Why do you still think you can win a Stanley Cup without back-to-back top-5 draft picks?

[Oneiro]

Simplified formula: you need either two top 10 forwards in the game or a top 10 forward and a top 10 defenseman.

WAS: Ovechkin-Backstrom
PIT: Crosby-Malkin
CHI: Kane-Keith (and Toews at the time)
LA: Kopitar-Doughty
BOS: Bergeron-Chara

Nashville and SJ no longer have forwards of that magnitude, WPG doesn't have any defender of that magnitude. The Rangers kept coming up against this barrier, despite having good depth and goaltending. Similarly, Minnesota has gone nowhere because their top end players are not in the same building as their opponents.

So, with this system, you'd think Tampa looks pretty good and it's only a matter of time. This idea sets up a lot of young teams well. Colorado, Philadelphia, NJ, possibly Buffalo and Florida if they get their act together.

What I think the last decade all comes down to is the idea that the NHL is actually a far more star-driven league than fans want to admit. By the time the depth works itself out and you're in the Cup Final, it's up to one or two of the star players to take care of business.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I made this thread about a year ago. I talked about how you pretty much need to tank to win in today's NHL and that provides a lack of parity in terms of true championship caliber teams because most management groups aren't given the green light by ownership to conduct a tank. 9 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts. In other words, in order to have more than a 10% chance at winning a Stanley Cup over the last 10 years, you have to be one of 4 different teams that was one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL for multiple seasons between 2004 and now.

Washington just won the Stanley Cup. They drafted Ovechkin #1OV in 2004, and then got their back to back picks in Backstrom at #4OV in 2006 and Karl Alzner at #5 in 2007. Technically, Alzner was totally unnecessary, but the only reason they didn't get a top-5 pick in 2005 is because the entire order of the draft was determined by mostly random variance. Washington was 2nd to last in 2003-2004, 3rd to last in 2005-2006, and 4th from last in 2006-2007. Their 2nd last and 3rd last finish in back to back seasons allowed them to acquire Alexander Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom; two superstars that were completely essential to their success. Alzner is mostly irrelevant outside of establishing the technicality that they had back to back top-5 draft picks but then it's also just a technicality that Ovechkin and Backstrom weren't back to back top-5 draft picks.

I don't want to create a wall of text in the OP, because those tend to not get red. So I'll just throw out some key points.

1. We are only talking Stanley Cup WINNERS. I'm a Sharks fan, so I can tell you as somebody who has experienced both that making the SCF is no better than missing the playoffs. I would have much rather tanked and drafted Auston Matthews in 2016. Please don't bring up 2010 Philadelphia, 2012 NJD, 2014 NYR, 2016 SJS, 2018 VGK, or any other non-tank team that made the SCF and got crushed.

2. Teams like Florida and Arizona trying to tank and failing DOES not disprove my argument whatsoever. Not every team that tanks will win. If I were to say "You have to drink water to survive", you would have to point me to examples of why you can survive without drinking water. You could not say "This guy drank water, and he still died" as disproval of the theory that you have to drink water to survive. That's not how it works.

3. 2011 Boston may or may not be a fluke, but I'm not looking to get into those semantics; you can't reliably build a team around a goaltender having a .940 SV% because that virtually never happens. That is why Boston in 2011 is not a sustainable Stanley Cup Winner.

4. 9 of the last 10 Cup winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts after finishing in the bottom-5 of the NHL's standings in back to back seasons. The last 3 Conn Smythe Winners were first overall picks. 4 of the last 6 Conn Smythe winners were first overall picks. 6 of the last 10 Conn Smythe winners were top-2 picks.

5. The NHL has had 5 Cup Winners over the last 10 years. The NBA has had 6. This league might have more parity amongst playoff teams, playoff series winners, etc., but it is a very very simple mathematical fact that there has been less parity over the last 10 NHL champions than the last 10 NBA champions. I believe a big part of this is because you have to be a bottom-5 team for multiple straight seasons to be successful in the NHL and most owners aren't willing to bite that bullet so most teams can't realistically contend.

6. One final questions for people who believe you can win a Cup without tanking; how many more years of only tank teams winning before you give credence to the idea that maybe you can only win as a tank team?

for starters, Boston wasn't built around the goalie. They were a team built on physical play, defense and depth.

