Toronto Maple Leafs TIDBITS & QUICK HITS!

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:To be fair, Pittsburgh kinda lucked into one important draftee.

Yeah, I think people forget that the lottery in 2005 where Sidney Crosby was selected was not your standard lottery. This was a post-lockout lottery where everyone was in the mix and able to win it. Take away the lockout, and they may not have had the #1 pick. So, the "Pittsburgh Model" would have to be "Suck for a few years and get a couple of high draft picks (Fleury, Malkin) and then hope for a lockout, followed by a Draft Lotto that we'll win and choose the best player in the NHL to come along since Gretzky."

So, I agree with Burke's "my Donkey" comment on the Pittsburgh model. You can't use that as a template.

Sure doesn't stop people from saying it IS, again and again.

But it is one way. You absolutely cannot deny that a team can build a winner around a young talent.

Seriously, look at Tampa and Los Angeles. Where would Tampa be without Stamkos and LA without Doughty?

Riprock wrote:Aside from Crosby, they got Malkin, Fleury and Staal.

Chicago drafted Toews (3rd) and Kane (1st).

Would Chicago have won a cup without those two?

There's also a good chance Edmonton could be the next Canadian team to win a cup.

Chicago is different even though they had 2 top picks. One, they were a mess from the ownership down... it took the old man dying before they could win anything. The culture had to change there. Yah, they got a top pick but it wasn't the reason they got over the top. In fact, the 3rd overall pick (which isn't a sure bet at any time) is probably a top 3 player in the league.

As for the Pens, like I said, without Crosby there is no way those players you mentioned develop or turn out like they have. Crosby was a gift from God (or Bettman depending who you ask).

As for Edmonton, LOL, at them winning a cup. They are so far away from even making the playoffs it's a joke that you could possibly say they could be the next Canadian team to win a cup. Maybe the next team from Alberta but that's about it.

I would take Ottawa, Vancouver, and Montreal's rosters over Edmonton's and it's not even close. You win from the crease and blueline out. Edmonton doesn't have a goaltender or anything resembling a top 2 D man. They have Smid and Whitney who are ok in the 3, 4 role at the best of times and then just a bunch plugs. They are 5 years away from even being close and that's if everything goes right from here on out.

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:What does this have to do with me? Did I say that? Nope, Brian Burke did.

It was based on your comment about not believing in drafting 4 top players. You have stated before how that should be the way to build a team or is at the very least a good way when everything aside from the Pens situation in the early to mid 2000's state otherwise.

I never aid it was the way to build a team. I said that it is one way. I also said that if I had the chance I would take the #1 overall pick anyday over 1th and use that player to turn around the season. It can be done, you are ignorant if you don't believe that. A good team will still be a good team if they get one #1 overall pick.

Losing breeds losing, that's it. It's why Toronto continues to suck, it's why no matter how many top picks Edmonton gets they will continue to suck, it's why Columbus is a joke, it's why Minny can't get to the playoffs, it's why Calgary is probably in the worst shape of any organization in the NHL, etc, etc, etc.

Senators were once a bottom team, then they went to the playoffs for a dozen straight years. Pittsburgh too. Chicago. Florida is in the playoffs after having numerous bottom finishing seasons.

Calgary was in the SC finals a few years ago. Minnesota has been a playoff team and hasn't had a top pick recently if at all. Edmonton's only had a top pick for 2 going on 3 seasons. They could very well be in the playoffs by next year for all we know.

Might as well be saying the earth is flat when people say the Pens model works.

Wow, that might be the worst analogy ever. EVER. Congratulations.

There certainly is something to building through the draft. If you suck for years, you SHOULD be able to amass some up and coming talent to build a successful team around. But, that is only part of the equation, and only gets you so far. You need good management in place to help surround those assets with the right players and create the right environment. Not sure what's going on in Edmonton but they have some fantastic young assets they can build around. They just need to create the right environment and start winning. Murray is doing that in Ottawa and it's paying off now. Hopefully that continues.

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:To be fair, Pittsburgh kinda lucked into one important draftee.

Yeah, I think people forget that the lottery in 2005 where Sidney Crosby was selected was not your standard lottery. This was a post-lockout lottery where everyone was in the mix and able to win it. Take away the lockout, and they may not have had the #1 pick. So, the "Pittsburgh Model" would have to be "Suck for a few years and get a couple of high draft picks (Fleury, Malkin) and then hope for a lockout, followed by a Draft Lotto that we'll win and choose the best player in the NHL to come along since Gretzky."

So, I agree with Burke's "my Donkey" comment on the Pittsburgh model. You can't use that as a template.

Sure doesn't stop people from saying it IS, again and again.

But it is one way. You absolutely cannot deny that a team can build a winner around a young talent.

