WordsOfWisdom Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Trivia time: Name the last team to win the Stanley Cup without the use of the draft. ie: Only by acquiring big name free agents and making smart trades. Name the last team to acquire their best player via free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Trivia time: Name the last team to win the Stanley Cup without the use of the draft. ie: Only by acquiring big name free agents and making smart trades. Name the last team to acquire their best player via free agency. No idea on the first question. Is the answer to the second the Flyers (Forsberg)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Boston's the closest I can think to #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Trivia time:Name the last team to win the Stanley Cup without the use of the draft. ie: Only by acquiring big name free agents and making smart trades.Name the last team to acquire their best player via free agency. #1. Colorado Avalanche - they real key elements were attained by trading Lindross to Philly.#2. Boston signing Characwhen he was still good. Your definition of tanking is extremely broad... And if you have issues with ALL of those practices to where you're trying to eliminate them, we might as well disband the league. No more trading for picks, or pending free agents, or salary cap releases... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Boston's the closest I can think to #1. Are you thinking of their recent Cup? They certainly had their own draft picks on that team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 #1. Colorado Avalanche - they real key elements were attained by trading Lindross to Philly. Sakic? Adam Foote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Sakic? Adam Foote?You'll never find a team with zero draft picks there. But that's about as few as I think we'll find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 You'll never find a team with zero draft picks there. But that's about as few as I think we'll find. Yeah, I was pretty sure it wouldn't be possible. Unless it's a trick question and we're supposed to go back before the draft? In which case I think would be the Leafs last Cup, which was the year the draft was instituted. But there was no free agency then either so that doesn't really makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 No idea on the first question. Is the answer to the second the Flyers (Forsberg)? I kind of left it as an open question. Food for thought. (Or maybe something only @TropicalFruitGirl26 will know the answer to.) Certainly we would have to exclude teams like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Pittsburgh, who were built from the ground up using the draft. Perhaps Detroit is the last team to win the Stanley Cup without having to rely on #1 draft picks? (They still make excellent late draft selections that form the core of their team though.) Boston signing Chara qualifies. That was back in ... 2007? 2008? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I kind of left it as an open question. Food for thought. (Or maybe something only TropicalFruitGal will know the answer to.) Certainly we would have to exclude teams like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Pittsburgh, who were built from the ground up using the draft. Perhaps Detroit is the last team to win the Stanley Cup without having to rely on #1 draft picks? (They still make excellent late draft selections that form the core of their team though.) Boston signing Chara qualifies. That was back in ... 2007? 2008? Well, if you're specifically talking about #1 picks, that would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Yeah, I was pretty sure it wouldn't be possible. Unless it's a trick question and we're supposed to go back before the draft? In which case I think would be the Leafs last Cup, which was the year the draft was instituted. But there was no free agency then either so that doesn't really makes sense. It's not so much that they can't have any draft picks, but rather that their team was built primarily through other means and not the draft. ie: A middle team in the standings moving up to win the Cup by grabbing key free agents or making good trades without first having to bottom out and collect draft picks until they hit on one or more #1s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Well, certainly Boston then if you're talking about none of their own top draft picks. Bergeron, Lucic, and Krejci were all 2nd rounders, Marchand a 3rd - that's about the extent of the guys they drafted with their picks on the 2011 team. The two most important players in that run were Chara and Thomas - Chara was a late second round pick by the Isles, and Thomas was picked 217th overall by the Nordiques, who never even signed him. There were four total first round picks on their roster, none made with the Bruins' first rounder. Horton, who went third overall to Florida; Paille, 20th, Sabres, and Rask, 21st, Leafs - Rask didn't play in the playoffs. Seguin was the only player they drafted in the first round that played for the Bruins in the 2011 cup win, but he only played 13 games, with 7 points, and while he was drafted by Boston, he wasn't picked with Boston's own pick. Boston somehow managed to acquire that 2nd overall pick in a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 