kingofsurrey Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: Not sure what started this but I'll put in some input. You don't need a top 5 pick to win the cup. It helps for sure but it is not absolutely necessary. Correct , it is not necessary to have a top 5 pick to win the cup....... It just increases your chances greatly...... I concur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiyan Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 26 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Yup there certainly are examples of a few very top picks ( top 5 ) on most Stanley Cup Winners... Chicago - have you heard of Kane and Toews ? Pitsburg - have you heard of their guy Crosby Malkin, and Kessel The strongest case to be made for tanking will have to show that 1.teams that pick at or near the top win the cup and 2. teams that don't win the cup don't pick at or near the top. CrabCakes, in citing the 11 Boston Bruins, is showing a counter example to 1 -- (e.g. here's a team - Boston- that did not pick at or near the top and still won); so, it follows that picking at the top is not a necessary for winning The Cup. For a counter-example to the second part you can look at Edmonton. So many top picks, and such dismal results. I can say (if attendance of the games is any indication) most of the people one these forums would not even be here if the Canucks had followed a similar path as Edmonton (e.g. lets tank and get the top player available). Again, it is obvious, it is not necessarily the case that a team not winning The Cup is the result of not picking at the top. But, we have observed some teams that do pick at the top do win the cup, and some teams that don't pick at the top get stuck in what seems to be perpetual mediocrity; what can be reasonably conclude from all of this? Is it not fair to say that another factor (e.g. proper development of the talent/good coaching/chance) of some players (picked at or near the top/or not) is the real necessity for winning the cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said: Yup there certainly are examples of a few very top picks ( top 5 ) on most Stanley Cup Winners... Chicago - have you heard of Kane and Toews ? Pitsburg - have you heard of their guy Crosby Malkin, and Kessel My claim is that there are very good players picked outside of the top 5, even the 1st round. Nothing outrageous. Don't turn it into something else. I named a few top players on top teams who were drafted late. Panarin and Kunitz are even undrafted. I'm not suggesting that Kane, Toews or Crosby are of no account. This conversation is over. Please don't respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: My claim is that there are very good players picked outside of the top 5, even the 1st round. Nothing outrageous. Don't turn it into something else. I named a few top players on top teams who were drafted late. Panarin and Kunitz are even undrafted. I'm not suggesting that Kane, Toews or Crosby are of no account. This conversation is over. Please don't respond. Come on CC. If you wanted the conversation to end, that's all you should have posted - no rebuttal and then say it's over. That's unfair, don't you think. That's like trading punches. You get an extra shot, and then say it's over. No, you take the final blow if you want to say it's over. Teams need top 5 picks playing key roles to win a Cup. The ONLY example is a Cup winner not following this formula is the Bruins in 2011. And really our team was better, and without bias officiating, and a rash of key injuries, we would have one. Then it would be all teams winning .cups having top five picks playing key roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 59 minutes ago, Kiyan said: The strongest case to be made for tanking will have to show that 1.teams that pick at or near the top win the cup and 2. teams that don't win the cup don't pick at or near the top. CrabCakes, in citing the 11 Boston Bruins, is showing a counter example to 1 -- (e.g. here's a team - Boston- that did not pick at or near the top and still won); so, it follows that picking at the top is not a necessary for winning The Cup. For a counter-example to the second part you can look at Edmonton. So many top picks, and such dismal results. I can say (if attendance of the games is any indication) most of the people one these forums would not even be here if the Canucks had followed a similar path as Edmonton (e.g. lets tank and get the top player available). Again, it is obvious, it is not necessarily the case that a team not winning The Cup is the result of not picking at the top. But, we have observed some teams that do pick at the top do win the cup, and some teams that don't pick at the top get stuck in what seems to be perpetual mediocrity; what can be reasonably conclude from all of this? Is it not fair to say that another factor (e.g. proper development of the talent/good coaching/chance) of some players (picked at or near the top/or not) is the real necessity for winning the cup? This started as a response to a poster who is convinced that without a several very high picks, winning a cup is not possible. I am trying to show that there are plenty of very good players who are picked later in the draft. And I have cited the example of the 2011 Boston Bruins who's core consisted of players drafted outside of the first round. This is an extreme case obviously. I am certainly not suggesting that drafting high should be a model or template for success. What I am saying is that a mid first round pick can become a very good player. Picking 15th OA doesn't condemn a team to a decade of mediocrity. Nobody needs to set their hair on fire if this happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: This started as a response to a poster who is convinced that without a several very high picks, winning a cup is not possible. Very disingenuous post. My post clearly was that top 5 pics are NOT a requirement to win a cup.... ( see 2011 Bruins ) but top pics definately help and most Stanley cup teams have them ( LA, Chicago, Pits from recent years ) Basically top 5 pics increase your odds of winning the cup astronomically. Are you taking your puck home with you now ...... so the game is over..... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said: Very disingenuous post. My post clearly was that top 5 pics are NOT a requirement to win a cup.... ( see 2011 Bruins ) but top pics definately help and most Stanley cup teams have them ( LA, Chicago, Pits from recent years ) Basically top 5 pics increase your odds of winning the cup astronomically. Are you taking your puck home with you now ...... so the game is over..... LOL You're not the poster that I'm referring to Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: You're not the poster that I'm referring to Einstein Well Chaucer maybe if you mentioned the poster or quoted the poster.... Others would be more certain of who you were writing about... Too funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 6 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: You're not the poster that I'm referring to Einstein What movie series was Einstein a doggy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 1 minute ago, Alflives said: What movie series was Einstein a doggy? Back to the future Alf ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Well Chaucer maybe if you mentioned the poster or quoted the poster.... Others would be more certain of who you were writing about... Too funny. Cool it with the Bully tactics. Follow the thread to the beginning. You responded to my first response to another poster. Why should I hold your hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Just now, kingofsurrey said: Back to the future Alf ? Winner...winner...CAT dinner. Skille brings no offence. I wonder if JV gets back in next game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, Alflives said: Winner...winner...CAT dinner. Skille brings no offence. I wonder if JV gets back in next game? Skille is just a big healthier banger body. Brought in for more physical games... Your right.. JV needs to be in . So much more potential to score... Skille is this years Adam Cracknell.... Except Cracknell has 2 goals in 3 games this year with Dallas... Cracker is on pace for a 50 goal season.... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Really... wow. How do you feel about Adam Cracknell ? Do you realize he is on pace right now for 50 goal season in Dallas ? Do you think he will score 50 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiyan Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 On 10/19/2016 at 9:04 PM, Crabcakes said: This started as a response to a poster who is convinced that without a several very high picks, winning a cup is not possible. I am trying to show that there are plenty of very good players who are picked later in the draft. And I have cited the example of the 2011 Boston Bruins who's core consisted of players drafted outside of the first round. This is an extreme case obviously. I am certainly not suggesting that drafting high should be a model or template for success. What I am saying is that a mid first round pick can become a very good player. Picking 15th OA doesn't condemn a team to a decade of mediocrity. Nobody needs to set their hair on fire if this happens. Sorry, I'm a little bit late to the party. I understood the point you were trying to make; I'm in agreement with you and wrote my response with that in mind. I chose tanking as one extreme, versus not-tanking (e.g. try, indiscriminately, to win every single game possible, even if the potential payoff of losing the game is quite obviously more than the potential benefit in edit:losing winning the game) to elucidate a point about picking top players potentially increasing our chances, but not being a necessary or sufficient condition for success. I added the example of Edmonton as a preemptive line of argument against what I considered to be another way to show that tanking (picking at or near the top) is sufficient or necessary for success. In the end, considering that is consistent with what KingOfSurrey says he is arguing, it looks like we're stating the same -I think- self-evident fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 Did Skille take his foot off the pedal once he got signed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Seems to have downshifted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 last three games that Skille has played he has looked like a minor league player that should not be in the AHL.hate this deal thought he would bring a bit more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckledraggin Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Megna and Zalewski both outplayed him this weekend. He doesn't offer much on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 He's been a half decent low dollar 12/13 guy. He hardly merits his own thread though, but I guess he's a roster player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.