Seriously, look at Tampa and Los Angeles. Where would Tampa be without Stamkos and LA without Doughty?

35 point Doughty? The guy who's been a major disappointment since holding out? My guess is 8th in the conference.

No one is saying getting a top pick isn't a good thing, that's where franchise players tend to come from. What people are telling you and it is more of a fact than anything else is that losing year after year does no work. You don't seem to understand that aspect of things. Using the Pens model is total BS as everyone has said before.

NEELY wrote:
Chicago is different even though they had 2 top picks. One, they were a mess from the ownership down... it took the old man dying before they could win anything. The culture had to change there. Yah, they got a top pick but it wasn't the reason they got over the top. In fact, the 3rd overall pick (which isn't a sure bet at any time) is probably a top 3 player in the league.

Which is why you can't use the example of teams being losers. That's why I used Florida, because they turned things around to. You make it sound like a team cannot ever turn things around after having a #1 pick which is absurd.

As for the Pens, like I said, without Crosby there is no way those players you mentioned develop or turn out like they have. Crosby was a gift from God (or Bettman depending who you ask).

Malkin would still be good without Crosby.

As for Edmonton, LOL, at them winning a cup. They are so far away from even making the playoffs it's a joke that you could possibly say they could be the next Canadian team to win a cup. Maybe the next team from Alberta but that's about it.

So why is Pittsburgh that much different than Edmonton? Both had 3 seasons finishing in the bottom 2. Edmonton can turn it around. They have a good owner and good coaching.

I would take Ottawa, Vancouver, and Montreal's rosters over Edmonton's and it's not even close. You win from the crease and blueline out. Edmonton doesn't have a goaltender or anything resembling a top 2 D man. They have Smid and Whitney who are ok in the 3, 4 role at the best of times and then just a bunch plugs. They are 5 years away from even being close and that's if everything goes right from here on out.

Add in another top pick which could be a young defenceman with huge upside, and maybe a few trades, some FA signings and there's no reason Edmonton can't make the playoffs.

Riprock wrote:Aside from Crosby, they got Malkin, Fleury and Staal.

Chicago drafted Toews (3rd) and Kane (1st).

Would Chicago have won a cup without those two?

There's also a good chance Edmonton could be the next Canadian team to win a cup.

Not without a goalie and some D. And by the time they draft and develop those (and we all know it takes longer) some of the high-octane forwards will be well on the way to big paychecks and some will have to be moved.

This is one of the reasons you should draft D and G first and let them develop.

Riprock wrote:Aside from Crosby, they got Malkin, Fleury and Staal.

Chicago drafted Toews (3rd) and Kane (1st).

Would Chicago have won a cup without those two?

There's also a good chance Edmonton could be the next Canadian team to win a cup.

Both PIT's and CHI's turn arounds started earlier, at the level of management -- Mario Lemieux coming in the early 2000s, and Bill Wirtz dying in 2007.

For every recent Cup winner you can name who had top-5 first round picks take a big, leadership role in bringing home a Cup, I can name Cup winner that didn't have a top-5 first round pick do the same thing (i.e., BOS, unless you really want to count Seguin as a player who was as pivotal to the win as say Crosby or Malkin or Toews or Kane; and DET). I can also name lots of teams who drafted year after year in the top 5, but who got very little or nothing for it (i.e., FLA or CLB).

The argument is so maddening because it's so oversimplified: NO franchise wins because of ONE single facet (drafting, trading, FA signings, etc. etc. etc.). They win because they have done a number of things right, organization, from top to bottom -- from drafting to development to signings to trades to coaching, and so on. You know, build a winning culture.

Getting a great player in the draft CAN BE a great place to start, but that's about it. It's one piece in a puzzle -- and sometimes the people putting that puzzle together get it right and that player is (or players are) a key cog in winning, and other times they don't and that player or players doesn't do much for the franchise at all.

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:To be fair, Pittsburgh kinda lucked into one important draftee.

Yeah, I think people forget that the lottery in 2005 where Sidney Crosby was selected was not your standard lottery. This was a post-lockout lottery where everyone was in the mix and able to win it. Take away the lockout, and they may not have had the #1 pick. So, the "Pittsburgh Model" would have to be "Suck for a few years and get a couple of high draft picks (Fleury, Malkin) and then hope for a lockout, followed by a Draft Lotto that we'll win and choose the best player in the NHL to come along since Gretzky."

So, I agree with Burke's "my Donkey" comment on the Pittsburgh model. You can't use that as a template.

Sure doesn't stop people from saying it IS, again and again.

But it is one way. You absolutely cannot deny that a team can build a winner around a young talent.

Seriously, look at Tampa and Los Angeles. Where would Tampa be without Stamkos and LA without Doughty?

35 point Doughty? The guy who's been a major disappointment since holding out? My guess is 8th in the conference.

