Reactions to Army's Press Conference

[Majorityof1]

Top 5. Top 10. Tomato, Tomata.

The point is the team is not going to be built from the blueline out more than likely barring something unforeseen...i.e. hitting on some incredibly good defenseman in the draft where you don't typically find them. Fox situation was also pretty unique.

None of the guys I listed were top 10, except for hughes. I agree that a high pick would be better. But you said no elite D were picked outside the top 5. That's just objectively not true, even if you move the range to top 10.

 

[bleedblue1223]

None of the guys I listed were top 10, except for hughes. I agree that a high pick would be better. But you said no elite D were picked outside the top 5. That's just objectively not true, even if you move the range to top 10.

And your list was just Norris winners, you could add guys like Slavin to the elite list too. I don't think anyone is saying it's easy, but those guys can be found outside of the top 10.

 

[TheOrganist]

Stenberg, Snuggy, Kyrou, Thomas, Neighbors, Dean, Bolduc, Dvorsky....andddddddd Lindstein. Again, it's a super forward heavy prospect pool/NHL talent. 2022-23 was an outlier and we're done selling per the GM. We will likely never pick as high as we did last summer. Again, the team will not be built from the blueline out. This doesn't seem that complicated.

 

[Celtic Note]

100% disagree. Idea that it's better for the future of franchise to tear it down and suck for years is always best path is a fallacy. Even if it marginally increases odds of winning a Cup, which I'm not saying it does, that doesn't mean it is best path as the chances of winning a Cup isn't the only thing franchises should consider.

You wouldn't tell someone they should put all their $ in powerball since that is clearest path to becoming a multimillionaire, as if they did that they would end up hungry and homeless and broke far more often than they would cash that golden ticket. If team sucks for years and then moves to new market and wins there, is that best outcome for franchise? If they suck for years and their fan base slowly atrophies, is that best for franchise?

Seems like we path undertaken by Dallas or Boston might be more desirable than what they are going through in Buffalo or Columbus, even if none of those teams win a Cup in next decade.

I think we need to make some distinctions here.

Hitting bottom is the most likely way to a Cup based on the analysis I just did. But bottoming out may also be the most likely to keep you bad for a long time… and you may never win a Cup on that timeline.

If you want to win a Cup and especially if you want to try for multiple, bottoming out is the best move.

If you don’t want a chance to be Buffalo or Edmonton bad, then bottoming out is not the move. But not bottoming out means you are more likely to not win a Cup based on 15 years of past data.

I personally value one Cup over many years of playoffs but no Cup.

Given where we are, I would advocate for a two year top 5 pick strategy. We already have the depth on offense. So we get to “skip pass go” and forego a lengthy trip to the bottom. Had we won the lottery last year or if we win the lottery next year, then maybe we don’t have to be as bad for as long. But, a complete tear down and restart isn’t something I think we need. But we are going to have to get lottery luck regardless because we won’t fit it to the studs.

 

[Blueston]

I think we need to make some distinctions here.

Hitting bottom is the most likely way to a Cup based on the analysis I just did. But bottoming out may also be the most likely to keep you bad for a long time… and you may never win a Cup on that timeline.

If you want to win a Cup and especially if you want to try for multiple, bottoming out is the best move.

If you don’t want a chance to be Buffalo or Edmonton bad, then bottoming out is not the move. But not bottoming out means you are more likely to not win a Cup based on 15 years of past data.

I personally value one Cup over many years of playoffs but no Cup.

Given where we are, I would advocate for a two year top 5 pick strategy. We already have the depth on offense. So we get to “skip pass go” and forego a lengthy trip to the bottom. Had we won the lottery last year or if we win the lottery next year, then maybe we don’t have to be as bad for as long. But, a complete tear down and restart isn’t something I think we need. But we are going to have to get lottery luck regardless because we won’t fit it to the studs.

You may be right, but that isn't what I was specifically pushing back on. I don't doubt that winning lotteries and picking higher is in itself a good, I am just pushing back on that burning it all down so we can be at bottom of league long enough to get multiple high picks is always best for franchises or is even the best for us moving forward.

