News Article: NHL.com: Yzerman doesn't think you can build a team through FA

[GreytWun]

Mike Green put up 104 pts in 212 games his first 3 years here and logged 22-23 minutes.

Doesn’t matter what his role in DC was, that was a good/reasonable signing.

He is also an asset of knowledge for the kids. He can help them with a lot.

20 years from now the same posters will still be talking about Holland.

 

[Henkka]

Seems to be that this is the time of the year to stay out from this board.

 

[Retire91]

Such a nothing article and quote lol, but not much else to discuss. I think this was true even in the precap era. I remember teams like the rangers trying to assemble a window through free agency. I never saw free agency as a builder, just a way to shore up holes in the team when you are ready to run. Especially in a cap era any superstar is going to get you in a bidding war and eat up an extra million or two in cap. This is why I hope the wings stay out of free agency. The terrible holland contracts need to start expiring first and work on the core through the draft and trades.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

Oh, yeah, the "winning culture" BS.
Hawks proved you can go from losing to winning in a few seasons, if you draft high end talent.
Not to mention that Larkin was ready to play Center and Helm hasn't played Center in years.
Put it to rest

Most teams (Not named Edmonton) with three top 3 picks in a four year period end up turning it around...

 

[izlez]

Most teams (Not named Edmonton) with three top 3 picks in a four year period end up turning it around...

Source?

 

[CartographerNo611]

Source?

He is talking about Chicago and Pittsburgh which is more of an anomaly’s in the the history of the NHL. Edmonton’s problem is they can’t develop or make decent picks in the later rounds to fill out the roster and sign them cheaper with RFA leverage. If you don’t you end up overpaying in the UFA and trade markets.

 

[obey86]

Most teams (Not named Edmonton) with three top 3 picks in a four year period end up turning it around...

What's the sample size on that, like 4 teams?

 

[pz29]

What's the sample size on that, like 4 teams?

sample size does not matter because we are not dealing with a quantitative study here. We are dealing with and concrete league with a concrete and limited number of teams, and with a concrete a limited number of years. So, the only answer that matters is what happened or what can happen in this concrete set of circumstances.

 

[ridilon]

What's the sample size on that, like 4 teams?

Since the '94 draft there are 11 teams that fall into this really specific set of circumstances (and that's only if I open it to top 4 picks).

Years Team Picks
94-96 Ottawa 311
95-97 Islanders 234
96-98 Sharks 223
99-02 Thrashers 1312
00-03 Jackets 4x14
01-03 Panthers 433
03-05 Canes 243
03-06 Pens 1212
04-07 Hawks 3x31
10-14 Panthers 33x21
10-15 Oilers 111x31

Ottawa, San Jose Pitt & Chicago definitely turned it around.
The Canes won the '06 cup, but then didn't make the playoffs until this past season. Is that a turn around?
After 4 years the Islanders make the playoffs 4 of 5 seasons (never making a conf final) and then miss for the next 5 years.
Florida is on here for 2 different stretches and in neither case did they turn things around.
After '03 the Blue Jackets made 1 playoff appearance in 9 years.
After the '02 pick the Thrashers made the playoffs 1 time and if you include the move to Winnipeg it was 1 time in 12 years.
Of course we know the tale of the mighty Oilers.

So 4 of 11 had sustained success with conference and cup finals appearances.

If you stick to the top 3 picks only in a 4 year span then 4 of 7 turned it around.

 

[obey86]

sample size does not matter because we are not dealing with a quantitative study here. We are dealing with and concrete league with a concrete and limited number of teams, and with a concrete a limited number of years. So, the only answer that matters is what happened or what can happen in this concrete set of circumstances.

Sample size absolutely does matter if you're going to try to extrapolate out what has happened to the likelihood of it happening again in the future.

 

[BinCookin]

Oh, yeah, the "winning culture" BS.
Hawks proved you can go from losing to winning in a few seasons, if you draft high end talent.
Not to mention that Larkin was ready to play Center and Helm hasn't played Center in years.
Put it to rest

"In a few seasons"... I took then a LONG time to acquire Keith/Seabrook/Kane/Toews. Their team was rebuilding for a solid 10 years. See my massive post on Rebuilds written 2 seasons ago.

Source?

What's the sample size on that, like 4 teams?

There are very very few teams to "rebuild" in 3-4 years.
Most teams that everyone thinks rebuilt quickly... actually took a farking long time to do it. Example Toronto is not a 4 year rebuild... its a 10 year rebuild. When was Reilly and Kadri drafted?? They count as part of that team...

Anyone expecting us to be FA buyers anytime soon, is blowing smoke up their own butts.

 

[izlez]

"In a few seasons"... I took then a LONG time to acquire Keith/Seabrook/Kane/Toews. Their team was rebuilding for a solid 10 years. See my massive post on Rebuilds written 2 seasons ago.





There are very very few teams to "rebuild" in 3-4 years.
Most teams that everyone thinks rebuilt quickly... actually took a farking long time to do it. Example Toronto is not a 4 year rebuild... its a 10 year rebuild. When was Reilly and Kadri drafted?? They count as part of that team...

Anyone expecting us to be FA buyers anytime soon, is blowing smoke up their own butts.

Bonus fact: Toronto still has not been successful in turning it around.

 

[BinCookin]

^^ My definition of a rebuild is a non-playoff team getting higher picks for many many years.

IMO Toronto has "finished" their rebuild, because they are a playoff team again. If they miss the playoffs this year... I would say you are correct, and that they are still rebuilding.

 

[ricky0034]

"In a few seasons"... I took then a LONG time to acquire Keith/Seabrook/Kane/Toews. Their team was rebuilding for a solid 10 years. See my massive post on Rebuilds written 2 seasons ago.





There are very very few teams to "rebuild" in 3-4 years.
Most teams that everyone thinks rebuilt quickly... actually took a farking long time to do it. Example Toronto is not a 4 year rebuild... its a 10 year rebuild. When was Reilly and Kadri drafted?? They count as part of that team...

Anyone expecting us to be FA buyers anytime soon, is blowing smoke up their own butts.

with that logic haven't the Wings already been rebuilding for like 7 years though?

 

[Retire91]

Pittsburgh shouldn't be factored in. I think if you throw Malkin and Crosby on any team they are playoff bound within a few years. Winning the cup is another story that takes more than picks. But Malkin, Crosby and players like Ovechkin McDavid are not players that need development. They are game breakers by nature and those picks are rare. The problem with teams like pre-McDavid Edmonton is their first overall picks still needed development. And they did not get that. They were thrown into a void of talent because that whole organization from top to bottom was a disaster.

I think in most cases, and by most I mean the vast majority, you need more than top picks alone. You need solid development, the ability to support a legit core which means not just throwing a top pick into a void, and key FA and Trades to make that core a legit contender which takes solid management. Surprisingly few teams fire on all cylinders at once.

 

[BinCookin]

with that logic haven't the Wings already been rebuilding for like 7 years though?

Actually no. If you go with when the red wings started missing the playoffs. Then they have been rebuilding since: 2016-2017 Season.

Or 3 seasons now.

If you are making the playoffs I do not consider the team to be rebuilding. (i.e. you are currently an above average team).

P.S. i know everyone here considers the team to be crap since not winning cups... but the bottom line is we were a competitive, non-rebuilding team all the way up to and including the 2016 season. I consider all playoff teams to at least be competitive, so I think this is a good line to draw on "rebuilding" vs "not-necessarily a contender, but a competitive team" line. No one will ever agree on what a "competitor for the SCup means, so i will not even go there. Making the playoffs is a nice easy measurement which is not subjective.