Fine, fine, but even with Saad, Foligno, Larsson and all the other guys you want here, tell me this: has a single team won a cup in the last 20 years without at least one absolute stud on top pairing D or first line forwards (usually it's both)?

Blues probably come the closest, but you still have Pietro there.
- PT21

I don't think you need a stud defenseman but you do need top players on your top line, no doubt about it. The Bruins won with their current top line and good depth in 2011. Is Coots as good as Bergeron? Its pretty close. Could Farabee be as good as Pastrnak? Its certainly possible. Where is our Marchand? That's a problem yet to be solved. I didn't say with these changes the Flyers would win the cup. I said they could make the playoffs and win their division. The hope is Allison, Foerster or some other drafted player can also grow into a top player over time. There is no magic here, you have to draft and develop well; no one is going to trade you a top line forward unless that player wants out of their current situation.

But have you looked into the top players in the league right now and how many were drafted top 5 versus outside of it? For example, consider the top 20 scorers from 2019-2020:

Draisaitl - top 5 pick
McDavid - top 5 pick
Pastrnak - outside top 5
Panarin - undrafted
McKinnon - top 5 pick
Marchand - outside of top 5
Kucherov - outside of top 5
Kane - top 5 pick
Matthews - top 5 pick
Eichel - top 5 pick
Huberdeau - top 5 pick
Zibanejad - outside of top 5
Carlson - outside of top 5
Malkin - top 5 pick
Connor - outside of top 5
Scheifele - outside of top 5
Miller - outside of top 5
Ovechkin - top 5 pick
Marner - top 5 picks
Aho - outside of top 5

So its 10 top 5 picks, 10 picks outside of the top 5. This should tell you that picking in the top 5 is not as important as you might think. You are saying that because the pool of top 5 picks is so much smaller than the pool of non top 5 picks, the odds are greater that you will get a generational player in the first 5 picks. No argument here. However, as the Oilers teach us every year, getting a generational player does not mean you will win. I say that you can get a top player (maybe not generational) anywhere in the draft, but certainly in the top 15 of the 1st round, and that is more important in terms of building a team than worrying about getting a generational talent.
- jd250

Given that you came up with the same # of top players from top 5 as outside it, this means you are about 42 times more likely to get said elite/star player within top 5 as opposed to outside it.

Lets say you were selling two plans to your boss, with plan A having a chance of success that is 42 times more than plan B. How would your boss react to your statement that following plan A is 'not as important' as Boss might think?


Regarding Toronto/Edmonton/Buffalo etc, I never said that going that route guarantees success. I just said it gives you greater odds. To balance the narrative and get a better idea of odds, you need to look at Chicago,Pens, Tampa,and so on.

The equivalent of Toronto/Edmonton/Buffalo for the 'stay competitive' strategy are teams like Wild, Flyers, Habs. They are almost always middle of the pack. No sustained sucking. And: they stay middle of the pack.

Voracek, JVR, Giroux all finished above players such as Ovechkin and Nylander. They finished respectively at 64,65 and 67th in the league point wise despite playing on quite a dysfunctional team.

Farabee finished with 20 goals. 2 goals away from Top 25.

The Narrative that we dont have any top skilled players is ridiculous. Do we have anyone at Crosby or McDavid level definitely not but our guys are among the top of the league.

In fact the most successful Flyer teams have been the ones with 6 or more 20 goal scorers.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

I posted this previously as well. The Flyers currently do not have top players in this league. To prove it lets look at the numbers. This year the Flyers did not have a single player in the top 50 in scoring! Think about that for a moment, the top 50! In 2019-2020, the Flyers did not have a single player in the top 30 in scoring! In 2018-2019 Giroux made the top 20 but that is not going to happen again. And until Farabee actually does it, you cannot say what he will become. I agree right now he is trending in the right direction, but he could also take a step back next year as we have seen with other young Flyers players. I agree depth in scoring is important, especially in the playoffs, but you need that top line to come through for you when it matters the most. You need your top players to perform like top players. IMO the Flyers just don't have any right now.

I don't think you need a stud defenseman but you do need top players on your top line, no doubt about it. The Bruins won with their current top line and good depth in 2011. Is Coots as good as Bergeron? Its pretty close. Could Farabee be as good as Pastrnak? Its certainly possible. Where is our Marchand? That's a problem yet to be solved. I didn't say with these changes the Flyers would win the cup. I said they could make the playoffs and win their division. The hope is Allison, Foerster or some other drafted player can also grow into a top player over time. There is no magic here, you have to draft and develop well; no one is going to trade you a top line forward unless that player wants out of their current situation.
- jd250

No, no. Pasta was not there. Marchand was 3rd line. Bergeron was 2nd. Chara was at his HOF beast best.