 

[ezcreepin]

100% disagree. Idea that it's better for the future of franchise to tear it down and suck for years is always best path is a fallacy. Even if it marginally increases odds of winning a Cup, which I'm not saying it does, that doesn't mean it is best path as the chances of winning a Cup isn't the only thing franchises should consider.

You wouldn't tell someone they should put all their $ in powerball since that is clearest path to becoming a multimillionaire, as if they did that they would end up hungry and homeless and broke far more often than they would cash that golden ticket. If team sucks for years and then moves to new market and wins there, is that best outcome for franchise? If they suck for years and their fan base slowly atrophies, is that best for franchise?

Seems like we path undertaken by Dallas or Boston might be more desirable than what they are going through in Buffalo or Columbus, even if none of those teams win a Cup in next decade.

It is absolutely more advantageous for a team to suck and get a higher pick than to not suck and try to build a team without a "superstar". Obviously you can draft superstars out of the 1st round, but that is where you will find probably 90+% of them. I'm not saying literally tank and keep getting the 1st overall (ahem Edmonton), but getting between like 5-11 is a decent place to be if you're wanting to try to be competitive a bit like the Blues tried this year.

I'm at work so I can't look hard, but there is one article back in 2016 that referenced Stanley Cup teams and if they had a top-3 pick - not exactly what I'm advocating for, but it gives a glimpse at the odds. Go back to 1971 (from 2016) and only two teams have won the cup without a top 3 draft choice. I'd be interested if we widened the gap from top 3 to like top 8 or 10, but you can understand what I'm getting at.

Your example of playing the lottery I understand, but you'd obviously be looking at the probability of putting all your money on the lottery and winning vs putting it in to some stock or investment and getting rich that way. One is a chance at immediate gains, the other is an investment in the future in hopes that you win out (which you'll likely do well).

I think when you compare Buffalo and Columbus to Dallas and Boston, you have so many factors to consider. Obviously Columbus and Buffalo have drafted high very often, but management and scouting do not seem to be on par with Dallas or Boston. I think the latter have been either extremely lucky with coaches or they are just good at scouting them. And then development - Dallas has been fortunate to have good goaltending for a long time and would've lucked out with Makar if they didn't take Heiskanen, among others like Robertson, Benn, Seguin, Hintz, and Johnston. Boston doesn't really need an explanation, clearly they have developed players well and know how to scout pro players probably better than anyone.

All this to say that I do believe it's better for teams to try to get a top pick, but in reference to the Blues, I am super confident in their ability to develop a championship team if they can either get a top pick and draft a top pairing defenseman or trade for one with their draft pick/drafted player.

 

[oPlaiD]

You may be right, but that isn't what I was specifically pushing back on. I don't doubt that winning lotteries and picking higher is in itself a good, I am just pushing back on that burning it all down so we can be at bottom of league long enough to get multiple high picks is always best for franchises or is even the best for us moving forward.

I really think the odds we pick in the single digits next season is much higher than this board seems to think, regardless of what Armstrong wants and is saying and maybe even what he does this offseason. He doesn't have to burn down anything for us to hit the bottom given the construction of our defense and them aging another year.

This team was bottom three in xG% at 5 on 5 and was propped up by goaltending and health. Three years ago we overperformed our xG numbers and we thought the team could maybe contend until Binnington got ran. Then the next year, we the wheels fell off the wagon and we couldn't escape the music.

It's easy to talk yourself into thinking the team is trending up, especially with young forwards like Neighbours and Bolduc taking more minutes, but it's hard to imagine getting another top 3 season from our goalie tandem, the team being similarly healthy, and our aging defense getting better with another year behind them.

I'm not sure any move Armstrong realistically makes, given the rhetoric, would really affect that fate, like signing a short term deal with a veteran center. I guess the fear is he does something like the Pens going all-in with Karlsson... only to finish with 3 less points than the previous year... but with multiple major assets gone. I don't expect he's delusional enough to not be realistic about where we are as a team, despite us nearly making the playoffs or him continuing the hopeful stance in press conferences.

