Speculation: NHL Draft History (2008-Present) for Stanley Cup Final Teams

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,257
Where are you getting 7 teams from?
Teams that don't have a 1, 2, or 3 in the 3rd column "Top 10 Picks by Team on SC Roster (Overall)"
Edmonton 06
Anaheim 07
Detroit 08
Detroit 09
New Jersey 12
New York 14
Nashville 17

The caveat is that all of those teams had those picks before the draft was reworked in 2013. Pittsburgh, for instance, had four top2 picks in a row. I can't imagine any team pulling that off in the current system. Chicago had a run of three top3 picks in four years. As those teams age out of contention, it wouldn't surprise me if we see teams built more from the top10 rather than the top3 being the contending teams. and outside of a team just getting stupidly lucky and getting a few top picks at just the right time, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a truly dominant, multiple cup winning team in awhile.

That's absolutely true, but bear in mind that when you do something like that you kill your sample size. That's the trouble with all this analysis. To do any statistics at all, you need as large a sample size as possible. But it often doesn't make sense to include different years with different rules and different league makeup.

But the best way to cut through all the outliers and exceptions "i.e. Detroit doesn't count because Lidstrom is Jesus" is to just use as large a sample size as possible. That's why I think one of the most interesting stats is the total percentage of ALL teams post-cap that made the finals with no top-3 picks.

An arguably slightly better stat would include all CONFERENCE Finals teams post-cap, because then your sample size would be 71. But of course then one could argue that a Conference Finals loser wasn't a real Cup contender.

Edit: I mismathed, sample size would be 47 for conference finals teams.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
Teams that don't have a 1, 2, or 3 in the 3rd column "Top 10 Picks by Team on SC Roster (Overall)"
Edmonton 06
Anaheim 07
Detroit 08
Detroit 09
New Jersey 12
New York 14
Nashville 17



That's absolutely true, but bear in mind that when you do something like that you kill your sample size. That's the trouble with all this analysis. To do any statistics at all, you need as large a sample size as possible. But it often doesn't make sense to include different years with different rules and different league makeup.

But the best way to cut through all the outliers and exceptions "i.e. Detroit doesn't count because Lidstrom is Jesus" is to just use as large a sample size as possible. That's why I think one of the most interesting stats is the total percentage of ALL teams post-cap that made the finals with no top-3 picks.

An arguably slightly better stat would include all CONFERENCE Finals teams post-cap, because then your sample size would be 71. But of course then one could argue that a Conference Finals loser wasn't a real Cup contender.

Nashville and NJ both had top 10 picks.

Anaheim really shouldn’t count.

I basically see 4 instances and we are half of them.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,078
Tampere, Finland
Looks like high picks caused nothing but cap hell for Toronto.

I don't think those kid deals with 10-11M are answer for anything. It did raise them off from the bottom to give some hope... but that's not about it. They will never become a TOP Contender, just one of the good ones. Maybe gets hot once.

After Marner will get his 10-11M, I'm sure that Toronto has harder time to contend, than before those deals. Matthews and Marner did cost 1+1 = 2M at this season. At Next season they will cost 22M. So 20M in roster value on other positions will disappear to their positions.

That's... insane. Nobody should get these double digit 2nd contract contracts.

Why Chicago won many Cups on long run, was reasonable deals for Kane, Toews and Keith. Now, just because agents demand and NHL likes to market their new "Stars", these lottery tankers have to pay premium for their kids too soon, when they seem not to be ANY KIND OF READY FOR PLAYOFF HOCKEY, and you sink because of those contracts. Those will eat the roster cap depth (like this Toronto -case, with 20M) and you become worse if you can't draft new great kids from lower rounds year-by-year. And especially Toronto looks like that they don't have any new wave of cheap kids coming.

That team is never gonna win anything.
 
Last edited:

haulinbass

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
1,425
1,088
Looks like high picks caused nothing but cap hell for Toronto.

I don't think those kid deals with 10-11M are answer for anything. I did raise them off from the bottom to give some hope... but that's not about it. They will never become a TOP Contender, just one of the good ones. Maybe gets hot once.

After Marner will get his 10-11M, I'm sure that Toronto has harder time to contend, than before those deals. Matthews and Marner did cost 1+1 = 2M at this season. At Next season they will cost 22M. So 20M in roster value on other posititions will disapper to their positions.

That's... insane. Nobody should get these double digit 2nd contract contracts.

