Much has been made of tanking lately and how it relates to future success. There’s more than a shred of validity to that creed, as the NHL is a ‘star’ league. Finding the shortest route to these stars then is key. Building around them, almost as important.

Money Puck (RIP) tackled the topic this summer, looking at how teams built around their stars to get to the top.

Generally, one obtains these stars at the top end of the draft. Part of tanking is ensuring your spot therein, to snag those players ahead of the competition. One way to circumvent this is by taking a volume approach to the draft. Do both and you’re laughing all the way to the bank.

In just a weeks time, the Toronto Maple Leafs have turned Shawn Matthias, Roman Polak and Nick Spaling into two seconds and a fourth round pick. That brings their total number of draft picks to 12. Better yet, they have three second round picks in line for next season and two second round picks in 2018. This doesn’t take into account the picks they’ll surrender to Detroit and New Jersey as payment for Lou Lamoriello and Mike Babcock, but they’re still looking at a few years with well beyond the seven picks they started with.

That’s added pieces to a prospect pool that already includes the likes of William Nylander, Mitch Marner and whoever else they add this summer. 

But enough praising the Maple Leafs for their moves. Let’s look at two teams who have already done this successfully to the tune of multiple cup wins. The Los Angeles Kings and Chicago Blackhawks. 

Let’s start with the Kings. Between 2006-2009, they had a total of 38 picks which is 10 more than their allotted amount of seven per year. Within the hockey scouting community, a successful draft is where you get two NHL players (who play at least 160 NHL games) from one draft class. So basically, 2 out of 7 or 29%. So that means by adding 10 picks within 4 years, the Kings should’ve added an additional 3 players for a total of 11 players. Let’s start with 2009:

The Kings knocked it out of the park in 2009; they got three bonafide NHL players in Clifford, Schenn and Nolan. Then two players who took some time, but look like NHL players in Vey and Deslauriers. This class is obviously improved by the fact that they picked 5th overall and 35th overall. Based on our previous benchmark for success, it’s safe to say that this was a successful draft for the Kings

Based on the previous benchmark, this can be deemed as successful. Drew Doughty is a star, and prior to leaving for Russia (due to legal issues) Slava Voynov was a top 4 defenceman. Colten Tuebert was a miss and Andrei Loktionov should be an NHL player, but is currently plying his trade in the KHL.

2007 was another successful draft for the Kings, headlined by a player that wasn’t even selected early in the draft. Arguably, Thomas Hickey and Oscar Moller were the worst picks (of players who made it) in the draft with Wayne Simmonds, Alec Martinez and Dwight King being taken later. 2006 wasn’t a great draft but once again produced 2 players, and then Zatkoff, so arguably there is 3 players from here.

But the common theme here is that the Kings picked a lot and walked away with NHL players. Some of those players made up their roster for their first cup win in 2012. Or, in the case of Wayne Simmonds and Brayden Schenn, were traded for players who made a huge impact.

So in totality, the Kings were able to get 14 NHL players from four years for a ‘success rate’ of 36.7%. So based on percentage, not a drastic increase in ‘hits’ but by acquiring more picks, they were able to increase their chances and thus with a slight improvement were very successful on the draft floor. With that being said, all of these players did not have a large impact on the Cup win in 2012, and in some players case, Martinez specifically, their impact was more noticeable in the 2014 Cup victory. But Jonathan Bernier, Jordan Nolan, Martinez, Doughty, King and Trevor Lewis all played at some point in those 2012 playoffs.

Let’s look at the Blackhawks.

They won their first cup in the 2009-10 season, and so we have to look a few years further back. So looking at the 2004-2007 drafts, the Blackhawks picked a total of 45 picks. That includes the 2004 draft where there was still 9 rounds, but they had 17 (!) picks that draft, they followed that up with 12 picks in the 2005 draft. So  they had 15 more picks than they were originally allotted. (9 in 2004 and then 7 for 2005-2007)

As mentioned, in the 2004 draft, the Blackhawks had 17 picks in 9 rounds. They were able to walk away with Cam Barker, Bryan Bickell, Jake Dowling, Troy Brouwer and Dave Bolland. So that makes 5 players from 17 picks, which is 29%. Once again, regardless of the calibre of these players, they either played a role in a cup win (Bolland, Brouwer and Bickell), was a depth player (Dowling) or was moved for players that did help the organization (Barker for Leddy).

Here’s where things do start to turn for the Blackhawks – out of the 12 picks, the Blackhawks walk away with 2.5 players. Skille and Hjalmarsson are really the only NHL players that they get out of 12 picks, with Blunden being a journeyman who was eventually traded to Columbus in January 2009. It gets worse though.

One out of nine, and it took the 3rd overall pick to get it. 11% success rate is not a good draft class, but Toews and his three cup rings do make up for the swing and a miss here.

Another swing and a miss by the Blackhawks here, only walking away with Patrick Kane. Simply, it is a 14% success rate.

But what it does help do is illustrate the point that getting more picks is a good thing. Let’s say the Blackhawks had more picks in the last two years and thus may have helped them land another player or two.

This thought process is further illustrated by 2010-2014 drafts for the Blackhawks. Due to cap issues, the Blackhawks had to purge themselves of a lot of players and thus were receiving a lot more picks in return. They had 10 picks in 2010, 11 in 2011, 8 in 2012, 8 in 2013 and 9 in 2014. Given how recent these drafts have been, it’s unfair to categorize them as a success or not, but they are all trending to be within or above the 30% range that is deemed successful.

So how does this relate to the Canucks?

Well simply, get as many picks as possible. If the Canucks can somehow get a pick for Chris Higgins, or Brandon Prust, or Yannick Weber, or Matt Bartkowski, then do it. Adding something as minuscule as a 6th or 7th round pick may pay dividends in the long run (even if some salary retention is needed).  So far GM Jim Benning has proven that he is very good evaluator of talent on the draft floor – so why not get as many picks as you can?

Tate Olson was picked with the 2nd to last pick in June, and he was rated by Craig Button as the 4th best prospect in the system.

Get as many spins at the wheel as possible – it gives you two years to evaluate the talent. If they don’t work out, then you don’t sign them but by giving yourself as many picks as possibly, it will only increase your odds of finding a gem. Last month, I suggested trading down on the draft floor in an effort to get more picks, but the Canucks are in a prime situation to get ahead of that start acquiring picks now.

The Canucks will likely be able to add a good piece with an early first round pick this June. Add a developing young core and the Canucks could easily be on their way to turning this around.

Obviously the Kings and Blackhawks have done very well on the draft floor with identifying talent, but the difference between the mean and their success rate isn’t drastic. So why not try to emulate their plan of acquiring as many picks as possible, then developing those players, and if you deem that won’t fit into your plan, you have the assets to make a move.

Regardless of your thoughts on team tank, it’s food for thought on how the Canucks could proceed this week.