He's not going to go scorched earth, but that doesn't mean we won't pick top 5. In that way I think he's trying to kind of have his cake and eat it to (if the cake was made of dirt, I guess) by not selling off to discourage fans but still get the pick we need.

But we'll see. No one really knows what's going to happen, and while this season was disappointing, and likely the next few as well, at least this one showed we do have some real building blocks, if we can build up the foundation around them.

 

[Celtic Note]

You may be right, but that isn't what I was specifically pushing back on. I don't doubt that winning lotteries and picking higher is in itself a good, I am just pushing back on that burning it all down so we can be at bottom of league long enough to get multiple high picks is always best for franchises or is even the best for us moving forward.

Yeah I don’t mean my response to be criticizing. I just think there are distinctions about the percentages we are collectively taking about.

As a fan I want another cup and don’t generally care about just making the playoffs. I can stomach a playoff hiatus. But that doesn’t mean our ownership can afford to do that.

Part of the reason for the research was to see if there was a likely path to contending without bottoming out for any period. Generally speaking that’s not what the winners past suggests.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Yeah I don’t mean my response to be criticizing. I just think there are distinctions about the percentages we are collectively taking about.

As a fan I want another cup and don’t generally care about just making the playoffs. I can stomach a playoff hiatus. But that doesn’t mean our ownership can afford to do that.

Part of the reason for the research was to see if there was a likely path to contending without bottoming out for any period. Generally speaking that’s not what the winners past suggests.

With larger market destinations starting to appear on the map, the WORST thing the Blues can do is NOT make the playoffs. One of the biggest strengths that have helped them stay viable and in St. Louis has been making the playoffs damn near every year. You don't get a chance to win the Cup if you don't at the very least get in. Plus, as much as I want another Cup, I'd like that one to be in St. Louis and not somewhere else.

There is no perfect storm, there is no special formula or ingredient for success, it's all dynamics, timing and the will of the team. We got youth, we got vets and we are needing a few pieces, put this group together, hire the right coach and go back at it.

 

[Blueston]

Yeah I don’t mean my response to be criticizing. I just think there are distinctions about the percentages we are collectively taking about.

As a fan I want another cup and don’t generally care about just making the playoffs. I can stomach a playoff hiatus. But that doesn’t mean our ownership can afford to do that.

Part of the reason for the research was to see if there was a likely path to contending without bottoming out for any period. Generally speaking that’s not what the winners past suggests.

I wonder how much is just noise. You looked back 10-15 years from championship to see how many top 5 picks each had. What if you had taken all teams over that period; how does whether you picked in top 5 correlate with whether you won during that period? Maybe 90%+ of teams picked top 5 so knowing that champs did doesn’t tell us much.

Is there an optimal number of times? I don’t know answer to this, but “champs had multiple high picks in past” and “staying really crappy for more than 2 years lowers chances of Cup in following decade” could both be true (I don’t know if either are). We need more data I think before concluding that you should try to be crappy to get higher picks to build contender.

 

[Celtic Note]

With larger market destinations starting to appear on the map, the WORST thing the Blues can do is NOT make the playoffs. One of the biggest strengths that have helped them stay viable and in St. Louis has been making the playoffs damn near every year. You don't get a chance to win the Cup if you don't at the very least get in. Plus, as much as I want another Cup, I'd like that one to be in St. Louis and not somewhere else.

There is no perfect storm, there is no special formula or ingredient for success, it's all dynamics, timing and the will of the team. We got youth, we got vets and we are needing a few pieces, put this group together, hire the right coach and go back at it.

I am not sure I follow what you mean about larger market destinations appearing on the map. The largest cities have teams already aside from Houston. I assume you mean something else, but not sure what that is.

If not making the playoffs every year is detrimental to the viability of the franchise, then why didn’t we move when Checketts sold the team?

How have lessor hockey markets sustained teams without consistent playoff appearances?

And if we are in that fragile of a financial state that moving the team will happen with even the slightest falter, then this ownership group was always destined to fold. No team can sustain success forever. But I cannot imagine they are so strained financially with the group of owners they have that they are in such dire a condition.

