Draft Lottery Thread - All Tank Talk here

[Sojourn]

The team isn't back to being at square one. We knew the roster was an issue before Carlyle was gone. We knew Gibson was hiding a lot of faults on the team. It was difficult to separate what was the coach and what was the roster, even while we knew the players just weren't working with Carlyle and he wasn't helping matters.

We have a better idea now. We're still going to see adjustments, and we'll see things balance out a little bit as some players who might have been struggling stabilize. The coach, like any coach should, will continue to refine and adjust the line-up and learn what he needs to do to get more out of players. It's an evolving situation.

Square one means back where we started, and we aren't back where we started. Whether it's an improvement or not is a matter of opinion, but I think it's beneficial to move away from Carlyle, and it may not seem like it, but it also benefits us to see how this team performs when Gibson isn't carrying them. He may not be having the best season, but he also isn't making the team look better on the ice by saving their asses.

This all takes excuses away from Murray, who I've been pretty unhappy with the last few seasons.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Being a fan has nothing to do with it when they see the inevitable praying for loses. I’m a Lakers fan. And was praying Lakers would lose to get a lottery pick so Pelicans would trade Davis. And that’s what they did. Now they are to winning ways.

Just because you’re a fan praying for a team to lose and get better doesn’t mean it’s not being a fan. Seeing mediocrity every season gets old after awhile. This team has done nothing the past 3 years to get better. Nothing.

Everyone agrees this team needs a rebuild. Brand new coach when Carlyle was the problem......And guess what? The team is back at being square one with the exact same losing ways. Cheering on a team when it needs a rebuild isn’t fun. I’ve already dealt with it with my Lakers when Kobe Bryant retired. And this team is the same way right now. Until a rebuild is in order.

To sum it up??? Some fans cheer differently than you do. Some fans cheer in order to see their team get better for the long haul. And have different ideas of being a fan.

3 years... 1 playoff appearance... it could be much worse. We were basically a top team from 2003 till 2 years ago.... its okay to have a couple bad seasons.

Actively cheering for the team to do bad to get a pick is dumb tho…. and most of the time you change your mind up.... I see you on the trades talking about BM being a moron because the team went on a 2 game win streak, for the record I don't think he sees the season the same way you do and he doesn't care if he gets a top 5 pick, hes going to try to get the team back on track.

So does this mean you are off the BM wagon now? Cause I recall last week you were talking about BM being the tank commander and getting us a top 5 pick + trading our best assets to ge tanother top pick cause he gets it.

 

[405Exit]

Your analogy of basketball to hockey is bogus. One player CAN make a huge difference to a basketball team. The same cannot be said in hockey. Putting Lafreniere (or whoever) on the Ducks in no way compares to putting Anthony Davis on the Lakers.

What do you say about that to Sidney Crosby on the Penguins? When they drafted him. What do you say about that to Ovechkin on the Capitals?? I can go down the list of teams with it making a difference.

You’re completely wrong here. Both those players changed the entire franchises around by a simple pick selection.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

What do you say about that to Sidney Crosby on the Penguins? When they drafted him. What do you say about that to Ovechkin on the Capitals?? I can go down the list of teams with it making a difference.

You’re completely wrong here. Both those players changed the entire franchises around by a simple pick selection.

Lol you cherry-picked two of maybe three generational talents from this area and you're still dead wrong. Those picks by themselves didn't turn those franchises around.

The Lakers analogy is also dumb AF. How does that remotely apply to this situation?

 

[Deuce22]

What do you say about that to Sidney Crosby on the Penguins? When they drafted him. What do you say about that to Ovechkin on the Capitals?? I can go down the list of teams with it making a difference.

You’re completely wrong here. Both those players changed the entire franchises around by a simple pick selection.

To Crosby I say Malkin, Fleury, Letang and others. To Ovechkin I say Backstrom, Holtby, Carlson, Kuznetsov and others. One player doesn't determine the success of an NHL team.

 

[dracom]

What do you say about that to Sidney Crosby on the Penguins? When they drafted him. What do you say about that to Ovechkin on the Capitals?? I can go down the list of teams with it making a difference.

You’re completely wrong here. Both those players changed the entire franchises around by a simple pick selection.

I counter with Mcdavid.

he alone did not save the oilers, so everything you’re saying is flat out wrong.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

We definite

I counter with Mcdavid.

he alone did not save the oilers, so everything you’re saying is flat out wrong.

