Comments on: ‘Choosing to lose’ vs. accepting life in hockey’s lower middle class

By: James O'Brien

James O'Brien — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:51:12 +0000

Thanks for catching that.

By: hockeyfan1701

hockeyfan1701 — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:22:44 +0000

Sure that’s it Oliver Stone……

By: hystoracle

hystoracle — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:03:08 +0000

Still think the fix was in on the Crosby draft. Penguins were floundering in the front office – getting new owners- wanting a new building. Team was bad and fans were losing interest and magically the ball (no one ever sees) “bounces” to allow the Penguins to move up to the first overall pick and get one of the most sought after first overall selections in a long time. Hmmm.. that worked out just right didn’t it.

By: cshearing

cshearing — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:14:39 +0000

BTW, the term is fool-proof, not full-proof.

By: bsputnik

bsputnik — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:15:13 +0000

The “choose to lose” model only works if there is a series of good draft classes and a bit of luck. Looking at the Penguins, they had Flurey, Malkin, Crosby and Staal from 03-06 (1, 2, 1, 2 overall respectively). That forms the core of the team. Flurey was through savvy trading (ripping off the Panthers), but the other three were luck in the draft lotto and the quality of the available players. It isn’t always cut and dry on who is the #1 and 2 picks either. Sometimes the guy picked at #6 may end up being the best player in the draft. You need a good GM to be able to ID the best picks. So just going out and losing to get high picks isn’t necessarily going to lead to success. You could get four #1 picks in a row, but if the top-level talent to build a team isn’t available then that plan won’t work.