ie: A middle team in the standings moving up to win the Cup by grabbing key free agents or making good trades without first having to bottom out and collect draft picks until they hit on one or more #1s. Which, AGAIN, isn't what we're talking about with Buffalo and Arizona. Or Edmonton, for that matter. The Sabres have all of two playoff rounds in the past eight seasons. "A middle team"? How do you figure? Oh, right - you don't. They dealt upcoming UFAs in the final year of their contract that they couldn't come to terms with. Which is what teams do. Because they weren't a middle team and they had big name UFAs walk away for nothing before. Arizona has one trip past the first round in the past eleven years. Again, "a middle team"? Just not the case. At. All. They dealt Yandle because they got a nice return on it (former first round pick, former third round pick, 1st rounder and 2nd rounder) and have OEL on the backline. (psst! - they got OEL through the draft!) Edmonton hasn't been to the playoffs since 2005. "A middle team"? Yeah, no. Didn't think so. You can continue to ignore reality, but that doesn't change it. Your "system" would create a "haves" and "have nots" situation with there being virtually no chance that the "have nots" can ever join the "haves." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Sakic? Adam Foote? Deadmarsh, Kamensky, Leschyshyn (3rd overall), Gusarov, Corbet (OK, maybe Corbet wasn't much of a key...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Sakic? Adam Foote? Drury? Tanguay? Hejduk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Trading away all the players that were helping the team win now. Creating an environment where the remaining players felt no urgency to win. Creating an environment where it was actually beneficial to lose. You're never going to have an interview where you hear the coach or GM say that their organizational plan is to lose 82 games next season and get the #1 draft pick. So in that sense, you'll never get the "smoking gun" evidence that you're looking for. Rather, I just call it as I see it. When a team trades away all their best current players in exchange for prospects, they are making an effort to finish last in the present (with the hopes of getting a high draft pick) to finish first in the future. It has become so ingrained in the NHL that tanking is a strategy. Fans not only accept tanking, they consider it to be the honorable thing to do! In fact, tanking is now the ONLY way you can win the Stanley Cup! There is almost no other way to get better anymore other than to crater for five years and go 1-1-1-1-1, then rebound. Contrary to what fans think, most front office people know the game better than they do. Not to mention all the behind-close-door details that we'll never know. Buffalo and Arizona knew they were not going to contend for a Cup this year the day the season opened. That's not even debatable. Toronto didn't start trading away players until it was clear they were not Cup material either. So for these teams, trading away (again) free agents-to-be and aging veterans under long term deals is not tanking. It's building for the future. That happens in every other major sport. The losing that will often accompany a rebuild is a by-product - not the intent. As for this losing "environment" - I saw the players on Buffalo and Arizon giving their all so I have no idea where that comes from. Toronto? Yeah - bad culture. But that was evident long before they started cleaning house this year. As for fans considering "tanking" it "honorable"? No. They do accept that a bad team may often need to clean house to be good again. It has nothing at all to do with "honor". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I kind of left it as an open question. Food for thought. (Or maybe something only @TropicalFruitGirl26 will know the answer to.) Certainly we would have to exclude teams like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Pittsburgh, who were built from the ground up using the draft. Perhaps Detroit is the last team to win the Stanley Cup without having to rely on #1 draft picks? (They still make excellent late draft selections that form the core of their team though.) Boston signing Chara qualifies. That was back in ... 2007? 2008? Minnesota? Parise & Suter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Arizona has one trip past the first round in the past eleven years. Again, "a middle team"? Just not the case. At. All. Edmonton hasn't been to the playoffs since 2005. "A middle team"? Yeah, no. Didn't think so. LOL. I was asking if someone could name the last middle of the pack team to move up and win the Stanley Cup without first having to bottom out. Unless someone has a better answer, I'm going to say the Detroit Red Wings. The Detroit Red Wings won the Stanley Cup in 1997 and 1998. They never missed the playoffs during the time in between, and then won the Cup again in 2002 (I think) and in 2008? No other franchise in the NHL has been able to move up from the middle or move to #1 from the upper third of the league other than the Red Wings and then do it again and again without bottoming out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 LOL. I was asking if someone could name the last middle of the pack team to move up and win the Stanley Cup without first having to bottom out. Yes, and I'm keeping with