Flames & Losing For Higher Draft Order.

[SheriforPM]

The draft is skewed to reward failure. Talk about parity all you want but the Oilers with three first overalls still suck. Islanders even with Tavares suck. 

Then what about the Avs? They were definitely not a bottom dwelling team, but they tanked. So badly that their tender called them out on it. 

The result? First overall pick.

I'm with Peeps on this one. There are more ways to increase parity in the league than just the draft. With the parity of the dollar, cap and FA, the current draft system is just a left over that needs to be addressed.

[CheersMan]

It's really just an illusion that people get that championship teams are built by one superstar, and the number 1 pick will take you straight to the cup.  Food for thought, since 1990 only 4 number 1's have won a cup, (Kane, Crosby, Fleury and Lecavalier).  

 

You can interpolate the stats any way you want.  What you say is true, however there is another way of looking at it.  Let’s look at your four particular players drafted 1/1 over a 10 year period between 1998-2007.  It would be unfair to include players drafted 1/1 post 2007 as they and their teams may have yet to peak.  These players include Stamkos, Tavares, Hall, RNH, Yakupov and MacKinnon.  I’m guessing many of these players have Cups in their future.  We won’t mention the players drafted immediately behind them either that have already won Cups or been to the finals like Doughty, Seguin x 2.

 

Yes, there were only 4 players drafted 1/1 to win Cups during this 10 year period but you fail to recognize that players drafted immediately behind them which also won Cups as well, like Staal and Horton in 03.  This now brings your Cup winners to 6.  Horton was a Cup finalist again in 05 so now 7 players who were drafted 1/1 or immediately behind over a 10 year period have won Cups or been to the finals.  That’s pretty good odds……….No?

 

To all those who argue black is white and white is black, face it, picking first or as near the top increased your odds of winning the Cup drastically.

[tmac70]

Is that a fault of the draft or a fault of poor management? 

 

So if everyone has the same playing field and rules how much more parity can you get. The rules apply to everyone, just because some organizations can put forth a competitive team regularly isn't at fault of the system as it is an organization defect. 

 

The draft is skewed to reward failure. Talk about parity all you want but the Oilers with three first overalls still suck. Islanders even with Tavares suck. 

Then what about the Avs? They were definitely not a bottom dwelling team, but they tanked. So badly that their tender called them out on it. 

The result? First overall pick.

I'm with Peeps on this one. There are more ways to increase parity in the league than just the draft. With the parity of the dollar, cap and FA, the current draft system is just a left over that needs to be addressed.

[The_People1]

It's really just an illusion that people get that championship teams are built by one superstar, and the number 1 pick will take you straight to the cup.  Food for thought, since 1990 only 4 number 1's have won a cup, (Kane, Crosby, Fleury and Lecavalier).  

 

You should probably add Quebec Nordiques #1 pick Eric Lindros to be fair.  They won Cups after drafting him and managing him as an asset.  Moreover, since post lockout, 7 of the 8 teams who won the Stanley Cup either had a 1st overall or a 2nd overall.

 

2006 - Carolina Hurricane - Erik Staal #2

2007 - Anahiem Ducks - Chris Pronger #2

2008 - Detroit Red Wings - none

2009 - Pittsburgh Penguins - Crosby #1, Fleury #1, Malkin #2

2010 - Chicago Blackhawks - Kane #1

2011 - Boston Bruins - Seguin #2

2012 - Los Angeles Kings - Doughty #2

2013 - Chicago Blackhawks - Kane #1

 

What I can concede from this sample size is that sometimes a #2 overall is more than enough.  This list gets even bigger when including top 10 picks.  When talking about post-2004 lockout (the real Modern Era) There is a signifant relationship between drafting as high as possible and winning a Stanley Cup.

[tmac70]

From your chart Pronger was drafted by Hartford in 1993, Seguin came to Boston via a trade with Toronto. If you take the duplication out of the Hawks winning twice your at 50%. 

 

The proper team construction is based on the process of a whole, asset management, drafting, coaches and GM's, not just solely on the #1 or #2 in the draft. My whole point of this it is a combination of every thing not a decided factor of one out weighs the other on the scale of balance. 

 

 

 

You should probably add Quebec Nordiques #1 pick Eric Lindros to be fair.  They won Cups after drafting him and managing him as an asset.  Moreover, since post lockout, 7 of the 8 teams who won the Stanley Cup either had a 1st overall or a 2nd overall.

 

2006 - Carolina Hurricane - Erik Staal #2

2007 - Anahiem Ducks - Chris Pronger #2

2008 - Detroit Red Wings - none

2009 - Pittsburgh Penguins - Crosby #1, Fleury #1, Malkin #2

2010 - Chicago Blackhawks - Kane #1

2011 - Boston Bruins - Seguin #2

2012 - Los Angeles Kings - Doughty #2

2013 - Chicago Blackhawks - Kane #1

 

What I can concede from this sample size is that sometimes a #2 overall is more than enough.  This list gets even bigger when including top 10 picks.  When talking about post-2004 lockout (the real Modern Era) There is a signifant relationship between drafting as high as possible and winning a Stanley Cup.

[The_People1]

From your chart Pronger was drafted by Hartford in 1993, Seguin came to Boston via a trade with Toronto. If you take the duplication out of the Hawks winning twice your at 50%. 

 

The proper team construction is based on the process of a whole, asset management, drafting, coaches and GM's, not just solely on the #1 or #2 in the draft. My whole point of this it is a combination of every thing not a decided factor of one out weighs the other on the scale of balance. 

 

In case you missed the entire thread, my stance all along has been to construct a team based on all those processes you speak of.  We do not differ in opinion there.  Where we differ in opinion, and as supported by statistics, drafting as high as possible can be extremely beneficial to a team's future.  It's one benefit worth attaining through any means necessary.

[tmac70]

Drafting high as I just pointed out is 50% chance, when you adjust your stats accurately. I think we both agree it is more than one single item that tips the scale. 

 

As with the benefit of attaining a draft choice, I an advocate of  a high draft choice but not at the cost of integrity of my organization or the league, i cant agree with that. 

In case you missed the entire thread, my stance all along has been to construct a team based on all those processes you speak of.  We do not differ in opinion there.  Where we differ in opinion, and as supported by statistics, drafting as high as possible can be extremely beneficial to a team's future.  It's one benefit worth attaining through any means necessary.

[Flyerfan52]

You should probably add Quebec Nordiques #1 pick Eric Lindros to be fair.  They won Cups after drafting him and managing him as an asset.  Moreover, since post lockout, 7 of the 8 teams who won the Stanley Cup either had a 1st overall or a 2nd overall.

 

2006 - Carolina Hurricane - Erik Staal #2

2007 - Anahiem Ducks - Chris Pronger #2

2008 - Detroit Red Wings - none

2009 - Pittsburgh Penguins - Crosby #1, Fleury #1, Malkin #2

2010 - Chicago Blackhawks - Kane #1

2011 - Boston Bruins - Seguin #2

2012 - Los Angeles Kings - Doughty #2

2013 - Chicago Blackhawks - Kane #1

 

What I can concede from this sample size is that sometimes a #2 overall is more than enough.  This list gets even bigger when including top 10 picks.  When talking about post-2004 lockout (the real Modern Era) There is a signifant relationship between drafting as high as possible and winning a Stanley Cup.

Did any of those teams have players drafted in late rounds? Your Red Wings example for instance.

 

It's true it's easier to draft high & select a no-brainer pick.

 

As tmac said some you mentioned were traded for & no 1/1 or 1/2 picks were returned.

Had the Flames drafted 1st overall, they could've traded down to draft Monahan and gained additional assets.  Drafting 1st overall still has an advantage over not.

With the choices drafting 1/1 it's doubtful they would have traded down. Monahan is a pretty good consolation prize for not sucking.

[robrob1974]

You should probably add Quebec Nordiques #1 pick Eric Lindros to be fair.  They won Cups after drafting him and managing him as an asset.  Moreover, since post lockout, 7 of the 8 teams who won the Stanley Cup either had a 1st overall or a 2nd overall.

 

2006 - Carolina Hurricane - Erik Staal #2

2007 - Anahiem Ducks - Chris Pronger #2

2008 - Detroit Red Wings - none

2009 - Pittsburgh Penguins - Crosby #1, Fleury #1, Malkin #2

2010 - Chicago Blackhawks - Kane #1

2011 - Boston Bruins - Seguin #2

2012 - Los Angeles Kings - Doughty #2

2013 - Chicago Blackhawks - Kane #1

 

What I can concede from this sample size is that sometimes a #2 overall is more than enough.  This list gets even bigger when including top 10 picks.  When talking about post-2004 lockout (the real Modern Era) There is a signifant relationship between drafting as high as possible and winning a Stanley Cup.

 

What if you check and see how teams faired by drafting players in the top 5 of the draft. You show Kane at #1, yet they also had Toews who was drafted 3rd overall the year he was drafted. I'd say you have a better chance of being a better team by drafting in top5. 

 

We're lucky that Monahan was drafted in a deep draft. Where do people think he'd be drafted had it been a regular draft year?

[s4xon]

Did any of those teams have players drafted in late rounds? Your Red Wings example for instance.

 

It's true it's easier to draft high & select a no-brainer pick.

 

As tmac said some you mentioned were traded for & no 1/1 or 1/2 picks were returned.

With the choices drafting 1/1 it's doubtful they would have traded down. Monahan is a pretty good consolation prize for not sucking.

 

I agree. However, there are a few decent and a few marginal picks @ 5th by looking at the history.  The sense is most are overall great players, but only a select few are actually stars.

 

[Flyerfan52]

I agree. However, there are a few decent and a few marginal picks @ 5th by looking at the history.  The sense is most are overall great players, but only a select few are actually stars.

 

You could say that about almost any pick. It's too early to judge Yakupov & the other recent 1/1 picks so I'll go a tad further so as to avoid the obvious like Crosby (since few drafts garner a generational player), OV & Stamkos. Unless you already consider Hall, RNH & Yakupov stars.

Rick Nash, Vincent Lacavalier, MA Fleury. 2 have SCs but so do a lot of late round picks & undrafted players.

Erik Johnson, Patrick Stefan are good players. Are they stars?

[s4xon]

You could say that about almost any pick. It's too early to judge Yakupov & the other recent 1/1 picks so I'll go a tad further so as to avoid the obvious like Crosby (since few drafts garner a generational player), OV & Stamkos. Unless you already consider Hall, RNH & Yakupov stars.

Rick Nash, Vincent Lacavalier, MA Fleury. 2 have SCs but so do a lot of late round picks & undrafted players.

Erik Johnson, Patrick Stefan are good players. Are they stars?

 

Exaclty, I'm just in agreement that the history and the stats dictate that 1st and 2nd overalls have a higher % chance of hitting star status.

 

I don't use Hall, RNH, and Yak for the Oiler factor.  Anything they put their hand to tends to fail.  They can't even develop the easiest of top end talent right.

 

Of course there are always outliers such as Datsyuk, Giroux, Benn, etc.

[The_People1]

Drafting high as I just pointed out is 50% chance, when you adjust your stats accurately. I think we both agree it is more than one single item that tips the scale. 

 

As with the benefit of attaining a draft choice, I an advocate of  a high draft choice but not at the cost of integrity of my organization or the league, i cant agree with that. 

 

Considering the Oilers drafted 3 of the last 9 1st overall picks and we all agree the Oilers are not rebuilding correctly, 3 of the other 6 won Cups.  That's a 50% 1st overall pick to championship conversion rate when a rebuild is done correctly.  Is that not a sign of significance in drafting 1st overall while rebuilding correctly?

 

I agree that drafting 1st overall is not the ONLY ingredient in winning a Cup but as evident, it's an ingredient that can help separate your team from the rest of the pack.  Almost all teams are drafting as well as they can but the ones who have an edge are the ones who draft very high.  It's worth it to separate ourselves from the pack.

 

The main reason i say this is because it doesn't matter if you miss the playoffs by a mile or by one single point, it's equally embarassing in my opinion.  Might as well miss the playoffs by a mile and gain something awesome out of it.

 

 

Did any of those teams have players drafted in late rounds? Your Red Wings example for instance.

 

It's true it's easier to draft high & select a no-brainer pick.

 

As tmac said some you mentioned were traded for & no 1/1 or 1/2 picks were returned.

 

If there's a way to trade for a 1st or 2nd overall, then let's do it but it's more difficult to do than losing games.

[Kulstad]

Considering the Oilers drafted 3 of the last 9 1st overall picks and we all agree the Oilers are not rebuilding correctly, 3 of the other 6 won Cups.  That's a 50% 1st overall pick to championship conversion rate when a rebuild is done correctly.  Is that not a sign of significance in drafting 1st overall while rebuilding correctly?

 

I agree that drafting 1st overall is not the ONLY ingredient in winning a Cup but as evident, it's an ingredient that can help separate your team from the rest of the pack.  Almost all teams are drafting as well as they can but the ones who have an edge are the ones who draft very high.  It's worth it to separate ourselves from the pack.

 

The main reason i say this is because it doesn't matter if you miss the playoffs by a mile or by one single point, it's equally embarassing in my opinion.  Might as well miss the playoffs by a mile and gain something awesome out of it.

 

The bolded part of your statement is where the conversation starts to turn in directions you complain about, Peeps.  Every point you make is valid, and most of the posters to this topic agree with you (myself included).  But when it comes to the bolded..........if your team play has you on target for missing the playoffs by a point or two, how exactly to you go about missing the playoffs by a mile without losing integrity?

[The_People1]

The bolded part of your statement is where the conversation starts to turn in directions you complain about, Peeps.  Every point you make is valid, and most of the posters to this topic agree with you (myself included).  But when it comes to the bolded..........if your team play has you on target for missing the playoffs by a point or two, how exactly to you go about missing the playoffs by a mile without losing integrity?

 

We don't.  It's a trade of integrity for a loophole in the draft system.  It's a loophole i think the NHL should close so fans wouldn't support things like "Fail for Nail".  The NFL had "Suck for Luck".  These cheers make a mockery to their sport's draft system because fans should not have to cheer for their team to lose in order to gain something.

[robrob1974]

We don't.  It's a trade of integrity for a loophole in the draft system.  It's a loophole i think the NHL should close so fans wouldn't support things like "Fail for Nail".  The NFL had "Suck for Luck".  These cheers make a mockery to their sport's draft system because fans should not have to cheer for their team to lose in order to gain something.

Mmm, I don't think a team should draft high if they just miss the playoffs. But teams should have better odds of winning the lottery if they miss. Also, they should televise the actual lottery process instead of just having cards. Another way could be having all of the teams go through the lotto. 1st ball out wins the lottery, then 2nd and so on... Then the draft order isn't set in stone either. They can continue weighting the balls to improve chances, but I think it would be neat if teams still had a chance to move up in the draft after the first pick is chosen.

If the Flames finish 5th, they'd still have a chance at picking 3rd if their ball comes out in that order. But they could pick 8th or something like that. It is just an example, but it would put an end to the tear it down, sell players and go for high picks. Teams would still have a chance to move up...

Or, the lose on purpose for the #1, 2or 3 picks etc... But that could end your idea of "fail for Nail" scenarios....

[CheersMan]

We don't.  It's a trade of integrity for a loophole in the draft system.  It's a loophole i think the NHL should close so fans wouldn't support things like "Fail for Nail".  The NFL had "Suck for Luck".  These cheers make a mockery to their sport's draft system because fans should not have to cheer for their team to lose in order to gain something.

 

Finishing last and gaining 1/1 in the draft is not a loop hole in the draft system.  It’s the leagues way of taking care of its own.  Do you ever wonder why there are handicap parking stalls?  Do you ever wonder why we have special homes for the elderly?  It’s because we try to take care of our own.  We don’t wish to be handicap or old but we understand and we help those that are.  Do you think we should scrap the HC parking stalls and give all equal opportunity to park?  Do you think we should stop subsidizing elderly residences too and make them pay their own way?  Do your seriously believe the 16^th placed team should have equal rights to 1/1 as the 30^th placed team?  Could you imagine the feel and atmosphere of a home game if the Dome was filled with fans wishing for loses?  It wouldn’t be pretty.  Fans cheer for wins, not loses.

 

Peeps has been auguring yes for some time now.  Why is there not a 1 in the yes column? 

[The_People1]

Mmm, I don't think a team should draft high if they just miss the playoffs. But teams should have better odds of winning the lottery if they miss. Also, they should televise the actual lottery process instead of just having cards. Another way could be having all of the teams go through the lotto. 1st ball out wins the lottery, then 2nd and so on... Then the draft order isn't set in stone either. They can continue weighting the balls to improve chances, but I think it would be neat if teams still had a chance to move up in the draft after the first pick is chosen.

If the Flames finish 5th, they'd still have a chance at picking 3rd if their ball comes out in that order. But they could pick 8th or something like that. It is just an example, but it would put an end to the tear it down, sell players and go for high picks. Teams would still have a chance to move up...

Or, the lose on purpose for the #1, 2or 3 picks etc... But that could end your idea of "fail for Nail" scenarios....

 

I welcome any idea to end the "Fail for Nail" campaigns.

 

Finishing last and gaining 1/1 in the draft is not a loop hole in the draft system.  It’s the leagues way of taking care of its own.

 

We have discussed this point a few points above.  The draft is a parity tool.  It used to be the ONLY tool available to teams trying to get better but it's no longer the case.  With the introduction of a salary cap, UFAs, RFAs, and a general increase in roster movement over the decades, the idea of the worst team picking first in the draft is an archaic one.  The draft system needs to catch up to the times because teams in the league have options.

 

 

Do your seriously believe the 16^th placed team should have equal rights to 1/1 as the 30^th placed team?  

 

Absolutely.

 

Because every team has equal rights to the best UFAs in the summer.  Every team has equal rights to the best RFAs in the summer.  Every team has equal rights to the best players coming over from Europe/KHL. 

 

In your handicap stall analogy, even handicap stalls are not all the same.  There's one that's the absolute closest to the door.  You're basically saying those who are more handicapped should get the stalls closer to the door while the lesser handicapped should park a few stalls farther away.  I'm saying we shouldn't differentiate.  Any team who misses the playoffs regardless of 17th or 30th should be treated as an equal handicap and have access to the first handicap stall to the door.

[CheersMan]

LOL, to funny!  Got to admire your concrete beliefs.  I cheer for the win at all times.  Tonight I’m going to the game to cheer for the win.

 

The other parity tools you discuss are indeed “partial” parity tools but most FA’s, and others will avoid the bottom dwelling teams like the plague.  They will sign for less with a playoff contender.  Now if a team had some very young talent (ie 1/1, 1/2, 1/3’s coming), and shows signs of a great future, then they may sign with the bottom dweller which is true parity.  The bottom dwellers must overpay for FA’s, that is whatever FA’s are left over.   

 

I welcome any idea to end the "Fail for Nail" campaigns.

 

 

We have discussed this point a few points above.  The draft is a parity tool.  It used to be the ONLY tool available to teams trying to get better but it's no longer the case.  With the introduction of a salary cap, UFAs, RFAs, and a general increase in roster movement over the decades, the idea of the worst team picking first in the draft is an archaic one.  The draft system needs to catch up to the times because teams in the league have options.

[robrob1974]

 This is where i disagree. I don't think every team has equal rights to the top FA. why do you think the Oilers have to build through the draft? Players don't want to go there. There are a small amount who do, but a guy like Ference isn't changing the Oilers into a contender. There are some teams that have the upper hand regardless of the system that is in place who will attract the top UFAs. It is just how it is. Players want to live in the New Yorks of the world.

Family guys may like Calgary, but we've seen time and again, players wanting out of Edmonton.

I am still mixed, and your argument on how teams have equal chances puts me back to keeping the system as is. The best players choose where they want to go. Teams who are rebuilding need to draft high to get possible star players to make their teams relevant. If they stay bad, the league will have teams moving, selling due to lack of fan support.

Anywhere passed the top 10 draft picks are like buying a lottery ticket anyway. Other than a top 3-5 pick, they're not always sure fire NHLers.

Absolutely.

 

Because every team has equal rights to the best UFAs in the summer.  Every team has equal rights to the best RFAs in the summer.  Every team has equal rights to the best players coming over from Europe/KHL. 

 

In your handicap stall analogy, even handicap stalls are not all the same.  There's one that's the absolute closest to the door.  You're basically saying those who are more handicapped should get the stalls closer to the door while the lesser handicapped should park a few stalls farther away.  I'm saying we shouldn't differentiate.  Any team who misses the playoffs regardless of 17th or 30th should be treated as an equal handicap and have access to the first handicap stall to the door.

[Carty]

The draft is a parity tool.  It used to be the ONLY tool available to teams trying to get better but it's no longer the case.

 

It never has been the ONLY tool available Peeps...   and I am surprised that you would say it was...

 

In some instances, ownership could be a factor for a team...   Perhaps it could be an issue of spending the money for some teams, or maybe an attachment to a player due to a sense of loyalty or team history for others, as examples...   Presidents and other management for a team can also be a factor for the same reasons...   Sometimes it could even be a dislike for a given player from a higher level on a team that could affect any attempt for an acquisition for a player even the GM might be interested in, whether it might be the money involved, or even the perceived character or health of a player...   etc...

 

Then there is the teams GM...   A huge factor in how a team is structured...   and let's face it...   Both Feaster and Sutter (as recent examples in the Flames history for an example) both dropped the ball, on more than a few occasions...

 

Then there is the scouting staff...   another major factor...   The reasons why are obvious....   and I know that you are sharp enough that it does not require any further explanation...

 

Then there is coaching...   As another example, last summers draft was definitely was a benefit for the Av's...   But I believe the addition of Patrick Roy as a coach was even more important...   I have no doubt that he has motivated that team, and that is a major reason for their success so far this season...

 

Last but not least are the players of any given team...   and the attitude of every individual involved, on the ice, on the bench, in the locker room, or even during time off...   The desire to win is of paramount importance to any team, in any sport, at any time, and under any circumstances......   This is because once that will to win has been lost, it is infectious...  and it can be an arduous task to try and once again regain it...

 

So ALL of these things can be a factor, and a tool for a team trying to get better...   The draft has never been the only tool, and it never will be...

 

and that sums up some of the reasons why I will never cheer for the Flame to lose...   The "integrity" that you mentioned in another post would be another key factor...

 

If you have issues with how that league has the draft structured (I am not in agreement with the current draft procedures either), that is something that needs to be taken up with Bettman, not something that you should ask the team that you (under more 'favorable' circumstances cheer for) to sacrifice their 'integrity' in an attempt to rectify...

 

So GO FLAMES...   Play every game to win...   Because the culture of a team can be damaged beyond repair for the foreseeable future if anything else was even a consideration...

 

This discussion is a moot point Peeps...   Because the Flames will not tank on purpose...   At this point of the season, they will bring up players from the Heat to see what they have in the cupboard, of that I have no doubt...   They are not in contention...   You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else that pays attention...   But they will not tank to get the pick that you covet...

[tmac70]

You are right in some regards. Much like the west coast clubs had years back now land lock teams with cold weather have issues as well. I think the choice of a destination for FA is as they age as the chance to win a cup. Edmonton and us are no where near close however when we move into that position you will see players wanting to come here. 

 This is where i disagree. I don't think every team has equal rights to the top FA. why do you think the Oilers have to build through the draft? Players don't want to go there. There are a small amount who do, but a guy like Ference isn't changing the Oilers into a contender. There are some teams that have the upper hand regardless of the system that is in place who will attract the top UFAs. It is just how it is. Players want to live in the New Yorks of the world.

Family guys may like Calgary, but we've seen time and again, players wanting out of Edmonton.

I am still mixed, and your argument on how teams have equal chances puts me back to keeping the system as is. The best players choose where they want to go. Teams who are rebuilding need to draft high to get possible star players to make their teams relevant. If they stay bad, the league will have teams moving, selling due to lack of fan support.

Anywhere passed the top 10 draft picks are like buying a lottery ticket anyway. Other than a top 3-5 pick, they're not always sure fire NHLers.

[The_People1]

It never has been the ONLY tool available Peeps...   and I am surprised that you would say it was...

 

In some instances, ownership could be a factor for a team...   Perhaps it could be an issue of spending the money for some teams, or maybe an attachment to a player due to a sense of loyalty or team history for others, as examples...   Presidents and other management for a team can also be a factor for the same reasons...   Sometimes it could even be a dislike for a given player from a higher level on a team that could affect any attempt for an acquisition for a player even the GM might be interested in, whether it might be the money involved, or even the perceived character or health of a player...   etc...

 

Then there is the teams GM...   A huge factor in how a team is structured...   and let's face it...   Both Feaster and Sutter (as recent examples in the Flames history for an example) both dropped the ball, on more than a few occasions...

 

Then there is the scouting staff...   another major factor...   The reasons why are obvious....   and I know that you are sharp enough that it does not require any further explanation...

 

Then there is coaching...   As another example, last summers draft was definitely was a benefit for the Av's...   But I believe the addition of Patrick Roy as a coach was even more important...   I have no doubt that he has motivated that team, and that is a major reason for their success so far this season...

 

Last but not least are the players of any given team...   and the attitude of every individual involved, on the ice, on the bench, in the locker room, or even during time off...   The desire to win is of paramount importance to any team, in any sport, at any time, and under any circumstances......   This is because once that will to win has been lost, it is infectious...  and it can be an arduous task to try and once again regain it...

 

So ALL of these things can be a factor, and a tool for a team trying to get better...   The draft has never been the only tool, and it never will be...

 

and that sums up some of the reasons why I will never cheer for the Flame to lose...   The "integrity" that you mentioned in another post would be another key factor...

 

If you have issues with how that league has the draft structured (I am not in agreement with the current draft procedures either), that is something that needs to be taken up with Bettman, not something that you should ask the team that you (under more 'favorable' circumstances cheer for) to sacrifice their 'integrity' in an attempt to rectify...

 

So GO FLAMES...   Play every game to win...   Because the culture of a team can be damaged beyond repair for the foreseeable future if anything else was even a consideration...

 

This discussion is a moot point Peeps...   Because the Flames will not tank on purpose...   At this point of the season, they will bring up players from the Heat to see what they have in the cupboard, of that I have no doubt...   They are not in contention...   You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else that pays attention...   But they will not tank to get the pick that you covet...

 

Fair enough.  I meant to say the draft was the only parity tool a GM can use to improve his roster but to suggest the GM himself can get thwarted is and has always been an option as well.  Back in the day, like the 80s, players played an entire career with one team and you don't see the roster changes we see today.  You weren't able to get star players from other teams to join your team unless you drafted them yourself.  In order to draft the best players, you need to finish close to the bottom of the league.  The draft was very much developed for those days.

 

Times have changed and star players are now on the open market and more attainable than ever before.  The draft is evolving as well to suit with the introduction of the lottery and such.  I still don't think they've done enough though.  The idea that the best young players in the draft goes to the team that finishes closest to the bottom of the league should be done with.  This is because there are more options to improve a team in addition to all the options previously available like you mentioned.

 

 

You are right in some regards. Much like the west coast clubs had years back now land lock teams with cold weather have issues as well. I think the choice of a destination for FA is as they age as the chance to win a cup. Edmonton and us are no where near close however when we move into that position you will see players wanting to come here. 

 

By saying this, how else can the Flames and Oilers acquire star players if they don't draft them themselves?

 

The Flames can't even throw money at a Brad Richards and convince him to come.  Wouldn't the draft be one key way to go?

[Carty]

Well People1 win's this thread now, just got schooled.

 

Schooled my   

 

 

[Carty]

The Flames can't even throw money at a Brad Richards and convince him to come.  Wouldn't the draft be one key way to go?

 

Peeps...   Think...   Think about what you are saying, then think again if it has not sunk in yet...

 

Think Oilers...   Think about how much money they have tried to throw at a few players in the last few seasons, then ask yourself why the UFA's that they wished they could have added, had no interest in joining their organization...

 

Just as an eg:...   If the Flames were 'eg: 17th' on Richards list of teams to go to, and the Oil were 'eg:around 30th' that season......

 

Despite their multiple seasons of high picks, the Oil has a problem trying to attract UFA players that they badly need...   Because they have over time earned a reputation as an organization that is destined to lose...   The Flame do not desire to be that kind of team, as it is not in their best interest...   Either short term, or long term....   It is a bad idea...

 

So...   Once again Peeps...   Perhaps you should call 'The Bettman' directly...   Because the issue is better taken up with him than the team you clam to be a fan of, and cheer for, when it is 'convenient'....

 

The Flames are not going to 'tank' on purpose, no matter how much you hope they might...