The value of the multi-year tank is on display this SCF

[WarriorofTime]

What does the makeup of these two rosters show? That a team needs a combination of strong drafting, good trades, and good signings to contend for a cup. Shocking news.

It all starts with the Tank, then you go from there. Too many teams these days want to skip the tank part and go right into the "from there" part. Everybody wants to be Dallas but realistically you'll end up being Minnesota.

 

[sabremike]

Neither of these teams "Tanked", they just kept constantly failing because of total organizational incompetence and were in no way attempting to fail for picks.

 

[Cup or Bust]

The Oilers have never tanked.

 

[Oneiro]

Forget about whether they came through the draft or via trade. The more important thing is that you don’t win without players who were picked in the top half of the first round.

So get these guys on your roster whatever it takes and the most efficient way of doing that is having no illusions about the time to rebuild. Too many GMs and owners don’t care when they’re in the mushy middle and they basically cost themselves a winner by continuing with a team that can’t get it done but keeps making the playoffs, usually as the 6-8 seed.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

This is a pretty poor conclusion to come to when looking at these two teams.

 

[JianYang]

Florida Panthers:

2010 - 3rd overall - Erik Gudbranson
2011 - 3rd overall - Jonathan Huberdeau
2013 - 2nd overall - Alex Barkov
2014 - 1st overall - Aaron Ekblad


Edmonton Oilers:

2010 - 1st overall - Taylor Hall
2011 - 1st overall - Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
2012 - 1st overall - Nail Yakupov
2014 - 3rd overall - Leon Draisaitl
2015 - 1st overall - Connor McDavid



Seems to me the real lesson here is that it helps a lot to have a star #1 centerman (or multiple). That can be acquired through tanking, yes. It can also be acquired through an opportunistic trade (Thornton, Eichel) or through a lucky break in the later parts of the draft (Datsyuk, Point).

Center is the first place I look when evaluating a Stanley cup contender. You look at the names down the middle that have won the cup in the last 25 years and virtually all of them include a high end center, and often a high end dman as well.

 

[tfwnogf]

I mean didn't Penguins and Blackhawks already prove this 15 years ago...

 

[Steven Toast]

It all starts with the Tank, then you go from there. Too many teams these days want to skip the tank part and go right into the "from there" part. Everybody wants to be Dallas but realistically you'll end up being Minnesota.

I disagree completely. The Panthers roster especially contradicts this argument. Almost all of their key contributors were acquired by means other than the draft.

Tanking and drafting well is one way to build a good roster, but it is not the only way.

 

[Craft Beer Lover]

Obviously they are, but almost every team has high draft picks at some point.

Your original point still makes less than zero sense. Were the pens cups because of tanking with 2 1OA and a 2OA?

Was the islanders dynasty because of tanking? 2 first overalls and Clark Gillies at 4?

They got lucky taking a flyer on a smallish (at the time), little-known center playing for Swift Current in the second round in 1974 named Bryan Trottier.

 

[JianYang]

It all starts with the Tank, then you go from there. Too many teams these days want to skip the tank part and go right into the "from there" part. Everybody wants to be Dallas but realistically you'll end up being Minnesota.

Not many exceptions to this.

Detroit is one when they passed the torch to zetterberg and datsyuk while continuing to compete

The bruins did a mini reset after missing the playoff in the mid 2010s. Although that team didn't win. However, their 2011 team didn't really have a core guy who was a high pick either. Yes, there was Seguin but he was still very young and not a big peice to that core at the time.

 

[RiverbottomChuck]

Top talented prospects become top talented nhl players, learn the ropes of the playoffs by multiple losses and become champions while being backed by a management team providing a good supporting cast. This isn’t exactly new information or a 1st time thing.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I disagree completely. The Panthers roster especially contradicts this argument.

No it doesn't. They started with the tank, got good when their picks got a bit older and have actively managed well from there.

Almost all of their key contributors were acquired by means other than the draft.

Barkov and Ekblad were high picks. Tkachuk was acquired by means of trading another high pick in Huberdeau. They were already on the rise (and played a competitive series with the future SCF champs, Tampa) when they made the aggressive move for Reinhart.

Tanking and drafting well is one way to build a good roster, but it is not the only way.

It's the most common tried and proven way though.

Neither of these teams "Tanked", they just kept constantly failing because of total organizational incompetence and were in no way attempting to fail for picks.

It doesn't matter if the "tank" is on purpose or accident, you get the draft picks all the same.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Not many exceptions to this.

