Go over their roster many of their draft picks play on the team, you don't have to have 1st rd picks every year but you still have to find guys who can play.
Detroit's drafting is super overrated. They got lucky with a couple of 6th round picks. Nothing special here besides pure fluke. If the Wings knew zetterburg and datsyuk were that good, they would have drafted them earlier.
Detroit's drafting is super overrated. They got lucky with a couple of 6th round picks. Nothing special here besides pure fluke. If the Wings knew zetterburg and datsyuk were that good, they would have drafted them earlier.
Plus, when it comes down to drafting guys in later rounds it has much more to do with the scout rather than the GM. Scouts don't get any credit meanwhile the GM looks like a genius.
So, yes, more often than not, top 5 picks do indeed matter: The odds of getting a superstar there are weighted heavily in their favour, considering the ratio to the hundreds of other player that will be drafted in any given year.
1991 Pittsburgh Lemieux (Conn Smythe winner), Jagr
1992 Pittsburgh Lemieux (Conn Smythe winner), Jagr
1993 Montreal ?????
1994 Rangers Messier not drafted, Leetch was 9th overall 1995 Jersey Scott Niedermayer (3rd)
1996 Colorado Neither Sakic Forsberg went in top 5 (Forsberg 6th) 1997 Detroit Yzerman 4th
1998 Detroit Yzerman 4th (Conn Smythe winner)
1999 Dallas Modano 1st
2000 New Jersey Niedermayer
2001 Colorado Neither Sakic Forsberg went in top 5 (Forsberg 6th) 2002 Detroit Yzerman
2003 New Jersey Niedermayer
2004 Tampa Bay Lecavalier
2006 Carolina Staal
2007 Anaheim None. Getzlaf (not top 5), Perry (not top 5) and Pronger (not drafted by ANA) were not top five and/or drafted by Anaheim. 2008 Detroit Yzerman
2009 Pittsbugh Crosby, Malkin (Conn Smythe winner), Fleury
2010 Chicago Kane, Toews (Conn Smythe winners)
2011 Boston ???
EDIT: I forgot, Stevens was not drafted by Jersey.
1992
Pittsburgh Penguins: Stanley Cup champions (Mario Lemieux, 1st; Jaromir Jagr, 5th; Ron Francis, 4th [Har]; Larry Murphy, 4th [LA]; Tom Barrasso, 5th [Buf])
Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup finalists (None)
Edmonton Oilers: Conference finalists (Joe Murphy, 1st [Det]; Craig Simpson, 2nd [Pit]; Scott Thornton, 3rd [Tor]; Chris Joseph, 5th [Pit])
Boston Bruins: Conference finalists (Glen Wesley, 3rd; Bobby Carptener, 3rd [Was])
Calgary Flames: Missed playoffs (None -- they actually only had a handful of first rounders period, including those traded away or acquired via trade.)
New York Islanders: Missed playoffs (Pierre Turgeon, 1st; Dave Chyzowski, 2nd; Scott Lachance, 4th; Gary Nylund, 3rd [Tor]; Wayne McBean, 4th [LA])
Philadelphia Flyers: Missed playoffs (Mike Ricci, 4th)
Quebec Nordiques: Missed playoffs (Mats Sundin, 1st; Owen Nolan, 1st; Curtis Leschyshyn, 3rd; Craig Wolanin, 3rd [NJ]; Scott Pearson, 6th [Tor]; Eric Lindros, 1st [DNP])
San Jose Sharks [Expansion]: Missed playoffs (Pat Falloon, 2nd; Brian Lawton, 1st [Min];
Toronto Maple Leafs: Missed playoffs (Wendel Clark, 1st; Mike Foligno, 3rd [Det])
[...]
2011
Boston Bruins: Stanley Cup champions (Tyler Seguin, 2nd; Nathan Horton, 3rd [Fla]; Benoit Pouliot, 4th [Min])
Vancouver Canucks: Stanley Cup finalists (Daniel Sedin, 2nd; Henrik Sedin, 3rd; Robert Luongo, 4th [NYI]; Raffi Torres, 5th [NYI])
Tampa Bay Lightning: Conference finalists (Steven Stamkos, 1st; Vincent Lecavalier, 1st; Victor Hedman, 2nd; Eric Brewer, 5th [NYI]) -- looking good th-- oh, wait.
