Carolina's leading point scorer was Eric Staal, drafted first overall. Pittsburgh went to two Straight SCF's winning one, with Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, and Jordan Staal. The Kings were led largely by Doughty, 2nd overall, Anze Kopitar and Dustin Brown, drafted 11th and 13th consecutively. I could give a stick tap to Bernier at 11th overall as well, though his impact was not nearly the same. I know Kopitar, Brown, and Bernier don't strictly fit the top-5 criteria but it still plays into the idea that higher draft picks have big impacts on SC success. We've only drafted close to that once, with McIlrath. That's five of the last eight SC winners. And that's before we even get into some close calls like the Canucks (Sedin's 2nd and 3rd), the 05-06 Oilers (Smyth 6th overall) as well as some of the teams who have been consistently very good now and are set up for the future like the Blues (Pietrangelo 2nd overall, Erik Johnson 1st overall which brought in Shattenkirk & Stewart), and Lightning (Stamkos 1st overall & Hedman 2nd overall), Capitals (Ovechkin, Semin, Backstrom, Alzner).
I don't think anyone is saying that the Rangers should purposely lose. I don't think anyone is saying that accumulating a bunch of high draft picks is the only path to success. However, I think it's patently clear that it's a better, more realistic plan than hoping Gordie Clark can catch lightning in a model and pull a Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Lidstrom out of his ass in later rounds.
11th and 13th hardly fits what we're talking about. The NYR have had 11th ish picks that hVe come their way quite often. That's mid round. I would argue that Doughty was far from as important as either of those guys or Quick. It took Pittsburgh a decade of losing to build a one time Cup winner, with two generational talents in those drafts. Including them weakens the argument because it required soooo many losing seasons, and those top picks have yielded two first ballot HoF. That can't be an efficient way to build a perennial winner
NYI, Pitt, Tampa bay, Florida, Columbus, Edmonton, and Ottawa have had tons of top 5 picks that produced collectively 1 SC. Eric Staal, Kane, Toews. Those are the 3 players represent the examples of teams that emerged from tanking to win a Cup. Carolina can hardly be considered a strong case for building a dominating team year after year thanks to a lottery pick. Chicago is the shining example. That's pretty much it.
The rest of the teams mentioned, Washington, Vancouver, St. Louis, have come barely closer than the NYR did a few seasons ago, and neither have had the same level of playoff success the NYR have had over the last two seasons. WShington further hurts the argument because their abundance if first rounders have been bounced by a team that hasn't had tha luxury in the last two seasons
My original post didn't say getting a top pick doesn't help, it was :
"The Penguins needed what, 4 #1 picks, and generational talent to win one Cup. Trading away every player worth beans for prospects and picks and picking near the top seems to be the least effective way to build a perennial powerhouse. Chicago had two shots to draft in the top 3 and they wound up with Toews and Kane. Look how many top picks Columbus, NYI, Tampa Bay, Florida, Ottawa, Edmonton, Pittsburgh have had. Between them they have one Cup and it's the team that wound up with a generational talent, possibly two.
I'd rather follow the NJD, Detroit, Boston, Anaheim method of building a solid core through shrewd UFA management, trades, and drafting, and having a roster and coaching philosophy
that reflect an overall united concept of winning hockey.
Losing = winning is only what sack of **** team's fans tell themselves of message boards as they watch mismanagement wreck their rosters on the road to the lottery every year."