They won by going through other teams. They simply kept hitting you until you started to hesitate, then they beat you. They won by dominating the boards and corners with wingers like Lucic, Marchand and Horton, and had a nasty physical defense behind them in Chara, Seidenberg, Boychuk, McQuaid and Ference.

Do not underestimate how dominant Chara was back then either. He and Seidenberg made for the best shutdown defensive pair in hockey.

They also had unreal depth. Dont forget for half the year their center depth was Savard - Bergeron - Krejci. After Savard went down it still was Bergeron - Krejci - Kelly - Peverley. Hell, they got 39 goals and 62 points out of their 4th line.

their lines were:

Lucic - Krejci - Horton
Marchand - Bergeron - Recchi
Ryder - Kelly - Seguin/Peverley
Campbell - Thornton - Paille

And if all else failed, they could and would simply beat you up. Lucic, Thornton, Chara, McQuaid, Boychuk, Horton, Ference.

Considering they went back to the Finals 2 years later, losing one of the closest ones ever (3 OT games, 1 game decided by >1 goal) with a different goalie goes to further prove the point

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

"They drafted Ovechkin #1OV in 2004"

Actually Washington tanked to get Ovi

 

[Drake1588]

You need a hell of a lot more than tanking, as some of the more inept franchises recently make clear, but it's probably correct to say that a lynchpin player is key and that bottoming out is an extremely proven way to start the process. Winning out of perennial mediocrity is a real tough way to try and win these days. You need a batch of high picks.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'm fairly certain Kuznetsov (26th overall), Oshie (24th overall), Carlson (27th overall), and Holtby (93rd overall) had as much to do with the Caps winning the cup as Ovechkin and Backstrom did.

Just like the Blackhawks don't win the cup without Duncan Keith, Marian Hossa, etc. and Los Angeles doesn't win without Kopitar, Quick, Carter, Williams, etc.

The reality is that you need high-end talent and depth to win a cup. That's what all the teams have in common.

High-end talent is easier to get at the top of the draft order, but it's not impossible to find it outside of the top 5, either.

This is exactly right. To establish a rule of back to back top 5 picks is unnecessarily specific.

Cup winners generally have both high end talent and depth.

VGK could go out and get JT - that would be huge for them IMO.

 

[solidmotion]

it's probably correct to say that a lynchpin player is key and that bottoming out is an extremely proven way to start the process.

not just extremely proven but just about the only way to start the process these days. top players just don't move around the way they did in the 80s and 90s, so trades and free agency are more or less out. and scouting is good enough that diamonds in the rough are much rarer than they were when detroit could pick up datsyuk and zetterberg by being basically the only team scouting europe. so yes unless gms start trading again then top 5 picks are basically the only way to build a team.

 

[justafan22]

I made this thread about a year ago. I talked about how you pretty much need to tank to win in today's NHL and that provides a lack of parity in terms of true championship caliber teams because most management groups aren't given the green light by ownership to conduct a tank. 9 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts. In other words, in order to have more than a 10% chance at winning a Stanley Cup over the last 10 years, you have to be one of 4 different teams that was one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL for multiple seasons between 2004 and now.

Washington just won the Stanley Cup. They drafted Ovechkin #1OV in 2004, and then got their back to back picks in Backstrom at #4OV in 2006 and Karl Alzner at #5 in 2007. Technically, Alzner was totally unnecessary, but the only reason they didn't get a top-5 pick in 2005 is because the entire order of the draft was determined by mostly random variance. Washington was 2nd to last in 2003-2004, 3rd to last in 2005-2006, and 4th from last in 2006-2007. Their 2nd last and 3rd last finish in back to back seasons allowed them to acquire Alexander Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom; two superstars that were completely essential to their success. Alzner is mostly irrelevant outside of establishing the technicality that they had back to back top-5 draft picks but then it's also just a technicality that Ovechkin and Backstrom weren't back to back top-5 draft picks.

I don't want to create a wall of text in the OP, because those tend to not get red. So I'll just throw out some key points.

1. We are only talking Stanley Cup WINNERS. I'm a Sharks fan, so I can tell you as somebody who has experienced both that making the SCF is no better than missing the playoffs. I would have much rather tanked and drafted Auston Matthews in 2016. Please don't bring up 2010 Philadelphia, 2012 NJD, 2014 NYR, 2016 SJS, 2018 VGK, or any other non-tank team that made the SCF and got crushed.