Detroit is one when they passed the torch to zetterberg and datsyuk while continuing to compete

The bruins did a mini reset after missing the playoff in the mid 2010s. Although that team didn't win. However, their 2011 team didn't really have a core guy who was a high pick either. Yes, there was Seguin but he was still very young and not a big peice to that core at the time.

Seguin was also acquired in a trade, not through tanking

 

[Steven Toast]

No it doesn't. They started with the tank, got good when their picks got a bit older and have actively managed well from there.

And exactly 1 of those top picks is currently providing big contributions on a team that most consider the favourites.

Barkov and Ekblad were high picks. Tkachuk was acquired by means of trading another high pick in Huberdeau. They were already on the rise (and played a competitive series with the future SCF champs, Tampa) when they made the aggressive move for Reinhart.

Ekblad is not a net positive on the Panthers, so I dont include him.

You can probably tie any cup winner to whatever picks you want from up to 15 years before a cup appearance. But that isn't an honest way to look at a rosters construction, these Panthers especially. Bringing up that the Panthers drafted Ekblad 11 years ago (and ignoring that he isn't very good anymore) doesn't pass the smell test. Bringing up that the Oilers drafted Hall and Yakupov 14 and 12 years ago doesn't as well.

Point is that much more goes into making the finals than just drafting early. It requires good players (who are acquired via draft, waivers, trades, and free agency), and also good luck in regards to a myriad of factors.

Vegas won the cup last year, would you contribute their success to drafting?

Trying to simplify it to just one factor is pointless.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Vegas won the cup last year, would you contribute their success to drafting?

I would say they had unique circumstances brought about given the way the expansion situation unfolded when they entered the League, which is not replicable to other teams.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

CC: Calgary Flames ownership

 

[Oilslick941611]

The Oilers have never tanked.

There was quite of an organizational f*** up at every level for years after 2007.

New coaches every 1.5, new Gms seemingly every 2 years, old players being moved around and promoted in the organization. It certainly wasn't fun to be a fan during this time. but I agree there was no tank to get better. The team just sucked and organization was worse than suck.

I would say they had unique circumstances brought about given the way the expansion situation unfolded when they entered the League, which is not replicable to other teams.

and amazing luck on LTIR.


Im very happy Stone sucked this year. Maybe hes washed now. Vegas needs a nice long walk in the desert.

 

[LaCarriere]

Oilers were a max cap team when they were in the basement.

They were trying to win too. They just sucked.

Max cap doesn't stand for much in hockey. The difference between the cap and floor is 23M (87.7M cap, 64.7M floor). The floor is bad for hockey, in the sense that it forces teams to pay at minimum 64.7M. Of course that's going mean some guys to be paid more than they are worth, just so a team reaches the floor.

This is especially true for many 2nd to 4th liners and lower pairing D -- guys who are much more likely to extreme fluctuations season-to-season. It also ensures some guys are given long term high AAV deals, with GMs knowing full well they will be bad in the 2nd half or last 1/3 of the deal, but with a potential buyout option.

It's easy to overpay 2-5 guys by a few million each and all of a sudden a team that should be paying their guys below the floor (based on talent) is forced to play floor money, a floor team is being paid as if they were an average team, and an average team is being paid like a top 10 or team or better.

It much worse in baseball where you have the top 10 teams spending 200-300M, and the lower 10 teams spending 64-108M. Even the difference between the top 10 MLB teams alone (100M) is more than the NHL salary cap, and also roughly 5x the difference between the NHL floor and cap.

Then dig into how some of the top 10 teams are doing (BJs, Houston, Mets - ie all really bad), and some of the lower spending teams are doing (cleveland, baltimore, milwaukee - ie good / really good).

Spending to the cap in hockey hardly means a team is trying to win. That can easily be achieved by a small handful of guys who got overpaid, which happens to even the best GMs / front offices.

 

[Oilslick941611]

Max cap doesn't stand for much in hockey. The difference between the cap and floor is 23M (87.7M cap, 64.7M floor). The floor is bad for hockey, in the sense that it forces teams to pay at minimum 64.7M. Of course that's going mean some guys to be paid more than they are worth, just so a team reaches the floor.

This is especially true for many 2nd to 4th liners and lower pairing D -- guys who are much more likely to extreme fluctuations season-to-season. It also ensures some guys are given long term high AAV deals, with GMs knowing full well they will be bad in the 2nd half or last 1/3 of the deal, but with a potential buyout option.

It's easy to overpay 2-5 guys by a few million each and all of a sudden a team that should be paying their guys below the floor (based on talent) is forced to play floor money, a floor team is being paid as if they were an average team, and an average team is being paid like a top 10 or team or better.

It much worse in baseball where you have the top 10 teams spending 200-300M, and the lower 10 teams spending 64-108M. Even the difference between the top 10 MLB teams alone (100M) is more than the NHL salary cap, and also roughly 5x the difference between the NHL floor and cap.

Then dig into how some of the top 10 teams are doing (BJs, Houston, Mets - ie all really bad), and some of the lower spending teams are doing (cleveland, baltimore, milwaukee - ie good / really good).

Spending to the cap in hockey hardly means a team is trying to win. That can easily be achieved by a small handful of guys who got overpaid, which happens to even the best GMs / front offices.

yeah but the oilers weren't tanking. Remember the " I know a thing or two about winning" press conference from Kevin Lowe at the time, or the 2 tier fan comments from MacT about fans who show up to the games and fans who don't because the team sucked and the organization was insisting they were trying to win?

 

[Peltz]

The more I watch, the more I think that drafts should be completely unweighted lotteries every year left to totally random chance. I don't really think it makes sense to reward teams that play poorly or punish teams that play well.

In fact, I think every single ROUND of the draft should be randomized.

Like... before every pick of the draft, a pingpong ball is drawn. That would be fun as hell and make for a better league. The draft itself would also be way more entertaining.

You can still trade draft positions and everything. But leave the actual position within each round completely up to chance.

 

[Oilslick941611]

this strategy only works if you have an elite, all time great hof GM like Ken Holland to build the perfect team around your top end talent

hey man, The Oilers were better every year in Holland tenure.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Center is the first place I look when evaluating a Stanley cup contender. You look at the names down the middle that have won the cup in the last 25 years and virtually all of them include a high end center, and often a high end dman as well.

And the exceptions are cases where something really unexpected happened, like a goalie going nuts for a couple of months.

 

[AssaultPK]

Yes, you need to make good free agent signings as well.

Tanking/making high draft picks is how you start it all off though.


Exactly. If Florida had said (and succeeded) "well we drafted Gudbranson high, I guess we should not draft high anymore" they wouldn't be here today. No Barkov, no Ekblad. The fact that draft picks don't always hit is a big part of why it's a multi-year effort that gets you there. Just doing it once is rarely sufficient as you get your Cam Barker (Chicago), Gudbranson (Florida), Yakupov (Edmonton), Drouin (Tampa Bay) situations.

Tampa turned Drouin into Sergachev, pretty good if you ask me

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Max cap doesn't stand for much in hockey. The difference between the cap and floor is 23M (87.7M cap, 64.7M floor). The floor is bad for hockey, in the sense that it forces teams to pay at minimum 64.7M. Of course that's going mean some guys to be paid more than they are worth, just so a team reaches the floor.

This is especially true for many 2nd to 4th liners and lower pairing D -- guys who are much more likely to extreme fluctuations season-to-season. It also ensures some guys are given long term high AAV deals, with GMs knowing full well they will be bad in the 2nd half or last 1/3 of the deal, but with a potential buyout option.

It's easy to overpay 2-5 guys by a few million each and all of a sudden a team that should be paying their guys below the floor (based on talent) is forced to play floor money, a floor team is being paid as if they were an average team, and an average team is being paid like a top 10 or team or better.

It much worse in baseball where you have the top 10 teams spending 200-300M, and the lower 10 teams spending 64-108M. Even the difference between the top 10 MLB teams alone (100M) is more than the NHL salary cap, and also roughly 5x the difference between the NHL floor and cap.

Then dig into how some of the top 10 teams are doing (BJs, Houston, Mets - ie all really bad), and some of the lower spending teams are doing (cleveland, baltimore, milwaukee - ie good / really good).

Spending to the cap in hockey hardly means a team is trying to win. That can easily be achieved by a small handful of guys who got overpaid, which happens to even the best GMs / front offices.

I don't know what to tell you.

the intention for the team was to compete for a playoff spot. And each year they were horrifyingly bad. The 1st overall picks were a mix of busts, and complimentary players at best until we got Drai and McDavid.

Each year they threw all teh money at any free agent that would sign in Edmonton, they made aggressive trades to "win-now".

Not sure what else to say. We were trading promising prospects and picks for veterans, and just sucked.

 

[Donner]

Likewise, the other two teams in the CF were both examples that you DONT need to tank

Or, teams like Buffalo, CBJ continue to flounder both with a high number of high picks, and Toronto has yet to do any real damage in the playoffs