 

[GoldenSeal]

I am not sure I follow what you mean about larger market destinations appearing on the map. The largest cities have teams already aside from Houston. I assume you mean something else, but not sure what that is.

If not making the playoffs every year is detrimental to the viability of the franchise, then why didn’t we move when Checketts sold the team?

How have lessor hockey markets sustained teams without consistent playoff appearances?

And if we are in that fragile of a financial state that moving the team will happen with even the slightest falter, then this ownership group was always destined to fold. No team can sustain success forever. But I cannot imagine they are so strained financially with the group of owners they have that they are in such dire a condition.

Right now we are spent to the cap and the Cup win is starting to get further behind in the rearview. Right now not making the playoffs might not be a big deal, but not making the playoffs and being spent to the Cap might be, over a period of time. Blowing up the team is only going to accelerate that.

If Checketts could have gotten a billion dollars to sell and relocate an NHL team then, I bet he would have. Investors are in it to make money, not to spend it. I'm curious how profitable the Blues are, even at this point. Just because you have money doesn't mean you're going to keep dumping cash into the team or that investors will allow you to continue doing that, if the team isn't making money. That's the quickest way to end up with no money.

It's still a business at the end of the day and right now I think we're doing ok but all this talk about blowing up and rebuilding is like standing on a cliff. This isn't Detroit or a big market team, it's St. Louis. Some caution should be exercised on that, is my line of thinking and better before decisions are made than to just make jump decisions. That's how we got a chunk of players on the roster like we do now that we have to find a way to get off the roster.

I'm not against making changes, I am against the team leaving St. Louis and some strategies I feel put it on that path out the door. Forgive my paranoia, much as I complain, I bleed Blue. If the Blues moved, I couldn't watch or even think about hockey on any level, anymore. It's my core.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I would assume it's if the team had a top 5 pick in the past X years, not how many top 5 picks were on the team. Eichel on Vegas was a #2OA but Vegas didn't pick him. So they had 0 top 5 picks they made

How did the Blues have 2 then? Is it just counting draft choices and including EJ? That's even less helpful. if its not players who were actually on the team.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

EJ was #1 OA. Even though we traded him, we had 2 Top 5 picks (EJ and Petro) over the last 15 years or whatever prior to our Cup win.

I think its more of a given that you need elite players to win the Cup (call them former Top 5 picks as a shorthand). But how many Cup winners acquired these players other than drafting them directly? How often has THAT approach succeeded? From my view, it looks like Armstrong is banking on 1) Blues draft picks developing into playoff contributors and 2) being able to pick up top end pieces through trade or UFA.

I'm most interested in analysis that shows if this is replicable. But even just our Blues' history shows that guys like Schenn and JBouw were available (as was EJ for that matter, just the other direction). It seems to give Armstrong's approach more viability.

I really think the odds we pick in the single digits next season is much higher than this board seems to think, regardless of what Armstrong wants and is saying and maybe even what he does this offseason. He doesn't have to burn down anything for us to hit the bottom given the construction of our defense and them aging another year.

This team was bottom three in xG% at 5 on 5 and was propped up by goaltending and health. Three years ago we overperformed our xG numbers and we thought the team could maybe contend until Binnington got ran. Then the next year, we the wheels fell off the wagon and we couldn't escape the music.

It's easy to talk yourself into thinking the team is trending up, especially with young forwards like Neighbours and Bolduc taking more minutes, but it's hard to imagine getting another top 3 season from our goalie tandem, the team being similarly healthy, and our aging defense getting better with another year behind them.

I'm not sure any move Armstrong realistically makes, given the rhetoric, would really affect that fate, like signing a short term deal with a veteran center. I guess the fear is he does something like the Pens going all-in with Karlsson... only to finish with 3 less points than the previous year... but with multiple major assets gone. I don't expect he's delusional enough to not be realistic about where we are as a team, despite us nearly making the playoffs or him continuing the hopeful stance in press conferences.

He's not going to go scorched earth, but that doesn't mean we won't pick top 5. In that way I think he's trying to kind of have his cake and eat it to (if the cake was made of dirt, I guess) by not selling off to discourage fans but still get the pick we need.