No one is saying getting a top pick isn't a good thing, that's where franchise players tend to come from. What people are telling you and it is more of a fact than anything else is that losing year after year does no work. You don't seem to understand that aspect of things. Using the Pens model is total BS as everyone has said before.

One bad season out of 3. If Karlsson has a massive drop off, are you going to say the same thing?

You really have to stop saying losing year after year does not work, when clearly as I have shown, it does. Florida, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Ottawa...

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:What does this have to do with me? Did I say that? Nope, Brian Burke did.

It was based on your comment about not believing in drafting 4 top players. You have stated before how that should be the way to build a team or is at the very least a good way when everything aside from the Pens situation in the early to mid 2000's state otherwise.

Burke is right about it. The Pens won the lotto and that's why they are where they are. They were seconds from moving the team, no rink in place to be build, but all of the sudden then hand of God touched them and they were GIVEN Crosby. That's it. Without Crosby they don't win a cup, who knows if Malkin develops the way he did, Fluery is probably considered a 1st overall bust, and Staal is an average 2nd line center.

Losing breeds losing, that's it. It's why Toronto continues to suck, it's why no matter how many top picks Edmonton gets they will continue to suck, it's why Columbus is a joke, it's why Minny can't get to the playoffs, it's why Calgary is probably in the worst shape of any organization in the NHL, etc, etc, etc.

Might as well be saying the earth is flat when people say the Pens model works.

I'm not sure I agree that Staal is an average 2nd line center. Fisher was an average 2nd line center. Staal is better than Fisher.

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:To be fair, Pittsburgh kinda lucked into one important draftee.

Yeah, I think people forget that the lottery in 2005 where Sidney Crosby was selected was not your standard lottery. This was a post-lockout lottery where everyone was in the mix and able to win it. Take away the lockout, and they may not have had the #1 pick. So, the "Pittsburgh Model" would have to be "Suck for a few years and get a couple of high draft picks (Fleury, Malkin) and then hope for a lockout, followed by a Draft Lotto that we'll win and choose the best player in the NHL to come along since Gretzky."

So, I agree with Burke's "my Donkey" comment on the Pittsburgh model. You can't use that as a template.

Sure doesn't stop people from saying it IS, again and again.

But it is one way. You absolutely cannot deny that a team can build a winner around a young talent.

Seriously, look at Tampa and Los Angeles. Where would Tampa be without Stamkos and LA without Doughty?

60 goal season down the drain. *THAT's* where Tampais.

rooneypoo wrote:
Both PIT's and CHI's turn arounds started earlier, at the level of management -- Mario Lemieux coming in the early 2000s, and Bill Wirtz dying in 2007.

For every recent Cup winner you can name who had top-5 first round picks take a big, leadership role in bringing home a Cup, I can name Cup winner that didn't have a top-5 first round pick do the same thing (i.e., BOS, unless you really want to count Seguin as a player who was as pivotal to the win as say Crosby or Malkin or Toews or Kane; and DET). I can also name lots of teams who drafted year after year in the top 5, but who got very little or nothing for it (i.e., FLA or CLB).

The argument is so maddening because it's so oversimplified: NO franchise wins because of ONE single facet (drafting, trading, FA signings, etc. etc. etc.). They win because they have done a number of things right, organization, from top to bottom -- from drafting to development to signings to trades to coaching, and so on. You know, build a winning culture.

Getting a great player in the draft CAN BE a great place to start, but that's about it. It's one piece in a puzzle -- and sometimes the people putting that puzzle together get it right and that player is (or players are) a key cog in winning, and other times they don't and that player or players doesn't do much for the franchise at all.

But I never said that drafting was the ONLY thing. I clearly acknowledge the difference between Florida and Columbus. You have to stop using Florida though - as I have pointed out they are finally turning things around. High draft picks, signing FA's, changing staff.

Riprock wrote:

NEELY wrote:
Chicago is different even though they had 2 top picks. One, they were a mess from the ownership down... it took the old man dying before they could win anything. The culture had to change there. Yah, they got a top pick but it wasn't the reason they got over the top. In fact, the 3rd overall pick (which isn't a sure bet at any time) is probably a top 3 player in the league.

Which is why you can't use the example of teams being losers. That's why I used Florida, because they turned things around to. You make it sound like a team cannot ever turn things around after having a #1 pick which is absurd.

As for the Pens, like I said, without Crosby there is no way those players you mentioned develop or turn out like they have. Crosby was a gift from God (or Bettman depending who you ask).

Malkin would still be good without Crosby.

As for Edmonton, LOL, at them winning a cup. They are so far away from even making the playoffs it's a joke that you could possibly say they could be the next Canadian team to win a cup. Maybe the next team from Alberta but that's about it.

So why is Pittsburgh that much different than Edmonton? Both had 3 seasons finishing in the bottom 2. Edmonton can turn it around. They have a good owner and good coaching.