Yes but McDavid is so good whatever futility the Oilers have hasn't ruined him and with a player like that you're always only a couple pieces away, just like with any other superstar. So if your organization has it's shit together a franchise player makes a world of difference, the question here is whether the ducks do or not, and based on the development of our young players I am extremely concerned that something is amiss in the process.

 

[eternalbedhead]

If we want to go far back enough then have a Mario Lemieux and shut up about tanking. The only thing he did to immediately turn the franchise around was to bring in more fans to a franchise at risk of bankrupting financially, but it took Jagr + lots of depth trades + an uninhibited spending spree to get the Penguins to the playoffs because Lemieux wasn't enough by himself. This was in the late 80s when individuals did have a bigger impact on the game than they do today, and a 168 point season by Lemieux in 87-88 still left the Penguins one point out of the playoffs. 88-89 was Lemieux's fifth season, but it was the first time the Penguins made the playoffs with him on the team. Imagine today... an amazing player people call "generational" is assigned to a failing team, and they flounder for a few seasons while failing to surround him with appreciable talent. Oh, yeah. McDavid.

Let's not even wade into the "Michael Dal Colle" problem, or scouting reports predicting career ECHLer Conner Bleackley as a top six forward with intangibles. Guess what -- high picks bust. We don't know for certain that Lafreniere or Byfield or Stutzle is going to turn out to be the undeniable superstar that people are hyping them up to be. The draft lottery ultimately means nothing when a lot of impact players (recent example: Pastrnak) still end up filtering towards the end of the first and into the second, and when a fair amount of draft-eligible prospects hyped up as superstars (semi-recent example: Yakupov) end up busting or playing out a career as a bottom six grinder.

High picks help, but they're not the end-all. Look at the St. Louis Blues. What are the homegrown draft picks on their roster? Alex Pietrangelo was selected fourth overall, but who else? Jaden Schwartz was a mid-first. Robert Thomas was a mid-to-late first. David Perron (who was reacquired for the record) was a late first. They grabbed their goalies in the second and third rounds. Brayden Schenn and Ryan O'Reilly were trades.

And then look at the Edmonton Oilers. Picking first overall FOUR TIMES in six seasons should bring you four superstars, right? Nope. Edmonton bungled the Hall trade, Nugent-Hopkins is the kind of non-star, but solid player that you seem to detest having in Anaheim, Yakupov outright busted, and Connor McDavid is, well, dragging the Oilers like a boulder up a mountain. The Oilers are weak on the back end, laughably shallow up front, and they will be exposed in the playoffs, should they make it.

Tanking solves no one's problems unless you already have a good GM in place who's capable of building a team around his top picks. Chicago, Tampa Bay, and Pittsburgh come to mind. I really don't think Bob Murray fits in with that group.

 

[Sojourn]

What do you say about that to Sidney Crosby on the Penguins? When they drafted him. What do you say about that to Ovechkin on the Capitals?? I can go down the list of teams with it making a difference.

You’re completely wrong here. Both those players changed the entire franchises around by a simple pick selection.

You mean the Sidney Crosby on the Penguins that finished last in the Conference? Or the Ovechkin on a Washington Capitals team that finished just ahead of the Penguins? That is, second to last in the Conference? And then finished the next season last in the Conference?

So, no, both of those players didn't completely change the entire franchise around by a simple pick selection. Even coming into the league and absolutely dominating wasn't enough. What actually turned those teams around was a combination of good management, and supplementing those absolutely elite talents with other talents. You can look at both of those teams and see a straight line between their success and adding multiple high talent players, just like you can look at those teams and see that one player fail to be the difference between success and failure.

The facts don't support you here. In fact, they say the exact opposite of what you're saying. That shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who pays attention. There is a long history showing that one player isn't going to do it, and expecting a single player to turn things around is a recipe for failure. That's why the actual success stories, the ones that are an example of how things work, involve good management and the need for smart decisions that involve building around those key players. When you just bring that elite talent in, things don't change. This has consistently been shown to be the case, and your examples, Pittsburgh and Washington, further show this.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

You mean the Sidney Crosby on the Penguins that finished last in the Conference? Or the Ovechkin on a Washington Capitals team that finished just ahead of the Penguins? That is, second to last in the Conference? And then finished the next season last in the Conference?

So, no, both of those players didn't completely change the entire franchise around by a simple pick selection. Even coming into the league and absolutely dominating wasn't enough. What actually turned those teams around was a combination of good management, and supplementing those absolutely elite talents with other talents.