San Jose Sharks: Conference finalists (Patrick Marleau, 2nd; Joe Thornton, 1st [Bos]; Dany Heatley, 2nd [Atl])
Atlanta Thrashers: Missed playoffs (Zach Bogosian, 3rd; Evander Kane, 4th; Andrew Ladd, 4th [Car]; Blake Wheeler, 5th [Phx])
Calgary Flames: Missed playoffs (Olli Jokinen, 3rd [LA]; Jay Bouwmeester, 3rd [Fla]; Daymond Langkow, 5th [Tpa])
Carolina Hurricanes: Missed playoffs (Eric Staal, 2nd; Joni Pitkanen, 4th [Phi]; Bryan Allen, 4th [Van])
Colorado Avalanche: Missed playoffs (Matt Duchene, 3rd; Erik Johnson, 1st [Stl])
Columbus Blue Jackets: Missed playoffs (Rick Nash, 1st; Rostislav Klesla, 4th)
Dallas Stars: Missed playoffs (Kari Lehtonen, 2nd [Atl] -- five of top seven scorers were not first rounders; other two were 25th selections)
Edmonton Oilers: Missed playoffs (Taylor Hall, 1st; Ryan Whitney, 5th [Pit])
Florida Panthers: Missed playoffs (Stephen Weiss, 4th; Bryan Allen, 4th [Van] -- lot of top ten picks tho)
Minnesota Wild: Missed playoffs (Cam Barker, 3rd [Chi])
New Jersey Devils: Missed playoffs (Ilya Kovalchuk, 1st [Atl])
New York Islanders: Missed playoffs (John Tavares, 1st; Rick DiPietro, 1st; Nino Niederreiter, 5th)
Ottawa Senators: Missed playoffs (Chris Phillips, 1st; Jason Spezza, 2nd)
St. Louis Blues: Missed playoffs (Erik Johnson, 1st; Alex Pietrangelo, 4th; Eric Brewer, 5th [NYI])
Toronto Maple Leafs: Missed playoffs (Luke Schenn, 5th; Phil Kessel, 5th [Bos])
Fun fact: Adam Foote missed the playoffs in both seasons - 1992 with Quebec, and 2011 with Colorado.
P.S. I picked 1992 instead of 1991 because I typed in 1991-1992 and had already jotted non-qualifying data down and only noticed when I went back to add the Cup finalists that I had picked 1991-1992 instead of 1990-1991, which I had intended, so mea culpa but I didn't have the time to re-do it. Fun exercise either way.
People seem to forget that the Wings were drafting in the top five for a lot of years. Some of those picks became cornerstones, others were used to get other cornerstones. Primeau was used to get Shanahan, wasn't Primeau a top 3 pic? If I sat back and start to list them all it would be crazy. They had great teams but they didn't have that little extra to get them beyond. Scotty came in and tweaked things a little and the rest is history.
Point is Wings were drafting high for so many years and stock piling players. Toronto traded away all their pics and players. I wonder if the Kurvers deal was never made how many cups we would have won with Niedermayer on our team and not the Devils.
It was easy for the Wings to develop players since they were deep at the pro level and could wait for guys. This idea of them not drafting high and still being successful is just because they still have a strong core. Take away Lidstrom next year, Holstrom an aging Franzen and you wonder how good they will be. With cap space though if they could lure a Parise and the d-man from Nashville then they are set.
Problem is we keep on giving away our chances to get cornerstones. We needed our top pic in Clark to get Sundin but we have nothing now. I say we continue to bottom out. This year and next and we get a lot of good young players. When this team is ready to compete there will be free agents that will want to come here but it takes time. Players wanted to come here in the 90's and early in the next decade because we were a good team. They will come again.
Burke made a number of mistakes but if he trades this pic then I have lost every ounce of respect for the man.
Let me add though. Burke added Gardiner and he is a cornerstone player. Maybe the best young d-man Toronto has had and most dynamic since Salming. Kadri is going to be a great player and Frattin will be a solid winger but we need a big stud down the middle.
And since we are talking about DET, NOBODY has ever drafted smarter...
And on this we can all agree. Detroit is not the norm but more the exception.
As for your comparisons, again, you are missing the point. If ifs ands and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. It is easy to sandbag and go back in time "Well, you could have had..."
That it is why it is a draft. It is about taking a chance and, hopefully, rely on your scouts. There are more than 200 players drafted each year. Outside the top 5, it is always easy to go back, look at those 200 other players and saying "Well, they should have taken this guy..." It is easy to cherry pick to suit your argument that way.