But we'll see. No one really knows what's going to happen, and while this season was disappointing, and likely the next few as well, at least this one showed we do have some real building blocks, if we can build up the foundation around them.

I fell asleep before the end, but I agree with you that the Blues are probably a top 10 picker next year.

 

[Celtic Note]

I wonder how much is just noise. You looked back 10-15 years from championship to see how many top 5 picks each had. What if you had taken all teams over that period; how does whether you picked in top 5 correlate with whether you won during that period? Maybe 90%+ of teams picked top 5 so knowing that champs did doesn’t tell us much.

Is there an optimal number of times? I don’t know answer to this, but “champs had multiple high picks in past” and “staying really crappy for more than 2 years lowers chances of Cup in following decade” could both be true (I don’t know if either are). We need more data I think before concluding that you should try to be crappy to get higher picks to build contender.

I guess if you don’t find what Cup winners did with their drafting compelling, I guess I would ask what evidence suggests the contrary?

I am not sure what looking at what everyone else did that didn’t win a Cup would tell me about winning a Cup. I guess it could show you what not to do, but that doesn’t tell you what to do.

It’s not as if tanking is a fool proof plan to winning the Cup. There will be teams that don’t succeed going that route. I would assume (hopefully correctly?) everyone is on the same page there.

I am sure there are teams that had some bad years that never got close to winning the Cup. You absolutely have to have good armature scouts to leverage those draft positions. And you need a GM that can build around your cornerstones. Fortunately, we seem to have the right guys in those positions.

It does seem pretty clear that not tanking for some period of time (2.667 times on average) wasn’t part of Cup winning strategy.

I looked back at their top 5 picks that lead up to their Cup winning roster. I didn’t go farther back than when they started acquiring key players on their roster and also stopped when there was a legible break in their down to up swings. I tried to keep the number as low as possible, because I was anticipating some would blankety discredit the effort because it was not to their liking. There were also some fairly clear trend lines when you look at Cup winning team’s drafts. I think most objective hockey fans could go through the top 5 picks made by Cup winning teams and be very close on which ones to include and which ones not to. On top of that, I excluded picks after 5, which looking at some of these teams drafting history and the players they acquired that contributed to their Cup rosters, we would see that it took more than the top 5 picks. But I excluded that from the analysis in part due to time but largely because we have a good starting point to build from organizationally. We may get to skip that step.

 

[Celtic Note]

How did the Blues have 2 then? Is it just counting draft choices and including EJ? That's even less helpful. if its not players who were actually on the team.

I included EJ because he was in the same rebuilding period and because it further illustrates the point that simply getting an elite player isn’t a lock. It may take multiple cracks at it.

 

[Xerloris]

I guess if you don’t find what Cup winners did with their drafting compelling, I guess I would ask what evidence suggests the contrary?

I am not sure what looking at what everyone else did that didn’t win a Cup would tell me about winning a Cup. I guess it could show you what not to do, but that doesn’t tell you what to do.

It’s not as if tanking is a fool proof plan to winning the Cup. There will be teams that don’t succeed going that route. I would assume (hopefully correctly?) everyone is on the same page there.

I am sure there are teams that had some bad years that never got close to winning the Cup. You absolutely have to have good armature scouts to leverage those draft positions. And you need a GM that can build around your cornerstones. Fortunately, we seem to have the right guys in those positions.

It does seem pretty clear that not tanking for some period of time (2.667 times on average) wasn’t part of Cup winning strategy.

I looked back at their top 5 picks that lead up to their Cup winning roster. I didn’t go farther back than when they started acquiring key players on their roster and also stopped when there was a legible break in their down to up swings. I tried to keep the number as low as possible, because I was anticipating some would blankety discredit the effort because it was not to their liking. There were also some fairly clear trend lines when you look at Cup winning team’s drafts. I think most objective hockey fans could go through the top 5 picks made by Cup winning teams and be very close on which ones to include and which ones not to. On top of that, I excluded picks after 5, which looking at some of these teams drafting history and the players they acquired that contributed to their Cup rosters, we would see that it took more than the top 5 picks. But I excluded that from the analysis in part due to time but largely because we have a good starting point to build from organizationally. We may get to skip that step.