Hes bringing facts.... get your opinions out of here

 

[Sojourn]

I know, I feel terrible, but I actually can't think of an example where one of the worst teams in the league turned things around immediately just by drafting a player.

Even a questionable example like, say, Toronto, didn't just draft Matthews. I say questionable because they've made the playoffs, but that's it. I'd usually measure success by being able to accomplish something in the playoffs. They took a crappy team, pushed pretty much everyone down the depth chart, and brought in a bunch of high end talents like Matthews, Marner, and Nylander, and signed Tavares. That got the into the playoffs, but no further. That's about as quick a turnaround as you're likely to see, and it was practically a complete overhaul of their top six.

When teams aren't in a position to just bring in a bunch of new talent immediately, which is usually the case, struggling teams continue to struggle. It's a process. It takes time.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I know, I feel terrible, but I actually can't think of an example where one of the worst teams in the league turned things around immediately just by drafting a player.

Even a questionable example like, say, Toronto, didn't just draft Matthews. I say questionable because they've made the playoffs, but that's it. I'd usually measure success by being able to accomplish something in the playoffs. They took a crappy team, pushed pretty much everyone down the depth chart, and brought in a bunch of high end talents like Matthews, Marner, and Nylander, and signed Tavares. That got the into the playoffs, but no further. That's about as quick a turnaround as you're likely to see, and it was practically a complete overhaul of their top six.

When teams aren't in a position to just bring in a bunch of new talent immediately, which is usually the case, struggling teams continue to struggle. It's a process. It takes time.

Pittsburgh. Nobody else has managed to draft generational players in back to back drafts though.

 

[Sojourn]

Pittsburgh. Nobody else has managed to draft generational players in back to back drafts though.

I thought about Pittsburgh, but I was really hesitant to use them as an example for a few reasons.

First, is that the Crosby draft was a special circumstance. They weren’t actually the worst team that season, because there was no season. They were one of the few teams with three lottery balls, but one of the stipulations for that was not drafting 1st overall over a period. But the previous draft they drafted 2nd overall and grabbed Malkin(a player who would go 1st overall in most drafts, but was second to Ovechkin), and before that they traded up from 3rd to 1st with Florida to get Fleury. I’m not sure how that last one played into the lottery ball numbers, because they didn’t actually own the 1st overall pick through the standings. Either way, it was an unusual circumstance.

The second is that, even though I pointed out their struggles that first season with Crosby, on paper they should have been a better team. Injuries were a factor. I don’t know if they make the playoffs healthy, but it seems reasonable that they would have been more in the fight. Can only speculate that. Crosby alone didn’t make the difference that season, injuries or no injuries, but they shouldn’t have been that bad, which I think helps that jump the next season.

I think the rest of what happened, they are a valid choice. Malkin was a huge addition, and no small part of that was that they had just added Crosby too. Plus Staal, I believe, who was a pretty strong addition at the time too, and helped create a situation where the Penguins immediately became one of the deepest teams down the middle. Fleury started to come into his own. Letang just dipped his toe in that season, but was a regular in 2007-2008. A lot happened with the team, and it’s pretty insane that they had two unbelievable top line center talents on both lines.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I thought about Pittsburgh, but I was really hesitant to use them as an example for a few reasons.

First, is that the Crosby draft was a special circumstance. They weren’t actually the worst team that season, because there was no season. They were one of the few teams with three lottery balls, but one of the stipulations for that was not drafting 1st overall over a period. But the previous draft they drafted 2nd overall and grabbed Malkin(a player who would go 1st overall in most drafts, but was second to Ovechkin), and before that they traded up from 3rd to 1st with Florida to get Fleury. I’m not sure how that last one played into the lottery ball numbers, because they didn’t actually own the 1st overall pick through the standings. Either way, it was an unusual circumstance.

The second is that, even though I pointed out their struggles that first season with Crosby, on paper they should have been a better team. Injuries were a factor. I don’t know if they make the playoffs healthy, but it seems reasonable that they would have been more in the fight. Can only speculate that. Crosby alone didn’t make the difference that season, injuries or no injuries, but they shouldn’t have been that bad, which I think helps that jump the next season.

I think the rest of what happened, they are a valid choice. Malkin was a huge addition, and no small part of that was that they had just added Crosby too. Plus Staal, I believe, who was a pretty strong addition at the time too, and helped create a situation where the Penguins immediately became one of the deepest teams down the middle. Fleury started to come into his own. Letang just dipped his toe in that season, but was a regular in 2007-2008. A lot happened with the team, and it’s pretty insane that they had two unbelievable top line center talents on both lines.

