what is ending up in 8th and getting destroyed going to do? They're still going to have the same players and the same assets which doesn't leave them much room for improvement, it would be more beneficial for the organization long term to land a surefire stud that will be on the roster for 10 years.
They can also start trading some players for assets if that's the plan and rebuild.
There are a lot of teams that try to ignore the draft and build through trades and free agency, it works for some (detroit) but there's a lot of teams who have been spinning their wheels for years and years landing 12th-8th in the standings and not getting a high enough draft pick to land an impact player.
MacKinnon is one of the best prospects we've seen in a long, long time and it would benefit Toronto much more to land him as opposed to getting lit up in the playoffs.
There's more to building a winner then selecting first overall and getting a sure fire superstar. Like you said it takes some good trades, solid signings and some luck to take a team from 30th overall to playoff contention.
The thing is with a franchise like Toronto what is ending up in 8th and getting destroyed going to do? They're still going to have the same players and the same assets which doesn't leave them much room for improvement, it would be more beneficial for the organization long term to land a surefire stud that will be on the roster for 10 years.
I could end reading this at "surefire stud". There is no such thing as "surefire stud". Not in NHL, when player development depends on so many factors. And definetly not in Toronto Maple Leafs
What Toronto can do ? Rebuild. Change philosophy of organisation. Not "tank for 5 years and wait for the success". Actually no matter how talented that MacKimmon it, Toronto landing him would hurt his career more than help the Leafs.
