Tanking and the NHL's Lack of Parity: They Go Hand in Hand

oXo Cube

Power Play Merchant
Nov 4, 2008
10,931
11,034
In your closet
It sure is funny that all these 'we need to curb tanking' threads are started by fans that are lucky enough to watch perennial contenders.

I find it positively hilarious that there is a sizable minority of San Jose fans who think that they've had it bad.
 

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,886
1,977
Toronto
While winning a cup is definitely​ the ultimate goal of a rebuild, I think the idea that a cup must be won to deem a rebuild as successful is an odd one. While I'd agree it's too early to call rebuilds like Toronto and Edmonton successes, are we actually going to suggest the rebuilds of the lightning and caps were not?

I agree with this to an extent, because the playoffs are nothing but a crapshoot. Half the teams get in and the gap between 1-16 is so small that every series is...60/40 at worst?

I have to laugh at people who say there's no parity in the league. Every team is basically a carbon copy of each other nowadays. There's the odd team with a true gamebreaker (that gets neutralized in the playoffs by ungodly amounts of uncalled obstruction), and then whatever team gets some lucky deflection bounce moves onto the next round. There's been like...two series this year (CHI/NSH and PIT/CLB) where one team was clearly better. Every other series is just first to four fluke bounces.
 

Bending and Tending

Registered User
Dec 25, 2014
1,128
0
U.S.A.
LeBron has been to the last 7 finals.

For the last 20+ years, the finals have included at least one of a group of four players (the names escape me).

THAT's the lack of parity.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Just look at the teams in the NBA finals since 05-06:

Dallas (2x)
Miami (5x)
San Antonio (3x)
Cleveland (4x)
LA Lakers (3x)
Boston (2x)
Orlando
Oklahoma City
Golden State (3x)

9 teams out of 24 possible

NHL finals since 05-06:

Carolina
Edmonton
Anaheim
Ottawa
Detroit (2x)
Pittsburgh (4x)
Chicago (3x)
Philadelphia
Boston (2x)
Vancouver
Los Angeles (2x)
New Jersey
NY Rangers
Tampa Bay
San Jose
Nashville

16 teams out of 24 possible
____________________________________________________________________________________

Also, the last 5 NBA Finals have been part of a back-to-back matchup. 2 Heat/Spurs, 3 Warriors/Cavs.
 
Last edited:

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,886
1,977
Toronto
Duncan/Shaq/LeBron/Kobe (can sub Wade or Dirk for Shaq IIRC)

You can go back to 1980 and its 9 (Magic/Bird/Isaiah/Jordan/Hakeem + the four above). That's almost 40 years. And if it wasn't for 1990 you could remove Isaiah.
 

ResilientBeast

Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Jul 1, 2012
13,903
3,558
Edmonton
It sure is funny that all these 'we need to curb tanking' threads are started by fans that are lucky enough to watch perennial contenders.

I find it positively hilarious that there is a sizable minority of San Jose fans who think that they've had it bad.

True it's weird how it seems all of a sudden people are freaking out about tanking.

Just because teams got those picks like you admitted doesn't mean their successful

You need some mix of talent and competent management to get anywhere in this league.
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
At least Pittsburgh was close to elimination, twice. Had to win 2 game 7's. I don't follow basketball, but did either Cleveland or GS even have to play a game 6??
 

Ziggyjoe21

Registered User
Nov 12, 2003
9,028
2
Pitt
Kings Pens and Hawks won the championship for many reasons. Getting high draft picks is a small portion of that.

Also, why did you omit the Avs, oilers, Islanders, and Capitals from your post? Oh, because they don't fit your agenda.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,296
14,793
What the OP wants is a league that has more parity than the NBA. What the OP wants is a league where a team doesn't need to finish bottom-5 for multiple straight seasons to win a championship, and the teams that finish bottom 5 for multiple straight seasons are not constantly rewarded for it.

What the OP wants is a league where tanking doesn't exist.

The NHL has a much stronger correlation to expected production by pick. The top 3 or top 5 picks are much surer bets, and that affects how teams go about building teams.

You do realize there is a new lottery system in place, where the worst team in the league has only an 18% chance at drafting #1, and a 51.9% chance at drafting #4, correct? What happened to Colorado wasn't an anomaly, it was the most likely scenario.

I think the new lottery system is a good one (at least step in the right direction), and I think it will deter tanking.

