We do not need to tear it down OR make big trades

[Harold Drunken]

[EdgarM]

9 minutes ago, Harold Drunken said:

Haha, So I guess your with the "Build a Team" like Edmonton, Buffalo and Arizona then? Gotcha.

[Harold Drunken]

32 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Haha, So I guess your with the "Build a Team" like Edmonton, Buffalo and Arizona then? Gotcha.

That isn't even relevant nor does it make any sense. As a matter of fact, this is one of the laziest and most erroneous replies I've ever seen.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Harold Drunken

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Haha, So I guess your with the "Build a Team" like Edmonton, Buffalo and Arizona then? Gotcha.

More on the lines of Rangers, Penguins, Avalanche, Blackhawks, Lightning who all actually sold off assets while they had value and picked in the top 5 regardless of winning/losing the lottery. They were willing to suffer the pain of a bottom out season and put themselves in a position where even if they lost the draft lottery, they still had a top 3-5 pick.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Petey/Hughes/Demko but they aren't the same caliber of players (yet i hope) that you can get from properly rebuilding in the vein of a Makar, Crosby, Mackinnon, Matthews, Ovechkin, Kane, Toews, Hedman, Stamkos etc...

 

Team 'anything can happen in the playoffs' has just as much in common with Edmonton/Buffalo/Arizona, difference is they make the golf course a week later with a draft position in the 10s rather than the single digits.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by DSVII

[Honky Cat]

5 hours ago, DSVII said:

More on the lines of Rangers, Penguins, Avalanche, Blackhawks, Lightning who all actually sold off assets while they had value and picked in the top 5 regardless of winning/losing the lottery. They were willing to suffer the pain of a bottom out season and put themselves in a position where even if they lost the draft lottery, they still had a top 3-5 pick.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Petey/Hughes/Demko but they aren't the same caliber of players (yet i hope) that you can get from properly rebuilding in the vein of a Makar, Crosby, Mackinnon, Matthews, Ovechkin, Kane, Toews, Hedman, Stamkos etc...

 

Team 'anything can happen in the playoffs' has just as much in common with Edmonton/Buffalo/Arizona, difference is they make the golf course a week later with a draft position in the 10s rather than the single digits.

 

 

You could have finished dead last in the league and tanked for 10 consecutive years (proper rebuild) , and still not picked 1st or 2nd OA.

 

Pretty much all the players you listed but one.

[whysoserious]

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

You could have finished dead last in the league and tanked for 10 consecutive years (proper rebuild) , and still not picked 1st or 2nd OA.

 

Pretty much all the players you listed but one.

That's certainly possible, but the probability of that happening is less than 1%. This is the same mindset as the "get into the playoffs and anything can happen". Sure, anything can happen, but that doesn't mean it will happen. 

 

Besides, I don't think the point was that the team should be "tanking". The point is that we should have been selling assets and accumulating futures over these years instead of selling draft picks and signing aging UFAs. Over the last 8 years, did we even acquire a single player that can be considered a core piece through a trade or UFA signing? 

 

[Viper007]

4 minutes ago, whysoserious said:

That's certainly possible, but the probability of that happening is less than 1%. This is the same mindset as the "get into the playoffs and anything can happen". Sure, anything can happen, but that doesn't mean it will happen. 

 

Besides, I don't think the point was that the team should be "tanking". The point is that we should have been selling assets and accumulating futures over these years instead of selling draft picks and signing aging UFAs. Over the last 8 years, did we even acquire a single player that can be considered a core piece through a trade or UFA signing? 

 

You still can't be getting those type of players by selling assets.  Teams that want to trade with you aren't teams that are tanking.  They're teams that would be trying to load up for playoff runs.  

[whysoserious]

38 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

You still can't be getting those type of players by selling assets.  Teams that want to trade with you aren't teams that are tanking.  They're teams that would be trying to load up for playoff runs.  

Nobody said you could, but you can certainly bolster your core that way. If you're selling assets, accumulating futures, chances are you will put yourself in a position to get a top pick. Even if you don't, adding a few late 1st, 2nd even 3rd round picks (along with retaining our own picks) over the years would likely result in a few more players that can contribute to our roster. You accumulate assets, maintain cap flexibility and put yourself in a position to add players when it make sense. 

