Around the League 24-25

[Raile]

They’ve been tanking since 2011 and currently hold the 2nd worst record in the league and just lost their 13th game in a row. How in the hell is that a recipe for success?

You gave ONE example of it not working.

I gave FOUR.

in our examples alone that is an 80% success rate.

I wouldn't even consider winning the cup to be required to be considered a recipe for success and yet:
3 of the 4 teams I listed WON THE CUP (sometimes multiple times).

Almost every team that wins the cup (not including Vegas) has a few down years and swoops in to pick up that great player or two who propels them to a cup, and sometimes a decade of competiveness.

Every once in awhile you will get a team treading on the playoff line that goes on a run. (St. Louis). To be sure, they might sell obvious long tooths, but not every team needs a total tear down to make their high pick years pay off. Some teams didn't really have much to tear down when their high picks were selected (consider Florida and Ekblad and Barkov). Some teams haven't been truly bad for a long time and have been cup competitive for awhile thanks to a few good mid-to-late first round picks (see Boston, staying competitive with Pasternak and McAvoy picks).

But most good teams had some bad years at some point. And they tend to get good because they pick well -- sometimes its only a couple players that make all the difference. Getting lucky in the lottery, drafting the right guys, avoiding derailing development injuries -- its some luck, its some skill, but it carries with it risk and uncertainty. When a team hits on a couple of guys, they could go for it, build around that core, maybe use some future assets to make a more complete team at playoff time. And if that team is, say, between 10-15 in talent in the league, many might say that's foolish. Maybe, but when a team is down, its going to get more picks and fight with half the league at various stages "on the rise" and a third of the league doing everything they can to stay top ten.

I think if you have Quinn Hughes you find a way to have that player help you win a cup. There's a cast around him now that's not bad, but maybe its not good enough. But if you trade Miller and Pettersson and its not for assets that make the cast better, then what's the point of having Hughes?

I hear you UW and I'm pretty much in agreement. I appreciate it's more complicated then the simplified version I posted, as you pointed out. I was mostly just having a go at RD and his also completely oversimplified approach to it, which I'd heard too many times and found myself with a spare 5 minutes

I'm not a big fan of the decade long tank, but to me that's more of poor execution to the recipe, rather than the recipe being bad. As you pointed out, almost all teams do it, its just how long they do it for.

[donlever]

Nice posting Dude and Dub.

Especially Chef...great to see that old school BD poke his head out.

[Chef Boi RD]

Nice posting Dude and Dub.

Especially Chef...great to see that old school BD poke his head out.

Most people will say that drafting Stamkos and Hedman. 1st and 2nd overall was the et all be all to them winning the cup but I would argue that drafting Kucherov 58th overall, Point 79th overall and Vasilevski 19th overall was as equally important to their successes if not more. That and surrounding the core with the right players through trades and free agents. With the exception of Heiskenen the Dallas Stars have put themselves in Cup contention with succesful drafting outside the lottery zone.

What I guess this may prove is that tanking and getting lucky at the draft is just one part of the success. With that being said, is Petey and Hughes all we need from the tank years 2017 and 2018, or will the Juolevi (2016) and Podkolzin (2018) failed tank year picks forever haunt us? I will say this, luck at the draft table definitely deserves some respect in all of this.

[Meds]

Nice posting Dude and Dub.

Especially Chef...great to see that old school BD poke his head out.

Most people will say that drafting Stamkos and Hedman. 1st and 2nd overall was the et all be all to them winning the cup but I would argue that drafting Kucherov 58th overall, Point 79th overall and Vasilevski 19th overall was as equally important to their successes if not more. That and surrounding the core with the right players through trades and free agents. With the exception of Heiskenen the Dallas Stars have put themselves in Cup contention with succesful drafting outside the lottery zone.

What I guess this may prove is that tanking and getting lucky at the draft is just one part of the success. With that being said, is Petey and Hughes all we need from the tank years 2017 and 2018, or will the Juolevi (2016) and Podkolzin (2018) failed tank year picks forever haunt us? I will say this, luck at the draft table definitely deserves some respect in all of this.

What you say about Tampa’s drafting outside the 1st round is very true.

However, Stamkos and Hedman were the culture carriers that those other guys benefited from. Stamkos actually spent time playing with St. Louis and a few others from that mid 2000’s Lightning era that won a Cup in 2004.

Also, when I look at the 5 examples that were listed by Chef and Raille, only one of those teams would have tolerated the locker room bullshit we are seeing now for more than a couple weeks, and there would have been players on the move if it got out in the media the way it has here.

None of the 4 Cup winners would have paid Pettersson what he got paid while he was refusing to sign a new deal in the middle of a season while already regressing. They likely would have pulled the trigger on the rumoured Carolina offer and trusted that Hughes, Miller, Boeser, and Demko, would continue to lead and develop the incoming parts.

The example Chef gives, Buffalo, has had repeated drama in their local media and most recently with their star center over healthcare…..which results in them trading him to Vegas after it got aired in the media. But they waited so fucking long to do it that it likely soured the room and now you have a team of talented players who are underachieving regardless of the coach.

[donlever]

Ruff was a poor hire.

Reeks of ownership meddling.

That's one sad franchise.

[Raile]

Nice posting Dude and Dub.

Especially Chef...great to see that old school BD poke his head out.

Most people will say that drafting Stamkos and Hedman. 1st and 2nd overall was the et all be all to them winning the cup but I would argue that drafting Kucherov 58th overall, Point 79th overall and Vasilevski 19th overall was as equally important to their successes if not more. That and surrounding the core with the right players through trades and free agents. With the exception of Heiskenen the Dallas Stars have put themselves in Cup contention with succesful drafting outside the lottery zone.

What I guess this may prove is that tanking and getting lucky at the draft is just one part of the success. With that being said, is Petey and Hughes all we need from the tank years 2017 and 2018, or will the Juolevi (2016) and Podkolzin (2018) failed tank year picks forever haunt us? I will say this, luck at the draft table definitely deserves some respect in all of this.

Why start off blaming all of Buffalo's issues on "the full tank rebuild" then?

Surely you've just admitted that actually there are a number of factors. It's not that Buffalo tanked, or is still tanking, but that they have and are making a ton of bad choices, going on a decade plus. Someone the other day made a comment that there was something rotten within that organization, and I'm sure we don't even know the half of it.

As UW said, almost all teams tank. Even the Canucks tanked (I think Doc was referring to it as the stealth tank because we couldn't admit it). Your point about the lightning - they had a number of very high lottery picks, but also have drafted a lot of high end players outside of lottery picks. They tanked, but they made very good picks. What if those picks hadn't panned out? Would they be tanking for a hell of a lot longer?
If they had drafted Stamkos, Vasilevskiy, and Hedman, but missed on all their non-first round picks.. well hell then they'd look a lot more like our team tbh.

Anway, I think we're actually talking along the same lines now, I'm just confused why it had to start with that initial post.

[Chef Boi RD]

It’s unfortunate but seeing the kind of players Eichel and Reinhart are turning out to be, had they handled them better, insulated them better, that’s a different franchise today.

[Chef Boi RD]

Chefs point is the term in the tank. How long does it have to be? Not very. And Buffalo has been tanking since 2011, although sometimes not trying, I’ll give them that. You look at the history of drafting high, top 10 for arguments sake, you truly only need to hit on 2-3, then get out. Buffalo hit on two once - Eichel and Reinhart. The problem being was how they managed the team with those two after, not good. You really only need a short term tank window, with some luck, but not a long one. That is, If you can hit on two:

Recent cup winners

Pittsburgh - Crosby, Malkin
Chicago - Toews, Kane
Tampa - Stamkos, Hedman
Florida - Barkov, Ekblad. (Huberdeau gets them Tkachuk
LA - Doughty, Kopitar (although not top 10 selected)
St. Louis - Pietrangelo
Las Vegas - No top 10 generational drafted

You truly don’t need to go full tank more than 2-3 years. Get in, get lucky, get out. Buffalo’s problem is they’ve created a culture of losing from a decade and a half long full tank. Take a look at the Oilers endless tank starting with Yakupov, it still hasn’t paid off. The Senators are on what can be argued an endless tank as well. Montreal is hovering dangerously close to it.

It comes to a point when you need to move on from the culture of losing (long term tank) and start making moves to insulate the 2 or 3 generational talents you’ve lucked out on from tanking. It seems to me, Pettersson and Hughes should be enough? Now it comes down to the managers (see Buffalo). This is what separates the men from the boys. Are Allvin and Rutherford, men? Remains to be seen.

[Meds]

Chefs point is the term in the tank. How long does it have to be? Not very. And Buffalo has been tanking since 2011, although sometimes not trying, I’ll give them that. You look at the history of drafting high, top 10 for arguments sake, you truly only need to hit on 2-3, then get out. Buffalo hit on two once - Eichel and Reinhart. The problem being was how they managed the team with those two after, not good. You really only need a short term tank window, with some luck, but not a long one. That is, If you can hit on two:

Recent cup winners

Pittsburgh - Crosby, Malkin
Chicago - Toews, Kane
Tampa - Stamkos, Hedman
Florida - Barkov, Ekblad. (Huberdeau gets them Tkachuk
LA - Doughty, Kopitar (although not top 10 selected)
St. Louis - Pietrangelo
Las Vegas - No top 10 generational drafted

…It seems to me, Pettersson and Hughes should be enough? Now it comes down to the managers (see Buffalo). This is what separates the men from the boys. Are Allvin and Rutherford, men? Remains to be seen.

A few points on your list of examples…..

1. You also need elite goaltending…..whether it’s flash in the pan for that run, MAF/Murray/Binnington, or consistently elite, Vassy. Only Chicago got it done with guys who were merely steady starters (Niemi and Crawford).

2. Of the players you listed none of them were easily pushed around and knocked off the puck. Only Kane was on the small side, but so shifty and quick on his skates (Hughes reminds me a bit of Kane when he decides to walk around the zone with the puck).

I think you need a 2 forwards, a top D and a goaltender who will play at an elite level. You can then balance the lineup.

I see Petey as part of the balance of the lineup. If we compare to Chicago…

Toews, Kane, Keith, Crawford…..Hossa, Seabrook, etc.

Miller, Hughes, Demko…..Pettersson, Boeser, Hronek, etc.

[Topper]

Top lines are often a wash and elevate for the playoffs, some moreso than others.

Third and fourth line depth role players make the biggest impact and differentials between teams especially as the war of attrition progresses.

I keep coming back to Scotty Bowman's comments on why he dismissed the WCE era Canucks from playoff success. " Who's on their fourth line?"

You could easily say Vancouver lost the war of attrition in 2011, not an excuse, it is an integral part of the playoffs making the Stanley Cup one of the most difficult championships to attain.

[Lancer]

Nice posting Dude and Dub.

Especially Chef...great to see that old school BD poke his head out.

Most people will say that drafting Stamkos and Hedman. 1st and 2nd overall was the et all be all to them winning the cup but I would argue that drafting Kucherov 58th overall, Point 79th overall and Vasilevski 19th overall was as equally important to their successes if not more. That and surrounding the core with the right players through trades and free agents. With the exception of Heiskenen the Dallas Stars have put themselves in Cup contention with succesful drafting outside the lottery zone.

This. This is also why Edmonton continues to squander its McJesus and Draisaitl window: they can’t draft worth shit outside of their lottery 1st rounders. That, and the fact that they - like Toronto - have prioritized star forwards over goaltending and defence. Even getting key supporting cast players like Cirelli and Point in the later rounds helped Tampa get heir Cups.

When the Canucks were contending with the Twins, you had contributors like Hansen, Raymond and Edler that management picked outside the 1st round. IMO, that’s the mark of a winning organization: being able to get solid supporting cast or star players outside the 1st round.

[UWSaint]

I think the relevant question here might be “how many teams sold/didn’t resign their cores before it was clear those cores had given the teams the best years they could and while those teams were still highly competitive for a playoff spot?” Because that’s the most pessimistic view of what the Canucks have now. You might add to this “before their cores matured to be competitive—in other words, who cut bait on a developing core.

Buffalo is an example of an early sale—hasn’t worked; chose the wrong guys to move.

Edmonton gave up on the first wave (outside of RNH at the end of that wave); good decision but not a lot of value in return.

Florida 2.5 years ago was better positioned that Van today but fairly similar; they moved one core player and one near core with a design in mind. Great GMing.

Toronto probably should have done something like Florida but didn’t. Then again, maybe they win?

Colorado might be a good analog to the Canucks, but I think moreso the year after the all Canada season mess and not today. After sucking for a bit, they had one surprise year filled with optimism before sucking again. Duchene and Landeskog were the youngish leaders; they moved one and not the other — designed for future assets (picks, prospect Girard), not to replace. Canucks didn’t take that route, they added OEL and Garland, but might instead have traded Horvat and Boeser then and there.

But really, to the question, who in a similar position to the Canucks today traded 1 or 2 core players for far in the future assets (not for restructured lineup who remains competitive) and it paid off?

[Chef Boi RD]

Forgot about the Avalanche rebuild. Their tank was spread out over almost a decade, from 2009 (Matt Duchene) to 2017 (Makar) with bouts of decent seasons sprinkled in between.

[Carl Yagro]

Wow, this is some great discussion going on here in the last few pages.

I forgot Dude could post like this with facts and reason. Haven't seen this in a coon's age.

[Chef Boi RD]

Wow, this is some great discussion going on here in the last few pages.

I forgot Dude could post like this with facts and reason. Haven't seen this in a coon's age.

I was temporarily possessed by a demon, I managed my own exorcism by sprinkling whisky on myself instead of holy water, didn’t seem to work, it took a few times. I’m glad to be back from hell.