I would take Ottawa, Vancouver, and Montreal's rosters over Edmonton's and it's not even close. You win from the crease and blueline out. Edmonton doesn't have a goaltender or anything resembling a top 2 D man. They have Smid and Whitney who are ok in the 3, 4 role at the best of times and then just a bunch plugs. They are 5 years away from even being close and that's if everything goes right from here on out.

Add in another top pick which could be a young defenceman with huge upside, and maybe a few trades, some FA signings and there's no reason Edmonton can't make the playoffs.

1. Florida didn't turn it around. They had a decent year in an awful division. That's it. If they make the playoffs next year again people can say they have "turned it around", until then they are a team that had a good season and squeeked in.

2. Malkin would not be the same player without Crosby. To say he would have is simply untrue. Would he be a good player? Probably. Would he be a Hart Trophy winner carrying a team? Doubtful.

3. Why isn't Edmonton along the same line as Pitt? Simple. No one handed them Sidney Crosby.

Florida did turn it around. Don't use their division as an excuse. They have a tonne of talent and veteran experience.

You can't say that Malkin wouldn't be the Malkin he is today w/o Crosby and say that otherwise is untrue. There's no truth value to be determined. I have just as much truth to say he would be as you do to say he wouldn't be.

While Hall/Eberle/MPS/RNH =/= Crosby, they are still good. They very well could be in playoffs next year.

Florida has an aggressive GM that knows how to build through the draft, FA signings and, yes, even trades. High picks alone weren't working for Florida either.

Riprock wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:To be fair, Pittsburgh kinda lucked into one important draftee.

Yeah, I think people forget that the lottery in 2005 where Sidney Crosby was selected was not your standard lottery. This was a post-lockout lottery where everyone was in the mix and able to win it. Take away the lockout, and they may not have had the #1 pick. So, the "Pittsburgh Model" would have to be "Suck for a few years and get a couple of high draft picks (Fleury, Malkin) and then hope for a lockout, followed by a Draft Lotto that we'll win and choose the best player in the NHL to come along since Gretzky."

So, I agree with Burke's "my Donkey" comment on the Pittsburgh model. You can't use that as a template.

Sure doesn't stop people from saying it IS, again and again.

But it is one way. You absolutely cannot deny that a team can build a winner around a young talent.

Seriously, look at Tampa and Los Angeles. Where would Tampa be without Stamkos and LA without Doughty?

35 point Doughty? The guy who's been a major disappointment since holding out? My guess is 8th in the conference.

No one is saying getting a top pick isn't a good thing, that's where franchise players tend to come from. What people are telling you and it is more of a fact than anything else is that losing year after year does no work. You don't seem to understand that aspect of things. Using the Pens model is total BS as everyone has said before.

One bad season out of 3. If Karlsson has a massive drop off, are you going to say the same thing?

You really have to stop saying losing year after year does not work, when clearly as I have shown, it does. Florida, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Ottawa...

Florida is not a contender nor have they turned it around. One good season.

Ottawa. When have they lost year after year besides when they first got into the NHL? All expansion franchises lose their first years. Fact of the matter is when Ottawa did draft players they brought them along the right way. The one guy they thought was a sure fire NHL star in Daigle was a bust. How Ottawa built there team was getting the right players throughout the entire draft, not just the first round much like they are doing now.

Alfredsson, Hossa, Havlat, Karlsson, no where near top 5 picks.

Bonk, Daigle, Phillips (good player but not a typical #1 pick), Redden, none of those guys are super stars on any level. The only player that can be considered a top star that was drafted in the top 3 was Yashin and he was given to the Sens without having played a game.

wprager wrote:

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:To be fair, Pittsburgh kinda lucked into one important draftee.

Yeah, I think people forget that the lottery in 2005 where Sidney Crosby was selected was not your standard lottery. This was a post-lockout lottery where everyone was in the mix and able to win it. Take away the lockout, and they may not have had the #1 pick. So, the "Pittsburgh Model" would have to be "Suck for a few years and get a couple of high draft picks (Fleury, Malkin) and then hope for a lockout, followed by a Draft Lotto that we'll win and choose the best player in the NHL to come along since Gretzky."

So, I agree with Burke's "my Donkey" comment on the Pittsburgh model. You can't use that as a template.

Sure doesn't stop people from saying it IS, again and again.

But it is one way. You absolutely cannot deny that a team can build a winner around a young talent.

Seriously, look at Tampa and Los Angeles. Where would Tampa be without Stamkos and LA without Doughty?

60 goal season down the drain. *THAT's* where Tampais.

Big deal, they didn't make the playoffs. They were there last year. Their goaltending kileld them. 40+ Roloson with no real back up that could take over. Injuries to defencemen too.