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

[theVladiator]

Nobody else is getting any Cups in the near future, because Oilers.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

You think all those teams tanked? LOL.

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.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

So wait, the Capitals drafted Backstrom and Alzner back-to-back 12 years ago, one of the two is no longer on the team, and that's why they won the cup?

Yeah, that's why I still think you can win the Cup without back-to-back top 5 picks. You murdered your own argument in your first paragraph and a half.

They were one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL in 2003-2004 and were rewarded with Ovechkin. In the very next NHL season, they were one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL, and were rewarded with Backstrom. Those two don’t fit the back to back bill simply because the 2005 draft was not entirely based on standings for the most recent season. As I mentioned, Alzner only stands to strengthen the argument in semantics, but the 2005 draft not being a top-5 pick only stands to weaken the argument in semantics.

I’m also open to the idea that this model can be changed slightly, but I cling harder to the idea that you need to be a very bad team for at least one year in order to acquire legitimate superstar talent at the top of the draft; the kind of legitimate superstar talent that never becomes available. That applies to Patrick Kane, Drew Doughty, Alexander Ovechkin, and Sidney Crosby without question.

 

[Kingspiracy]

The Hickey pick wasn’t entirely worthless because it was another shot and eventually, after enough shots that high, you will score on a superstar like Doughty. If they didn’t pick in the top-5 and immediately brought themselves to a #7-12OV (like modern day Detroit) drafting team after picking Hickey then they would not have won a Stanley Cup.

In addition, they picked Brayden Schenn in the top-5 and he was a key component in the Mike Richards trade and Mike Richards was a key component in their

duh, i forgot about schenn. The hickey pick was a complete waste for us though, trying to be too clever and it bit them in the ass.

 

[Rich Nixon]

They were one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL in 2003-2004 and were rewarded with Ovechkin. In the very next NHL season, they were one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL, and were rewarded with Backstrom. Those two don’t fit the back to back bill simply because the 2005 draft was not entirely based on standings for the most recent season. As I mentioned, Alzner only stands to strengthen the argument in semantics, but the 2005 draft not being a top-5 pick only stands to weaken the argument in semantics.

I’m also open to the idea that this model can be changed slightly, but I cling harder to the idea that you need to be a very bad team for at least one year in order to acquire legitimate superstar talent at the top of the draft; the kind of legitimate superstar talent that never becomes available. That applies to Patrick Kane, Drew Doughty, Alexander Ovechkin, and Sidney Crosby without question.

Man, that was more than 10 years ago, though. Ovechkin is literally the product of a team that sucked a decade and a half ago. The team they defeated in the Final has been around for less than a year. This is silly.

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

Caps were a competitive team for basically most of 20 years (1983-2003) before they finally stumbled and had to rebuild.

They caught zero breaks in their formative years so I don't feel too bad about this. I mean, they even drafted a player who couldn't skate! There was so little talent to go around in 1974 with the NHL expanding and the WHA competing for players.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Man, that was more than 10 years ago, though. Ovechkin is literally the product of a team that sucked a decade and a half ago. The team they defeated in the Final has been around for less than a year. This is silly.

Who cares? They had to suck at some point. They had to be one of the NHL’s 5 worst teams for multiple years at some point in order to acquire Ovechkin and Backstrom; 2 of the 4 most important pieces in their win.

I would get if if we were talking about the Sharks being so terrible in their first 2 seasons because that literally has no correlation with their current roster, but Washington literally had the opportunity to draft Ovechkin and Backstrom because they were a bottom-5 team and Washington literally would not have won without great contributions from Ovechkin and Backstrom. Ovechkin, even after being drafted 14 years ago, was still good enough to win a Richard, Conn Smythe, and be the best left winger in the world. Backstrom was still good enough to score at over a point-per-game rate in the playoffs despite injuries. Who cares how long ago Washington tanked? They could have tanked in 1936 and if they had a 100 year old player that they drafted in the 1936 draft, that was never traded because he was so great that nobody would ever trade him, and that player won the Richard and Smythe and was the best player that season, why would it matter if he was drafted in 1936?

Caps were a competitive team for basically most of 20 years (1983-2003) before they finally stumbled and had to rebuild.

They caught zero breaks in their formative years so I don't feel too bad about this. I mean, they even drafted a player who couldn't skate! There was so little talent to go around in 1974 with the NHL expanding and the WHA competing for players.

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.