Why Chicago won many Cups on long run, was reasonable deals for Kane, Toews and Keith. Now, just because agents demand and NHL likes to market their new "Stars", these lottery tankers have to pay premium for their kids too soon, when they seem not to be ANY KIND OF READY FOR PLAYOFF HOCKEY, and you sink because of those contracts. Those will eat the roster cap depth (like this Toronto -case, with 20M) and you become worse if you can't draft new great kids from lower rounds. And especially Toronto looks like that they don't have any new wave of cheap kids coming.

That team is never gonna win anything.

I don't think bringing in Tavares for 11m is going to help their contract situation. Now how do you tell a player like Marner who had a much greater impact than Tavaras that he is worth less? Not only does Tavares set the bar at 11 mill for their elite players but he also helped bolster the offensive numbers in a contract year and that doesn't help either. I was a big believer that Toronto should have stayed the course they were on and be a little more patient until they get those contracts locked in, instead of being patient they went all in and its going to cost them a lot of extra cap dollars. Did they have a legit chance to win the cup this year adding Tavaras? Yes, but are they going to be better long-term for it. I don't believe so but we will see. Regardless, Toronto should still be a playoff team for years to come with the sheer star power. They will just have to constantly recycle guys like Chicago did after Toews and Kane signed their big contracts. I feel like Toronto did everything right once Shanahan took over up until they looked to free agency adding Tavares and further handcuffing themselves paying a very old Marleau a little to much term which they will likely have to pay to shed themselves of this summer.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
I don't think bringing in Tavares for 11m is going to help their contract situation. Now how do you tell a player like Marner who had a much greater impact than Tavaras that he is worth less? Not only does Tavares set the bar at 11 mill for their elite players but he also helped bolster the offensive numbers in a contract year and that doesn't help either. I was a big believer that Toronto should have stayed the course they were on and be a little more patient until they get those contracts locked in, instead of being patient they went all in and its going to cost them a lot of extra cap dollars. Did they have a legit chance to win the cup this year adding Tavaras? Yes, but are they going to be better long-term for it. I don't believe so but we will see. Regardless, Toronto should still be a playoff team for years to come with the sheer star power. They will just have to constantly recycle guys like Chicago did after Toews and Kane signed their big contracts. I feel like Toronto did everything right once Shanahan took over up until they looked to free agency adding Tavares and further handcuffing themselves paying a very old Marleau a little to much term which they will likely have to pay to shed themselves of this summer.

It depends how they viewed their ability to rebuild their blueline this offseason. If they figured they were essentially dead on that front regardless, it makes sense to load up when they can and make an immediate hard push. They're in a hard spot going into this summer, though.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,078
Tampere, Finland
I don't think bringing in Tavares for 11m is going to help their contract situation. Now how do you tell a player like Marner who had a much greater impact than Tavaras that he is worth less? Not only does Tavares set the bar at 11 mill for their elite players but he also helped bolster the offensive numbers in a contract year and that doesn't help either. I was a big believer that Toronto should have stayed the course they were on and be a little more patient until they get those contracts locked in, instead of being patient they went all in and its going to cost them a lot of extra cap dollars. Did they have a legit chance to win the cup this year adding Tavaras? Yes, but are they going to be better long-term for it. I don't believe so but we will see. Regardless, Toronto should still be a playoff team for years to come with the sheer star power. They will just have to constantly recycle guys like Chicago did after Toews and Kane signed their big contracts. I feel like Toronto did everything right once Shanahan took over up until they looked to free agency adding Tavares and further handcuffing themselves paying a very old Marleau a little to much term which they will likely have to pay to shed themselves of this summer.

Toronto's answer is to trade Matthews to Arizona and get something like OEL + Keller + another player from there. They need to rebuild that defence by letting one forward piece go.

Then the roster is much better balanced. And move Marner to Center the 2nd line. Put Keller with Tavares and Kadri still as the 3rd line shut-down center and there you go.


Keller - Tavares - Nylander
Hyman - Marner - Kapanen
Marleau - Kadri - Brown
Johnsson - Petan - XXX

Muzzin - Ekman-Larsson
Rielly - Zaitsev
Dermott - XXX
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Zermanator

The Zermanator

In Yzerman We Trust
Jan 21, 2013
3,382
1,184
Toronto's answer is to trade Matthews to Arizona and get something like OEL + Keller + another player from there. They need to rebuild that defence by letting one forward piece go.

Then the roster is much better balanced. And move Marner to Center the 2nd line. Put Keller with Tavares and Kadri still as the 3rd line shut-down center and there you go.


Keller - Tavares - Nylander
Hyman - Marner - Kapanen
Marleau - Kadri - Brown
Johnsson - Petan - XXX

Muzzin - Ekman-Larsson
Rielly - Zaitsev
Dermott - XXX

I think they should do this too, honestly. Thought Doughty would be a good option as well, about the same age as Tavares so their core would be split into Doughty/Tavares as the elite veterans and Marner/Rielly as the elite youth. And the money ends up evening out with those two.

But Arizona works even better as they'd definitely pay a premium for the hometown kid. And they get a forward back this way and actually save a couple million at least.
 

Claypool

Registered User
Jan 12, 2009
13,670
4,352
Looks like high picks caused nothing but cap hell for Toronto.

Eichel and McDavid contracts really screwed everything up for this current generation of young superstars. Since a lot of young players are better than Eichel, they can easily command more than $10 million.

The problem for Toronto was that Marner ended up being better than Matthews (currently), and Nylander played with Matthews, which inflated his numbers even more before needing to be extended (and got more than Pastrnak lol).

Johnsson and Kapanen played with Matthews this year, which inflated their numbers. So now their entire team will be overpaid.

Good problem to have, I guess, but now they are left with little flexibility.
 
Last edited:

The Zetterberg Era

Ball Hockey Sucks
Nov 8, 2011
40,957
11,577
Ft. Myers, FL
Nashville and NJ both had top 10 picks.

Anaheim really shouldn’t count.

I basically see 4 instances and we are half of them.

Pronger and Niedermayer are top 3 picks right?

If we are doing the we selected it thing.... Well that is really pushing around facts just to support one particular claim in my opinion and a little dishonest to the bigger picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

obey86

Registered User
Jun 9, 2009
8,013
1,274
Pronger and Niedermayer are top 3 picks right?

If we are doing the we selected it thing.... Well that is really pushing around facts just to support one particular claim in my opinion and a little dishonest to the bigger picture.

So if the Red Wings traded for Erik Gudbradson and won the Stanley cup with him, that would count in your mind as having "a top 3 pick on the roster" or whatever?
 

The Zetterberg Era

Ball Hockey Sucks
Nov 8, 2011
40,957
11,577
Ft. Myers, FL
So if the Red Wings traded for Erik Gudbradson and won the Stanley cup with him, that would count in your mind as having "a top 3 pick on the roster" or whatever?

He would be drafted in the top 3 no? I mean Cam Barker is a top 3 pick, it does happen and if you make statements based off where guys are drafted that matters in terms of the black and white of what that statement means for me.

Not sure this really matters when you compare him to two HHOF guys.... We know how good those two top 3 picks were in Anaheim.
 

obey86

Registered User
Jun 9, 2009
8,013
1,274
He would be drafted in the top 3 no? I mean Cam Barker is a top 3 pick, it does happen and if you make statements based off where guys are drafted that matters in terms of the black and white of what that statement means for me.

Not sure this really matters when you compare him to two HHOF guys.... We know how good those two top 3 picks were in Anaheim.

Anyone can trade for a top 3 pick, that doesn't mean anything in regards to how the team got to where they were (the "tanking" vs staying relatively competitive argument). To GET a top 3 pick in the draft (outside of trading for one) you have to be really bad, which is a different circumstance that just trading for a player who drafted top 3. I think therein lies the distinction.

Does your team need to be REALLY bad to get their elite players? Or can you become competitive and acquire those players without completely bottoming out? Saying someone traded for a top 3 pick to win the cup doesn't show that a team had to bottom out for that top player....which is the crux of the argument really.
 

The Zermanator

In Yzerman We Trust
Jan 21, 2013
3,382
1,184
Anyone can trade for a top 3 pick, that doesn't mean anything in regards to how the team got to where they were (the "tanking" vs staying relatively competitive argument). To GET a top 3 pick in the draft (outside of trading for one) you have to be really bad, which is a different circumstance that just trading for a player who drafted top 3. I think therein lies the distinction.

Does your team need to be REALLY bad to get their elite players? Or can you become competitive and acquire those players without completely bottoming out? Saying someone traded for a top 3 pick to win the cup doesn't show that a team had to bottom out for that top player....which is the crux of the argument really.

No one can say it's impossible to win without having a top 3 pick, just far far less likely.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->