2. Teams like Florida and Arizona trying to tank and failing DOES not disprove my argument whatsoever. Not every team that tanks will win. If I were to say "You have to drink water to survive", you would have to point me to examples of why you can survive without drinking water. You could not say "This guy drank water, and he still died" as disproval of the theory that you have to drink water to survive. That's not how it works.

3. 2011 Boston may or may not be a fluke, but I'm not looking to get into those semantics; you can't reliably build a team around a goaltender having a .940 SV% because that virtually never happens. That is why Boston in 2011 is not a sustainable Stanley Cup Winner.

4. 9 of the last 10 Cup winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts after finishing in the bottom-5 of the NHL's standings in back to back seasons. The last 3 Conn Smythe Winners were first overall picks. 4 of the last 6 Conn Smythe winners were first overall picks. 6 of the last 10 Conn Smythe winners were top-2 picks.

5. The NHL has had 5 Cup Winners over the last 10 years. The NBA has had 6. This league might have more parity amongst playoff teams, playoff series winners, etc., but it is a very very simple mathematical fact that there has been less parity over the last 10 NHL champions than the last 10 NBA champions. I believe a big part of this is because you have to be a bottom-5 team for multiple straight seasons to be successful in the NHL and most owners aren't willing to bite that bullet so most teams can't realistically contend.

6. One final questions for people who believe you can win a Cup without tanking; how many more years of only tank teams winning before you give credence to the idea that maybe you can only win as a tank team?

Technically Boston counts though he wasn't a big factor, Seguin was a top 2 pick they had the previous year.

 

[bur and 666 others]

So you think the Hawks, Kings, Pens, and Caps are losers? You think the Sharks are the real winners?

OMG, is it real life? We were mentioned in the same sentence as those teams, not in the following one.

 

[Iapyi]

I know for a fact that all of them were one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL for multiple seasons in a row. I also know that I’m not interested in a debate over the semantics of the word tanking.

I'm proud of you for admitting you were wrong albeit in a round about way.

 

[Rich Nixon]

Giroux is very good. Is he great? Is he great enough to be the greatest on a team that is the greatest? Is he great enough to be the greatest on a team that isn’t entirely great as a whole? Is he a top-100 all time player? Is he a Hall of Famer? Does Philadelphia have another player of that caliber?

This is sideways to my point here. I am by no means trying to make this a Flyers thing, I bring up Giroux to make this point: He and Backstrom are probably the most naturally comparable players in the league today, in terms of playing style, career length, age, and impact on a game. Similarly-sized pass-first two-way centers (let's not get semantic on that last part) who were drafted in 2006 and have played a similar number of games and have really similar output (Giroux: .289 GPG/.627APG for .917 PPG over 738, Backstrom: .256 GPG/.724APG for .980PPG over 815, Giroux has higher playoff PPG numbers but fewer games).

Not perfect and it's not a "this guy vs. that guy" argument, but it's close enough for this hypothetical: One went #4. One went #22. The Capitals would probably still win a Cup if they just swapped positions that year and grabbed the guy who went #22, and their team is most likely about as good over the past decade-plus and this year. Conversely, if you swapped the 2 players draft positions, no one is seen as making a major mistake and everyone is still happy.

What I am getting at is this: No one disputes the notion, I'll say it again, that having the opportunity to draft no-brainer future Hall of Famers (Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid) gives you a rare opportunity to win Championships. Of course it does! But not every top 5 pick is that guy: Most are just really, really good players (Backstrom, for example). Some aren't even impact players at all! And some of the players you mention weren't actually integral to those eventual Cups, and there's almost always players who end up as good or better in later rounds of drafts as the guys who go #3, #4, or #5.

So of course it helps to draft high. But I'd say there's numerous players per draft that would have positioned the Kings better than Brayden Schenn or Thomas Hickey (one of whom was entirely irrelevant to their Cups, and the other who was used as a single piece in a trade for a player who played a moderately important role in one of them). I think the Penguins win more than just 2009 if they have Giroux or Backstrom over Staal. I think Karl Alzner is trash.

There's just so many different ways to do it, but basically: You need 2 or 3 really, really good players to win a championship, and they need to be surrounded by a strong supporting cast. Picking in the top 5 is a good way to get those really, really good players, but it's not the only way. The Caps are a better argument against your premise than for it: The Cup is hard to win, and they had those blue-chip forwards for more than a decade before they could put together the right blend of teammates and coaching.

