Rebuilding On The Fly

[Off Sides]

Why should the Rangers be compared to teams who were expansion teams, relocated, had ownership issues, are in much lesser market, do not spend to the cap ceiling?

Rangers have had advantages. They used them to attract UFAs, had players waive clauses just for them, they can spend whatever they want on coaching, scouting, buy-outs.

The Leafs will be an interesting future parallel.

 

[Edge]

You are arguing correlation equals causation while ignoring all the teams with top 3 picks that don't even make the playoffs nevermind win the cup. Those teams all had plenty of guys playing large roles that were not top 3 picks. We didn't have a top 3 pick on our cup winning team.

Correlation equals causation if I was arguing that a top three pick EQUATES to a cup.

I've never said that.

What I did say, was that it increases your odds. And that is proved by the examples that were given.

On the other hand, you have to yet to show me a a cup winner in recent years who did not have a a player taken with a top three pick, and still in their prime. That's pretty telling.

And again, you're arguing against a point I've never made. Have I ever once said that all you need is top 3 picks? Or did I not say, very matter of factly, that it works best when you have talent already in place and those guys help put it over the top?

Actually, yes. In fact, here is the quote:

It's not about tanking year and after year. It's about having a few younger guys already in the system, and then adding one or two of those top young pieces to put your team over the top. Like anything else, it doesn't always work. But the results speak for themselves.

And yes, 23 years ago the Rangers put together a team that did not have a guy who was taken with a top 3 pick.

Would you like to point to the fact that it's 23 years ago first? Or should I reference back to my comment that you can win a cup without doing it this way, it is just substantially harder. I'll let you pick.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Well, yeah, you still have to have good talent to surround the players with. That doesn't change just because you have a high end talent.

And it's worth pointing out that even a guy like Phil Kessel has some pretty high end talent.

Kessel has great talent but you said you cant trade for it above. Guys like Kessel, Burns, Karlsson, Benn, Kucherov, Marchand, Scheflie, Tarasenko, Lundy, Muarry, panarin, Wheeler, etc but they were not top 3 picks.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Seguin was basically a 4th liner for the Bruins the year that they won (and he didn't dress for almost half of their playoff games) but Edge's point is tough to argue against.

Also, Kessel went 5th so while he wasn't a top 3 pick, he was almost as close as you can get to being one.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Correlation equals causation if I was arguing that a top three pick EQUATES to a cup.

I've never said that.

What I did say, was that it increases your odds. And that is proved by the examples that were given.

On the other hand, you have to yet to show me a a cup winner in recent years who did not have a a player taken with a top three pick, and still in their prime. That's pretty telling.

And again, you're arguing against a point I've never made. Have I ever once said that all you need is top 3 picks? Or did I not say, very matter of factly, that it works best when you have talent already in place and those guys help put it over the top?

Actually, yes. In fact, here is the quote:



And yes, 23 years ago the Rangers put together a team that did not have a guy who was taken with a top 3 pick.

Would you like to point to the fact that it's 23 years ago first? Or should I reference back to my comment that you can win a cup without doing it this way, it is just substantially harder. I'll let you pick.

We would all like a elite player like Crosby. If you know how to get one Im willing to listen.

 

[True Blue]

Seguin was basically a 4th liner for the Bruins the year that they won (and he didn't dress for almost half of their playoff games) but Edge's point is tough to argue against.

Also, Kessel went 5th so while he wasn't a top 3 pick, he was almost as close as you can get to being one.

Agreed. Like I said, people tend to forget just how talented Kessel is on his own

 

[Edge]

Kessel has great talent but you said you cant trade for it above. Guys like Kessel, Burns, Karlsson, Benn, Kucherov, Marchand, Scheflie, Tarasenko, Lundy, Muarry, panarin, Wheeler, etc but they were not top 3 picks.

Actually, what I said was:

Trading for them is not a viable option. Especially with the Rangers current makeup.

The key being that it's not viable for the Rangers, at least at this time. Not with the asking prices that are out there.

And that coincides with what I also said:

Actually, that's part of the problem with trying to trade for them and not draft them.

When you trade for them, you often end up gutting a good portion of the roster and depth you were hoping to add them to.

Kind of a big difference from what you just quoted me as saying.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Agreed. Like I said, people tend to forget just how talented Kessel is on his own

Kessel is super talented but the Pens traded for him after Toronto traded for him. The Pens didn't draft him.

 

[JimmyG89]

Why should the Rangers be compared to teams who were expansion teams, relocated, had ownership issues, are in much lesser market, do not spend to the cap ceiling?

