I don't think they got it

[Harvey Spector]

2 hours ago, GoBoGo53 said:

When was the last time Detroit won a cup? They also had one of the greatest defensemen of all time on their team. You are banking on finding a Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Lidstrom deep in the draft? 

 

All I am saying is look at the RECENT winners. All have one thing in common. Elite players through the top end of the draft.

Who cares about the "recent" winners. Hockey has been around more than 8 years.  Maybe you should cite more examples than teams that have only won a Cup over the last 8 years. And please provide some actual "proof" or "evidence" that Chicago, Pittsburgh and LA actually conspired and "tanked" on purpose to obtain high draft picks in order to build a contender. Those teams were bad for decades. I know cause I watched those bad teams since 1977. 

[Harvey Spector]

48 minutes ago, Baggins said:

LA never intentionally tanked. They got Doughty after a season as we just had. Only they lost the most man games to injury in the league that year if I recall correctly. They had a few injury riddled seasons. Injuries and a few shrewd trades is not the same as tanking. Doughty was their only top five pick when they won the cup.

 

LA is an example of smart drafting, shrewd trading, and signing UFA's to win the cup.

Thank you for actually providing factual "evidence" that LA never intentially tanked, even when they drafted Doughty. 

[Aircool]

 

3 hours ago, 'NucK™ said:

well from 94-'09, they made the finals 6 times, won the cup 4 of those times, and haven't missed the playoffs in my lifetime ('91). so I guess that is why I personally would cite them as a model lol..

 

and also this is pretty much EXACTLY what benning (well mostly ownership actually) is trying to do and what the OP just described..

 

@Riviera82 @richado and I can't find 'NucK™

 

I believe that Detroit is a HORRIBLE example of how to build a cup winning team. Unlike you Riviera, I believe that MOST Canucks fans want to win the cup, then we'll worry about be consistently competitive after that. We've seen our team be in cup finals but never win. I'd like to see our team go over that hump. If the goal were to get bounced in the first round most years, then yes, Detroit is a great example to follow, and Benning is doing a fine job.

 

The two things that differentiated Detroit from being a cup contending team, and being the team that they are now, were Pavel Datsyuk and Nicklas Lidstrom in their primes. These were late picks in an era of drafting where that sort of player can fall through the cracks. It could TOTALLY still happen now, it does, but not with the regularity that HOF players could be found so low in the draft. Furthermore, for one team to find TWO hall of fame players of that caliber, Nicklas Lidstrom being one of the GREATEST defensemen EVER, the odds are pretty minuscule.

 

You see now, ever since Lidstrom has retired, Detroit has been a pretty mediocre team. Let's be honest, they haven't scared anyone for a long time. They've made the playoffs, but it's my opinion that the streak, more specifically the maintaining of the streak, has hurt them. They could have done a full rebuild in the time since Lidstrom has retired, not saying they should have started the year after he did or anything... But that's just trying to put into perspective how long they've been mediocre. They didn't get anything for the Datsyuks and Zetterbergs while they had high value. Can't complain about that, because well they were making the playoffs. 

 

But really, they've been mediocre for quite some time, and they are going to have to rebuild soon, as similar to the Canucks situation, their franchise players have reached and are reaching retirement. At which point, they will fall off a cliff, and we will see Detroit for what it really is. A franchise whose success has been propelled by lucking into multiple Hall of Fame players in draft positions that don't often supply such talent.

 

If you could guarantee me that we would get 2 HOF players, preferably a forward and a defenseman, outside of the first round in the next couple years, then I'd believe in our long term chances of being a cup contender. No such guarantees exist, it's completely a crap-shoot. Benning does scout well, he may pick players he likes, that may have upside. But nobody thinks they are picking a HOF'er when they pick a player outside of the Top-5 or Top-10 really, forget the first round. If you were that sure, you'd trade up.

[Aircool]

21 minutes ago, Harvey Spector said:

Who cares about the "recent" winners. Hockey has been around more than 8 years.  Maybe you should cite more examples than teams that have only won a Cup over the last 8 years. And please provide some actual "proof" or "evidence" that Chicago, Pittsburgh and LA actually conspired and "tanked" on purpose to obtain high draft picks in order to build a contender. Those teams were bad for decades. I know cause I watched those bad teams since 1977. 

