cslebn
80 forever
- Feb 15, 2012
- 2,695
- 1,250
I think you need Panarin to bring back last year''s system.
Why do you need Panarin to play strict D and counter?
I think you need Panarin to bring back last year''s system.
You seem to be erroneously conflating "above average" with "hyped by media". Nyquist is a similarly productive player to Horton (albeit with a different skillset). Huselius, when he was here, was even better. And that's just off the top of my head; I'm probably forgetting others.I wasn’t talking about Panarin/Duchene/Bob. I’m talking about how the only above average free agent we have had was Horton. In 20 years. Not a good track record.
I wasn’t talking about Panarin/Duchene/Bob. I’m talking about how the only above average free agent we have had was Horton. In 20 years. Not a good track record.
Also how do you know it’s a “slow start” and not the possibility that we just suck?
Since what beginning? I can tell you it certainly wasn't true during the MacLean years.This team has been one of the youngest teams in the league since the beginning.
You seem to be erroneously conflating "above average" with "hyped by media". Nyquist is a similarly productive player to Horton (albeit with a different skillset). Huselius, when he was here, was even better. And that's just off the top of my head; I'm probably forgetting others.
Since what beginning? I can tell you it certainly wasn't true during the MacLean years.
I bet we were still one of youngest 5 teams in league during that time.
We don't really try to get high profile UFA's
They aren't, but the example cited was Nathan Horton, and he never was at that level either.If I remember the thread correctly the comment was that no one wanted to play here. That is generally code for elite level talent going into UFA. We don't really bid on those, honestly we probably shouldn't. It's those guys getting max term while that are starting to age, like the guys we lost. Juice and Nyquist aren't quite to that level.
Honestly, I think we did draft that player; it's just that he never had much of anything as a supporting cast, and he eventually got so desperate to be able to do something good for the franchise that he asked for a trade in the hope that we'd get a bounce-back return (and fortunately we did).The issue really is as good as some of our players have been, we haven't drafted that franchise player yet. If you look at half the league, at least, you can see that player on their team. Ours could be Jones, but we didn't draft him. I was hoping that would be Werenski, but we need that next level. Can PLD be that? Doesn't seem likely even if he turns out to be very good for us.
Our fans have been begging for that player and some were hoping that was Panarin. As good as he is, along with my willingness to have the franchise invest the big contract in him, I don't think that was going to be him (even if we had signed him).
Yeah, this about covers what I was going to say. You get a cookie.Meh, we had guys like Foote and Federov messing up the curve. Odelein was on the other side of 30. We had Tugnutt and Dineen in the beginning. Sanderson was around 30 at the time. Wright was with us for a while and he was approaching 30 when we started. Espen was approaching 30. You had the Hrdina's and Balastick moving closer to 30. The list goes on and on, I could list even more.
Dougie might have played a lot of youth, but he had a lot of players from 28+ that lifted up the average age. I don't know where that placed us, but I suspect we were more around the league average. It was a different time with more veterans to be sure.
Honestly, I think we did draft that player; it's just that he never had much of anything as a supporting cast, and he eventually got so desperate to be able to do something good for the franchise that he asked for a trade in the hope that we'd get a bounce-back return (and fortunately we did)
Horton could score 30 plus goals and has a .67ppg pace through his career, and I still barely BARELY consider him above average BC he was a presence on the ice and playing a 200 foot game at the time, RIP. Nyquist .60ppg, juice was decent (.68ppg) his stats a little better than what he really was because he played on a stacked Flames team.You seem to be erroneously conflating "above average" with "hyped by media". Nyquist is a similarly productive player to Horton (albeit with a different skillset). Huselius, when he was here, was even better. And that's just off the top of my head; I'm probably forgetting others.
Yes, this is what I’m saying. And many people seem to hate the fact that THOSE type of players are found in the top3 of the draft 80-90% of the time.If I remember the thread correctly the comment was that no one wanted to play here. That is generally code for elite level talent going into UFA. We don't really bid on those, honestly we probably shouldn't. It's those guys getting max term while that are starting to age, like the guys we lost. Juice and Nyquist aren't quite to that level.
The issue really is as good as some of our players have been, we haven't drafted that franchise player yet. If you look at half the league, at least, you can see that player on their team. Ours could be Jones, but we didn't draft him. I was hoping that would be Werenski, but we need that next level. Can PLD be that? Doesn't seem likely even if he turns out to be very good for us.
Our fans have been begging for that player and some were hoping that was Panarin. As good as he is, along with my willingness to have the franchise invest the big contract in him, I don't think that was going to be him (even if we had signed him).