 

[bur and 666 others]

You shouldn’t feel bad. It’s the way to win. Personally, I’m going to be furious when San Jose signs Kovalchuk, upgrades on one defenseman, and bows out in the 2nd round yet again. I want them to blow the team up and tank. I wish they would have drafted Barzal in 2015 and then tanked in 2016 instead of making the SCF.

Also, the primary reason Washington doesn’t have more than one Stanley Cup is because a superior tank team (the NHL’s most successful franchise in the Ovechkin era) with 4 back to back top-2 picks knocked off 3 of the 5 strongest Washington teams that have been built in the Ovechkin era.

I thought the caps' win should show that there is no need to blow up everything or even retool, that you can win with the same looser core and even weaker supporting cast. Shouldn't the caps' win give you hope instead that you, guys, can also win even there is no hope? Everyone and their moms were down on the caps this season, so Ovechkin came out and said: "We are not going to suck this season". In every round that we played, everyone was saying to us, that whoever wins this round going to be swept by the next opponent. What I'm saying that this is hockey and there is more unpredictability than anywhere else. You can think and overthink, but you will never know.

 

[member 157595]

In my opinion, repetitive mediocrity is death in a salary-capped NHL. I've lived through it as a fan and I was far more optimistic and excited when my team was at the bottom of the league, selling off veterans and accumulating youth and draft picks. That's not guaranteed to pay off but at least there was hope.

Treading water's not getting anyone from Point A to Point B; it just keeps you alive to tread more water.

 

[treple13]

You need good/great players to win a Cup. Top draft picks are more likely to be good/great players. So yes, I think it is safe to assume that teams that have gotten more top draft picks are more likely to win a Cup.

But saying it as a necessary thing is silly. Most teams have some high picks on the roster. Many of the teams that won a Cup had high picks, but those weren't the main driving force behind their Cups. For the Kings, Kopitar/Brown/Quick aren't Top 5 picks (yes, Doughty is). For Boston, none of their stars were Top 5 picks for them (just Seguin). Washington had Ovechkin, but Kuznetsov, Eller and DSP were are crucial and they weren't top picks.

I'd say there's more correlation between teams winning the Cup being good drafting/developing teams from all rounds rather than just the first round.

 

[cowboy82nd]

I made this thread about a year ago. I talked about how you pretty much need to tank to win in today's NHL and that provides a lack of parity in terms of true championship caliber teams because most management groups aren't given the green light by ownership to conduct a tank. 9 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts. In other words, in order to have more than a 10% chance at winning a Stanley Cup over the last 10 years, you have to be one of 4 different teams that was one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL for multiple seasons between 2004 and now.

Washington just won the Stanley Cup. They drafted Ovechkin #1OV in 2004, and then got their back to back picks in Backstrom at #4OV in 2006 and Karl Alzner at #5 in 2007. Technically, Alzner was totally unnecessary, but the only reason they didn't get a top-5 pick in 2005 is because the entire order of the draft was determined by mostly random variance. Washington was 2nd to last in 2003-2004, 3rd to last in 2005-2006, and 4th from last in 2006-2007. Their 2nd last and 3rd last finish in back to back seasons allowed them to acquire Alexander Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom; two superstars that were completely essential to their success. Alzner is mostly irrelevant outside of establishing the technicality that they had back to back top-5 draft picks but then it's also just a technicality that Ovechkin and Backstrom weren't back to back top-5 draft picks.

I don't want to create a wall of text in the OP, because those tend to not get red. So I'll just throw out some key points.

1. We are only talking Stanley Cup WINNERS. I'm a Sharks fan, so I can tell you as somebody who has experienced both that making the SCF is no better than missing the playoffs. I would have much rather tanked and drafted Auston Matthews in 2016. Please don't bring up 2010 Philadelphia, 2012 NJD, 2014 NYR, 2016 SJS, 2018 VGK, or any other non-tank team that made the SCF and got crushed.

2. Teams like Florida and Arizona trying to tank and failing DOES not disprove my argument whatsoever. Not every team that tanks will win. If I were to say "You have to drink water to survive", you would have to point me to examples of why you can survive without drinking water. You could not say "This guy drank water, and he still died" as disproval of the theory that you have to drink water to survive. That's not how it works.