But one of the biggest issues is how strong of a correlation there is between drafting high and outcome. It's stronger in the NHL than it is in the NBA or NFL, IMO. I'm curious if this new lottery system will "force" teams to scout better, and make it so there is not such a strong correlation between PPG and draft position.

Outside of the #1 pick, the NBA draft is pretty much hit or miss:

cropped_image.jpg


tTGmDxy.png


Compare that to the NHL:
chart22.jpg
 
Last edited:

WhiskeyYerTheDevils

yer leadin me astray
Sponsor
Apr 27, 2005
33,896
30,409
According to what I responded to you would. Depending on how many points you get after being mathematically eliminated is the order in which the draft will occur.

But there is no guarantee you get the most points after being eliminated by bringing up your AHL stars.

As for your question about which teams tanked for McDavid, ask Buffalo? They absolutely tanked for McDavid.

So teams would tank just as often as they do now? Don't buy it at all when there is incentive to get points. Right now teams tank at the end of the season - what you are presuming is that teams would start tanking right off the bat? Can't see that happening with the way cinderalla teams are able to make the playoffs.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,623
25,441
In the past 11 years, 11 teams have had back to back top 5 picks. I think there's another 4 that have top 5 miss a year top 5. Calgary miss out of back to back top 5 because they drafted at 6th one year and 4th the next.

I think most teams end up being crap for a long enough period to have a shot at it.
 

Nino33

Registered User
Jul 5, 2015
1,828
441
NHL fans LOVE to make fun of basketball; specifically the lack of parity within the sport. With one of Golden State or Cleveland guaranteed to win the 2017 championship, we can confirm that only 5 teams have won the last 9 NBA championships. If Nashville wins this series, we will be able to say the exact same for the NHL; 5 teams have won the last 9 Stanley Cups. If Pittsburgh wins, it means that we will have seen less different champions than the NBA has since 2009. That is a very large problem. The NHL's parity in championship winners, between 2009-2017, is less than or equal to that of the NBA.
IMO it's not a problem at all!

Modern major league sports in NA were built up on the backs of the dynasties/winning that you're suggesting is a bad thing...I prefer great teams/dynasties (for me the more the top teams change from year-to-year the more it seems to me they've diluted the talent to the point that results are to influenced by fluke/luck, and the harder it is for me to generate real interest)



I don't understand the claim of "lack of parity" in the NHL to be honest.....I feel there's way to much parity in the NHL! HaHa (because of the salary cap, and the salary floor being way to high...but I don't see the draft as a problem at all)
 

Dustin

Registered User
Sep 24, 2014
5,001
1,346
But there is no guarantee you get the most points after being eliminated by bringing up your AHL stars.

Sure. Just like there is no guarantee you win the 1st overall if you tank thanks to the lottery. The fact is both require luck and both can be manipulated.


So teams would tank just as often as they do now? Don't buy it at all when there is incentive to get points. Right now teams tank at the end of the season - what you are presuming is that teams would start tanking right off the bat? Can't see that happening with the way cinderalla teams are able to make the playoffs.

As for the thought of tanking in general, I don't really think it is a problem. Teams aren't tanking left, right and center every year. I've also never really seen a great team tank so in the end if bad teams are tanking how does that negatively affect the game. Bad teams need good players. Good players are drafted at the top of the draft. Good players then help bad teams get better. It's a simple system that has been in place for just about every sports league in North America. But to answer your question, the Leafs fired Carlyle while they were in a playoff spot and hired Horachek. Most teams know where they are before the season started. If you were to ask Arizona before the start of the year if they were cup contenders I'm sure they knew that they weren't regardless of what they say to ticket holders or media. Knowing that you are going to be a lottery team before the season starts and acting on it should not be held against you.

Having bad teams fight it out over who is better only shows which teams in fact NEED the better players more and it's not the team that plays better down the stretch. That system will only keep bad teams bad for a much longer time while rewarding team such as good teams that had injuries affect their season, teams that can manipulate it so that when they get eliminated they suddenly start to produce or the teams that are the 8th - 4th worst teams in the league. At no point does that system help Colorado for instance from last year.

Tanking isn't an epidemic in the league and with the lottery already in place there is no guarantee you win anything anyway.
 