 

10 minutes ago, Harvey Spector said:

Thank you for actually providing factual "evidence" that LA never intentially tanked, even when they drafted Doughty. 

I'm not sure he's saying you HAVE to tank. I think the point is more so that people need to start acknowledging on these forums that the most likely way to get ELITE NHL players, is to draft them Top-3 or Top-5 or wherever you think the falloff usually is. In some drafts it's after #1.

 

Also in the salary cap era, Hockey has changed in terms of what it takes to be a winner. If you really think about it, we had a couple surprising winners after the lockout, and then it's been kind of predictable... I don't think we've had a surprising Stanley Cup winner in quite some time. What it takes is ELITE homegrown talent. The easiest way to find that consistently is at the top of the draft. So while he is citing only the last 8 years, I mean the league has changed a lot in the last 11-12. 

 

It's a well-known fact that Pittsburgh has not only once but twice conspired to get the #1 overall pick in the draft. And on two occasions, it's saved their franchise. I'm not sure that Chicago "tanked" to get their high picks, but nobody can deny the value that those picks have had for them. I think, really, people just need to stop being so anti-tank... It's ridiculous. It's OBVIOUSLY a STRONG way to build a team. It takes time, and it's not pretty for the fans... It wouldn't work for every fan base.... It does work in terms of giving you an elite team for a prolonged period of time. 

 

Please don't cite Edmonton as some counter-example... I think if you take the most mismanaged team in a league over a ten-year period that never hits with a single draft pick outside of the Top-5 really.... *excluding Eberle* no matter what their strategy is; they'd be bad.

 

[Mathew Barzal]

More than one way to skin a cat.

 

I still see no game changing players in our pool. Just some solid bottom nine depth. Until I see that future first line fill out I'm content to remain skeptical.

[kylecanuck]

Im pretty sure Pittsburgh litterally won the lottery when they drafter crosby first over all. The previous year was a lock out season and every team was given the same odds at number one. 

 

I dont think Malkin was a first over all, as Ovechkin was in 2005. That means no tank for him either. 

 

 

Maybe Pittsburgh has tanked in the past to get the first over all, but you can't say they did it to win the crosby sweep stakes. 

 

 

All im saying is tanking doesnt always get you some of the best players. Sometimes luck... Hell its always luck, just wait and see if we get any with the prospects we have. 

[SaintPatrick33]

Just now, kylecanuck said:

Im pretty sure Pittsburgh litterally won the lottery when they drafter crosby first over all. The previous year was a lock out season and every team was given the same odds at number one. 

 

I dont think Malkin was a first over all, as Ovechkin was in 2005. That means no tank for him either. 

 

 

Maybe Pittsburgh has tanked in the past to get the first over all, but you can't say they did it to win the crosby sweep stakes. 

 

Yep they only really tanked in 84 to get Lemieux, in fact there are documentaries on it. Crosby was just pure luck, and when they got Gino they just plain sucked. 

 

In fact the only true "tankers" I have seen were the 84 pens, and the recent Oilers/Sabres for McDavid sweepstakes, plus just this year the leafs by putting out an AHL worthy club. 

 

Tanking will not work with the new lottery system set up. 

[kylecanuck]

Im very happy with the new set up, makes it much less appealing to show a ugly face to the league and your fans by tanking just to potentially fall outside of the top few still. 

[-AJ-]

3 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Detroit did it on the backs of the Russian 5 veteran players, plus 2 lucky late picks in the draft. Since then times have been a lot tougher for the Wings. They never developed the backbone of the team ie the Russians they came already made. Now that Dtsyuk is gone they'll only have Zettersburg from that era and then that's it. Then ..... then ....start to judge Holland

They've drafted a lot more than Datsyuk and Zetterberg in later rounds.