Okay. Now try applying this means of determining whether or not elite talent wants to play somewhere (strictly going off of UFA signings) to every other team in the League, so that we can find out where elite talent actually wants to play and/or whether or not we're particularly unique in this regard.Horton could score 30 plus goals and has a .67ppg pace through his career, and I still barely BARELY consider him above average He was a presence on the ice and playing a 200 foot game at the time, RIP. Nyquist .60ppg, juice was decent (.68ppg) his stats a little better than what he really was because he played on a stacked Flames team.
none of those guys are elite though, that’s the point. Congrats we got 2-3 second line forwards over the course of 20 years..
elite talent doesn’t want to play here.. gotta get it through the draft.
I think it's more that folks object to the suggestion of deliberately trashing our team in an attempt to hopefully get someone in that pick range, despite the fact that 1) the odds are significantly against you getting to that range even if you're the worst team, 2) the odds are significantly against you getting such a player even if you're picking in that range, and 3) the steps necessary to maximize said odds generally destroy a team's hopes at competitiveness for, oh, pretty much the duration of said player's prime years.Yes, this is what I’m saying. And many people seem to hate the fact that THOSE type of players are found in the top3 of the draft 80-90% of the time.
Nash was a great player, but I'd probably not put him in the categories of guys like Malkin, Crosby, McDavid, Matthews, Taveres, Oveckin, Stamkos, The fans want that generational guy that turns around a franchise and puts you on the map. As good as Nash was, I don't consider him that. McDavid hasn't turned around that franchise yet, but boy he's fun to watch.
It's a small distinction, but one that exists.
In Your opinion (based on zero factual evidence), sure.I think it's more that folks object to the suggestion of deliberately trashing our team in an attempt to hopefully get someone in that pick range, despite the fact that 1) the odds are significantly against you getting to that range even if you're the worst team, 2) the odds are significantly against you getting such a player even if you're picking in that range, and 3) the steps necessary to maximize said odds generally destroy a team's hopes at competitiveness for, oh, pretty much the duration of said player's prime years.
It's one of those things where the potential drawbacks outweigh the benefits by a ludicrously absurd margin - just barely above the suggestion of leaping off a three-story building instead of taking the stairs because it might get you to where you want to go faster and you can cite examples of folks who haven't been seriously injured doing that. It's the sort of bet that only appeals to gambling addicts and folks who aren't paying close enough attention to the probabilities involved.
In Your opinion (based on zero factual evidence), sure.
We can get picks and other assets for Foligno, Cam, Savard, Murray, Cam, especially at the TDL.Do you think if we trade our vets (Foligno, Atkinson, Nash, and Savard - you know some of our worst underperformers) that we'll really suddenly be worse than NYR, NJD, DET, OTT, et ala who are below us in the standings?
Do you think the pieces we get for them would be anything valuable? (Assuming you can get Nick and Cam to waive)
Do we have to package our youth (Tex, Bjorkstrand, Andy) with our vets to get something valuable?
From what I've seen, with no extensive research, it's about having a mix of good vets and youth breaking through at the right moment. Yeah the NHL has been owned by a handful of cup winners but when you add in finalists it tells a more balanced story (NSH, BOS, etc).
The facts are present and indisputable. But let's go over them again.In Your opinion (based on zero factual evidence), sure.
We can get picks and other assets for Foligno, Cam, Savard, Murray, Cam, especially at the TDL.
no you keep the young guys and actually give them ice time. You make it seem like we are SO much better than Det, NJD, Ott.. yet we are only 4 points ahead of them. Yes without those guys I think we move down, and we recoup some of the picks we traded away last year. Try to sign a free agent like Hall after that.
You’re free to think that way if you’d like. 50% are franchise level. 99% are NHL players, most top line guys. I will take it even at 50/50.The facts are present and indisputable. But let's go over them again.
Item #1: The odds are significantly against you getting to that range even if you're the worst team.
The NHL has deliberately set the draft lottery up this way. The worst team in the League has a just-under-50% chance to stay in the top-3. You can see an illustration of this on Wikipedia: 2019 NHL Entry Draft - Wikipedia
Item #2: The odds are significantly against you getting such a player even if you're picking in that range.
Well, let's run the numbers. Here is the list of unambiguous franchise players drafted in the top-3 from the start of the Jackets' existence through to 2017:
Alexander Ovechkin (#1 2004)
Evgeni Malkin (#2 2004)
Sidney Crosby (#1 2005)
Patrick Kane (#1 2007)
Steven Stamkos (#1 2008)
Drew Doughty (#2 2008)
John Tavares (#1 2009)
Victor Hedman (#2 2009)
Taylor Hall (#1 2010)
Nathan MacKinnon (#1 2013)
Connor McDavid (#1 2015)
Jack Eichel (#2 2015)
Auston Matthews (#1 2016)
Here's guys who may or may not be franchise-level:
Dany Heatley (#2 2000)
Marian Gaborik (#3 2000)
Ilya Kovalchuk (#1 2001)
Jason Spezza (#2 2001)
Rick Nash (#1 2002)
Eric Staal (#2 2003)
Jonathan Toews (#3 2006)
Tyler Seguin (#2 2010)
Alexander Barkov (#2 2013)
Aaron Ekblad (#1 2014)
Leon Draisaitl (#3 2014)
Miro Heiskanen (#3 2017)
Here is the list of guys who are short of that lofty standard:
Rick DiPietro (#1 2000)
Alexander Svitov (#3 2001)
Kari Lehtonen (#2 2002)
Jay Bouwmeester (#3 2002)
Marc-Andre Fleury (#1 2003)
Nathan Horton (#3 2003)
Cam Barker (#3 2004)
Bobby Ryan (#2 2005)
Jack Johnson (#3 2005)
Eric Johnson (#1 2006)
Jordan Staal (#2 2006)
James van Riemsdyk (#2 2007)
Kyle Turris (#3 2007)
Zach Bogosian (#3 2008)
Matt Duchene (#3 2009)
Erik Gudbranson (#3 2010)
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (#1 2011)
Gabriel Landeskog (#2 2011)
Jonathan Huberdeau (#3 2011)
Nail Yakupov (#1 2012)
Ryan Murray (#2 2012)
Alex Galchenyuk (#3 2012)
Jonathan Drouin (#3 2013)
Sam Reinhart (#2 2014)
Dylan Strome (#3 2015)
Patrik Laine (#2 2016)
Pierre-Luc Dubois (#3 2016)
Nico Hischier (#1 2017)
Nolan Patrick (#2 2017)
I stopped at 2017 because, frankly, nobody in 2018 or 2019 would fall into the "franchise player" category yet, and that would have unbalanced things a tad. As it is, we're looking at 54 players altogether, and out of those, 76% of them could be, depending on your standards, argued to not be franchise-level. At best, you're looking at over half of them not being at that point (53.7%). So you're looking at, once again, a less than fifty-fifty chance.
Item #3: The steps necessary to maximize said odds generally destroy a team's hopes at competitiveness for the duration of those players' prime years.
In that period, there are eight teams that have picked three or more times in the top-3 - Florida (6), Edmonton (5), Pittsburgh (5), Tampa Bay (4), Atlanta (4), Chicago (3), Colorado (3), and Columbus (3). Two of those teams have been particularly competitive due to those top-picked players - Pittsburgh and Chicago, the two Cup winners. Tampa Bay has been competitive, but owes just as much to later picks.
This is a bit of a problematic comparison, tho, because players picked 15 years apart aren't going to make much impact together. And that's seemingly borne out by the fact that the one thing those three quality teams have in common w/r/t their top players is that they were picked in back-to-back drafts. So maybe we should care about clustering of players. That removes Columbus and Colorado from consideration, as neither team has gotten back-to-back picks. The rest have.
Ultimately, you've got six teams that have clustered picks in this fashion. Two have gone on to win it all. One has at least looked competitive, even if they were recently pretty seriously embarrassed. Meanwhile, two of them can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary under "sustained hopelessness", and the third has ceased to exist. Oh, and if you try to do even more clustering, in the hope that that'll guarantee things? You're reduced to one cup winner (Pittsburgh), one failure (Edmonton), and one ain't-around-no-more (Atlanta). so the correlation is suspect to begin with.
So, let's say you want to pursue this "strategy". Our correlations are a bit suspect, but let's just assume they're fair for the purpose of this exercise. It quickly becomes clear that you need to be able to cluster picks so those players will work together, and that's going to be hard to do. First, you need to get your team in a state that's so consistently hopeless that they're going to be at the bottom of the League, year after year after year - which has psychologically damaging problems for your developing players on its own, by the way. Then you need to win what amounts to several coin tosses in a row with a coin that is weighted against you just to have the opportunity to give it a shot. Then you need to do it again to make sure you get the right players (and sometimes, there are no right players, and you're just SOL). And if any of those go against you? You now have a team that's spent multiple years of fan dollars and cachet on a wild goose chase, and now have to tell them that not only are they going to get no return on that investment, but that the hopelessness is going to continue for several years more.
That is not a winning strategy. That is a ****ing boondoggle. That's like trying to solve debt problems by purchasing a dozen Powerball tickets every week. ****, winning the Cup is simple and straightforward by comparison.
"Think that way"?You’re free to think that way if you’d like. 50% are franchise level. 99% are NHL players. I will take it even at 50/50.
I’ve taken them. Multiple. Minored in Math. You can get the stats to hint at whatever you want, so can I. Really they mean little. Agree to disagree Hon."Think that way"?
G-d Almighty, hon, please take a statistics class.