Good day,

Game day blog is up - with Boeser in and a look at why Burmistrov is scratched.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...nucks-host-Jets/194/88058

- Codes1087

That image actually makes me angry.

I tried the S7 Edge, didn't like it, went back to the iPhone.
- LeftCoaster

Edge doesn't work well with a case....

Look again at your examples. They just don't fit!

Det and Jersey won more through trades and unconventional late picks than through high picks (Det hasn't picked higher than 19th until this past draft since 1990, and its core was all 3rd round or much later).

The Lindros deal and trades (Roy) built Col more than the draft. Sakic was 15th overall. Niedermayer was the only top 5 on Jersey and that pick was traded from the Leafs (lucky). Your 3 example teams had a total of 2 top 5 picks on their way to Championships, and both were involved in trades. Those teams were not built through drafting top picks.

Still no reason to change my mind...
- Robio

Dude...don't go trying to change the 'draftists' mind..they just don't get it.

ANA won the cup in 2007 with only 4 players actually drafted by the Ducks...

I'd say it is better to stay competitive and pass a winning tradition down to the next generation instead of purposefully losing in hopes of lucking into a McD or Crosby at the draft.
- Robio

They're not staying competitive though, most middling teams aren't. So how do you pass down a winning tradition when you're losing and not making the playoffs?

Also...you don't need a generational talent to win, both Los Angeles and Chicago won five Cups without a generational talent like Crosby or McDavid. Toews and Kane are not generational talents, neither is Crawford or Keith or Seabrook but they won three Cups with that core.

LA won with Kopitar, which was luck in the 2005 draft, and Doughty and Quick, and Voynov and Martinez and a number of depth players they drafted. But they were not competitive, that's a fallacy.

Detroit is the ONLY team that remained competitive for two decades because of drafting several players that no one else drafted. Well the Zetterberg and Datsyuk run is over and they're no longer competitive.

Dude...don't go trying to change the 'draftists' mind..they just don't get it.

ANA won the cup in 2007 with only 4 players actually drafted by the Ducks...



- LordHumungous

That's but one example of winning, that is not the norm as you would have everyone believe

As a general rule of thumb you don't win without drafting your core, even Anaheim drafted Getzlaf and Perry when they won it in 2007, Getzlaf was their leading scorer in the playoffs that year and Perry was tied for second.

A lot of things went right for them that year, Scott Neidermayer wanted to play with his brother and Burkie took Lowe to the cleaners trading for Pronger.

Edge doesn't work well with a case....
- SMP8719

I hated the button locations

They're not staying competitive though, most middling teams aren't. So how do you pass down a winning tradition when you're losing and not making the playoffs?

Also...you don't need a generational talent to win, both Los Angeles and Chicago won five Cups without a generational talent like Crosby or McDavid. Toews and Kane are not generational talents, neither is Crawford or Keith or Seabrook but they won three Cups with that core.

LA won with Kopitar, which was luck in the 2005 draft, and Doughty and Quick, and Voynov and Martinez and a number of depth players they drafted. But they were not competitive, that's a fallacy.

Detroit is the ONLY team that remained competitive for two decades because of drafting several players that no one else drafted. Well the Zetterberg and Datsyuk run is over and they're no longer competitive.
- LeftCoaster

I'd say that all of our examples suggest that there is no tried and true formula. Get as many good players as you can and you just might put it all together. That doesn't necessarily mean having to be awful for a stretch (my main point) to get there. Here is to hoping that our recent picks turn out so we can start our rise back up.

I'd say that all of our examples suggest that there is no tried and true formula. Get as many good players as you can and you just might put it all together. That doesn't necessarily mean having to be awful for a stretch (my main point) to get there. Here is to hoping that our recent picks turn out so we can start our rise back up.
- Robio

Exactly. Many intangibles go into building a championship club. Drafting is only one small part of the process.

I just ordered an unlocked iPhone 8 Plus from Apple to the tune of $1186.08.....this technology thing has gotten out of hand!!

Disclaimer...I need it for work and they're all expensive
- LeftCoaster

just bought an 8 plus as well....it sucks

Look again at your examples. They just don't fit!

Det and Jersey won more through trades and unconventional late picks than through high picks (Det hasn't picked higher than 19th until this past draft since 1990, and its core was all 3rd round or much later).

The Lindros deal and trades (Roy) built Col more than the draft. Sakic was 15th overall. Niedermayer was the only top 5 on Jersey and that pick was traded from the Leafs (lucky). Your 3 example teams had a total of 2 top 5 picks on their way to Championships, and both were involved in trades. Those teams were not built through drafting top picks.

Still no reason to change my mind...
- Robio

Peter Forsberg, Steve Yzerman and Scott Neidemeyer. All career hall of famers, leaders, played the vast majority with those teams and top 5 picks. Quebec also traded a top5 pick for Roy, which many teams do because high draft picks are also worth much more (as they should be).

Dude...don't go trying to change the 'draftists' mind..they just don't get it.

ANA won the cup in 2007 with only 4 players actually drafted by the Ducks...



- LordHumungous

yet they had two guys who were drafted top5 lead their team.

just bought an 8 plus as well....it sucks
- CanuckDon

Android