LeafsNation75

Registered User
Jan 15, 2010
37,975
12,506
Toronto, Ontario
Let's slow down here. Squeezing into the last wild-card spot against an a Stamkosless Tampa Bay and winning 2 playoff games isn't the same as winning cups.

Lets see the Leafs win a cup before we say the rebuild worked.
Everyone has said to win in the NHL you need a legit #1 Centre which the Leafs got in Auston Matthews and some high 1st round picks which they also got in Mitch Marner and William Nylander. They also need luck in the later rounds which they got in Connor Brown who was a 6th round pick in 2012.

Even though you seem to think there needs to be an asterisk for them making the playoffs since you mentioned how Stamkos got hurt, that's not Toronto's fault and even though they just won 2 games in the first round against Washington most young teams like Toronto don't win their first chance. The Penguins first made the playoffs with Crosby and Malkin in 2007 and won just 1 game in the first round against Ottawa.
 

Alwalys

Phu m.
May 19, 2010
25,894
6,140
I had no idea so many people would completely misunderstand what I am implying. Let me put this in bold, in all caps.

I DID NOT SAY THAT BACK TO BACK TOP-5 PICKS GUARANTEE SUSTAINED SUCCESS AND STANLEY CUP CONTENTION

I SAID THAT NOT HAVING BACK TO BACK TOP-5 PICKS GUARANTEES YOU WILL NOT HAVE SUSTAINED SUCCESS AND STANLEY CUP CONTENTION

Quoted for reinforcement, too many people are missing this point.

One thing I have not seen mentioned yet is the potential effect the change in playoff format has had. Going to a divisional playoffs has, at least to my imperfect memory, reduced the diversity of matchups in the earlier rounds. The same matchups seem to be playing out year after year even if the finals teams change at a more-than-NBA pace.

IMO this causes similar results season after season and doesn't give the random bad matchup as many chances to materialize.
 

WhiskeyYerTheDevils

yer leadin me astray
Sponsor
Apr 27, 2005
33,896
30,409
Quoted for reinforcement, too many people are missing this point.

But that point is not valid at all. It's not even true looking backwards, let alone forwards.

Look at Detroit - they were absolutely consistent cup contenders for a very long time.
The Bruins won a cup and came 2 wins from winning a 2nd cup.
The Ducks were cup contenders for a long time, as have been the Sharks.
The Rangers have been a top team for the last few years - absolutely a cup contender
 

BruinLVGA

CZ Shadow 2 Compact: finally here!!!
Dec 15, 2013
15,228
7,398
Switzerland
Quoted for reinforcement, too many people are missing this point.

One thing I have not seen mentioned yet is the potential effect the change in playoff format has had. Going to a divisional playoffs has, at least to my imperfect memory, reduced the diversity of matchups in the earlier rounds. The same matchups seem to be playing out year after year even if the finals teams change at a more-than-NBA pace.

IMO this causes similar results season after season and doesn't give the random bad matchup as many chances to materialize.

It is one hell of a crap point.
 

oXo Cube

Power Play Merchant
Nov 4, 2008
10,931
11,034
In your closet
But that point is not valid at all. It's not even true looking backwards, let alone forwards.

Look at Detroit - they were absolutely consistent cup contenders for a very long time.
The Bruins won a cup and came 2 wins from winning a 2nd cup.
The Ducks were cup contenders for a long time, as have been the Sharks.
The Rangers have been a top team for the last few years - absolutely a cup contender

Yeah but those teams(sans the 'fluke' Bruins) didn't get to win a championship so therefore they haven't had it good enough and deserve more shots at top picks.

The Colorado Avalanche got to draft MacKinnon pretty recently so who cares that their fans just had to suffer through a historically awful garbage fire of a season am I right?
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
74
We are looking at a league where 4 teams have won the last 8 Stanley Cups; one of them being a fairly large fluke. (Boston Bruins, the team that has not won a Stanley Cup since.) One of those 4 teams is only 3 wins away from another Stanley Cup, which would be their third in that same time frame. These teams are Chicago, winning in 2010, 2013, and 2015, Pittsburgh, winning in 2009, 2016, and possibly 2017, and the Los Angeles Kings, winning in 2012 and 2014.