Your strategy then is this: do the best and 'hope' things work out? Nothing to do with actual data, odds etc.?

Given that you came up with the same # of top players from top 5 as outside it, this means you are about 42 times more likely to get said elite/star player within top 5 as opposed to outside it.

Lets say you were selling two plans to your boss, with plan A having a chance of success that is 42 times more than plan B. How would your boss react to your statement that following plan A is 'not as important' as Boss might think?


Regarding Toronto/Edmonton/Buffalo etc, I never said that going that route guarantees success. I just said it gives you greater odds. To balance the narrative and get a better idea of odds, you need to look at Chicago,Pens, Tampa,and so on.

The equivalent of Toronto/Edmonton/Buffalo for the 'stay competitive' strategy are teams like Wild, Flyers, Habs. They are almost always middle of the pack. No sustained sucking. And: they stay middle of the pack.
- PT21

I see what you are saying, however you are not considering the economic impact of being a high lottery team for multiple years like the Sabres for example. The Flyers have picked twice at number 2 overall in the past 14 years and got Nolan Patrick and JVR, hardly top end players. The Sabres picked in the top 10 8 drafts in a row and have little to show for it besides Eichel who clearly is not the player the Sabres thought they were getting. So you have to sell ownership on the idea that even though the odds are 42 times greater in getting a top player in the top 5, you will have no guarantee that you will get one, even if you are picking multiple times in a row in the top 5. In the mean time, you have lost tons of playoff revenue and you have disinterested your fanbase. Ticket sales and down and peripheral items like jersey sales are down also. Is not as easy of a sell as you think strictly looking at the odds.

No, no. Pasta was not there. Marchand was 3rd line. Bergeron was 2nd. Chara was at his HOF beast best.

Your strategy then is this: do the best and 'hope' things work out? Nothing to do with actual data, odds etc.?
- PT21

As a fan I want a hockey season, and a team that I can realistically root for. Colorado built their team the right way for example, they had a few down years and they took advantage of it with drafting and developing players like MacKinnon, Makar and Rantanen, while also making smart trades and signings. The Flyers had the opportunity to draft Makar, they chose Patrick instead. The Flyers had the opportunity to draft Rantanen, they chose Provorov instead. How much better would this Flyers team be right now with Makar and Rantanen on the team instead of Provorov and Patrick? Yes MacKinnon is a generational talent and you get this only when picking number 1 as Colorado did. However the Flyers with better choices where they were at the time would be a much better team today.

I see what you are saying, however you are not considering the economic impact of being a high lottery team for multiple years like the Sabres for example. The Flyers have picked twice at number 2 overall in the past 14 years and got Nolan Patrick and JVR, hardly top end players. The Sabres picked in the top 10 8 drafts in a row and have little to show for it besides Eichel who clearly is not the player the Sabres thought they were getting. So you have to sell ownership in the idea that even though the odds are 42 times greater in getting a top player in the top 5, you will have no guarantee that you will get one, even if you are picking multiple times in a row in the top 5. In the mean time, you have lost tons of playoff revenue and you have disinterested your fanbase. Ticket sales and down and peripheral items like jersey sales are down also. Is not as easy of a sell as you think strictly looking at the odds.
- jd250

Sure. We discussed all this some time ago. That is why I always say Couts will not be traded, but the lack of trade will not be for hockey reasons. It will be for financial ones.

I just wonder at fans who still think that both paths are equally viable paths for likelihood of cup success. I think in about 10 years time, their pov will disappear, just like it has in NFL. where drafting high is pretty much the only way teams go towards future contention. The salary cap dynamics are still new in the NHL, and everyone hasn't caught on what it means yet.

In the meantime, these fans allow team management to sell their financial reasons masquerading as hockey ones.

In closing, a little ditty:

Deep teams without non-goalie studs
Never end up winning the cups
They fool ya by how close they get
But at the end of it all their cigar don't get wet

As a fan I want a hockey season, and a team that I can realistically root for. Colorado built their team the right way for example, they had a few down years and they took advantage of it with drafting and developing players like MacKinnon, Makar and Rantanen, while also making smart trades and signings. The Flyers had the opportunity to draft Makar, they chose Patrick instead. The Flyers had the opportunity to draft Rantanen, they chose Provorov instead. How much better would this Flyers team be right now with Makar and Rantanen on the team instead of Provorov and Patrick? Yes MacKinnon is a generational talent and you get this only when picking number 1 as Colorado did. However the Flyers with better choices where they were at the time would be a much better team today.
- jd250

Much of what Avs did was by design. They got rid of a lot of good players who were not going to be part of a realistic contention timeline: Giguere, Varlamov, Duchene, Stastny...

