Toronto Maple Leafs TIDBITS & QUICK HITS!

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...

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.

SeawaySensFan wrote: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: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.

Riprock wrote:

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:Ottawa finished 5ht overall last season.... now in playoffs. Turn around season.

Teams do that, its cray huh?

SeawaySensFan wrote: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:

SeawaySensFan wrote: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.

Agreed, and now they are in the playoffs. But now that is being dismissed because they got lucky.

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote: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.

Exactly my point. In fact, how they drafted in the last 10 years does NOT at all explain how they won their division this year.

Riprock wrote:

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:

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote: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.

Exactly my point. In fact, how they drafted in the last 10 years does NOT at all explain how they won their division this year.

But it does defeat the claim that losers are always losers, which is not only erroneous but a horrible generalization.

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote: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.

Exactly my point. In fact, how they drafted in the last 10 years does NOT at all explain how they won their division this year.

But it does defeat the claim that losers are always losers, which is not only erroneous but a horrible generalization.

NEELY wrote:I'll take the bet another step. I'll be you both Florida AND Edmonton don't make the playoffs. That's the bet.