the topic of the thread and your "theory" that the bottom teams should just "make moves" to get better. Detroit took advantage of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rather inadequate European scouting to build their success. That situation simply doesn't exist any more. It was a facet of a specific moment in time which cannot be repeated. No other franchise in the NHL has been able to move up from the middle or move to #1 from the upper third of the league other than the Red Wings and then do it again and again without bottoming out. Which flies in the face of your entire theory expressed in this thread from the beginning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Contrary to what fans think, most front office people know the game better than they do. Not to mention all the behind-close-door details that we'll never know. Buffalo and Arizona knew they were not going to contend for a Cup this year the day the season opened. That's not even debatable. Toronto didn't start trading away players until it was clear they were not Cup material either. So for these teams, trading away (again) free agents-to-be and aging veterans under long term deals is not tanking. It's building for the future. That happens in every other major sport. The losing that will often accompany a rebuild is a by-product - not the intent. My how times have changed. I can remember a time where all 30 teams tried their best to win right now, all the time. You didn't worry about five years down the road. You signed and traded for the best players you could find today and put them on your roster. The objective was to win the Cup every year, not once every 15 years. But I digress... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Yes, and I'm keeping with the topic of the thread and your "theory" that the bottom teams should just "make moves" to get better. Detroit took advantage of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rather inadequate European scouting to build their success. That situation simply doesn't exist any more. It was a facet of a specific moment in time which cannot be repeated. Which flies in the face of your entire theory expressed in this thread from the beginning... Ninja vanish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I can remember a time where all 30 teams tried their best to win right now, all the time. You didn't worry about five years down the road. You signed and traded for the best players you could find today and put them on your roster. When was that, exactly? Let's look at 83-84, for starters. What had the Whalers (28-42-10), Penguins (16-58-6), Devils (17-56-7) done to "win right now, all the time"? Their signings and moves helped the very next year for the Whalers (30-41-9), Pens (24-51-5) and Devils (22-48-10). Maybe it was in the 70s? Like 76-77? When the Red Wings (16-55-9), Cleveland Barons (25-42-13) and Rockies (20-46-14) were trying to "win right now, all the time" with their signings and trades? Sure helped the next year for the Barons (22-45-13) and Rockies (19-40-21). Heck, the Red Wings (32-34-14) weren't even a .500 team. They'd go on to make the playoffs once in the next seven seasons. When were these halcyon days when all 30 teams were competitive every season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 My how times have changed. I can remember a time where all 30 teams tried their best to win right now, all the time. You didn't worry about five years down the road. You signed and traded for the best players you could find today and put them on your roster. The objective was to win the Cup every year, not once every 15 years. But I digress... When was that? Because the last tried and true effort to tank was the 1983-84 season when the Pens and Devils went down to the wire as far as who would "earn" the rights to draft Super Mario. Soooooo...I can remember a time long ago when two teams tried their darndest to lose. And by tried, I mean the front offices. I've never come across a group of NHL players who collectively packed it in at the behest of management so some young stud #1 pick could come and take their job the following season. Since you used the "30 team" barometer regarding how far back you remember every team "going for it" - I'll do the same. 2000-01 was the first year for the 30 team NHL. Some deadline deals from that year and 2001-02.... The Blues acquired Keith Tkachuk from the Yotes for Michal Handzus, Ladislav Nagy and a 1st...The Sabres acquired Donald Audette from the Thrashers for a prospect and 4th...The Sharkes acquired Teemu Selanne from the Ducks for a couple of players and a 2nd...The Flyers acquired Adam Oates from the Capitals for a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Maxime Oullet...The Rangers acquired Pavel Bure from the Panthers for a 1st, 2nd, 4th and a couple of young players... Guess which teams involved were making a run serious run at a Cup and which weren't? And those were just some of the "big" names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 When was that, exactly? Let's look at 83-84, for starters. What had the Whalers (28-42-10), Penguins (16-58-6), Devils (17-56-7) done to "win right now, all the time"? Their signings and moves helped the very next year for the Whalers (30-41-9), Pens (24-51-5) and Devils (22-48-10). Beat me to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.