3. 2011 Boston may or may not be a fluke, but I'm not looking to get into those semantics; you can't reliably build a team around a goaltender having a .940 SV% because that virtually never happens. That is why Boston in 2011 is not a sustainable Stanley Cup Winner.

4. 9 of the last 10 Cup winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts after finishing in the bottom-5 of the NHL's standings in back to back seasons. The last 3 Conn Smythe Winners were first overall picks. 4 of the last 6 Conn Smythe winners were first overall picks. 6 of the last 10 Conn Smythe winners were top-2 picks.

5. The NHL has had 5 Cup Winners over the last 10 years. The NBA has had 6. This league might have more parity amongst playoff teams, playoff series winners, etc., but it is a very very simple mathematical fact that there has been less parity over the last 10 NHL champions than the last 10 NBA champions. I believe a big part of this is because you have to be a bottom-5 team for multiple straight seasons to be successful in the NHL and most owners aren't willing to bite that bullet so most teams can't realistically contend.

6. One final questions for people who believe you can win a Cup without tanking; how many more years of only tank teams winning before you give credence to the idea that maybe you can only win as a tank team?

Who says Florida was tanking? We just sucked all those years.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

You need good/great players to win a Cup. Top draft picks are more likely to be good/great players. So yes, I think it is safe to assume that teams that have gotten more top draft picks are more likely to win a Cup.

But saying it as a necessary thing is silly. Most teams have some high picks on the roster. Many of the teams that won a Cup had high picks, but those weren't the main driving force behind their Cups. For the Kings, Kopitar/Brown/Quick aren't Top 5 picks (yes, Doughty is). For Boston, none of their stars were Top 5 picks for them (just Seguin). Washington had Ovechkin, but Kuznetsov, Eller and DSP were are crucial and they weren't top picks.

I'd say there's more correlation between teams winning the Cup being good drafting/developing teams from all rounds rather than just the first round.

Eller and DSP were bottom-6 players who got hot. They were nowhere near as important as Ovechkin. Kuznetsov also doesn’t put up the numbers he did in the playoffs without Ovechkin.

I thought the caps' win should show that there is no need to blow up everything or even retool, that you can win with the same looser core and even weaker supporting cast. Shouldn't the caps' win give you hope instead that you, guys, can also win even there is no hope? Everyone and their moms were down on the caps this season, so Ovechkin came out and said: "We are not going to suck this season". In every round that we played, everyone was saying to us, that whoever wins this round going to be swept by the next opponent. What I'm saying that this is hockey and there is more unpredictability than anywhere else. You can think and overthink, but you will never know.

The Capitals were blown up in 2003-2004 and 2005-2006. It got them Nicklas Backstrom and Alexander Ovechkin. There is no question that they would not have won a Stanley Cup without those two players and there is no question that those players would not have been available at the Capitals’ drafting position if they were not a bottom-5 team.

Most teams don’t have the luxury of having two top-5 drafted superstars on their roster and so they have to get a player of Ovechkin’s caliber. Because as we saw with Nashville last year and Vegas this year, a team full of pretty good players and no superstar forwards usually gets annihilated by a team with true superstars.

Who says Florida was tanking? We just sucked all those years.

When I say tanking, let’s just assume being a bottom-5 team in the NHL for multiple seasons in a row. It doesn’t have to be as egregious as Buffalo in 2014-2015 or even intentional at all.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

This is sideways to my point here. I am by no means trying to make this a Flyers thing, I bring up Giroux to make this point: He and Backstrom are probably the most naturally comparable players in the league today, in terms of playing style, career length, age, and impact on a game. Similarly-sized pass-first two-way centers (let's not get semantic on that last part) who were drafted in 2006 and have played a similar number of games and have really similar output (Giroux: .289 GPG/.627APG for .917 PPG over 738, Backstrom: .256 GPG/.724APG for .980PPG over 815, Giroux has higher playoff PPG numbers but fewer games).

Not perfect and it's not a "this guy vs. that guy" argument, but it's close enough for this hypothetical: One went #4. One went #22. The Capitals would probably still win a Cup if they just swapped positions that year and grabbed the guy who went #22, and their team is most likely about as good over the past decade-plus and this year. Conversely, if you swapped the 2 players draft positions, no one is seen as making a major mistake and everyone is still happy.