Their age old rivals Red Wings are following the same playbook. Slowly ridding contracts, not taking on onerous new ones, the Mantha trade. I am surprised Larkin is sticking around and got a new contract to boot.

No, no. Pasta was not there. Marchand was 3rd line. Bergeron was 2nd. Chara was at his HOF beast best.

Your strategy then is this: do the best and 'hope' things work out? Nothing to do with actual data, odds etc.?
- PT21

The sample set you're looking at is heavily skewed by Kane/Toews, MAF/Crosby/Malkin and Doughty. Kings, Hawks and Pens have won what... about 8 of the past dozen or so Cups?

Nobody picked 1st-overall since 2007 has won a Cup (2008 if you want to count Stamkos's one game in last year's run). Nobody picked inside the top-5 since 2010 has won a Cup. Maybe it'll finally happen this year? Maybe not.

So what's really the high-% strategy here? Pick high? Or play for one of three teams that have won the lion's share of Cups over the past dozen or so years?

The sample set you're looking at is heavily skewed by Kane/Toews, MAF/Crosby/Malkin and Doughty. Kings, Hawks and Pens have won what... about 8 of the past dozen or so Cups?

Nobody picked 1st-overall since 2007 has won a Cup (2008 if you want to count Stamkos's one game in last year's run). Nobody picked inside the top-5 since 2010 has won a Cup. Maybe it'll finally happen this year? Maybe not.

So what's the high-% strategy here? Pick high? Or play for one of three teams that have won almost all the Cups over the past dozen or so years?
- Tomahawk

Responses in order:

1. I am not sure what your point is here...those guys were picked in the top 5, and they were instrumental in the cups their teams won...they should be part of the relevant data set.

2. Who said anything about picking just 1st?


3. The high % strategy is: teams that do a complete rebuild, which generally means sucking for a few consecutive years, are far more likely to end up winning the cup.

The bigger question for me is: why do intelligent people like you fight this obvious truth so vigorously? Does it violate some instilled aspiration of equality or something (like anyone can do anything if they play as a team and so on?)

The sample set you're looking at is heavily skewed by Kane/Toews, MAF/Crosby/Malkin and Doughty. Kings, Hawks and Pens have won what... about 8 of the past dozen or so Cups?

Nobody picked 1st-overall since 2007 has won a Cup (2008 if you want to count Stamkos's one game in last year's run). Nobody picked inside the top-5 since 2010 has won a Cup. Maybe it'll finally happen this year? Maybe not.

So what's really the high-% strategy here? Pick high? Or play for one of three teams that have won the lion's share of Cups over the past dozen or so years?
- Tomahawk

Forgot to respond to this one. Lag effect there. Hedman and Pietro (2007/8?) just won their cups. Before that AO (2004?). Before that Crosby and Crosby and Malkin and Malkin (2003/4?).

Those picked high this past decade are coming.

7 of the last 12 cups were won by teams with generational or close to generational players. Pens had 3 with Crosby, Hawks had 3 with Kane, Caps had 1 with Ovi. While I agree picking higher yields better results, what else is true is that what year you pick is more important. Would those 3 teams win the cup with normal #1 picks? My guess is no. Yes having a top center, goalie and D are keys to winning but to tank and just draft has real challenges to it.


Then look at the teams that won like LA, big 3 positions filled due to draft, but it was the trades and the players they brought in that moved them to Cup status.

Bottom line to me, tanking and building through all top 5 picks can just as easily end up to be like the Oilers and Sabres and not like the Kings, Tampa or the AV's. The jury is still out on the Av's, but again, they were lucky to draft when Mackinnon was #1 pick. They have drafted well but they also traded well to acquire picks that turned into good players, I am a fan of that. Then you have Vegas, built mostly without Drafting, the opposite of Tampa, who built through the draft. Tampa still needed luck to have a Hedman available, still needed to pull in the right FA's and make the right trades.

If you have a well run franchise, wealthy owner and patient fan base, can you build a champion thru the draft, sure, but you still need luck on the talent level of the draft. Then you still need FA and trades to finish the process.

