The San Jose Sharks are horror-bad

[Pavelski2112]

No it hasn’t.

Giving me a list of top picks on cup winners doesn’t prove you need them - basically every team in the league has top picks on their team.

Bad teams have top picks also.

The last team to win without a top-5 pick being a huge part of their team was more than a decade ago (Boston). You're correct in that it's not theoretically required, but you'll have a hell of a time trying to win without one.

Top picks are often high-end talent signed to cheap contracts, which in a cap league is absolutely necessary.

 

[Divine]

The last team to win without a top-5 pick being a huge part of their team was more than a decade ago (Boston). You're correct in that it's not theoretically required, but you'll have a hell of a time trying to win without one.

Top picks are often high-end talent signed to cheap contracts, which in a cap league is absolutely necessary.

Okay, but how many teams in the league don’t have a top 5 pick on their roster?

Over a 10 year period, that would be 50 players.

If only 10% of the teams have a top 5 pick, and 80% of Cup winners have a top 5 pick then I’m wrong. However, it seems the majority of the league has top 5 picks. Accordingly, the majority of cup winners will also have top 5 picks.

 

[weastern bias]

The last team to win without a top-5 pick being a huge part of their team was more than a decade ago (Boston). You're correct in that it's not theoretically required, but you'll have a hell of a time trying to win without one.

Top picks are often high-end talent signed to cheap contracts, which in a cap league is absolutely necessary.

Even those Bruins had Tyler Seguin, so his point isn't even technically correct, the best kind of correct

 

[Pavelski2112]

Okay, but how many teams in the league don’t have a top 5 pick on their roster?

Over a 10 year period, that would be 50 players.

No one's saying that a top-5 pick is the only thing a team needs. You still need good scouting and competent management to build around those players, but you still need elite pieces to build around.

Even those Bruins had Tyler Seguin, so his point isn't even technically correct, the best kind of correct

That's why I qualified it with being a huge part of their team during the run, but yea.

 

[Divine]

No one's saying that a top-5 pick is the only thing a team needs. You still need good scouting and competent management to build around those players, but you still need elite pieces to build around.


That's why I qualified it with being a huge part of their team during the run, but yea.

Yeah, I’m just arguing why saying the majority of winners had a top 5 pick is flawed.

If nearly every team in the league, good or bad, has a top 5 pick - of course the majority of cup winners will also have them. It doesn’t mean that they were the reason the cup was won.

That said, yes, any time a team drafts a generational talent or franchise altering player - that team dramatically improves their possibilities for winning the cup.. but that player doesn’t necessarily need to be drafted 1st overall, or even top 5.

 

[weastern bias]

No one's saying that a top-5 pick is the only thing a team needs. You still need good scouting and competent management to build around those players, but you still need elite pieces to build around.


That's why I qualified it with being a huge part of their team during the run, but yea.

He's stuck in a causality loop, he'll just move the goal post when he is proven wrong with obvious and factual evidence

 

[Pavelski2112]

Yeah, I’m just arguing why saying the majority of winners had a top 5 pick is flawed.

If nearly every team in the league, good or bad, has a top 5 pick - of course the majority of cup winners will also have them. It doesn’t mean that they were the reason the cup was won.

Where do you think the elite talent in the league comes from? Crosbys and Ovechkins don't come from FA signings or trades. Occasionally they come from later picks, sure, but it's far less likely that you can rely on later picks to become top end pieces.

 

[Divine]

Where do you think the elite talent in the league comes from? Crosbys and Ovechkins don't come from FA signings or trades. Occasionally they come from later picks, sure, but it's far less likely that you can rely on later picks to become top end pieces.

Yes, but this is besides the point.

Top picks will still exist in a draft cycle. These are 2 different arguments going on right now.

If you just picked first overall and are unhappy with your pick, you can trade for another player that was drafted high - like Vegas did with Eichel or SJ did with Thornton.

In a cycle, you’ll still have bad teams that will trade players for more picks - just now they’ll know the position of those picks prior to the trade instead of all the lottery protected trades.

 

[Romang67]

Where do you think the elite talent in the league comes from? Crosbys and Ovechkins don't come from FA signings or trades. Occasionally they come from later picks, sure, but it's far less likely that you can rely on later picks to become top end pieces.

Specifically they come from high draft picks in good draft years. Which is why the idea is so dumb. Congratulations, you picked first overall in 2012. Have fun with Yakupov or Murray.

 

[Divine]

Specifically they come from high draft picks in good draft years. Which is why the idea is so dumb. Congratulations, you picked first overall in 2012. Have fun with Yakupov or Murray.

If the view is that you need top picks from certain draft years in order to be successful - most teams would not be successful under the current draft system either. Only those select few with the elite first overalls would be.