What I am getting at is this: No one disputes the notion, I'll say it again, that having the opportunity to draft no-brainer future Hall of Famers (Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid) gives you a rare opportunity to win Championships. Of course it does! But not every top 5 pick is that guy: Most are just really, really good players (Backstrom, for example). Some aren't even impact players at all! And some of the players you mention weren't actually integral to those eventual Cups, and there's almost always players who end up as good or better in later rounds of drafts as the guys who go #3, #4, or #5.

So of course it helps to draft high. But I'd say there's numerous players per draft that would have positioned the Kings better than Brayden Schenn or Thomas Hickey (one of whom was entirely irrelevant to their Cups, and the other who was used as a single piece in a trade for a player who played a moderately important role in one of them). I think the Penguins win more than just 2009 if they have Giroux or Backstrom over Staal. I think Karl Alzner is trash.

There's just so many different ways to do it, but basically: You need 2 or 3 really, really good players to win a championship, and they need to be surrounded by a strong supporting cast. Picking in the top 5 is a good way to get those really, really good players, but it's not the only way. The Caps are a better argument against your premise than for it: The Cup is hard to win, and they had those blue-chip forwards for more than a decade before they could put together the right blend of teammates and coaching.

Drafting a player like Giroux at #22 in the draft is very very rare. How many centers of his caliber have been drafted outside of the top-5, or top-10, since Giroux was drafted?

However many have been, at least one of them was Evgeny Kuznetsov, who Washington did pick. Do you realize how unrealistic it is to say “Over a 5 year time period, you need to hit on, not one, but two Giroux level centers in the draft. You’ll be drafting #20 overall in the draft.” When a player of that caliber becomes available around #20 only once every 3-4 years, to expect a team to be built around them is completely unrealistic.

In theory, if a team drafts Giroux and Kuznetsov, yeah, they can get a Cup without drafting in the top-5 of back to back years. It’s also unrealistic to suggest that because even in the case of a Kuznetsov who went #27OV, the Flyers didn’t draft until #29 because they were trying to win. You can’t sustainably build a team around drafting Giroux-level centers outside of the top-5 because it happens so rarely and no team has a scouting staff with foresight so perfect that they can make that pick every time. It took 9 drafts for the Flyers to have another chance at a Giroux level center in the draft and they passed on him (Barzal) for Ivan Provorov; a fantastic defenseman in his own right, but not a Giroux level center.

The problem is that nobody’s scouting staff is good enough to pick the Giroux, Kopitar, Barzal, Kuznetsov, Schiefele types every single time they become available outside of the top-5. In addition, not every team that tries to win every year is always going to be in position to pick one of those guys. A sustainable championship team usually has a scouting staff that was able to hit on one of those picks but they also supplant that player with at least one player who they tanked for who is even better.

 

[treple13]

Eller and DSP were bottom-6 players who got hot. They were nowhere near as important as Ovechkin. Kuznetsov also doesn’t put up the numbers he did in the playoffs without Ovechkin.

But that doesn't change the fact that teams need those kinds of players to win a Cup. Washington had Ovechkin/Backstrom for 10 years. Why have they never won a Cup before?

Which of course doesn't discount that star players like Ovechkin can come from anywhere in the draft. Detroit got their star (Datsyuk) with the 171st pick. Calgary came within an inch of winning the Cup with Iginla being their star drafted at 11th overall (and acquired by trade). Anaheim drafted Getzlaf/Perry later in the first round, and got Pronger/Neidermayer/Selanne via trade/UFA.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

But that doesn't change the fact that teams need those kinds of players to win a Cup. Washington had Ovechkin/Backstrom for 10 years. Why have they never won a Cup before?

Which of course doesn't discount that star players like Ovechkin can come from anywhere in the draft. Detroit got their star (Datsyuk) with the 171st pick. Calgary came within an inch of winning the Cup with Iginla being their star drafted at 11th overall (and acquired by trade). Anaheim drafted Getzlaf/Perry later in the first round, and got Pronger/Neidermayer/Selanne via trade/UFA.