 

Franzen - 97th (2004)

Filppula - 95th (2002)

Holmstrom - 205th (1994)

Hudler - 58th (2002)

Helm - 132nd (2005)

Abdelkader - 42nd (2005)

Ericsson - 291st (2002)

Howard - 64th (2003)

Osgood - 54th (1991)

Tatar - 60th (2009)

Sameulsson - 145th (1998)

Mrazek - 141st (2010)

Nyquist -  121st (2008)

 

When you have drafting like that in later rounds, tanking is unnecessary.

[Harvey Spector]

32 minutes ago, Aircool said:

 

 

@Riviera82 @richado and I can't find 'NucK™

 

I believe that Detroit is a HORRIBLE example of how to build a cup winning team. Unlike you Riviera, I believe that MOST Canucks fans want to win the cup, then we'll worry about be consistently competitive after that. We've seen our team be in cup finals but never win. I'd like to see our team go over that hump. If the goal were to get bounced in the first round most years, then yes, Detroit is a great example to follow, and Benning is doing a fine job.

 

The two things that differentiated Detroit from being a cup contending team, and being the team that they are now, were Pavel Datsyuk and Nicklas Lidstrom in their primes. These were late picks in an era of drafting where that sort of player can fall through the cracks. It could TOTALLY still happen now, it does, but not with the regularity that HOF players could be found so low in the draft. Furthermore, for one team to find TWO hall of fame players of that caliber, Nicklas Lidstrom being one of the GREATEST defensemen EVER, the odds are pretty minuscule.

 

You see now, ever since Lidstrom has retired, Detroit has been a pretty mediocre team. Let's be honest, they haven't scared anyone for a long time. They've made the playoffs, but it's my opinion that the streak, more specifically the maintaining of the streak, has hurt them. They could have done a full rebuild in the time since Lidstrom has retired, not saying they should have started the year after he did or anything... But that's just trying to put into perspective how long they've been mediocre. They didn't get anything for the Datsyuks and Zetterbergs while they had high value. Can't complain about that, because well they were making the playoffs. 

 

But really, they've been mediocre for quite some time, and they are going to have to rebuild soon, as similar to the Canucks situation, their franchise players have reached and are reaching retirement. At which point, they will fall off a cliff, and we will see Detroit for what it really is. A franchise whose success has been propelled by lucking into multiple Hall of Fame players in draft positions that don't often supply such talent.

 

If you could guarantee me that we would get 2 HOF players, preferably a forward and a defenseman, outside of the first round in the next couple years, then I'd believe in our long term chances of being a cup contender. No such guarantees exist, it's completely a crap-shoot. Benning does scout well, he may pick players he likes, that may have upside. But nobody thinks they are picking a HOF'er when they pick a player outside of the Top-5 or Top-10 really, forget the first round. If you were that sure, you'd trade up.

Nick Lidstrom was drafted in the third round, he wasn't a "late" pick. Any team could have drafted him. It's not like Detroit had some secret inside info and waited till the last round to draft him. And to suggest that Detroit's entire success over a 25 year period is "solely" based on "lucking" out in drafting two hall of famers is laughable.  It's like every time a successful team drafts a stud outside the second round it's called luck or a fluke. If it's luck then why is it the same teams that keep drafting these gems in the later rounds?  Maybe it's because some GM's know what their doing and draft for potential on guys they think can play above their draft position while other GM's like Mike Milbury etc are just donkeys that simply don't know how to draft. 

 

Detroit has been successful these past 25 yearsamd and a model franchise for the NHL for a number of reasons, Steve Yzerman being one big reason. Ken Holland's incredible scouting and drafting is another.  Also Ken Holland made some shrewd trades and free agent pick ups to acquire additional pieces to his teams to build a dynasty and multiple Stanley Cup winner. Brendan Shanahan, Igor Larionov, Kirk Maltby, Kris Draper, Larry Murphy, Mike Vernon and Bob Rouse. These are 7 key guys to Degroit's back to back Stanley Cup winning teams in 1997-98, all acquired via grade or free agency. Not to mention guys like Sergei Fedorov, Chris Osgood, Slava Kozlov, Thomas Holmstrom, Mathieu Dandenault, Darren McCarty and Anders Erikkson who were all drafted outside the top 20.  

