Jump to content

Official 2015 NHL Draft Thread

LGR4GM

By LGR4GM
in The Aud Club

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hoss Hall of Famer

Hoss

Posted
Posted

I think you would really have to question the character of any player if 4 months of losing ruins them forever.

 

I've been saying this for a while now. There has been some who have experienced a bit more losing than that, but it's the same point.

TrueBlueGED Hall of Famer

TrueBlueGED

Posted
Posted

If your boss spent four months sh*tting on your desk would you be feeling really upbeat and encouraged about your situation? Because that's what a tank would feel like to these players.

 

No, but I wouldn't be scarred for life either.

darksabre Hall of Famer

darksabre

Posted
Posted

No, but I wouldn't be scarred for life either.

 

That's not the debate. Now everyone knows your boss is okay with sh*tting on everyones desks. Who wants to work for your company now?

TrueBlueGED Hall of Famer

TrueBlueGED

Posted
Posted

That's not the debate. Now everyone knows your boss is okay with sh*tting on everyones desks. Who wants to work for your company now?

 

I suppose I thought the "culture of losing" was exactly that debate--that there is some force that causes people to lose if they have lost before, and it becomes ingrained, preventing winning in the future. Losing begets losing, as Freeman would say. Saying it's about attracting free agents seems like moving the goal posts to me, unless I'm completely off base about what the "culture of losing" means. In any event, plenty of people still want to work here. We got Moulson, McCormick and Gionta to sign (probably) by offering more money/term than anyone else, and we got Gorges to waive his NMC. The proverbial boss just spent a year taking a dump on everyone's desk, and filling vacancies proved to be a non-issue.

SabresBillsFan Second Liner

SabresBillsFan

Posted
Posted (edited)

I also agree with others here is that GM Murray shouldn't be bothered if we don't land 1 or 2 though. He and his scouting staff should be finding NHL talent all thru the draft. Just say this they need to make sure they hit more on these picks than miss. Me personally would like to land McDavid or Eichel who are surefire studs for years to come rather than worry about a player they pick at 5-10 who has a better chance of not being a player that can change the game.

 

People can say what they want about players but as long as their is big money involved any GM can get players as long as the owner wants to throw money around but it's up to great GM's to build thru the draft, make sure these players are developing correctly and making moves thru trades and free agency to put them on a whole nother level.

Edited by SabresBillsFan
Stoner Hall of Famer

Stoner

Posted
Posted

I went searching for a definition of tanking. It has to be more aggressive than what Murray has done. Like when the Pens sent a hot goalie down to the minors late in 83-84 and brought up a human nine-hole. Anyway, I stumbled onto the following. Sure, it's the NBA, but it's still good food for thought.

 

“Tanking simply does not work,” he told me. Nearly 30 years of data tell a crystal-clear story: a truly awful team has never once metamorphosed into a championship squad through the draft. The last team to draft No. 1 and then win a championship (at any point thereafter) was the San Antonio Spurs, which lucked into the pick (Tim Duncan) back in 1997 when the team’s star center, David Robinson, missed all but six games the previous season because of injuries. The teams with the top three picks in any given draft are almost twice as likely to never make the playoffs within four years—the term of an NBA rookie contract, before the player reaches free agency—as they are to make it past the second round.

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/hoop-dreams/358627/

TrueBlueGED Hall of Famer

TrueBlueGED

Posted
Posted (edited)

I went searching for a definition of tanking. It has to be more aggressive than what Murray has done. Like when the Pens sent a hot goalie down to the minors late in 83-84 and brought up a human nine-hole. Anyway, I stumbled onto the following. Sure, it's the NBA, but it's still good food for thought.

 

 

 

 

http://www.theatlant...-dreams/358627/

 

Each year 1 team drafts #1, 4 teams make it past the second round, and 14 teams miss the playoffs entirely. Put another way, every team is more likely to miss the playoffs entirely than to make it beyond the second round.