Because they ran into stronger versions of the Crosby/Malkin led tanking Penguins. Lars Eller and DSP were not the reason Washington won. Washington won because Ovechkin, Kuznetsov, and Backstrom had 32 goals and 40 assists in the playoffs. Not because of Eller and DSP. Most teams have one or two players like Eller and DSP playing at that level and when they finally lose, it’s because their stars dry up. Ovechkin and Backstrom never dried up because they are superstar talent that would not have been available to Washington if they had not been one of the NHL’s 5 worst teams for multiple seasons in a row.

Players like Ovechkin cannot come from anywhere in the draft. Ovechkin is the greatest goal scorer of all time and a top-10 player of all time. Those players are not available anywhere in the draft. Same goes for Crosby and Malkin.

Detroit is not making those kinds of picks any more because scouting is improving a lot around the league. Detroit refuses to tank to acquire at least one player of Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk’s caliber and they haven’t drafted one player of that caliber in this century which is why they’ve been swimming in below average mediocrity since Lidstrom left.

Anaheim wouldn’t have won without Scott Niedermayer and a player of his caliber hasn’t hit UFA since Niedermayer. A player of Pronger’s caliber hasn’t been traded since Pronger. Elite talent like those two have been getting retained a lot more often by the teams that drafted them as we’ve gone deeper into the salary cap era.

 

[Legion34]

The sharks have literally back to back top 5 picks marleau Thornton. Didn’t help them.

Or do they have to be seperate years? Do you have to draft them yourself?

Leafs had sundin/Nolan

Sundin lindros.

Didn’t help them

 

[Legion34]

Also what???? When did that happen

Ovy was 2004. Backstrom 2006

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

The sharks have literally back to back top 5 picks marleau Thornton. Didn’t help them.

Or do they have to be seperate years? Do you have to draft them yourself?

Leafs had sundin/Nolan

Sundin lindros.

Didn’t help them

JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THOSE PICKS DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE GUARANTEED TO WIN

THE ARGUMENT IS THAT NOT HAVING THOSE PICKS GUARANTEES THAT YOU WILL NOT WIN

In addition, yes, you do have to make the picks yourself and you need to earn them by being terrible. San Jose got a player like Thornton in trade because he was flawed; his flaws followed him to San Jose where he did not win a Cup. Marleau was never the elite franchise player on the level of a Doughty, Toews, Kane, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin.

Also what???? When did that happen

Ovy was 2004. Backstrom 2006

Backstrom and Alzner in 2006 and 2007. But as has been mentioned, the only reason Washington did not also have a top-5 pick in 2005 is because that draft was almost entirely based on random variance due to there being no NHL season in 2004-2005. Washington was one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL for two straight seasons and got two franchise players with no-brainer picks they earned due to those two straight pathetic seasons.

 

[Legion34]

JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THOSE PICKS DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE GUARANTEED TO WIN

THE ARGUMENT IS THAT NOT HAVING THOSE PICKS GUARANTEES THAT YOU WILL NOT WIN

In addition, yes, you do have to make the picks yourself and you need to earn them by being terrible. San Jose got a player like Thornton in trade because he was flawed; his flaws followed him to San Jose where he did not win a Cup. Marleau was never the elite franchise player on the level of a Doughty, Toews, Kane, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin.



Backstrom and Alzner in 2006 and 2007. But as has been mentioned, the only reason Washington did not also have a top-5 pick in 2005 is because that draft was almost entirely based on random variance due to there being no NHL season in 2004-2005. Washington was one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL for two straight seasons and got two franchise players with no-brainer picks they earned due to those two straight pathetic seasons.

But alzner doesn’t play for them? He left for free?

So your argument is that you need top 5 picks in back to back years to win the cup? Even if they don’t play for you?

Huh?? Then Ovy doesn’t even count in your idea. He wasn’t. A top 5 pick in back to back years? Regardless of the lockout. It’s not in the criteria at all.

It’s more like 2004-2008 was a great time to draft high. Acting like any old top 5 picks will do is madness.

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

"They drafted Ovechkin #1OV in 2004"

Actually Washington tanked to get Ovi

Pittsburgh tanked to get Ovechkin.

Just like they tanked to get Le-mux.

Pittsburgh lost the lottery in 2004 and were still compensated with another generational player in Malkin.

Then they won the "lottery" the next year under, let's be charitable, rather unusual circumstances.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Pittsburgh tanked to get Ovechkin.

Just like they tanked to get Le-mux.