If only teams that have a top 5 pick win the cup that shows that tanking is the way to go but if everyone has a top 5 pick then failure rate is like 95% so having a top 5 pick doesn't mean shit.

I included EJ because he was in the same rebuilding period and because it further illustrates the point that simply getting an elite player isn’t a lock. It may take multiple cracks at it.

Are you including top 5 picks that we had but weren't drafted by us? Jaybo was #3 I think?

 

[ezcreepin]

Right now we are spent to the cap and the Cup win is starting to get further behind in the rearview. Right now not making the playoffs might not be a big deal, but not making the playoffs and being spent to the Cap might be, over a period of time. Blowing up the team is only going to accelerate that.

If Checketts could have gotten a billion dollars to sell and relocate an NHL team then, I bet he would have. Investors are in it to make money, not to spend it. I'm curious how profitable the Blues are, even at this point. Just because you have money doesn't mean you're going to keep dumping cash into the team or that investors will allow you to continue doing that, if the team isn't making money. That's the quickest way to end up with no money.

It's still a business at the end of the day and right now I think we're doing ok but all this talk about blowing up and rebuilding is like standing on a cliff. This isn't Detroit or a big market team, it's St. Louis. Some caution should be exercised on that, is my line of thinking and better before decisions are made than to just make jump decisions. That's how we got a chunk of players on the roster like we do now that we have to find a way to get off the roster.

I'm not against making changes, I am against the team leaving St. Louis and some strategies I feel put it on that path out the door. Forgive my paranoia, much as I complain, I bleed Blue. If the Blues moved, I couldn't watch or even think about hockey on any level, anymore. It's my core.

There have been 19 teams that have moved or folded completely in the NHL's over 100 years of operation, 9 of which have reacquired a team and 2 of which will surely reacquire a franchise (Arizona and Atlanta). That leaves us with 8 who either may not get another franchise OR there was already a team in the region (6 were Quebec and Ontario based, 1 was New York). So really, we're looking at 1 team who may or may not get another team and that is Hartford. From all the information circulating around, the league will likely stop expanding to 36 teams and we've already established there's enough to believe that Atlanta and Arizona will get a team. I can't think of many other locations the league wants to expand to that could sustain a team for very long other than Houston, Toronto, and New York (which they have enough already). I'd cool the jets right now on a possibility of the team moving.

In the event the team sucks for 10+ years, things might start to get dicey, but the league has shown a reluctance to move a team that is in a pretty good market. I think St Louis is one of those markets, and I would think the league would intervene in the interim. With the success of the Chiefs however, there COULD be some buzz on the team moving to KC, but I don't think that would be as likely. I doubt we get another NFL team and we sure as shit aren't getting a basketball team PLUS the Cardinals play in the opposite season of hockey, so it doesn't seem to be financially responsible to move a team that would have to compete against football (1 day a week I know) in a weaker market. That's just what I think though so hopefully I'm right.

 

[Celtic Note]

I think its more of a given that you need elite players to win the Cup (call them former Top 5 picks as a shorthand). But how many Cup winners acquired these players other than drafting them directly? How often has THAT approach succeeded? From my view, it looks like Armstrong is banking on 1) Blues draft picks developing into playoff contributors and 2) being able to pick up top end pieces through trade or UFA.

I'm most interested in analysis that shows if this is replicable. But even just our Blues' history shows that guys like Schenn and JBouw were available (as was EJ for that matter, just the other direction). It seems to give Armstrong's approach more viability.


I fell asleep before the end, but I agree with you that the Blues are probably a top 10 picker next year.

we already had an analysis a while back showing top 5 or maybe 10 picks if I am recalling drafted by Cup winning teams.

Off the top of my head top 5 picks only

- Pittsburg - Crosby, Malkin and Flower
- Hawks - Kane and Towes
- LA - Doughty
- Washington - Ovie and Backstrom
- Blues - Petro
- Tampa - Headman and Stamkos
- Boston - Senguin (50/50 on whether to include him)
- Colorado - Makar, Makinnon and Landy

Only Vegas didn’t have one on the roster and maybe you include Boston if you don’t feel he contributed enough.

 

[Louie the Blue]

If not making the playoffs every year is detrimental to the viability of the franchise, then why didn’t we move when Checketts sold the team?

Because there were no other serious buyers interested in the team aside from Stillman and co., who viewed investing in the Blues as more of a civic good and hobby venture, and his initial offer was rejected as being too low.

Blues are very, very lucky to have the current ownership group (especially the Taylor family). I don’t think we have to worry about the Blues leaving any time soon as long as the Taylors are involved, especially with feelings that were caused by the Rams leaving. I think the Blues, with competent leadership, are probably break even in most non-PO seasons and profitable when PO runs occur.

I don’t think anyone would keep them in St. Louis if they solely focused on maximizing profit, which is why Towerbrook bailed on Checketts.

 

[Celtic Note]

If only teams that have a top 5 pick win the cup that shows that tanking is the way to go but if everyone has a top 5 pick then failure rate is like 95% so having a top 5 pick doesn't mean shit.



Are you including top 5 picks that we had but weren't drafted by us? Jaybo was #3 I think?

That’s looking at it from a fail rate standpoint. If your looking at it from a winning the cup perspective the % is worse for winners.

I only did top 5 picks made by the team, not top 5 on the team. That was a different analysis a while back.

 

[Blueston]

I guess if you don’t find what Cup winners did with their drafting compelling, I guess I would ask what evidence suggests the contrary?

I am not sure what looking at what everyone else did that didn’t win a Cup would tell me about winning a Cup. I guess it could show you what not to do, but that doesn’t tell you what to do.

It’s not as if tanking is a fool proof plan to winning the Cup. There will be teams that don’t succeed going that route. I would assume (hopefully correctly?) everyone is on the same page there.

I am sure there are teams that had some bad years that never got close to winning the Cup. You absolutely have to have good armature scouts to leverage those draft positions. And you need a GM that can build around your cornerstones. Fortunately, we seem to have the right guys in those positions.

It does seem pretty clear that not tanking for some period of time (2.667 times on average) wasn’t part of Cup winning strategy.

I looked back at their top 5 picks that lead up to their Cup winning roster. I didn’t go farther back than when they started acquiring key players on their roster and also stopped when there was a legible break in their down to up swings. I tried to keep the number as low as possible, because I was anticipating some would blankety discredit the effort because it was not to their liking. There were also some fairly clear trend lines when you look at Cup winning team’s drafts. I think most objective hockey fans could go through the top 5 picks made by Cup winning teams and be very close on which ones to include and which ones not to. On top of that, I excluded picks after 5, which looking at some of these teams drafting history and the players they acquired that contributed to their Cup rosters, we would see that it took more than the top 5 picks. But I excluded that from the analysis in part due to time but largely because we have a good starting point to build from organizationally. We may get to skip that step.

i don't think anyone disputes that you need good players to win a Cup. we don't have enough good players or even good enough players on d. when blues won we had 8-10 really good players, others had much less but some were greater players (you don't need 8 if 1 is peak crosby). but where you lose me is saying that since pretty much every Cup team picked top 5 in preceding decade, we need to do that to win a Cup. That logic doesn't follow necessarily. Some of those top 5 picks flamed out. and had zero impact on team. Other guys who were key parts of Cup team (not just parayko and ROR, but kucherov and point, for example) were picked much later. and without knowing how uncommon it is for teams to NOT pick in top 5 over 10-15 years, it's difficult to even know what the number of times picking there even means in itself, independent of whether top 5 picks correlates significantly to number of impact players.