NHL fans LOVE to make fun of basketball; specifically the lack of parity within the sport. With one of Golden State or Cleveland guaranteed to win the 2017 championship, we can confirm that only 5 teams have won the last 9 NBA championships. If Nashville wins this series, we will be able to say the exact same for the NHL; 5 teams have won the last 9 Stanley Cups. If Pittsburgh wins, it means that we will have seen less different champions than the NBA has since 2009. That is a very large problem. The NHL's parity in championship winners, between 2009-2017, is less than or equal to that of the NBA.

For those who don't wish to read a long, detailed post, there will be cliff notes at the bottom.

Let's be clear about one thing here; Boston is an absolute fluke. In no way should they be involved in a discussion regarding sustainable models of Stanley Cup success. They received a legendary, historic Conn Smythe performance from a 37 year old journeyman goaltender who was relegated to backup the year before. No team can ever expect, or plan to have that, and the odds of that happening are ridiculously low. There is a reason that, unlike the other 3 teams that won championships in that time frame, Boston has not repeated as Stanley Cup winners. They made the finals once and got wrecked by one of the big 3 tankers.

This brings me to my next point; Nashville. The other team in the Stanley Cup Finals. They do not fit the model of back to back top-5 picks. However, they fit a model very, very similar to the Boston Bruins. They drafted in the top-5 once recently, and traded that player for another top-5 pick who has helped them quite a bit. However, more importantly, they have received a historic Conn Smythe performance from a 34 year old goaltender that was pretty bad the year before, and hasn't been great for quite a few years. Suddenly, he begins playing like a Conn Smythe goaltender? Not sustainable, and what did we see tonight? Regression to the mean when he gave up 4 goals on the first 9 shots of the game.

So, let's take a look at Los Angeles, Chicago, and Pittsburgh. It's no secret that these teams have suffered from prolonged periods of mediocrity in the 2000s. It's also no secret that these teams have won Stanley Cups on the backs of players that they drafted in the top-3 of NHL drafts.

Chicago, with the most Cups, is very simple. They have Jonathan Toews, who they drafted 3rd overall in 2006. He was their captain for every single Stanley Cup victory, and has won a Conn Smythe trophy. Of course, they also have Patrick Kane, who they drafted 1st overall in 2007. Both of these players made key contributions to each of their Stanley Cup victories, with the exception of Toews' miserable 2013 playoffs. Let's not forget that they drafted Cam Barker in the top-5 in 2004, and he helped them acquire Nick Led, who was a key contributor to their 2013 Stanley Cup.

This is the beginning of a trend: Back to back top-5 picks. In this case, a 3rd overall pick followed by a 1st overall pick.

Now let's look at Pittsburgh. They have Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, and Marc-Andre Fleury. Back to back to back top-2 picks. Crosby and Malkin won the 2 Conn Smythes they received in their 2 Stanley Cup victories, and even if Crosby didn't deserve it last year, he certainly was a key contributor in their run, as was Malkin. Marc-Andre Fleury did ride the pine last year, but he was their #1G for half of the playoffs this year, and stole the 2nd round, and he was also their #1G in 2009 and in 2008 when they made the SCF. Also, one may forget Jordan Staal, who they traded very long ago; one shouldn't. Jordan Staal was a 2nd overall pick in 2006; meaning they had a 1st overall pick, followed by a 2nd overall pick, a 1st overall pick, followed by a 2nd overall pick! Back to back to back to back top-2 draft picks. Jordan Staal was a key contributor in their 2008 run, as well as their 2009 victory. His trade got them pieces that helped them win in 2016. (Bonino, Dumolin)

Back to back top-5 picks. In this case, a 1st overall pick, followed by a 2nd overall pick, followed by a 1st overall pick, followed by a 2nd overall pick.

Now let's take a look at Los Angeles. This team has missed the playoffs twice in the last 3 years, and one may argue they aren't quite as dominant over this time frame as the other two teams. However, they certainly count as one of the 3 teams that has won multiple Stanley Cups over this time frame. Their #1 defenseman over their two Stanley Cup victories? Drew Doughty, 2008 2nd overall pick. Of course, they also drafted in the top-5 in 2007, selecting Thomas Hickey 4th overall . They drafted in the top-5 yet again in 2009, netting Brayden Schenn. While Schenn was not on either of their Stanley Cup rosters, he was the most valuable piece of the Mike Richards trade. Mike Richards was certainly a key contributor in their 2012 Stanley Cup and certainly helped in 2014 as well, even if he had fallen off quite a bit by that point.