Rangers have had advantages. They used them to attract UFAs, had players waive clauses just for them, they can spend whatever they want on coaching, scouting, buy-outs.

The Leafs will be an interesting future parallel.

Leafs don't pass for me. There are many many players who actively do not want to play there. The pressure + the ability to not blend in with a big city kills this. Everyone knows who you are. In NYC, you can blend in. People will know you, but not everyone. Richards signing did that for me.

Rick Nash has every Canadian market on his no trade list. He's from Canada and does not want to play there. NYC is an interesting market in that sense alone.

The only parallels are Boston, LA, and Chicago for big city + anonymity. Boston and Chicago are close because of the O6 aspect. Chicago and Boston do fairly well in FA, as well as the UDFA pools.

 

[Edge]

We would all like a elite player like Crosby. If you know how to get one Im willing to listen.

I think I've already detailed that, ad nauseum.

And you don't agree with that approach.

Not sure it's more complicated than what I've already stated. Nor do I think I can anything more that wouldn't just send us around in circles.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Actually, what I said was:

Trading for them is not a viable option. Especially with the Rangers current makeup.

The key being that it's not viable for the Rangers, at least at this time. Not with the asking prices that are out there.

And that coincides with what I also said:



Kind of a big difference from what you just quoted me as saying.

If you say its not viable for teams to trade for an elite player (especially us with our makeup) how do you propose we get a Crosby?

 

[NickyFotiu]

I think I've already detailed that, ad nauseum.

And you don't agree with that approach.

Not sure it's more complicated than what I've already stated. Nor do I think I can anything more that wouldn't just send us around in circles.

I have never seen anyone that knows how to get a Crosby. He is a top 5 player of all time. Pit won a lottery to get him. They didn't do anything that guaranteed they would get him.

 

[Edge]

Agreed. Like I said, people tend to forget just how talented Kessel is on his own

Exactly. And ironically enough, even after being taken fifth overall, his initial return on the trade market ended up being the second overall pick.

Which goes with something I said earlier about some teams using the value of that top three pick, or the player they selected with said pick, and turning it into a grand prize reward.

Having the picks is only part of the equation, it's not the final answer. But when you use them right, and the teams that win the cup seem to have both had them AND used them right, the odds of success are a lot greater.

The argument basically comes down to this:

Not every team with a top three pick is going to win a cup. But the odds say at least one of them will.

No team without a top three pick on their roster has won a cup since 2008.

And very few have won this century.

So, knowing there are no guarantees, which path do you choose personally?

The one that statistically gives you the best shot to win a cup, but could also result in being a basement dweller?

Of the path that statiscally gives you a tiny to almost non-existent shot, but allows you to hedge your bet and at least be a playoff team?

 

[Edge]

If you say its not viable for teams to trade for an elite player (especially us with our makeup) how do you propose we get a Crosby?

I never proposed getting Crosby.

I've pointed out that a team with a top three pick has better odds of winning a cup than one that doesn't.

That list includes several teams that do not have Crosby.

 

[Trxjw]

The idea of needing top picks to draft elite players is always met with a lot of "whataboutism". I.e., "Oh you need picks? What about these teams that didn't win with those high picks!??!" A lot of things go into winning a cup, and elite talent is definitely one of them. The fact that some teams have squandered that talent doesn't disprove the fact that most teams in this century have won cups with elite talent that they drafted in the top-5 of the draft.

Edmonton was run by morons. Their scouting staff was awful and couldn't identify anyone outside of the first round. They couldn't sign quality players. They threw all of their youth up on a pedestal and said "You're our heroes!" before they had even played a game for them. Incompetence of management doesn't disprove the facts.

 

[mas0764]

Well we need to identify an unappreciated talent that we can get for pennies on the dollar who will arrive here and then perform like a top 5 pick.

Duchene would fit the mold if Sakic didn't want an arm and a leg for him.

This shouldn't be hard.... work your magic, Gorton.

 

[Edge]

I have never seen anyone that knows how to get a Crosby. He is a top 5 player of all time. Pit won a lottery to get him. They didn't do anything that guaranteed they would get him.

They, like every team post-lockout execept Detroit, were in a position to draft in the top three.

Even if we take Crosby out of the equation, because you seem to think Crosby is the only player this applies to, you'd still have teams that were in a position to get Kane, Toews, Doughty, etc.

I really am baffled by why this is so confusing.

 

[Edge]

The idea of needing top picks to draft elite players is always met with a lot of "whataboutism". I.e., "Oh you need picks? What about these teams that didn't win with those high picks!??!" A lot of things go into winning a cup, and elite talent is definitely one of them. The fact that some teams have squandered that talent doesn't disprove the fact that most teams in this century have won cups with elite talent that they drafted in the top-5 of the draft.