 

[Celtic Note]

i don't think anyone disputes that you need good players to win a Cup. we don't have enough good players or even good enough players on d. when blues won we had 8-10 really good players, others had much less but some were greater players (you don't need 8 if 1 is peak crosby). but where you lose me is saying that since pretty much every Cup team picked top 5 in preceding decade, we need to do that to win a Cup. That logic doesn't follow necessarily. Some of those top 5 picks flamed out. and had zero impact on team. Other guys who were key parts of Cup team (not just parayko and ROR, but kucherov and point, for example) were picked much later. and without knowing how uncommon it is for teams to NOT pick in top 5 over 10-15 years, it's difficult to even know what the number of times picking there even means in itself, independent of whether top 5 picks correlates significantly to number of impact players.

You may very well be able to find players outside of the top five and win a Cup, but the chances of having zero top 5 drafted players has to be amongst the the lowest possible likelihoods when it comes to icing a Cup winning team.

Further refining down, If we look at the last 15 years, in 13 of those years at least one top 5, self selected pick was a cornerstone player (multiple as was the case for PIT, CHI, WAS, TB and COL).

Let say the average number of teams each year was 30 (I don’t want to look up all the expansion dates to get the real/higher number). Your chance of winning a cup in a given year disregarding any roster construction is 3.226%. With a top 5 pick as a cornerstone player your odds over that 15 year period based on the winners was 2.808%. Your odds of winning without was 0.4425%. So you are 6.307 times or 630% more likely to win a cup with one than not. Drafting multiple elite/cornerstone players only helps those odds.

*Someone who is more math savvy will need to double check that math.

 

[GoldenSeal]

There have been 19 teams that have moved or folded completely in the NHL's over 100 years of operation, 9 of which have reacquired a team and 2 of which will surely reacquire a franchise (Arizona and Atlanta). That leaves us with 8 who either may not get another franchise OR there was already a team in the region (6 were Quebec and Ontario based, 1 was New York). So really, we're looking at 1 team who may or may not get another team and that is Hartford. From all the information circulating around, the league will likely stop expanding to 36 teams and we've already established there's enough to believe that Atlanta and Arizona will get a team. I can't think of many other locations the league wants to expand to that could sustain a team for very long other than Houston, Toronto, and New York (which they have enough already). I'd cool the jets right now on a possibility of the team moving.

In the event the team sucks for 10+ years, things might start to get dicey, but the league has shown a reluctance to move a team that is in a pretty good market. I think St Louis is one of those markets, and I would think the league would intervene in the interim. With the success of the Chiefs however, there COULD be some buzz on the team moving to KC, but I don't think that would be as likely. I doubt we get another NFL team and we sure as shit aren't getting a basketball team PLUS the Cardinals play in the opposite season of hockey, so it doesn't seem to be financially responsible to move a team that would have to compete against football (1 day a week I know) in a weaker market. That's just what I think though so hopefully I'm right.

Me too.

 

[Blueston]

You may very well be able to find players outside of the top five and win a Cup, but the chances of having zero top 5 drafted players has to be amongst the the lowest possible likelihoods when it comes to icing a Cup winning team.

Further refining down, If we look at the last 15 years, in 13 of those years at least one top 5, self selected pick was a cornerstone player (multiple as was the case for PIT, CHI, WAS, TB and COL).

Let say the average number of teams each year was 30 (I don’t want to look up all the expansion dates to get the real/higher number). Your chance of winning a cup in a given year disregarding any roster construction is 3.226%. With a top 5 pick as a cornerstone player your odds over that 15 year period based on the winners was 2.808%. Your odds of winning without was 0.4425%. So you are 6.307 times or 630% more likely to win a cup with one than not. Drafting multiple elite/cornerstone players only helps those odds.

*Someone who is more math savvy will need to double check that math.

by only focusing on the winners you inadvertently rig the game. what percentage of teams in league had at least 1 top 5 pick during that time period? i'd suspect most of them. EDIT: i looked it up. pittsburgh, washington, minnesota, and st. louis are only teams not to pick in top 5 over past 15 years. pitt, wash, and blues each picked in top 5 in at least 2 of 5 years prior and each won Cup over past 15 years, so they were all in won Cup within 15 years of picking top 5 category. so that leaves minnesota. they are only team to not pick top 5 and not win Cup. so whether you picked top 5 is of no predictive value in determining whether you will win Cup.