Pittsburgh lost the lottery in 2004 and were still compensated with another generational player in Malkin.

Then they won the "lottery" the next year under, let's be charitable, rather unusual circumstances.

Both teams were directly rewarded with generational players in exchange for being one of the very worst teams in the NHL and that is why they have won the last 3 Stanley Cups.

Everybody makes fun of the NBA for the Warriors/Cavs, but the only difference over the last 3 seasons is that Pittsburgh and Washington have met in the 2nd round, rather than the SCF. It’s very possible that if one of Washington or Pittsburgh were in the Western Conference, they would have met in the last 3 Finals.

 

[JD1]

I made this thread about a year ago. I talked about how you pretty much need to tank to win in today's NHL and that provides a lack of parity in terms of true championship caliber teams because most management groups aren't given the green light by ownership to conduct a tank. 9 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts. In other words, in order to have more than a 10% chance at winning a Stanley Cup over the last 10 years, you have to be one of 4 different teams that was one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL for multiple seasons between 2004 and now.

Washington just won the Stanley Cup. They drafted Ovechkin #1OV in 2004, and then got their back to back picks in Backstrom at #4OV in 2006 and Karl Alzner at #5 in 2007. Technically, Alzner was totally unnecessary, but the only reason they didn't get a top-5 pick in 2005 is because the entire order of the draft was determined by mostly random variance. Washington was 2nd to last in 2003-2004, 3rd to last in 2005-2006, and 4th from last in 2006-2007. Their 2nd last and 3rd last finish in back to back seasons allowed them to acquire Alexander Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom; two superstars that were completely essential to their success. Alzner is mostly irrelevant outside of establishing the technicality that they had back to back top-5 draft picks but then it's also just a technicality that Ovechkin and Backstrom weren't back to back top-5 draft picks.

I don't want to create a wall of text in the OP, because those tend to not get red. So I'll just throw out some key points.

1. We are only talking Stanley Cup WINNERS. I'm a Sharks fan, so I can tell you as somebody who has experienced both that making the SCF is no better than missing the playoffs. I would have much rather tanked and drafted Auston Matthews in 2016. Please don't bring up 2010 Philadelphia, 2012 NJD, 2014 NYR, 2016 SJS, 2018 VGK, or any other non-tank team that made the SCF and got crushed.

2. Teams like Florida and Arizona trying to tank and failing DOES not disprove my argument whatsoever. Not every team that tanks will win. If I were to say "You have to drink water to survive", you would have to point me to examples of why you can survive without drinking water. You could not say "This guy drank water, and he still died" as disproval of the theory that you have to drink water to survive. That's not how it works.

3. 2011 Boston may or may not be a fluke, but I'm not looking to get into those semantics; you can't reliably build a team around a goaltender having a .940 SV% because that virtually never happens. That is why Boston in 2011 is not a sustainable Stanley Cup Winner.

4. 9 of the last 10 Cup winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts after finishing in the bottom-5 of the NHL's standings in back to back seasons. The last 3 Conn Smythe Winners were first overall picks. 4 of the last 6 Conn Smythe winners were first overall picks. 6 of the last 10 Conn Smythe winners were top-2 picks.

5. The NHL has had 5 Cup Winners over the last 10 years. The NBA has had 6. This league might have more parity amongst playoff teams, playoff series winners, etc., but it is a very very simple mathematical fact that there has been less parity over the last 10 NHL champions than the last 10 NBA champions. I believe a big part of this is because you have to be a bottom-5 team for multiple straight seasons to be successful in the NHL and most owners aren't willing to bite that bullet so most teams can't realistically contend.

6. One final questions for people who believe you can win a Cup without tanking; how many more years of only tank teams winning before you give credence to the idea that maybe you can only win as a tank team?

I think you are looking at a relatively short sample size and the picks / cups recency thing is a coincidence.

I can go as far back as the early 70s and there are maybe 2 or 3 teams that have won a cup that didn't have at least 2 HoF calibre players in the prime of their careers. An HoF player can come from anywhere in the draft but obviously it is more likely that they come from the top of the draft. I don't think that winning and having those 2 HoF players in their prime is a coincidence, rather I think it is statistically quite obvious. With those two players, regardless of where they were drafted, you have a very good shot at a cup. Without those 2 players, the odds of winning appear to be about 5 % over a sample size 4.5 times what you are talking about.