I looked at points. 69, 68, 58, 58, 105. They weren’t the WORST team that year, but they were really bad.

But yeah, they got really lucky, had some unusual circumstances, and got multiple generational players. Which just proves the point that it’s not a guaranteed success story like people pretend. Washington absolutely burned the franchise to the bedrock to get Ovechkin, and that took 14 years to result in a Cup (or even get past the 2nd round).

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I thought about Pittsburgh, but I was really hesitant to use them as an example for a few reasons.

First, is that the Crosby draft was a special circumstance. They weren’t actually the worst team that season, because there was no season. They were one of the few teams with three lottery balls, but one of the stipulations for that was not drafting 1st overall over a period. But the previous draft they drafted 2nd overall and grabbed Malkin(a player who would go 1st overall in most drafts, but was second to Ovechkin), and before that they traded up from 3rd to 1st with Florida to get Fleury. I’m not sure how that last one played into the lottery ball numbers, because they didn’t actually own the 1st overall pick through the standings. Either way, it was an unusual circumstance.

The second is that, even though I pointed out their struggles that first season with Crosby, on paper they should have been a better team. Injuries were a factor. I don’t know if they make the playoffs healthy, but it seems reasonable that they would have been more in the fight. Can only speculate that. Crosby alone didn’t make the difference that season, injuries or no injuries, but they shouldn’t have been that bad, which I think helps that jump the next season.

I think the rest of what happened, they are a valid choice. Malkin was a huge addition, and no small part of that was that they had just added Crosby too. Plus Staal, I believe, who was a pretty strong addition at the time too, and helped create a situation where the Penguins immediately became one of the deepest teams down the middle. Fleury started to come into his own. Letang just dipped his toe in that season, but was a regular in 2007-2008. A lot happened with the team, and it’s pretty insane that they had two unbelievable top line center talents on both lines.

You didn't lose a ball for drafting first overall, you lost one if your team won the lottery the past three times(and for making the playoffs). Florida won the lottery twice in that span despite not making the pick either time and got hosed for it. It was a pretty dumb way of deciding the draft order.

 

[Sojourn]

You didn't lose a ball for drafting first overall, you lost one if your team won the lottery the past three times(and for making the playoffs). Florida won the lottery twice in that span despite not making the pick either time and got hosed for it. It was a pretty dumb way of deciding the draft order.

Ah okay, that makes sense.

I mean, it doesn’t. You’re right. But it makes sense in how it would impact their number of lottery balls.

 

[KyleJRM]

The funny thing about Chicago was that they didn't "tank" in the sense of intentionally trying to lose. They were just that awful. They were handing out huge contracts to the likes of Aucoin and Khabibulin on their way to top picks.

 

[Sojourn]

I looked at points. 69, 68, 58, 58, 105. They weren’t the WORST team that year, but they were really bad.

But yeah, they got really lucky, had some unusual circumstances, and got multiple generational players. Which just proves the point that it’s not a guaranteed success story like people pretend. Washington absolutely burned the franchise to the bedrock to get Ovechkin, and that took 14 years to result in a Cup (or even get past the 2nd round).

I can’t really think of another example.

I suppose that means the evidence indicates that aiming for that one top 3 pick to turn your franchise around is a bad strategy.

Maybe.

 

[TheGoodShepard1]

Devils beat Ottawa in a shootout tonight, which puts the Ducks in a 3-way tie for the 3rd worst point total in the league with the two aforementioned clubs. Ducks are currently sitting with the 4th worst lottery odds if the season ended today: with us, the Devils and the Sens each having played 49 games, all 3 teams are tied with 13 regulations wins, but Ottawa holds the tiebreaker in ROW (17 to 15) for 5th and the Ducks hold the tiebreaker over the Devils in total wins (19-18) for 4th.

Only Detroit (who is virtually uncatchable unless they go on a run like they did at the end of last season) and the Kings (lol) are worse than we are at the moment. Still a lot of ball game left with 33 to go (good lord, can we just fast forward through the remainder of this crap?)

 

[Masch78]

I'm full on Cole Perfetti.