Top-5 picks, historically, are where you are going to get your stars. Of the current nine top point leaders in the NHL, seven are top 5 picks. 4/5 goal scorers and 3/5 assist leaders are top 5 picks. This isn't rocket science. This is fact.
You can sandbag your argument any way you want. The numbers don't lie, just as they don't lie with my chart of Stanley Cup champions and top 5 picks drafted by those teams. We pro top-5 crowd are given five chances to give you a list of stars and reasons why drafting in the top 5, for argument's sakes, is more beneficail; you guys have 200 players ayear to choose from, we have five. So, yes, you are more likely to win the draft crapshoot by picking high. Hindsight and going back to say "You should have taken Richards" is a moot argument. You, me and scouts for 30 NHL teams could say the same thing.
I am not "for" the Leafs tanking on purpose, but I want a top-5 pick and if they lose, I am not going to be as upset as I was when the Isles knocked the Leafs out by wining the shootout vs Jersey a few years back. So, yes, winning these games are meaningless at this point in the year. We have a chance to get a superstar player to build our team around, and that has me looking forward to the draft this year. I hope we don't get the seventh pick. I hope we get the fourth.
How have the previous good runs worked out for the Leafs the following season?
Pretty sure that we have enough evidence to put that myth to bed.
Where is the hard evidence? This meltdown is viewed widely by all hockey pundits as an absolute anomaly. The obvious answer was shaky goaltending. A reportedly fractured dressing room and a coaching controversy are other significant factors. You're making a sweeping generalization here, ignoring all the factors, in order to try and support a position which cannot be substantiated, certainly not in the way you present it. They solidified the G position with Reimer in 2010-11 and did nothing but win. They came out hard this season, and did everything and more to lock up a playoff birth until the bottom fell out, specifically with respect to goaltending. None of this suggests that trying to compete honestly leads to failed success the following year. Completely circumstantial.
Draft lottery should be equally weighted for ALL teams that don't make the playoffs. This would eliminate teams from any tanking ideas and end the idea of a tank nation.
You would always cheer for your team to win, even when they're mathematically eliminated from playoff contention. Even those who are part of tank nation, hate cheering against their beloved Leafs.
When I referred to teams having "tanking ideas", I mean organizations who simply rely on top picks in the draft as a means of team improvement. These teams generally don't do much in the FA pool, as they are unwilling (or do not have the money) to spend the money. These are the usual perennial bottom feeders of the NHL.
And on this we can all agree. Detroit is not the norm but more the exception.
As for your comparisons, again, you are missing the point. If ifs ands and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. It is easy to sandbag and go back in time "Well, you could have had..."
That it is why it is a draft. It is about taking a chance and, hopefully, rely on your scouts. There are more than 200 players drafted each year. Outside the top 5, it is always easy to go back, look at those 200 other players and saying "Well, they should have taken this guy..." It is easy to cherry pick to suit your argument that way.
Top-5 picks, historically, are where you are going to get your stars. Of the current nine top point leaders in the NHL, seven are top 5 picks. 4/5 goal scorers and 3/5 assist leaders are top 5 picks. This isn't rocket science. This is fact.
You can sandbag your argument any way you want. The numbers don't lie, just as they don't lie with my chart of Stanley Cup champions and top 5 picks drafted by those teams. We pro top-5 crowd are given five chances to give you a list of stars and reasons why drafting in the top 5, for argument's sakes, is more beneficail; you guys have 200 players ayear to choose from, we have five. So, yes, you are more likely to win the draft crapshoot by picking high. Hindsight and going back to say "You should have taken Richards" is a moot argument. You, me and scouts for 30 NHL teams could say the same thing.
I am not "for" the Leafs tanking on purpose, but I want a top-5 pick and if they lose, I am not going to be as upset as I was when the Isles knocked the Leafs out by wining the shootout vs Jersey a few years back. So, yes, winning these games are meaningless at this point in the year. We have a chance to get a superstar player to build our team around, and that has me looking forward to the draft this year. I hope we don't get the seventh pick. I hope we get the fourth.
Sorry, a cute little limerick doesn't dispel nine years of evidence. You claim DET built a dynasty around a single 4th overall pick. I contend that this an anomaly, and does nothing to add weight to your argument at all. In fact it weakens it. This is not an exercise in hindsight; it is an attempt to illuminate the myth that a high pick guarantees success. You could just as easily build around the names of guys taken lower than 4-5, and many clubs have.