 

Edit: I'd just like to add that the NBA draft is far more volatile when it comes to talent distribution than the NHL draft. Somebody on Grantland (it may have been Bill Simmons, actually) looked at the NBA draft, and it basically came down to this: the best players are in the lottery picks, but which lottery pick is practically a toss-up. In the NHL draft, on the other hand, there is a clear and consistent dropoff in the probability of the pick producing a high end NHL player after the top-5.

Edited by TrueBluePhD
kas23 Second Liner

kas23

Posted
Posted

 

 

If your boss spent four months sh*tting on your desk would you be feeling really upbeat and encouraged about your situation? Because that's what a tank would feel like to these players.

 

If it meant something bigger for me career-wise or a sizeable raise, I'd be all for it. This happens to everyday people all the time. A tank should be seen as an investment or saving for retirement, painful at first, but paying off dividends in the future.

 

Each year 1 team drafts #1, 4 teams make it past the second round, and 14 teams miss the playoffs entirely. Put another way, every team is more likely to miss the playoffs entirely than to make it beyond the second round.

 

Edit: I'd just like to add that the NBA draft is far more volatile when it comes to talent distribution than the NHL draft. Somebody on Grantland (it may have been Bill Simmons, actually) looked at the NBA draft, and it basically came down to this: the best players are in the lottery picks, but which lottery pick is practically a toss-up. In the NHL draft, on the other hand, there is a clear and consistent dropoff in the probability of the pick producing a high end NHL player after the top-5.

 

Or, what is says to me is that you need both. You grab you generational talent, and if he's surrounded by a decent supportive environment, the sky's the limit. If not, it can easily go either way. And, besides, all this talk has nothing to do with McEichel, as they are a completely different can of worms than just a 1st round pick. For example, no one's going to confuse Reinhart with McDavid.

z-man Prospect

z-man

Posted
Posted

I went searching for a definition of tanking. It has to be more aggressive than what Murray has done. Like when the Pens sent a hot goalie down to the minors late in 83-84 and brought up a human nine-hole. Anyway, I stumbled onto the following. Sure, it's the NBA, but it's still good food for thought.

 

 

 

 

http://www.theatlant...-dreams/358627/

I like to believe that the Colts 2-14 season to get Luck was a tank job by Bill Polian, who took the fall at the end and was "fired" as part of his plan...the perfect crime to segue from the Manning era into the Luck era.
Hoss Hall of Famer

Hoss

Posted
Posted (edited)

I went searching for a definition of tanking. It has to be more aggressive than what Murray has done. Like when the Pens sent a hot goalie down to the minors late in 83-84 and brought up a human nine-hole. Anyway, I stumbled onto the following. Sure, it's the NBA, but it's still good food for thought.

 

 

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/hoop-dreams/358627/

 

That article is about the NBA... In the NHL:

 

From 1997-2007 5 of the 11 first overall picks won the cup (all with the team that drafted them).

 

Guys like Stamkos and Tavares (2008 and 2009) could win one before too long/they retire.

 

In that same span (97-07):

2nd overall picks: 3 of 11 win cups with their draft team (2008's Doughty and 2010's Seguin already did so, too)

 

3rd overall picks: 1 of 11 -- Toews. Only one other one even has a championship (Horton).

 

4th overall picks: 1 of 11 -- Andrew Ladd. None of the rest have championships.

 

5th overall picks: 0 of 11 have won a cup since 1997.

Edited by Tank
dudacek Hall of Famer

dudacek

Posted
Posted

That article is about the NBA... In the NHL:

 

From 1997-2007 5 of the 11 first overall picks won the cup (all with the team that drafted them).

 

Guys like Stamkos and Tavares (2008 and 2009) could win one before too long/they retire.

 

In that same span (97-07):

2nd overall picks: 3 of 11 win cups with their draft team (2008's Doughty and 2010's Seguin already did so, too)

 

3rd overall picks: 1 of 11 -- Toews. Only one other one even has a championship (Horton).

 

4th overall picks: 1 of 11 -- Andrew Ladd. None of the rest have championships.

 

5th overall picks: 0 of 11 have won a cup since 1997.

 

Ah, but how many of those teams actually tanked?

 

(never mind that 10 out 55 chances wouldn't excite anyone other than fans of the Sabres power play)

Hoss Hall of Famer

Hoss

Posted
Posted

 

 

Ah, but how many of those teams actually tanked?

 

(never mind that 10 out 55 chances wouldn't excite anyone other than fans of the Sabres power play)

 

10/55 on the PP would be 16th in the league. :P

 

But that's the variable that can't really be considered. Another: their prospect pools at the time. Were any as good as Buffalo's?

shrader Hall of Famer

shrader

Posted
Posted

Each year 1 team drafts #1, 4 teams make it past the second round, and 14 teams miss the playoffs entirely. Put another way, every team is more likely to miss the playoffs entirely than to make it beyond the second round.

 

Edit: I'd just like to add that the NBA draft is far more volatile when it comes to talent distribution than the NHL draft. Somebody on Grantland (it may have been Bill Simmons, actually) looked at the NBA draft, and it basically came down to this: the best players are in the lottery picks, but which lottery pick is practically a toss-up. In the NHL draft, on the other hand, there is a clear and consistent dropoff in the probability of the pick producing a high end NHL player after the top-5.

 

That and the NBA has such an odd history. Only 5 teams have ever won the NBA title (it's a fact, look it up). Of course the 1st pick isn't going to lead to championships when the same teams win year after year in that league. But then again, that one case they did point out was a team that wound up winning about 15 championships thanks to Duncan.

Randall Flagg Hall of Famer

Randall Flagg

Posted
Posted

That and the NBA has such an odd history. Only 5 teams have ever won the NBA title (it's a fact, look it up). Of course the 1st pick isn't going to lead to championships when the same teams win year after year in that league. But then again, that one case they did point out was a team that wound up winning about 15 championships thanks to Duncan.

what?
shrader Hall of Famer

shrader

Posted
Posted (edited)

Seriously though, I think comparisons across sports are pointless, especially given that the draft system in these two specific leagues are different. The games themselves are very different too. It's crazy to look over that list of national bouncyball association champions though. Is there any other league where two teams account for 50% of all of the championships ever won? I'm assuming that percentage has dropped slightly below 50% in the last couple years, but still, what a crazy number.

Edited by shrader
LastPommerFan First Liner

LastPommerFan

Posted
Posted

Seriously though, I think comparisons across sports are pointless, especially given that the draft system in these two specific leagues are different. The games themselves are very different too. It's crazy to look over that list of national bouncyball association champions though. Is there any other league where two teams account for 50% of all of the championships ever won? I'm assuming that percentage has dropped slightly below 50% in the last couple years, but still, what a crazy number.

 

I know, right? If it were 3 teams that had one 54% of all the Championships ever, that would be acceptable. but 2 teams making up almost 50%, that's just bonkers!

shrader Hall of Famer

shrader

Posted
Posted

I know, right? If it were 3 teams that had one 54% of all the Championships ever, that would be acceptable. but 2 teams making up almost 50%, that's just bonkers!

 

And one of those three hasn't won it since LBJ was president. :D

 

Was the NBA as small as the NHL in it's early days? I have no clue on that one. Oh, and my god, I've taken this thread on a strange tangent.

Samson's Flow First Liner

Samson's Flow

Posted
Posted

And one of those three hasn't won it since LBJ was president. :D

 

Was the NBA as small as the NHL in it's early days? I have no clue on that one. Oh, and my god, I've taken this thread on a strange tangent.

This is far longer than I ever expected an NBA based topic to last here. Usually that is squashed out pretty quickly with a dismissive "who cares about bounceyball?!"

shrader Hall of Famer

shrader

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is far longer than I ever expected an NBA based topic to last here. Usually that is squashed out pretty quickly with a dismissive "who cares about bounceyball?!"

 

I'm sitting on another very unscientific stat that I will take to another thread where it is more appropriate if given the chance.

 

What can I say, it's a slow last work day of 2014.

Edited by shrader
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...