Of course, plenty of people will specifically nitpick the fact that Thomas Hickey was even mentioned. Thomas Hickey never played a single game for the Los Angeles Kings, and because he was waived, he did not contribute to either Stanley Cup victory for the Kings. And they would be absolutely correct. However, there is a reason he is still relevant. Hickey was one chance that Los Angeles had to draft in the top-5, and they failed. They were given the chance to do so again in both of the next 2 seasons, and they acquired pieces that helped them win Stanley Cups. They easily could have selected Karl Alzner (5), Sam Gagner (6), Jakub Voracek (7), Logan Couture (9), Ryan McDonagh (12), or Kevin Shattenkirk (14). Of the 10 players drafted after Hickey, 4 became all stars and 8 became permanent NHLers. What was Thomas Hickey? Thomas Hickey was a chance at a top-5 pick. They failed. Of course, they had another chance at a top-5 pick, which they nailed in Doughty, and then yet another chance at a top-5 pick, in which they made a solid choice in Brayden Schenn, who they subsequently traded for their cup #2C.

So, what's the common trend? Back to back top-5 picks. In this case, a 4th overall pick, followed by a 2nd overall pick, followed by a 5th overall pick.

It is common knowledge that history repeats itself. It is also common knowledge that the new contenders in the NHL are going to be the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Edmonton Oilers; it is also common knowledge that besides the 3 teams mentioned in this thread, the Tampa Bay Lightning have the best chance at a Stanley Cup. Tampa Bay has been the most successful team since 2009 besides the 4 Cup winners, and they were voted at the start of this regular season to be this year's cup favorite. They did miss the playoffs this year, but a lot of that is due to their #1 center playing only 17 games due to an injury. Let's take a look at these 3 teams, shall we?

Toronto just had a fantastic season. Two of their key performers were Mitch Marner and Auston Matthews. Marner was drafted 4th overall in 2015. In the subsequent 2016 draft, Auston Matthews was drafted 1st overall. So, that would mean they are, wait for it...back to back top-5 picks. Interesting. I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that if Toronto wins a Stanley Cup, they will be receiving key contributions from Marner and Matthews. Back to back top-5 picks; in this case, a 4th overall followed by a 1st overall.

Edmonton just had a fantastic season as well. They eliminated my San Jose Sharks. :( Their 2 leading scorers in the regular season were Leon Draisaitl and Connor McDavid. Draisaitl was drafted 3rd overall in 2014 and McDavid was drafted 1st overall in 2015. Back to back top-5 picks; in this case, a 3rd overall followed by a 1st overall. Although 2016 4th overall pick Jesse Puljujarvi was sent to the AHL this year, he certainly could be a key contributor in the coming years. Keep in mind that Edmonton was part of the 2016 draft lottery, and would have picked Patrik Laine if there was no lottery. In Edmonton's specific case, it's important to remember that they also had 3 straight 1st overalls from 2010 to 2012. While all 3 picks have been extreme disappointments, they have still got Adam Larsson and RNH from those picks. Back to back top-5 picks; in this case, a 3rd overall, followed by a 1st overall, followed by a 4th overall.
Along with back to back top-5 picks; in this case, 3 straight 1st overalls.
Tampa Bay is a very simple case. Steven Stamkos 1st overall in 2008 followed by Victor Hedman in 2009. Their #1C and #1D.

So, can we all agree that this lack of parity is an issue, to go along with the fact that, to become a dominant team, you need to have multiple back to back seasons of being a bottom 5 team to become one of the dominant teams. This is definitely a problem, right?

The simple solution is right in front of us. A team that has drafted in the top-5 last year is not eligible to draft in the top-5 the next season.