Should the Flyers have done a full rebuild? Looking back, probably, but that is looking back, everyone is an expert at that. Pushing out a G and Jake at close to their peak is a really tough call. I was all for hold them and build on the Fly, unfortunately the build took as long as a tank would.

The process was and is way to long at this point. Hextall did not hit on picks, on the later round picks or even his 1st round picks. Some nice players for sure, some with upside but no game changers, not even the next G, so far. This coming year is the make it or break it for the Hextall picks and current player regime. Could the Flyers have the perfect off-season and look more like Vegas next season? It would all have to land perfect but yes it could. I think it was Bill who covered how hard it is to win the cup, who laid out how many franchises went decades with no cup.

To me, bottom line, it is really hard to win a cup no matter how you do it. To me, you need LUCK with top picks being that much better than the norm. Luck with injuries, luck with trades and luck with timing. It is not a one size fits all.

7 of the last 12 cups were won by teams with generational or close to generational players. Pens had 3 with Crosby, Hawks had 3 with Kane, Caps had 1 with Ovi. While I agree picking higher yields better results, what else is true is that what year you pick is more important. Would those 3 teams win the cup with normal #1 picks? My guess is no. Yes having a top center, goalie and D are keys to winning but to tank and just draft has real challenges to it.


Then look at the teams that won like LA, big 3 positions filled due to draft, but it was the trades and the players they brought in that moved them to Cup status.

Bottom line to me, tanking and building through all top 5 picks can just as easily end up to be like the Oilers and Sabres and not like the Kings, Tampa or the AV's. The jury is still out on the Av's, but again, they were lucky to draft when Mackinnon was #1 pick. They have drafted well but they also traded well to acquire picks that turned into good players, I am a fan of that. Then you have Vegas, built mostly without Drafting, the opposite of Tampa, who built through the draft. Tampa still needed luck to have a Hedman available, still needed to pull in the right FA's and make the right trades.

If you have a well run franchise, wealthy owner and patient fan base, can you build a champion thru the draft, sure, but you still need luck on the talent level of the draft. Then you still need FA and trades to finish the process.

Should the Flyers have done a full rebuild? Looking back, probably, but that is looking back, everyone is an expert at that. Pushing out a G and Jake at close to their peak is a really tough call. I was all for hold them and build on the Fly, unfortunately the build took as long as a tank would.

The process was and is way to long at this point. Hextall did not hit on picks, on the later round picks or even his 1st round picks. Some nice players for sure, some with upside but no game changers, not even the next G, so far. This coming year is the make it or break it for the Hextall picks and current player regime. Could the Flyers have the perfect off-season and look more like Vegas next season? It would all have to land perfect but yes it could. I think it was Bill who covered how hard it is to win the cup, who laid out how many franchises went decades with no cup.

To me, bottom line, it is really hard to win a cup no matter how you do it. To me, you need LUCK with top picks being that much better than the norm. Luck with injuries, luck with trades and luck with timing. It is not a one size fits all.
- wcorvette

Every single thing you wrote there is subsumed in one words: ODDS. Luck, wealthy owner, generational talent in draft, no guarantee etc. All are subsumed.

The issue is this: there are no guarantees in any strategy. But which one gives you the best odds?

Please don't erect strawmen just so you can knock it down. I have never, ever said you MUST draft in the top 5 to select an elite player.

People who say: look, Pasta was drafted late first, and Kucherov not at all and Point in the 3rd and so on and so forth, ignore a simple fact of arithmetic. Lets say we are looking at top 5 pick elite players. Well, there are by definition 5 spots in the top 5. There are about 210 spots outside the top 5 for the other superstars to come from.

If x # of elite players come from top 5 draft picks, and y from outside it, then if x and y are equal, it does not mean that you have an equal chance of getting an elite player picking outside the top 5 as you do within it. It means that your chance of getting said elite player is 42 times more likely in the top 5 than outside it.

Those are hugely lopsided odds.
- PT21

why are x and y equal?

Forgot to respond to this one. Lag effect there. Hedman and Pietro (2007/8?) just won their cups. Before that AO (2004?). Before that Crosby and Crosby and Malkin and Malkin (2003/4?).

Those picked high this past decade are coming.
- PT21

Couturier (2011)

Every single thing you wrote there is subsumed in one words: ODDS. Luck, wealthy owner, generational talent in draft, no guarantee etc. All are subsumed.