 

[Romang67]

If the view is that you need top picks from certain draft years in order to be successful - most teams would not be successful under the current draft system either.

Which means they will draft high again within a near future because they aren't improving. Your proposed system doesn't do this. In fact, it deliberately avoids it.

It's just undoing the point of the draft. In an attempt to "fix" the tanking "problem," you are undoing what the draft is supposed to do. In a much more extreme way than the lottery already does.

It's really dumb.

 

[Divine]

Which means they will draft high again within a near future because they aren't improving. Your proposed system doesn't do this. In fact, it deliberately avoids it.

It's just undoing the point of the draft. In an attempt to "fix" the tanking "problem," you are undoing what the draft is supposed to do. In a much more extreme way than the lottery already does.

It's really dumb.

It doesn’t work the way you think it does. It wouldn’t jump from 1st to 32nd, or if it did you would have also had the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th pick before that over numerous draft classes.

It’s not one chance to be good or let’s try again in 32 years. You’ll have many opportunities over various years to select top 10.

 

[Pavelski2112]

I just keep looking at the NFL and how no one gives a shit about tanking and it's still the most popular league in North America

Leave it to the NHL to sabotage itself at every turn

 

[Quinnisinoverhishead]

That's legitimately one of the most delusionnal posts I've seen on this board, and I've been here for nearly 18 years.

David is that you? LOL
For real... do you have a rebuttal or can you give me an example of how that comment is delusional...

 

[coooldude]

Okay, but how many teams in the league don’t have a top 5 pick on their roster?

Over a 10 year period, that would be 50 players.

If only 10% of the teams have a top 5 pick, and 80% of Cup winners have a top 5 pick then I’m wrong. However, it seems the majority of the league has top 5 picks. Accordingly, the majority of cup winners will also have top 5 picks.

Have you heard of the term "Necessary, but not sufficient"?

Multiple top-5 skill level draft players are necessary, but not sufficient, for a team to compete for the cup. This point is so obvious as to be mind-blowing that you're arguing against it.

I suspect that even if I went through league rosters, showed you the draft position of every player on every team, and analyzed it, showing you that teams that get to draft in the top 5 multiple times over 10 years are more competitive than teams that didn't get to draft multiple times in the top 10 over many years, and further analysis also showing that top-5 picks don't move all that often and when they do it's very notable (Eichel, Pietrangelo), and showed you that it's a very rare team indeed that builds through Free Agency exclusively...

EVEN IF someone went through all that effort... Not counting all the other posts that rightfully ID that a draft cycle is solving a problem that doesn't exist ("it isn't entertaining to have a tanking team" yes it is, "it isn't fair for a team to tank" fair to who? sucks for the tanking fans, "top picks don't matter" yes they do)

you would still be hung up on this draft cycle, because you read one article?

I don't get this point other than you just love arguing / hate being wrong on the internet.

It doesn’t work the way you think it does. It wouldn’t jump from 1st to 32nd, or if it did you would have also had the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th pick before that over numerous draft classes.

It’s not one chance to be good or let’s try again in 32 years. You’ll have many opportunities over various years to select top 10.

Ah yes, the fair system where some teams randomly get to pick 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc. in consecutive years, while some other team is picking 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, and only has to wait 22 more years until they're picking in the top 10 again. This makes so much sense!

 

[Romang67]

It doesn’t work the way you think it does. It wouldn’t jump from 1st to 32nd, or if it did you would have also had the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th pick before that over numerous draft classes.

It’s not one chance to be good or let’s try again in 32 years. You’ll have many opportunities over various years to select top 10.

I didn't say I thought it jumped from 1st to 32nd. The issue isn't how the distribution of 1-32 is laid out over 32 years.

You have, to be precise, 10 chances in 32 years to select top 10. I understand how this wheel works. It's not a complicated idea. It's just really dumb.

It's dumb because it fails to accomplish what the draft is supposed to do. It's just "solving" the "problem" of tanking, while throwing everything else by the wayside.

 

[Jeremy2020]

Can we stop arguing with the guy who wants to watch the NHL become the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals and get back to how hilariously bad the Sharks are?

 

[TheBeard]

I didn't say I thought it jumped from 1st to 32nd. The issue isn't how the distribution of 1-32 is laid out over 32 years.

You have, to be precise, 10 chances in 32 years to select top 10. I understand how this wheel works. It's not a complicated idea. It's just really dumb.

It's dumb because it fails to accomplish what the draft is supposed to do. It's just "solving" the "problem" of tanking, while throwing everything else by the wayside.

Keep in mind, finishing dead last only gives you about a 1 in 4 chance of picking first overall so tanking isn't guaranteeing anything.

 

[bossram]

Keep in mind, finishing dead last only gives you about a 1 in 4 chance of picking first overall so tanking isn't guaranteeing anything.

No, but finishing dead last does guarantee a top-3 pick.

 

[TheBeard]

No, but finishing dead last does guarantee a top-3 pick.

If someone has an issue with the worst team getting to pick in the top three then they don't understand the importance of healthy competition for the league.

 

[Cas]

I still don't see what the problem is with tanking, especially in comparison to just losing.

I don't feel any better about finishing 29th, 25th, 22nd, and 29th in consecutive years than I would be about finishing 31st, 31st, 32nd, and 32nd.

Hell, losing 10-1 is more entertaining than blowing a 4-2 lead to lose in overtime on the goalie sharting the puck into the net in a meaningless end of season game.

 

[kevsh]

One of the guys on Overdrive pointed out that if there was ever a chance for a player to break Sittler's 10 points in a game record it may be this season, against this team.

I wouldn't bet on it, but next time they are in Edmonton or, say, Colorado I may just be scoreboard watching that night.

 

[Divine]

One of the guys on Overdrive pointed out that if there was ever a chance for a player to break Sittler's 10 points in a game record it may be this season, against this team.

I wouldn't bet on it, but next time they are in Edmonton or, say, Colorado I may just be scoreboard watching that night.

Well Sam Gagner is back in the league..

Have you heard of the term "Necessary, but not sufficient"?

Multiple top-5 skill level draft players are necessary, but not sufficient, for a team to compete for the cup. This point is so obvious as to be mind-blowing that you're arguing against it.

I suspect that even if I went through league rosters, showed you the draft position of every player on every team, and analyzed it, showing you that teams that get to draft in the top 5 multiple times over 10 years are more competitive than teams that didn't get to draft multiple times in the top 10 over many years, and further analysis also showing that top-5 picks don't move all that often and when they do it's very notable (Eichel, Pietrangelo), and showed you that it's a very rare team indeed that builds through Free Agency exclusively...

EVEN IF someone went through all that effort... Not counting all the other posts that rightfully ID that a draft cycle is solving a problem that doesn't exist ("it isn't entertaining to have a tanking team" yes it is, "it isn't fair for a team to tank" fair to who? sucks for the tanking fans, "top picks don't matter" yes they do)

you would still be hung up on this draft cycle, because you read one article?

I don't get this point other than you just love arguing / hate being wrong on the internet.


Ah yes, the fair system where some teams randomly get to pick 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc. in consecutive years, while some other team is picking 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, and only has to wait 22 more years until they're picking in the top 10 again. This makes so much sense!

The current draft system isn't the only way.

Other leagues, such as the most popular sport on the planet, relegate teams for being bad. We reward them. Heck, even in hockey, European leagues have relegation.

Also, all I asked was show me that the top teams in the league all disproportinately have top 5 picks - you didn't show me. Instead, you argued that cup winners have a few top 5 picks... okay? What does that prove? Teams on the bottom also have top 5 picks. SJ has a few top 7 picks on their roster right now. Edmonton, currently 31st has a bunch of top 5 picks on their roster. Calgary, currently 30th, the same. You can keep going up from the bottom of the league also.

You're fixated on the NHL being the only correct system for some reason.

It's socialism vs capitalism in a way. I'm a capitalist but understand some others support socialism. It doesn't mean one way is the only correct way - there's no 'right vs wrong'. I believe if teams suck, they should find a way to be better. You believe if teams suck, the league needs to give them the top prospects every year until they're better.

 

[Hodge]

Yeah, I’m just arguing why saying the majority of winners had a top 5 pick is flawed.

If nearly every team in the league, good or bad, has a top 5 pick - of course the majority of cup winners will also have them. It doesn’t mean that they were the reason the cup was won.

That said, yes, any time a team drafts a generational talent or franchise altering player - that team dramatically improves their possibilities for winning the cup.. but that player doesn’t necessarily need to be drafted 1st overall, or even top 5.

Top 5 is too broad. Since 2008, St. Louis is the only team that has won the Cup without a top 2 pick on their roster. It's not just correlation either since we're talking about Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kane, Hedman, Doughty, MacKinnon - players who were the reason their team won in a lot of cases.

 

[Divine]

Top 5 is too broad. Since 2008, St. Louis is the only team that has won the Cup without a top 2 pick on their roster. It's not just correlation either since we're talking about Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kane, Hedman, Doughty, MacKinnon - players who were the reason their team won in a lot of cases.

Sure, but not all top 2 picks contributed. The elite picks did. There's elite players outside the top 2 of the draft every season. Who was more important to Colorado's cup - MacK or Makar? One wasn't a top 2 pick.

I don't think Seguin had much to do with Boston's Cup.

That said - it is a different argument. I never argued against the draft - just that it should be predetermined and spread out fairly across the teams.