 

[AussieCapsFan]

I don't know how far back you are going with this, but I'm pretty sure the Red Wings Cup victory in 2008 proves it is possible (to win without major suckage in the years prior) - they hadn't missed the playoffs for 16 (maybe 17?) years when they won that Cup.

Having said that, I think there is also some truth to your argument - it's definitely very very difficult to win without getting a couple of top 5 draft picks. No doubt about it.

 

[Rich Nixon]

Flyers have a #2 & a #7 and there is one year separating them.
we're ****ed, lads.

Also, Giroux and Backstrom are pretty similar players, style and production-wise, despite going 18 picks apart, and the Flyers also have a top 5 pick within a year of that who is also no longer on the team, so obviously they're impending champs.

 

[Scott Stevens]

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?

If Boston was a fluke, let’s look at Vancouver for that year. They drafted back to back top 5 in 98 and 99. Bryan Allen at 5 in 98 was part of the luongo deal. Does this satisfy what you wanna accomplish here? 98 and 99 back to back top 5 and boom Stanley Cup final a decade and change later.

 

[CashMash]

I don't think there is a set formula. Sure, it helps to get top players, but look at what vegas just did with a first-year team. Also, Washington traded Forsberg for Erat and still landed on their feet, which suggests to me that a team can afford to stumble a couple of times on the road to the cup.

 

[Kuz]

Caps did it without one of the players drafted in the top 5 and they didnt get any return for him. So it clearly is possible to win without back to back top 5 picks. You could also clearly make a case that Hickey and B. Schenn never contributed to anything for LAKs stanley cups and have never delievered as top 5 picks in their careers. So you need good drafting in the 1st round and value picks. Like Kings with Kopitar or Caps with Kuznetsov and Carlson. Elite players late in the 1st round. Its also really few teams that have won the cup the last 10 years(5 teams). So that means 20% of them did it without back to back top 5 picks and then both LAK and Washington only had 1 player in the back to back picks contributing to the cup.

 

[flamesforcup]

Good points op. As a Flames fan makes me sad. While we may have an ok team on paper we need 1 or 2 more elite players like Gaudreau to ever get to be a contender. Makes me sad thinking about it. Maybe we might get lucky with lightning in a bottle like we did in o4 or like Vegas did this year

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Flyers have a #2 & a #7 and there is one year separating them.
we're ****ed, lads.

Also, Giroux and Backstrom are pretty similar players, style and production-wise, despite going 18 picks apart, and the Flyers also have a top 5 pick within a year of that who is also no longer on the team, so obviously they're impending champs.

I don’t think Provorov and Patrick are good enough to be magical fruits acquired from tanking that bring a team into contention, but time will tell.

In theory, a team like Winnipeg that got Laine at #2 and Schiefele at #7 could eventually disprove the pure back to back top-5 model for sure.

I don't know how far back you are going with this, but I'm pretty sure the Red Wings Cup victory in 2008 proves it is possible (to win without major suckage in the years prior) - they hadn't missed the playoffs for 16 (maybe 17?) years when they won that Cup.

Having said that, I think there is also some truth to your argument - it's definitely very very difficult to win without getting a couple of top 5 draft picks. No doubt about it.

That Detroit team was built around 3 elite superstars that were drafted outside the first round. That is happening less and less often as scouting improves and becomes a higher organizational priority around the league. You might get one Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom type in the later rounds. But 3 of them? Absolutely not. To have a trio of the same caliber of Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Lidstrom, you would absolutely need to tank.

In addition, you only need to look at Detroit in 2008 and 2018 to see how things change. Ken Holland is still their GM, and he is trying to build the Wings the same way that he built them in the past; the difference is he isn’t churning out franchise superstars with his late round picks. He is signing pretty good UFAs like Mike Green, Trevor Daley, and Frans Nielsen, which is leaving Detroit to draft around 7th and 12th overall every season. They have one of the worst organizational future outlooks in the NHL right now and I don’t think it will change under this current management.

If Boston was a fluke, let’s look at Vancouver for that year. They drafted back to back top 5 in 98 and 99. Bryan Allen at 5 in 98 was part of the luongo deal. Does this satisfy what you wanna accomplish here? 98 and 99 back to back top 5 and boom Stanley Cup final a decade and change later.

To a certain degree, but Boston also knocked off a tank team in 2011 Tampa.

Also, only the Cup winner matters. My argument is that a GM can’t look at Boston and day “let’s build our team like them” because you can’t predict Tim Thomas. His 2011 regular season + playoffs was the greatest goaltending season of all time, and he was the injured backup in the season prior. That couldn’t have been predicted or sustainably replicated. Similar to Detroit mentioned above, the same GM that built Boston in 2011 is totally failing to build his new team because he is trying to copy a team and winning model that is totally not sustainable or replicable at all.