 

[Quackattack]

The arguments are that a top pick is not sufficient to produce a cup. However, is it necessary (but not sufficient)? The Blues are an obvious counter example, but a lot went right for them. Otherwise, isn’t it the case that most teams that have won it all in the last decade have had at least one top 3 overall pick driving the team? If so, although management needs to surround the pick with talent, having that pick is critical, especially with a conservative GM who appears unlikely to trade or sign top talent to put the team over the top (ala the Blues)

 

[Ducks DVM]

The arguments are that a top pick is not sufficient to produce a cup. However, is it necessary (but not sufficient)? The Blues are an obvious counter example, but a lot went right for them. Otherwise, isn’t it the case that most teams that have won it all in the last decade have had at least one top 3 overall pick driving the team? If so, although management needs to surround the pick with talent, having that pick is critical, especially with a conservative GM who appears unlikely to trade or sign top talent to put the team over the top (ala the Blues)

You can also argue that most of the teams who won the Cup in the last decade have had the benefit of contracts that the last CBA made illegal (either by extreme length or by being cap evasion contracts with “fake” years tacked on at the end) which allowed said teams to have extra star players due to the lower Cap hits of said stars. There’s no real success by any teams being forced to pay fair rates for their young star players to this point.

edit - outside of St. Louis, that is

 

[anezthes]

Allow me this delusion for just one second;
1. We win the Lafrenière sweepstakes.
2. Zegras bulks up and becomes NHL ready.
=> Getzlaf's last season is on a line with Lafrenière and Zegras.
/delusion

 

[Hockey Duckie]

You’re completely joking if you think this team is anywhere close to being playoff ready. If anything Ducks get 9th overall again. And Murray is fired. This team has no business being in the playoffs. Not sure why Duck fans are always fine with mediocrity every season.

All this team is doing is delaying the inevitable of a rebuild. No damn team last in the league of goal scoring ever won a cup. I hope you understand that.

I'm sorry, but we've only missed the playoffs once in seven years, which was last year. Won the Pacific division five years in a row. And in those five years, we went to the conference finals twice. What is this "the sky has been falling forever" agenda you're pushing?

Unless mediocre means you don't win a cup. If that's the case, then there's an exorbitant amount of mediocre teams, which includes last year's Tampa team. I just want to gauge how often you move the goal posts here.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Being a fan has nothing to do with it when they see the inevitable praying for loses. I’m a Lakers fan. And was praying Lakers would lose to get a lottery pick so Pelicans would trade Davis. And that’s what they did. Now they are to winning ways.

Just because you’re a fan praying for a team to lose and get better doesn’t mean it’s not being a fan. Seeing mediocrity every season gets old after awhile. This team has done nothing the past 3 years to get better. Nothing.

Everyone agrees this team needs a rebuild. Brand new coach when Carlyle was the problem......And guess what? The team is back at being square one with the exact same losing ways. Cheering on a team when it needs a rebuild isn’t fun. I’ve already dealt with it with my Lakers when Kobe Bryant retired. And this team is the same way right now. Until a rebuild is in order.

To sum it up??? Some fans cheer differently than you do. Some fans cheer in order to see their team get better for the long haul. And have different ideas of being a fan.

Hey, just because your Lakers have been mired in mediocrity doesn't mean other teams are mired in your mired disposition.

The Ducks have been winning. The Clippers of the NBA have been winning, but often bowing out the same way often in the playoffs (akin to Bruce Boudreau duing the CP3-Blake-DJ era). The Clippers decided to move on from CP3-Blake-DJ era. Last year, the Clippers had no all-stars, but were a playoff team with a great bench and a burgeoning point guard who was drafted 11th overall. All the Clippers needed was to sign F Kwahi Leonard to bolster their roster.

That's all the Clippers needed, but Leonard wanted another "superstar (aka alpha)". He forced the Clippers to get rid of their top two starting players in PF Gallinari and rookie PG SGA (11th overall). I didn't like it because that trade also included 5 first round draft picks as well for PG-13. To this day, I still don't like it. Gallinari and SGA are putting up more points, rebounds, assists, steals, and games played than PG-13.

As a Clipper fan, our playoff participation aren't mediocre years. What was mediocre was how we bowed out of the playoffs the same way year after year. Essentially, it was watching the Bruce Boudreau era all over again as we looked amazing in the regular season, but choke in the playoffs. I blame bad coaching for the Clippers. If we had Phil Jackson to manage the egos, then we would have won a couple of rings already. LoL

As for the Lakers being mediocre completely for year. Then, yes, I completely agree y'all weren't relevant.