The issue is this: there are no guarantees in any strategy. But which one gives you the best odds?
- PT21

I don't think one does over the other, sure if you can get top 5 picks for 5 years you might end up winning. Sure, you could build like Vegas and end up as a contender but you need all avenues. The AV's made good trades when they were already rebuilt, they landed the Sens # 1 I believe. I think that is what was missed by Hextall. He had to recognize to move a Jake at his peak. the team would still have draw with G and others but Hexy would have had that top 5 pick. Hexy did that with Schenn, he ended up one big move short, easy for me to say now.

The odds you refer to are more about being lucky in the draft with the top level talent, getting the Crosby or Mackinnon. Even with that, you have to go back like 13 years to see when the last #1 pick won the cup.

I don't think one does over the other, sure if you can get top 5 picks for 5 years you might end up winning. Sure, you could build like Vegas and end up as a contender but you need all avenues. The AV's made good trades when they were already rebuilt, they landed the Sens # 1 I believe. I think that is what was missed by Hextall. He had to recognize to move a Jake at his peak. the team would still have draw with G and others but Hexy would have had that top 5 pick. Hexy did that with Schenn, he ended up one big move short, easy for me to say now.

The odds you refer to are more about being lucky in the draft with the top level talent, getting the Crosby or Mackinnon. Even with that, you have to go back like 13 years to see when the last #1 pick won the cup.
- wcorvette

Build like Vegas lol, Vegas is a totally different circumstance than any other team in the league.

why are x and y equal?
- bradster

I said so just for the sake of making a point. Its not important they be equal. But then JD250 ran through his list, and coincidentally, they were equal.

Build like Vegas lol, Vegas is a totally different circumstance than any other team in the league.
- ClaudeFather

to the extent is was expansion correct but not from the standpoint of this conversation about tanking and drafting, plus their #1 line has MP and MS on it, thinking they traded for them.

to the extent is was expansion correct but not from the standpoint of this conversation about tanking and drafting, plus their #1 line has MP and MS on it, thinking they traded for them.
- wcorvette

They were only in a position to trade for these players because of how the expansion draft shook out, certainly some savvy trades but Vegas should not be included when comparing with anyone.

I don't think one does over the other, sure if you can get top 5 picks for 5 years you might end up winning. Sure, you could build like Vegas and end up as a contender but you need all avenues. The AV's made good trades when they were already rebuilt, they landed the Sens # 1 I believe. I think that is what was missed by Hextall. He had to recognize to move a Jake at his peak. the team would still have draw with G and others but Hexy would have had that top 5 pick. Hexy did that with Schenn, he ended up one big move short, easy for me to say now.

The odds you refer to are more about being lucky in the draft with the top level talent, getting the Crosby or Mackinnon. Even with that, you have to go back like 13 years to see when the last #1 pick won the cup.
- wcorvette

Why did Hextall trade Brayden Schenn? Its like he wanted to rebuild without going through a rebuild. He signs Jake to a big extension, then a couple years later trades Schenn for picks. Its like Hexy couldn't make up his mind what he wanted to do. And here we are.

Why did Hextall trade Brayden Schenn? Its like he wanted to rebuild without going through a rebuild. He signs Jake to a big extension, then a couple years later trades Schenn for picks. Its like Hexy couldn't make up his mind what he wanted to do. And here we are.
- bradster

Bingo!!

Imagine having three lines with forwards that are 4 -5 -6 type of forwards that were fast and played hard. 3 lines of 4-6 million players. I’m not one for having top heavy teams. You don’t need a 24-28 million dollar first line. Make your fourth line like a third

Why did Hextall trade Brayden Schenn? Its like he wanted to rebuild without going through a rebuild. He signs Jake to a big extension, then a couple years later trades Schenn for picks. Its like Hexy couldn't make up his mind what he wanted to do. And here we are.
- bradster

This is exactly why we are still in the playoff bubble purgatory , it should have been torn down years ago. The trade some and then stick around to maybe make Playoffs killed this franchise.

I don't think one does over the other, sure if you can get top 5 picks for 5 years you might end up winning. Sure, you could build like Vegas and end up as a contender but you need all avenues. The AV's made good trades when they were already rebuilt, they landed the Sens # 1 I believe. I think that is what was missed by Hextall. He had to recognize to move a Jake at his peak. the team would still have draw with G and others but Hexy would have had that top 5 pick. Hexy did that with Schenn, he ended up one big move short, easy for me to say now.

The odds you refer to are more about being lucky in the draft with the top level talent, getting the Crosby or Mackinnon. Even with that, you have to go back like 13 years to see when the last #1 pick won the cup.
- wcorvette

You are getting fooled by randomness by looking at all those diversions and possibilities. Look at patterns within all that data.

Also, what's this fascination with precisely the #1 pick?