I could roll a dice at a craps table in Vegas and win some money. I would not be able to sustainably replicate that performance and do it over and over again. Trying to do so, based on my past performance, would ultimately lead to failure. In a similar fashion, Ken Holland (Detroit) and Peter Chiarelli (Boston) are simply unable to replicate what made them successful in the years their team won the Cup; that is why their current teams are doing very poorly.

I don't think there is a set formula. Sure, it helps to get top players, but look at what vegas just did with a first-year team. Also, Washington traded Forsberg for Erat and still landed on their feet, which suggests to me that a team can afford to stumble a couple of times on the road to the cup.

What Vegas did literally does not matter to this discussion because they did not win the Stanley Cup. I do not care if a team wins 82 regular season games and 15 playoff games if they don’t win the Stanley Cup. It is totally possible to fluke your way into a SCF but you will lose to a non-fluke almost every time.

Yes, a team like Washington can stumble on a few questionable trades like the Forsberg one when they have the greatest goal scorer of all time on their roster leading them to a Stanley Cup with a Conn Smythe performance. Teams like Nashville can hit a home run on every questionable trade like Forsberg and Subban and still lose because they don’t have that Hall of Fame caliber player that is nearly impossible to get without a top-5 pick. The Forsberg trade, Washington winning, and Nashville losing totally only strengthens my argument.

 

[Scott Stevens]

I don’t think Provorov and Patrick are good enough to be magical fruits acquired from tanking that bring a team into contention, but time will tell.

In theory, a team like Winnipeg that got Laine at #2 and Schiefele at #7 could eventually disprove the pure back to back top-5 model for sure.



That Detroit team was built around 3 elite superstars that were drafted outside the first round. That is happening less and less often as scouting improves and becomes a higher organizational priority around the league. You might get one Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom type in the later rounds. But 3 of them? Absolutely not. To have a trio of the same caliber of Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Lidstrom, you would absolutely need to tank.

In addition, you only need to look at Detroit in 2008 and 2018 to see how things change. Ken Holland is still their GM, and he is trying to build the Wings the same way that he built them in the past; the difference is he isn’t churning out franchise superstars with his late round picks. He is signing pretty good UFAs like Mike Green, Trevor Daley, and Frans Nielsen, which is leaving Detroit to draft around 7th and 12th overall every season. They have one of the worst organizational future outlooks in the NHL right now and I don’t think it will change under this current management.



To a certain degree, but Boston also knocked off a tank team in 2011 Tampa.

Also, only the Cup winner matters. My argument is that a GM can’t look at Boston and day “let’s build our team like them” because you can’t predict Tim Thomas. His 2011 regular season + playoffs was the greatest goaltending season of all time, and he was the injured backup in the season prior. That couldn’t have been predicted or sustainably replicated. Similar to Detroit mentioned above, the same GM that built Boston in 2011 is totally failing to build his new team because he is trying to copy a team and winning model that is totally not sustainable or replicable at all.

I could roll a dice at a craps table in Vegas and win some money. I would not be able to sustainably replicate that performance and do it over and over again. Trying to do so, based on my past performance, would ultimately lead to failure. In a similar fashion, Ken Holland (Detroit) and Peter Chiarelli (Boston) are simply unable to replicate what made them successful in the years their team won the Cup; that is why their current teams are doing very poorly.



What Vegas did literally does not matter to this discussion because they did not win the Stanley Cup. I do not care if a team wins 82 regular season games and 15 playoff games if they don’t win the Stanley Cup. It is totally possible to fluke your way into a SCF but you will lose to a non-fluke almost every time.

Yes, a team like Washington can stumble on a few questionable trades like the Forsberg one when they have the greatest goal scorer of all time on their roster leading them to a Stanley Cup with a Conn Smythe performance. Teams like Nashville can hit a home run on every questionable trade like Forsberg and Subban and still lose because they don’t have that Hall of Fame caliber player that is nearly impossible to get without a top-5 pick. The Forsberg trade, Washington winning, and Nashville losing totally only strengthens my argument.

I replaced Boston with Vancouver as they played in the final after finishing the regular season tops in gf ga pp and 2nd in pk.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Good points op. As a Flames fan makes me sad. While we may have an ok team on paper we need 1 or 2 more elite players like Gaudreau to ever get to be a contender. Makes me sad thinking about it. Maybe we might get lucky with lightning in a bottle like we did in o4 or like Vegas did this year

Those teams both lost in the SCF so who cares. I feel the same exact way as a Sharks fan. Gaudreau is top-5 superstar level talent but you need a HOF top-5 superstar to win.

 

[Rich Nixon]

They could have tanked in 1936 and if they had a 100 year old player that they drafted in the 1936 draft, that was never traded because he was so great that nobody would ever trade him, and that player won the Richard and Smythe and was the best player that season, why would it matter if he was drafted in 1936?

this is where you turn into a parody, c'mon. My point is that you can get very good players outside of the top 5 over the course of 15 years...I brought up Giroux jokingly earlier, but are the Caps any worse if you swap him for Backstrom? I think they still win a Cup.

Someone brought up an extremely salient point earlier here: There have only been 5 different teams to win the Cup in the past 10 years, and the most recent is your very stretched example. This was also a reset period for the league as it adjusted to a slew of rule modifications and a salary cap that hindered the free agent grab bag that dominated the '90's and early 00's. The cap is way up and the league has adjusted, so I think you'll see this die off a bit.

I mean, if your point is that having exclusive access to potentially-generational players enables success, well, no shit, we all agree. But it is by no means the only route, despite recent happenings.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I replaced Boston with Vancouver as they played in the final after finishing the regular season tops in gf ga pp and 2nd in pk.

this is where you turn into a parody, c'mon. My point is that you can get very good players outside of the top 5 over the course of 15 years...I brought up Giroux jokingly earlier, but are the Caps any worse if you swap him for Backstrom? I think they still win a Cup.

Someone brought up an extremely salient point earlier here: There have only been 5 different teams to win the Cup in the past 10 years, and the most recent is your very stretched example. This was also a reset period for the league as it adjusted to a slew of rule modifications and a salary cap that hindered the free agent grab bag that dominated the '90's and early 00's. The cap is way up and the league has adjusted, so I think you'll see this die off a bit.

I mean, if your point is that having exclusive access to potentially-generational players enables success, well, no ****, we all agree. But it is by no means the only route, despite recent happenings.

Those 3 teams that have 8 of the Cups have the Cups because they sucked. Pittsburgh literally built their entire team around tanking; Crosby and Malkin have been top-5 players since 2008. Fleury was instrumental in all 3 Cups because they wouldn’t have made the playoffs in 2016 without his strong RS. Jordan Staal was an elite 3C in 2009 and got them their #2D for 2016 and #1D for 2017 in Brian Dumolin. Ryan Whitney got them Kunitz who, even after falling off a cliff in 2017, saved them one last time in game 7 against Ottawa. Toews and Kane were superstars even if Toews was overrated. Doughty is the NHL’s 3rd best D from the time he entered the NHL.

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?

Washington isn’t a stretched example at all. They fit the bill by a technicality but when looking at them in merit, with Ovechkin/Backstrom, they only miss the bill entirely due to a technicality as well. They should have drafted top-5 in 2005 as well and had they done so, the 2006 pick wouldn’t have mattered. They aren’t really stretched.

At the end of the day, we just won’t agree. You’re on the optimistic side that still holds hope and if San Jose can’t be the team that disproves the model, I hope that your Flyers are and you can bump this and tell me I’m wrong. I’m not happy that this is the reality. I hate it. But it’s the truth.

 

[flamesforcup]

Those teams both lost in the SCF so who cares. I feel the same exact way as a Sharks fan. Gaudreau is top-5 superstar level talent but you need a HOF top-5 superstar to win.

Ya i just used those as an example because they were kind of lucky. U would need some extra luck to win it all though. Our best chance is having a goaltender put up a performance similar to Tim Thomas in 2011

 

[n00bxQb]

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.

 

[Alwalys]

how about having just the best single player in the finals?

 

[PAZ]

I understand the OP's premise, but it's not a hard and fast rule B2B top 5 picks. Having those picks gives teams the luxury to make mistakes or gamble with the risk of failing and still come out ahead. It also helps building a core that grows together, or using the pick/player as an asset to fill a need. Obviously many other things need to happen in order to win the cup, but those pieces can build a strong foundation to help win the cup.

 

[StatisticsAddict99]

If this is how Stanley Cups worked the Oilers would have been a dynasty.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

causation =/= correlation

 

[BenchBrawl]

I largely agree with OP.As for Boston, take note they had the greatest FA signing ever with Chara.