Edmonton was run by morons. Their scouting staff was awful and couldn't identify anyone outside of the first round. They couldn't sign quality players. They threw all of their youth up on a pedestal and said "You're our heroes!" before they had even played a game for them. Incompetence of management doesn't disprove the facts.

It's about percentages really. Which approach gives you the best odds.

And only one team that didn't have guy taken with a top three pick (and in most cases drafted by that team with said pick), has won a cup.

The percentages support that approach. Of course it doesn't guarantee anything, but you simply can't overlook that those teams all had one thing in common.

At worst, that's one hell of a coincidence. At best, there's something to be said for it.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I never proposed getting Crosby.

I've pointed out that a team with a top three pick has better odds of winning a cup than one that doesn't.

That list includes several teams that do not have Crosby.

That is true but do the majority of top 3 picks win a cup?

 

[NickyFotiu]

They, like every team post-lockout execept Detroit, were in a position to draft in the top three.

Even if we take Crosby out of the equation, because you seem to think Crosby is the only player this applies to, you'd still have teams that were in a position to get Kane, Toews, Doughty, etc.

I really am baffled by why this is so confusing.

Its not confusing at all but with all due respect you aren't saying anything with much significance. You might as well just say teams with the best players in the game have better odds of winning the cup. Brian Leetch wasn't a top 3 pick but he was one of the best Dman ever so he played a large role in winning the cup.

 

[East Coast Bias]

We are so far from a top 3 pick though, and were even before this offseasons moves.

It doesn't make sense at this stage for this team. It'll take years just to break it apart in order to crash. Then you get your picks, hopefully in a year with a Matthews/McDavid, and not a year like this year.

I think conceptually it would be great to tank and build with a generational talent, but practically it doesn't make sense for this team at this stage.

 

[Off Sides]

Leafs don't pass for me. There are many many players who actively do not want to play there. The pressure + the ability to not blend in with a big city kills this. Everyone knows who you are. In NYC, you can blend in. People will know you, but not everyone. Richards signing did that for me.

Rick Nash has every Canadian market on his no trade list. He's from Canada and does not want to play there. NYC is an interesting market in that sense alone.

The only parallels are Boston, LA, and Chicago for big city + anonymity. Boston and Chicago are close because of the O6 aspect. Chicago and Boston do fairly well in FA, as well as the UDFA pools.

That is 3 Cup winners this past decade, 2 of which multiple.

Rangers have had a nice run of making and often advancing to a point in the playoffs.

 

[Ori]

Not sure what we are doing at the moment, but Stepan was too slow for the AV system - hence one of the reason why Gorton decided to move him.
I`m excited to see how Miller will adapt to a center role position next season. And that might result with more ice time for young players.

 

[sbjnyc]

It is obvious that rebuilding on the fly is not as effective as a real rebuild. A #1 or even #3 overall pick is much more likely to turn into something real than #21. Denying that tanking works is denying that a #1 is very likely to be better than #21.

While true, this line of thinking ignores the simple fact that who gets the top 3 picks in the draft lottery is a complete crap shoot. The 3 teams with the worst records have about a 40% chance of #1 combined and each has a less than 50% chance of landing a top 3 pick. If you're tanking for a top 3 pick you may have to do it several years in a row and when you get it the draft might not have the top end talents you're looking for.

 

[Beacon]

I don't even want to hear Oilers being mentioned. First they tanked and tanked and tanked, ruining in a process development of a bunch of good players. Well, they finally struck the oil (pun intended) but before they have had a chance to even build anything lasting more than a season - all the talk now is about breaking it up because of a cap, instead of what should've been a talk about building a lasting dynasty.

My point - because of a parity in the league in the new cap era it is as good of a strategy to be in the mix year after year with rebuild on the fly instead of a taking a chance with tanking.

If you have enough top-3 picks, sooner or later you will strike gold. In fact, the Oilers were very unlucky that they ran into 3 drafts where the top player was from the start seen as underwhelming. There's always Kane, Ovechkin, Crosby, Stamkos, Tavares, Matthews available once every couple of years at #1, plus guys like Malkin, Eichel, Draisatl in the top 3. The Oilers got unlucky 3 years in a row, so everyone who does not want to sacrifice the present for the future has the excuse of saying, "look at the Oilers!"

The truth is that you need to acquire youth somehow. Either you acquire youth by trading vets or by getting top picks. Problem is that the former does not result in acquiring stars.