Cliff Notes

-5 teams have won the last 8 NBA championships, but only 4 teams have won the last 8 NHL championships. Since we are guaranteed a repeat champion in this year's NBA finals, it is possible that if Nashville wins the Stanley Cup, the NHL can tie the NBA in terms of parity if and only if Nashville wins. LMFAO.
-Boston was largely a fluke winning in 2011; they received a historic Conn Smythe performance from a 37 year old journeyman goaltender who was their backup the year before. This is in no way sustainable and in no way a model that can be followed by a future Stanley Cup champion.
-Chicago drafted Jonathan Toews 3rd in 2006 and Patrick Kane 1st in 2007.
-Los Angeles drafted Thomas Hickey 4th in 2007, Drew Doughty 2nd in 2008, and Brayden Schenn 5th in 2009.
-Pittsburgh drafted Marc-Andre Fleury 1st in 2003, Evgeni Malkin 2nd in 2004, Sidney Crosby 1st in 2005, and Jordan Staal 2nd in 2006.
-7 of the last 8 Stanley Cup winners have had back to back top-5 picks, and the one team that didn't was a fluke.
-Of the two teams that look to have the brightest future (Edmonton and Toronto), they both have back to back top-5 picks.
-The team that has been the most successful in that time frame without winning a Stanley Cup is the same team that looks to have the brightest future besides Edmonton and Toronto, and they are built around back to back top-5 picks. (Stamkos then Hedman)
-The simple solution is right in front of us. A team that has drafted in the top-5 last year is not eligible to draft in the top-3 the next season.

Fans complain incessantly about the Edmonton Oilers winning 3 straight 1st round picks. Had this rule been in place, they would not have been able to draft RNH after drafting Hall, and they would not have been able to draft McDavid after drafting Draisaitl. The Kings would not have been able to draft Drew Doughty after drafting Thomas Hickey. The Blackhawks would not have been able to draft Patrick Kane after drafting Jonathan Toews. The Pittsburgh Penguins would not have been able to draft Evgeni Malkin after drafting Marc-Andre Fleury, and they would not have been able to draft Jordan Staal after drafting Sidney Crosby. The Toronto Maple Leafs would not have been able to draft Auston Matthews a year after drafting Mitch Marner.

If one random casual hockey fan on HFBoards can catch onto this, NHL GMs will catch on as well. And over time, we will see more serious tanks. The lack of parity will extend to the regular season and we will see more and more teams like the 2014-2015 Buffalo Sabres who intentionally tank and do absolutely awful. That's not good for the game.

Boston was not a fluke at all. Tim Thomas win his 2nd Vezina and you call him a journeyman.

Tanking is totally dead with the new draft format.

Your premise has some basis in reality but you take it too far and who cares about the NBA.

Reality is most franchises are doing well. Including newer small market franchises like Columbus and Nashville because they have had success.

Nashville was the 16th seed and they are in the final. That is what has happened many times throughout NHL history. It is why the NHL playoffs are the best thing going in North American sports.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
74
Everyone has said to win in the NHL you need a legit #1 Centre which the Leafs got in Auston Matthews and some high 1st round picks which they also got in Mitch Marner and William Nylander. They also need luck in the later rounds which they got in Connor Brown who was a 6th round pick in 2012.

Even though you seem to think there needs to be an asterisk for them making the playoffs since you mentioned how Stamkos got hurt, that's not Toronto's fault and even though they just won 2 games in the first round against Washington most young teams like Toronto don't win their first chance. The Penguins first made the playoffs with Crosby and Malkin in 2007 and won just 1 game in the first round against Ottawa.

Detroit won for years as the model franchise in the NHL for two decades and rarely had high draft picks. They kept winning after the Cap was introduced.
 

Dogewow

Such Profile
Feb 1, 2015
2,883
291
Can you provide an example of a team who has had success in terms of prolonged Stanley Cup contention in the post-lockout era without back to back top-5 picks?

The Boston Bruins had prolonged success for a while and didn't have anyone on their roster that they drafted and developed in the top 5 that were key contributors towards their cup win in 2011. Seguin was there, but he was on the third line. A good chunk of their key contributors were drafted outside of the first round, traded for or were picked up via free agency.

The LA Kings are a good example as well. They drafted Doughty 2nd in 2008, but a good size chunk of their key players were acquired in the 2nd round, beyond, and via trade/free agency. They're actually a great example of how you don't need consistent top 3-5 picks to win a Stanley Cup and stay a contender for more than a year. Kopitar, Brown, Quick, Carter, Richards, Williams, Voynov, Williams, etc were all key contributors that weren't picked in the top 5. Adding on to the list of players is Pearson and Toffoli, who have developed into good, difference making players who were picked at the tail end of the first and middle of the second round.
 

North Cole

♧ Lem
Jan 22, 2017
11,625
13,093
What the OP wants is a league that has more parity than the NBA. What the OP wants is a league where a team doesn't need to finish bottom-5 for multiple straight seasons to win a championship, and the teams that finish bottom 5 for multiple straight seasons are not constantly rewarded for it.