The disadvantages of playing to lose in order to take a flier on a young impressionable kid who will be expected to play hockey jesus in an organization that has yet to stabilize a core group are so glaringly obvious its laughable. You lose habitually, and you form losing habits, and a loser's mindset. If the pick capitulates as a result of the pressure, you're left with nothing...
I'll take a winning attitude, a solid group of prospects which have been properly developed, and a solid core group over the tank model every time. Its about sustainable success. Historically, tanking has not led to this. CBJ's top picks all flamed out. Nash wants out after a decade of underachieving. Tampa hasn't really moved the needle with any consistency, and now must find room for a franchise goalie to sustain any success. NYI is a complete joke, WSH has not been able to manage any real playoff success, and CHI have nothing like the team they had when they won a cup.
Re: top 5 picks, you have 2. Kessel and Schenn. How many does it take?
Im done debating this. Its a nice day out. for every high pick you think is a game changer there's one that flopped, and at least 5-6 guys picked lower who could have gotten it done. Sorry the odds don't favour you.
Where is the hard evidence? This meltdown is viewed widely by all hockey pundits as an absolute anomaly.
The obvious answer was shaky goaltending.
A reportedly fractured dressing room and a coaching controversy are other significant factors.
You're making a sweeping generalization here, ignoring all the factors, in order to try and support a position which cannot be substantiated, certainly not in the way you present it.
They solidified the G position with Reimer in 2010-11 and did nothing but win. They came out hard this season, and did everything and more to lock up a playoff birth until the bottom fell out, specifically with respect to goaltending.
None of this suggests that trying to compete honestly leads to failed success the following year. Completely circumstantial.
Actually, there were questions being asked before the collapse, and they were around how the team was playing even in their wins.
Seems that many just refused to honestly evaluate the team's structure. Everyone was in love with the standings and just pretended all the known issues were irrelevant.
Was it Moonraker where the Control Centre was blowing up and the countdown continued saying everything was AOK?
As has been stated before the sky was falling.
__________________
Woodlief
using his big frame to create space and his skating ability to find open lanes to drive the net. He stands 6-3 and is a natural goal scorer with plenty of confidence.
He's a scout's dream in the way he prepares himself and plays an unselfish game, making smart decisions with the puck. With his bloodlines, he certainly understands what it will take to make it at the next level.
Im done debating this. Its a nice day out. for every high pick you think is a game changer there's one that flopped, and at least 5-6 guys picked lower who could have gotten it done. Sorry the odds don't favour you.
Again, you aren't using math. I have five players to choose from. You have 200 and change.
Like I said, 7 of the top 9 pointgetters in the NHL are top 5 picks. What again is it about the odds not favouring me in getting a franchise player in the top 5? My argument is pretty simple.
Where is the hard evidence? This meltdown is viewed widely by all hockey pundits as an absolute anomaly. The obvious answer was shaky goaltending. A reportedly fractured dressing room and a coaching controversy are other significant factors. You're making a sweeping generalization here, ignoring all the factors, in order to try and support a position which cannot be substantiated, certainly not in the way you present it. They solidified the G position with Reimer in 2010-11 and did nothing but win. They came out hard this season, and did everything and more to lock up a playoff birth until the bottom fell out, specifically with respect to goaltending. None of this suggests that trying to compete honestly leads to failed success the following year. Completely circumstantial.
They were in a playoff spot but they were covered in warts. They had a very easy schedule early on and they outscored all of their real problems. When things tightened up the real team was exposed and it collapsed.
The only anomaly was when they were in a playoff spot in January.
Sorry, a cute little limerick doesn't dispel nine years of evidence. You claim DET built a dynasty around a single 4th overall pick. I contend that this an anomaly, and does nothing to add weight to your argument at all. In fact it weakens it. This is not an exercise in hindsight; it is an attempt to illuminate the myth that a high pick guarantees success. You could just as easily build around the names of guys taken lower than 4-5, and many clubs have.
The disadvantages of playing to lose in order to take a flier on a young impressionable kid who will be expected to play hockey jesus in an organization that has yet to stabilize a core group are so glaringly obvious its laughable. You lose habitually, and you form losing habits, and a loser's mindset. If the pick capitulates as a result of the pressure, you're left with nothing...
I'll take a winning attitude, a solid group of prospects which have been properly developed, and a solid core group over the tank model every time. Its about sustainable success. Historically, tanking has not led to this. CBJ's top picks all flamed out. Nash wants out after a decade of underachieving. Tampa hasn't really moved the needle with any consistency, and now must find room for a franchise goalie to sustain any success. NYI is a complete joke, WSH has not been able to manage any real playoff success, and CHI have nothing like the team they had when they won a cup.
Re: top 5 picks, you have 2. Kessel and Schenn. How many does it take?
Im done debating this. Its a nice day out. for every high pick you think is a game changer there's one that flopped, and at least 5-6 guys picked lower who could have gotten it done. Sorry the odds don't favour you.
The only reason why you are against high picks is because Burke traded two of them. Lets get real here. The higher the pick the greater the chance at a corner stone player. Stop dancing around the truth to try and make Burke look better for his actions.
How have the previous good runs worked out for the Leafs the following season?
Pretty sure that we have enough evidence to put that myth to bed.
Great point.
We've ended a ton of seasons with a "winning attitude" and where has that gotten us in the following year? Absolutely nothing.
So let's try to at least get a high (top 5) lottery this time and get the best possible odds of acquiring an elite talent. Is that concept so hard to grasb for all the anti-tankers here??
We've ended a ton of seasons with a "winning attitude" and where has that gotten us in the following year? Absolutely nothing.
So let's try to at least get a high (top 5) lottery this time and get the best possible odds of acquiring an elite talent. Is that concept so hard to grasb for all the anti-tankers here??
i mentioned the same thing the other night..... going out on a high hasnt helped us yet
i think a poor finish would be beneficial for 2 reasons
- 1 obviously our draft pick will be higher
- 2 finishing the season on a low note should be motivation for a redemption next year and provide an extra spark in the off season for a pro athlete.... anyone who isnt happy with putting in the extra work and comming out for vengence next season can be weeded out and traded/demoted/cut or whatever
Sorry, a cute little limerick doesn't dispel nine years of evidence. You claim DET built a dynasty around a single 4th overall pick. I contend that this an anomaly, and does nothing to add weight to your argument at all. In fact it weakens it. This is not an exercise in hindsight; it is an attempt to illuminate the myth that a high pick guarantees success. You could just as easily build around the names of guys taken lower than 4-5, and many clubs have.
The disadvantages of playing to lose in order to take a flier on a young impressionable kid who will be expected to play hockey jesus in an organization that has yet to stabilize a core group are so glaringly obvious its laughable. You lose habitually, and you form losing habits, and a loser's mindset. If the pick capitulates as a result of the pressure, you're left with nothing...
I'll take a winning attitude, a solid group of prospects which have been properly developed, and a solid core group over the tank model every time. Its about sustainable success. Historically, tanking has not led to this. CBJ's top picks all flamed out. Nash wants out after a decade of underachieving. Tampa hasn't really moved the needle with any consistency, and now must find room for a franchise goalie to sustain any success. NYI is a complete joke, WSH has not been able to manage any real playoff success, and CHI have nothing like the team they had when they won a cup.
Re: top 5 picks, you have 2. Kessel and Schenn. How many does it take?
Im done debating this. Its a nice day out. for every high pick you think is a game changer there's one that flopped, and at least 5-6 guys picked lower who could have gotten it done. Sorry the odds don't favour you.
Someone give this post its own thread and sticky it to the top of the forum please
Well, as many as we can get. Is there a limit? Pitteburgh didn't get that memo.
See, theres the problem...you load up on top 5 picks who can all theoretically claim in excess of 10- 15% of the overall team budget (more if they're bonafide studs), and the bottom drops out before you get a chance to benefit from their presence. Either that, or they don't measure up and you're stuck with an albatross contract, likely with a NMC and you don't get your value back. Imagine soling the bed linens intentionally for years to acquire a handful of players you ultimately can't afford, then have trouble moving for fair market value. fun stuff, huh?
No, I'm five years old and I have no idea what the word "odds" means. Please explain, professor.
At what point do you NOT cheer for a tanking? If this team isn't in first place, you want them to tank? If they're on the fence between playoffs and not making the playoffs?
You have to work with what you have, and realistically, this team isn't going to purposefully lose games to get a better draft position. Burke would NEVER have it.
God knows I hate the tanking concept.
But they do have a point.
Non-tankers say : "Don't worry, Burkie will make a trade to get a better pick."
In other words, he will pay extra for what he could have gotten for free.