 

In 2002 same thing. Dominik Hasek, Steve Duchesne, Chris Chelios, Luc Robitaille, Brett Hull, Boyd Devereaux, all guys acquired via trade or free agency to help win another Cup.  Jiri Fischer was a solid draft pick outside the top 20. 

 

In 2008 same thing, picked up stud Brian Rafalski as a UFA, drafted Jiri Hudler, Johan Franzen and Niklas Krownwall all outside the top 20. 

 

I could go go on and on but I'm pretty sure even the average hockey fan watching all those teams like I did will realize how Detriot was built into a powerhouse for so many years because of their shrewd drafting and trading and free agent signings. To suggest they made the playoffs for 25 straight years and made 6 finals and won 4 Cups because they got "lucky" and "Flukey" out a couple hall of famers in the later rounds is quite laughable and quite disrespectful to such a great organization and shows complete ignorance on how Detriot actually became successful. 

 

And to say well they've now been mediocre for some time so they should have just thrown their 25 year blueprint for success out the window and pull a Toronto by grading all their aging vets and basically tanking and pull a Toronto again is laughable. If your successful for such a long time then you obviously know what you are doing and you don't have to fix it like Toronto did because they kept hiring incompetent people. Ken Holland didn't become stupid overnight. Teams go through cycles. You can't be on top every year forever. Detriotbis in a cycle now where they are losing some vets and adding some new pieces. Ken Hollad is currently retooling his team which takes time. It does t happen overnight. But if there is one thing I know it is this. Ken Holland would never purposely tank to get a high draft pick. He never has and never will. 

[wai_lai416]

6 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Now this draft with Juolevi, maybe some others pan out, but including Boeser, Trymakin, Demko, McCann and Virtannen, that's a starting line up in 3 years. 6 bonified NHL players coming up through our system, with 2-3 more potential wild cards. 

none of the players you listed are bonafide players in the NHL yet.. if you are basing on talents and draft position.. then every prospect is a bonafide nhl player coming up the system... i'd wait a few more years for the players to have couple years in the NHL before i rate JB.. 

[Harvey Spector]

1 hour ago, Aircool said:

 

I'm not sure he's saying you HAVE to tank. I think the point is more so that people need to start acknowledging on these forums that the most likely way to get ELITE NHL players, is to draft them Top-3 or Top-5 or wherever you think the falloff usually is. In some drafts it's after #1.

 

Also in the salary cap era, Hockey has changed in terms of what it takes to be a winner. If you really think about it, we had a couple surprising winners after the lockout, and then it's been kind of predictable... I don't think we've had a surprising Stanley Cup winner in quite some time. What it takes is ELITE homegrown talent. The easiest way to find that consistently is at the top of the draft. So while he is citing only the last 8 years, I mean the league has changed a lot in the last 11-12. 

 

It's a well-known fact that Pittsburgh has not only once but twice conspired to get the #1 overall pick in the draft. And on two occasions, it's saved their franchise. I'm not sure that Chicago "tanked" to get their high picks, but nobody can deny the value that those picks have had for them. I think, really, people just need to stop being so anti-tank... It's ridiculous. It's OBVIOUSLY a STRONG way to build a team. It takes time, and it's not pretty for the fans... It wouldn't work for every fan base.... It does work in terms of giving you an elite team for a prolonged period of time. 

 

Please don't cite Edmonton as some counter-example... I think if you take the most mismanaged team in a league over a ten-year period that never hits with a single draft pick outside of the Top-5 really.... *excluding Eberle* no matter what their strategy is; they'd be bad.

 

The ONLY time Pittsburgh has ever tanked was for Lemieux, a once in a century type player. When was the other time?  What proof is there?

 

The salary cap was introduced in 2005. That means Detroit won multiple cups without a cap and with a cap. So the cap is irrelevant in terms of their success. They proved they could win a cup with or without a cap. Sure the game has changed with the introduction of the cap. It doesn't mean the only way to win is to tank. And of course you get higher end players at the top of the draft. That's how the draft is set up, to give $&!#ty teams a chance to get better. Problem is when you have $&!#ty management for years and years like Edmonton and Toronto it doesn't matter how many high end picks you get. You're stil gonna suck. 

 

The whole argument that you need to collect top 3 picks in order to win a Cup and that no team has ever won without top 3 picks is stupid. EVERY team in the NHL at some point in their existence has drafted in the top 3. That's because every team at some point has sucked. Even Detroit sucked for a long time before Ken Holland arrived. They had lots of top 10 picks in the 1970's and 1980's that they pissed away. The other problem with this theory is that there are teams which have had multiple top 3 picks who have NOT won a Cup. Vancouver being one of them. Washington another. So how do you explain that?  These teams did the right thing, tanking as you call it, getting these high picks and still no Stanley Cup. Why not?  Because you need much more than two top end players to win a Cup. If you don't believe me ask the Sedins. Every team at some point over the last 45 years has had a chance at multiple top 3 picks. So the theory that you have to tank and acquire top 3 picks to win a Cup is nonsense and a fallacy.  Every team has had a chance to acquire these high end picks. It's the teams that have had great GM's who have built around these core players that have won the Cups. 

[lmm]

2 hours ago, Stelar said:

How about Carolina, Columbus, Buffalo and Arizona.  Group them in with Edmonton on how sucking doesn't help you rebuild.

 I think even those of us that believe in the tank will admit that getting a high pick is not a guarrentee of picking a `LEADER of MEN` type player.  While dicussing the high picks that win and those that don`t, often what is overlooked is whether the players have that quality.  GoBoGo lists Malkin, Fleury and Crosby, Toews and Kane, and Doughty. Of those players which ones are `can`tlive without playersÉ I am sure many teams would trade for Malkin, (and he would automatically be the 1st line center) but would he be able to lead another team to the promise landÉ  If Kane and Toews were split up would they both be able to lead their teams to cup winsÉ

(anyone know how to get away from this silly blue shiftÉ, my appologies for the weird punctuation)

 

Looking at the teams you listed, Carolina won a Cup with Eric Staal as a high scoring 20 year old, and have hitched their wagon to him ever since but have floundered. Columbus, Nash then Johannson. Buffalo, a number of players that failed, maybe Eichel is the one. Arizona has been all about Shane Doan for 20 years, while Edmonton tried Nug, Hall, and Yak but possibly have stumbles onto McD.

I mentioned earlier that Boston picked both Thornton and Kessel but traded them both, presumably because they lacked that quality.  They both could score but neither were on their Cup team. 

We need picks for sure, but what we really need from JB is quick accurate decisions. Is Brock Boeser the next Pat Kane or the next Rick Nash é. Is Juolevi the next Doughty or the next Oleg Tevordovski É  The next Tevordovski is fine, provided he gets traded for the next Teemu Selanne.

 

[Phat Fingers]

6 hours ago, Fanuck said:

It's not been a secret,  JB has said from day 1 he wants to build through the draft and that's how teams can stay competitive in today's NHL.

 

I don't see the revelation with this theory,  it's been well documented. 

 

Hopefully in 3-5 years there's 14-16 guys, if not more,  on the roster who were acquired via the draft. 

I am referring to the media manly and those that regurgitate their message.  This is the anti-tank message, and how JB method is different from the method now employed by the Leafs et al.  

 

Most media seems to not understand Vancouver's moves this off season, yet as you seem to agree, it is pretty clear. 

 

Thanks

EW 

[Phat Fingers]

6 hours ago, Canuck_in_AB said:

Might want to keep in mind we no longer have McCann..  But yes, he will have an NHL career.

McCann returned us a top 4 RHD defender.  He was an asset to the organization. What did Cody Hogdkin (sp) garner us?  

 

McCann is going to be a player at the NHL level, JB decided that he needed Gudbranson more. 

[Aircool]

5 minutes ago, Harvey Spector said:

The ONLY time Pittsburgh has ever tanked was for Lemieux, a once in a century type player. When was the other time?  What proof is there?

 

The salary cap was introduced in 2005. That means Detroit won multiple cups without a cap and with a cap. So the cap is irrelevant in terms of their success. They proved they could win a cup with or without a cap. Sure the game has changed with the introduction of the cap. It doesn't mean the only way to win is to tank. And of course you get higher end players at the top of the draft. That's how the draft is set up, to give $&!#ty teams a chance to get better. Problem is when you have $&!#ty management for years and years like Edmonton and Toronto it doesn't matter how many high end picks you get. You're stil gonna suck. 

 

The whole argument that you need to collect top 3 picks in order to win a Cup and that no team has ever won without top 3 picks is stupid. EVERY team in the NHL at some point in their existence has drafted in the top 3. That's because every team at some point has sucked. Even Detroit sucked for a long time before Ken Holland arrived. They had lots of top 10 picks in the 1970's and 1980's that they pissed away. The other problem with this theory is that there are teams which have had multiple top 3 picks who have NOT won a Cup. Vancouver being one of them. Washington another. So how do you explain that?  These teams did the right thing, tanking as you call it, getting these high picks and still no Stanley Cup. Why not?  Because you need much more than two top end players to win a Cup. If you don't believe me ask the Sedins. Every team at some point over the last 45 years has had a chance at multiple top 3 picks. So the theory that you have to tank and acquire top 3 picks to win a Cup is nonsense and a fallacy.  Every team has had a chance to acquire these high end picks. It's the teams that have had great GM's who have built around these core players that have won the Cups. 

So your counter-argument to the value of Top-3 picks is that some teams who get them don't win? I can't decide if you are making this horrible argument to be a contrarian or if you really believe it... 

 

Winning the Stanley Cup is hard, I use the simple example. If Pittsburgh took Toews instead of Jordan Staal... What is Chicago over the last 10 years? If teams with Top-3 picks are beating out other teams with Top-3 picks for the cup... that means picking Top-3 is useless? Don't even try to defend this position, I don't know how you even wrote your last paragraph... You are not this stupid.

 

We know that we generally need an all-star center, defenseman and probably an all-star goalie to win the cup, plus high level player around all of that, to win a cup... I'm sure you could poke holes in this statement all day, but I'm just trying to say that you generally need some ELITE players at different positions. The way to get these players with the highest probability is to draft them with high draft choices. That doesn't mean these players don't go later in the draft yada yada... but with lower probability. The true worth of GMs is in finding the supporting cast and making it all work under the cap. No team is going to win the Stanley Cup without multiple all-star caliber players though... You need quality players and as you see for Detroit and Vancouver, who are both running out of those all-star players as they retire, they are EXTREMELY hard to replace without high draft choices. Dylan Larkin was a nice pick by Detroit, but really only made the All-Star game because each team got a representative.... He has the potential to be that kind of player for Detroit though. Still, Detroit isn't replacing those players at the rate they are losing them. And in this cap era, it's better to get those quality of players in bunches, so that you can take advantage of a competitive window, while they are young and improving and their salary is manageable. Hence, I believe that there is merit to tanking, when you actually know how to draft, unlike Edmonton.

 

 

[Phat Fingers]

5 hours ago, Jam126 said:

So are the Blue Jackets, Coyotes, Panthers and Avalanche?

Toronto gave up all its current assests to put a horrible product on the ice. 

 

We had little depth due to not having drafted well for a decade and got decimated by injuries. 

 

The point I am trying to get at, is that even with recent cup winning teams, there is a different model, the Detriot way, is one. 

 

Boston is another. Stay competitive, flip assets for more picks when you get enough stockpiled. Keep feeding the pipeline, allow our young players to mature.  

 

Most importantly, keep picking up talent at the draft, no matter where you pick. With a keen eye, and good development, that overlooked player can be better than many taken before him. 

 

JB seems to already be reaping rewards from this approach. So you as a fan want a decade of darkness for one shining moment?  Sign me up for the Boston/Detriot method. 

 

EW 

 

[Harvey Spector]

24 minutes ago, Aircool said:

So your counter-argument to the value of Top-3 picks is that some teams who get them don't win? I can't decide if you are making this horrible argument to be a contrarian or if you really believe it... 

 

Winning the Stanley Cup is hard, I use the simple example. If Pittsburgh took Toews instead of Jordan Staal... What is Chicago over the last 10 years? If teams with Top-3 picks are beating out other teams with Top-3 picks for the cup... that means picking Top-3 is useless? Don't even try to defend this position, I don't know how you even wrote your last paragraph... You are not this stupid.

 

We know that we generally need an all-star center, defenseman and probably an all-star goalie to win the cup, plus high level player around all of that, to win a cup... I'm sure you could poke holes in this statement all day, but I'm just trying to say that you generally need some ELITE players at different positions. The way to get these players with the highest probability is to draft them with high draft choices. That doesn't mean these players don't go later in the draft yada yada... but with lower probability. The true worth of GMs is in finding the supporting cast and making it all work under the cap. No team is going to win the Stanley Cup without multiple all-star caliber players though... You need quality players and as you see for Detroit and Vancouver, who are both running out of those all-star players as they retire, they are EXTREMELY hard to replace without high draft choices. Dylan Larkin was a nice pick by Detroit, but really only made the All-Star game because each team got a representative.... He has the potential to be that kind of player for Detroit though. Still, Detroit isn't replacing those players at the rate they are losing them. And in this cap era, it's better to get those quality of players in bunches, so that you can take advantage of a competitive window, while they are young and improving and their salary is manageable. Hence, I believe that there is merit to tanking, when you actually know how to draft, unlike Edmonton.

 

 

Yes my argument is that some teams who get top end talent still don't win a cup. I provided you with two teams as an example of that.  Washington drafts a once in a generation player and they can't win a cup. Why not?  Also even if you have high picks you have to make sure you pick the right guy. Does Chicago win a cup if Pittsburgh drafts Toews?  No they got lucky cause he fell to them.  And what about the drafts where the top end players suck. You think tanking for Nail Yakupov would have been a great idea?

 

The whole tanking argument is pure fiction. No one on here has yet been able to provide evidence that Chicago, Pittsburgh (other than for Lemieux) and LA purposely tanked to acquire top 3 picks. And the teams that did recently, Buffalo and Toronto, have no history yet and have not proven that it works. And Buffalo tanked for McDavid and lost the lottery so had to settle for Eichel, nice consolation prize but still not McDavid  Also, even if you did purposely tank you'd have to make sure it was the right year where a stud player to two are available at the top, not a Nail Yakupov. 

 

Like I said every team in the NHL at some point has had a chance to acquire a top 3 pick on multiple occasions. Some that have have won cups and others haven't. Which proves you need to do more than just collect a couple top 3 picks in order to win a cup. Pittsburgh doesn't win the cup this year without making trades to acquire their entire 3rd line. But people are gonna say they won a the cup because of Crosby and Malkin, which is not true. Sure they helped but their 3rd line pushed them over the top. 

[linden17]

7 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

I'm a fan of JB. I think the Canucks are in a good spot and last year was a very off year with all of the injuries. Hopefully they stay healthy this year. In two years JB drafted Virtanen, McCann, Demko, Tryamkin and Boeser (sniped him at #23). He also picked up Larsen, Rodin, Stecher and Garteig. Traded an entitled McCann for a giant RHD who's only 24. Then drafted Juolevi who will one day be a #1LD, a champion in the OHL and the world stage. And just recently signed a veteran, Swedish, 30 goal scorer who's got experience playing with the Sedins. Brilliant.

 

He hasn't been perfect, not sure if there is a GM out there who is. Not sold on losing Shinkaruk for Granlund, but it'll take time to really be able to assess that trade. As far as Kassian, his hands were tied, Kass had a problem that wasn't being treated successfully, so JB got what he could. I'm sure MTL fans aren't thrilled they traded away a fan favorite (Prust) for a drunk. Kesler was an issue at the beginning of his GM reign, so he traded him for what turned out to be Sutter, Sbisa, Gudbranson and Dorsett. Not too shabby, considering he had one team to trade him too.

 

I give JB an A so far.   

agree with you almost 100% besides the disrespect to calling kassian a drunk. just seemed a bit too much. plus prust kind of showd he wasnt a team player. but yeah you totally nailed it on everything else.

 

[cripplereh]

this is what he said when he came in and now we can clearly see what his plan was and is and I for one am happy we got him instead of someone else!!!