What the OP wants is a league where tanking doesn't exist.



Taylor Hall absolutely did pan out. He may not have become a franchise player, but he is one of the 5-10 best players at his position in the NHL. They traded him for their #2 defenseman who led them in TOI during the playoffs. The Oilers are a perfect example of this because they were rewarded for their continued mediocrity! They made 3 awful picks back to back to back (RNH, Yak, Nurse), were a joke of a franchise, until suddenly, after being the 3rd worst team in the league in 2014, they were the 3rd worst team in the league yet again in 2015. However, because of a draft lottery, they received the best player in the world! Now, after finishing 2nd worst in the league in the 2016 season, and receiving yet ANOTHER top-5 pick in Puljujarvi, they have finally become a playoff team, and will now be allowed to use 5 of their 6 top-5 picks on their roster. The only reason they won't be able to use all 6 of their recent top-5 picks is because the player they drafted 1st overall in 2012 is a garbage non-NHLer that they traded for scraps.

The Avalanche didn't have back to back top-5 picks, which was one of their problems. Because they never had two back to back top-5 picks, they never had one of those guys on an ELC. MacK was already making 6.3M, Duchene was already making 6, and Landeskog was already making 5.57 this year. In 2013-2014, they had Mackinnon and Landeskog on their ELCs, and Duchene was only making 3.5M. The salary cap difference caused them to lose ROR and Stastny, who were very important players that year. In addition, they also had very poor coaching and goaltending, and awful depth this year.

So if they had them on Elc's the they would be able to keep ROR and stasny for what... 2 more years? How does this help them win cups, either in that time frame or moving forward? Reaching pretty hard on that one. I'd argue that having players Elcs spaced out is more benficial in terms of cap management because they will generally be up for renegotiation in intervals. You have better control of the money and term that way. If those players all turned around and made their money at once, they would lose ROR and stasny anyways... EDM is going to have do a real good dance when mcdavid is making 10 and drai is making 8. We are fortunate the Eberle RNH contracts will expire soon.

LA is the poster boy for a team that gave players a bunch of money all at once. Obviously there was failure to buy out Richards but I'd rather have contracts spaced out.

Chicago and pittsburg have players you overlooked. Those are Keith (lower pick) and letang. They arent top 5 so it doesnt fit your narrative. The best d we drafted was klefbom who couldn't stay healthy until now. Each of those teams has crucial players for each position. C depth, strong 1d/2d and got solid goal tending. Pittsburgh also got a nice goalie resurgence with Murray.

I remember when you had an unreal team with thornton in his prime in 06. We bumped them after beating that insanely stacked Detroit team. Because we had a hot goalie and Chris pronger (2nd overall). That team was crazy hot after the trade deadline. Where were we for the previous ten seasons? That's right, we finished in 7-10th during that decade. Constantly losing to Dallas and Colorado in the first round every year. When thornton retires and burns isn't worth that contract in 5 years, you'll be screaming and praying for an ELC superstar.

The league would become a lot more boring because teams would have no incentives to rush players into the nhl. Rebuilds would take twice as long while they try to keep players for their max ELC. If I can't get good picks for multiple years then why would I put mcdavid out when he's 19. I should give him a year in the ohl or ahl then play him year two. Hope to get another pick in year three. Keep him down to stagger the ELC's. We don't get to see Matthews break team records when he's 18. Mcdavid doesn't break his collar bone in junior when he's 18/19.

Lastly, we got our picks because the nhl kept messing around with the lottery specifically to stop us from winning more picks. Not sure what else to say.
 

karnige

Real Life FTL
Oct 18, 2006
19,215
1,306
no OP there is parity. look at the standings. in the end cap management is key. this isn't the NBA or MLB. let's spend and spend and spend. I applaud the GMs and scouting staff.
 

Aceboogie

Registered User
Aug 25, 2012
32,649
3,896
Uhh, the Pens are an example of parity. The broke the cycle of the Devils/Avs/Red wings power teams created from no cap. The Hawks rose from absolute crap to a powerhouse

As far as this "no drafting in top % after you just did" fantasy goes, it would just create a glut of teams finishing bottom 10, nobody getting the 2/3 elite pieces they need to turn into a powerhouse. It would be a collection of teams with MORE top 10 picks then we see today, but them all collecting a couple good top 10 picks and a number of poor ones too, as the top 10 goes that way.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad