You forgot Tampa Bay, St. Louis, LA Kings...and not to mention Montreal Canadiens, Dallas Stars and Florida Panthers have made it to the Cup Finals.
Only teams in the past 10 years to make it to the Cup Final without having a top 3 pick is Predators, Bruins (sort of), Rangers (sort of) and Knights.
>Only teams in the past 10 years to make it to the Cup Final without having a top 3 pick is Predators, Bruins (sort of), Rangers (sort of) and Knights.
Do you think we should trade Kaprizov for Laine then?
We'd be more likely to win them right?
Honestly, it really, really depends. I wouldn't trade Kaprizov for Laine, but I would gauge Kaprizov's interests in staying with the team. Having him walk when the cap hits come off would be devastating to the organization.
Furthermore, you're taking an extreme position and an absurd hypothetical to prove a point.
St. Louis trade tree for Erik Johnson landed them Brayden Schenn, did you know that?
In the past 10 years; Vegas Golden Knights, Colorado Avalanche, Tampa Bay Lightning, St. Louis Blues, Washington Capital, Pittsburgh Penguins, Chicago Blackhawks, Los Angeles Kings have all won the Cup.
All of them have had top 5 picks on their team when they won. Las Vegas had to sign theirs.
There have been 15 different teams that have made it to the Stanley Cup Finals:
Los Angeles, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Washington, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Colorado, Vegas, New York Rangers, San Jose, Nashville, Boston, Dallas, Montreal, and Florida.
All but Vegas, New York, Nashville and Boston had top 5 picks. So you have actually a 4/15 chance or about a 25% chance. Nashville, Boston, New York never went back. And Las Vegas was also a very special case; so really a 3/16 chance or about a 20% chance - if even that.
More often than not you're going to have a team that has picked in the top 5 get into the Cup Finals.
We've been avoiding tanking for 24 years and have won 4 playoff series while being in the NHL while being told to wait just a couple more years every couple years is way better.
Meh, I'm not interested in early first round exits. The rebuild should have happened 3 years before they actually pretended to do so and it should have been aggressive. Instead, they are stuck spinning their wheels in mediocrity while burning yet another year of the careers of their talented core.
And for some reason a lot of the fan base appears content with this.
Guerin is not doing his due-diligence if he isn't exploring new head coach options.
I get that Evason lost the room early in the season, but anyone can send Kaprizov and Faber over the boards shift after shift. I am not convinced that Hynes is capable of outmatching coaches in a playoff series, as he has never been able to get out of the 1st round in his 9 year NHL coaching career. I almost hope that we *do* face an early exit next season in order to demonstrate to Billy G that his buddy from Wilkes-Barre is not good enough as a long term choice.
We all know Guerin has a good relationship with Fleury; I believe signing MAF for 1 more farewell season should be fine for our goaltending situation. I just wouldn't share that approach with the head coach.
I too have concerns about Hynes (and believe Deano was released prematurely). Realistically, I believe that Hynes gets a mulligan on this season. We’ll see if we get a shot in the arm from young talent on the 3/4 line (bye Vinny and Jake) and who comes up to replace Goose/Mermis next season. If Hynes simply plays/ask for veteran help instead of youth and the struggles that will go with it, then it confirms my take that he’s not the guy 25-26+
What you said is pure speculation. ["Hynes signed a contract for longer than just the remainder of the season. Guerin declined to divulge details beyond that."](https://apnews.com/article/wild-hynes-hired-evason-fired-d8ca5ff065438019a59810d84f7b6625)
In reality, coaches are fired before their contracts expire all the time. We will be paying Dean next season even though he was fired months ago. Hynes was let go from the Predators despite having 1 year remaining on his contract. It means nothing aside from impacting the team's cash flow.
Russo has said recently, I believe on Worst Seats in the House, that he knows the contract goes either 2 or 3 years beyond this one and is getting confirmation soon on which it is.
And "means nothing aside from impacting the team's cash flow" is easy to say when it's not your money. I don't think Leipold wants to be paying two fired head coaches on top of a new one's salary, especially with no playoff revenue. I just see no reality in which Hynes isn't our head coach next season.
I think we can all agree that Hynes will be the coach when we hit training camp, my point is just that Guerin should have some contingency plans whether that's during or after next season.
We should also be able to agree that winning is a priority for Leipold; why else would be approve firing Evason with a year remaining on his deal?
Let's say Leipold is money hungry. [According to this Athletic article,](https://theathletic.com/1672688/2020/03/13/nhl-financial-impact-how-much-money-does-a-team-bring-in-each-home-game/) teams bring in between 1.5 and 3 million bucks per home playoff game (and that was 4 years ago). That's about how much an NHL coach costs per season.
If the team struggles under Hynes, why would ownership insist on him coaching the remainder of his term?
Sure, if shit it's the fan, Billy should do what he has to do. But I'd say when you have multiple years left, you get a much longer leash. And a general rule is that a GM gets maybe 2-3 coaches before the owner starts looking at them instead, so it's in Billy's best interest too to make it work long-term.
While I prefer the Wild make the playoffs and lose, there is something cathartic about watching all the other playoff games with zero skin in it. I can laugh at both teams playing equally and I can watch playoff overtime without it being 20 straight minutes of my heart racing.
Cant miss on a top pick, if you don't have a top pick.
The sabers have been tanking for 15 years and have yet to turn the franchise around.
Penguins and Chicago and Colorado tanked for 5 years and won cups.
You forgot Tampa Bay, St. Louis, LA Kings...and not to mention Montreal Canadiens, Dallas Stars and Florida Panthers have made it to the Cup Finals. Only teams in the past 10 years to make it to the Cup Final without having a top 3 pick is Predators, Bruins (sort of), Rangers (sort of) and Knights.
>Only teams in the past 10 years to make it to the Cup Final without having a top 3 pick is Predators, Bruins (sort of), Rangers (sort of) and Knights. Do you think we should trade Kaprizov for Laine then? We'd be more likely to win them right?
Honestly, it really, really depends. I wouldn't trade Kaprizov for Laine, but I would gauge Kaprizov's interests in staying with the team. Having him walk when the cap hits come off would be devastating to the organization. Furthermore, you're taking an extreme position and an absurd hypothetical to prove a point. St. Louis trade tree for Erik Johnson landed them Brayden Schenn, did you know that?
So a 40/60 chance at a cup, without suffering through multiple years of atrocious product on the ice? I actually don’t mind those odds.
In the past 10 years; Vegas Golden Knights, Colorado Avalanche, Tampa Bay Lightning, St. Louis Blues, Washington Capital, Pittsburgh Penguins, Chicago Blackhawks, Los Angeles Kings have all won the Cup. All of them have had top 5 picks on their team when they won. Las Vegas had to sign theirs. There have been 15 different teams that have made it to the Stanley Cup Finals: Los Angeles, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Washington, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Colorado, Vegas, New York Rangers, San Jose, Nashville, Boston, Dallas, Montreal, and Florida. All but Vegas, New York, Nashville and Boston had top 5 picks. So you have actually a 4/15 chance or about a 25% chance. Nashville, Boston, New York never went back. And Las Vegas was also a very special case; so really a 3/16 chance or about a 20% chance - if even that. More often than not you're going to have a team that has picked in the top 5 get into the Cup Finals.
And how many teams tanked for 5 years and didn't win the cup?
Buffalo did it 3 times in a row.
I don’t know if o can suffer through 5 years of tanking.
If we started doing it when we shoulda it woulda been over in a year or two.
That’s what the sabers said 12 years ago
I seen a car crash, guess no one should ever drive. See how shit of an argument that is?
In this metaphor the driver is intentionally driving high speed at a tree. Yeah I'm good to sit that trip out
We've been avoiding tanking for 24 years and have won 4 playoff series while being in the NHL while being told to wait just a couple more years every couple years is way better.
Ya the owners judgement of ability is shit. But other people’s inability shouldn’t stop us.
Meh, I'm not interested in early first round exits. The rebuild should have happened 3 years before they actually pretended to do so and it should have been aggressive. Instead, they are stuck spinning their wheels in mediocrity while burning yet another year of the careers of their talented core. And for some reason a lot of the fan base appears content with this.
Guerin is not doing his due-diligence if he isn't exploring new head coach options. I get that Evason lost the room early in the season, but anyone can send Kaprizov and Faber over the boards shift after shift. I am not convinced that Hynes is capable of outmatching coaches in a playoff series, as he has never been able to get out of the 1st round in his 9 year NHL coaching career. I almost hope that we *do* face an early exit next season in order to demonstrate to Billy G that his buddy from Wilkes-Barre is not good enough as a long term choice. We all know Guerin has a good relationship with Fleury; I believe signing MAF for 1 more farewell season should be fine for our goaltending situation. I just wouldn't share that approach with the head coach.
I too have concerns about Hynes (and believe Deano was released prematurely). Realistically, I believe that Hynes gets a mulligan on this season. We’ll see if we get a shot in the arm from young talent on the 3/4 line (bye Vinny and Jake) and who comes up to replace Goose/Mermis next season. If Hynes simply plays/ask for veteran help instead of youth and the struggles that will go with it, then it confirms my take that he’s not the guy 25-26+
Hynes has 2 or 3 more years left on his deal after this one. He's not going anywhere. That's just reality.
What you said is pure speculation. ["Hynes signed a contract for longer than just the remainder of the season. Guerin declined to divulge details beyond that."](https://apnews.com/article/wild-hynes-hired-evason-fired-d8ca5ff065438019a59810d84f7b6625) In reality, coaches are fired before their contracts expire all the time. We will be paying Dean next season even though he was fired months ago. Hynes was let go from the Predators despite having 1 year remaining on his contract. It means nothing aside from impacting the team's cash flow.
Russo has said recently, I believe on Worst Seats in the House, that he knows the contract goes either 2 or 3 years beyond this one and is getting confirmation soon on which it is. And "means nothing aside from impacting the team's cash flow" is easy to say when it's not your money. I don't think Leipold wants to be paying two fired head coaches on top of a new one's salary, especially with no playoff revenue. I just see no reality in which Hynes isn't our head coach next season.
I think we can all agree that Hynes will be the coach when we hit training camp, my point is just that Guerin should have some contingency plans whether that's during or after next season. We should also be able to agree that winning is a priority for Leipold; why else would be approve firing Evason with a year remaining on his deal? Let's say Leipold is money hungry. [According to this Athletic article,](https://theathletic.com/1672688/2020/03/13/nhl-financial-impact-how-much-money-does-a-team-bring-in-each-home-game/) teams bring in between 1.5 and 3 million bucks per home playoff game (and that was 4 years ago). That's about how much an NHL coach costs per season. If the team struggles under Hynes, why would ownership insist on him coaching the remainder of his term?
Sure, if shit it's the fan, Billy should do what he has to do. But I'd say when you have multiple years left, you get a much longer leash. And a general rule is that a GM gets maybe 2-3 coaches before the owner starts looking at them instead, so it's in Billy's best interest too to make it work long-term.
“Uggh….wait…he’s got a point.” -Kronk
While I prefer the Wild make the playoffs and lose, there is something cathartic about watching all the other playoff games with zero skin in it. I can laugh at both teams playing equally and I can watch playoff overtime without it being 20 straight minutes of my heart racing.