Instead, we traded assets for players that didn't help the team, and to add insult to injury we gave them contracts that turned them into negative value assets. 

[Honky Cat]

10 hours ago, whysoserious said:

That's certainly possible, but the probability of that happening is less than 1%. This is the same mindset as the "get into the playoffs and anything can happen". Sure, anything can happen, but that doesn't mean it will happen. 

 

Besides, I don't think the point was that the team should be "tanking". The point is that we should have been selling assets and accumulating futures over these years instead of selling draft picks and signing aging UFAs. Over the last 8 years, did we even acquire a single player that can be considered a core piece through a trade or UFA signing? 

 

Disagree, the McDavids,Mackinnons,Crosby Ovechkin players only pop up every 4 years or so.You could purposely tank every year, and still not get those players. in the finals this year, both teams had a #1,and a #2OA picks on their roster. Canucks have never picked higher than 5th this whole millennium, despite finishing with a terrible record on several occasions.

 

Look at Arizona this season, you cant have a more premeditated tank than that team. Picking 3rd in the draft ?

 

I do agree that the team should have been accumulating futures, especially between 2013-17,but they did not. They were competing for a playoff spot all those years.

[EdgarM]

18 hours ago, DSVII said:

More on the lines of Rangers, Penguins, Avalanche, Blackhawks, Lightning who all actually sold off assets while they had value and picked in the top 5 regardless of winning/losing the lottery. They were willing to suffer the pain of a bottom out season and put themselves in a position where even if they lost the draft lottery, they still had a top 3-5 pick.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Petey/Hughes/Demko but they aren't the same caliber of players (yet i hope) that you can get from properly rebuilding in the vein of a Makar, Crosby, Mackinnon, Matthews, Ovechkin, Kane, Toews, Hedman, Stamkos etc...

 

Team 'anything can happen in the playoffs' has just as much in common with Edmonton/Buffalo/Arizona, difference is they make the golf course a week later with a draft position in the 10s rather than the single digits.

 

 

Oh! so you are going to pick and choose top picks now? .....I see. What about Draisaitl and McDavid? You seem to think there is some magical recipe for success. With so many moving parts, there is no way you could make the right decisions every step of the way. We are talking a decade or more of decisions and that is asking a lot for a club to be right every time. The teams we mentioned are perfect examples of failures and successes. I believe Buffalo follows the recipe you are talking about and they don't seem to be doing all that well. The teams you are talking about have built the proper players around their top players and I think that is more of a key then what your core is. What if Toronto and Edmonton had a goalie and half decent defenseman? What if we had more team toughness in 2011? 

You like to mock others thoughts of success when I don't think you really know yourself. I think it would be best to "agree to disagree" IMO.

[EdgarM]

19 hours ago, Harold Drunken said:

That isn't even relevant nor does it make any sense. As a matter of fact, this is one of the laziest and most erroneous replies I've ever seen.

Why isn't it relevant?, you are talking about a team "Tanking" and these team certainly did that. The only difference is that you mentioned the successful tankers and left out the ones that were not so successful.

Then you complain about our core not being good enough? You are all over the place man.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Why isn't it relevant?, you are talking about a team "Tanking" and these team certainly did that. The only difference is that you mentioned the successful tankers and left out the ones that were not so successful.

Then you complain about our core not being good enough? You are all over the place man.

I think the concept is it’s very unlikely a team can win a Cup without top five picks playing an important role.  Our most successful team had the Twins and Luongo playing the most important roles.  It took the masterful work of Gillis to support them so they could be their best, but the players were high picks.  

[EdgarM]

21 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I think the concept is it’s very unlikely a team can win a Cup without top five picks playing an important role.  Our most successful team had the Twins and Luongo playing the most important roles.  It took the masterful work of Gillis to support them so they could be their best, but the players were high picks.  

Even you don't sound so sure about yourself Alf. Top 5 , so like McDavid/Draisaitl or Eichel/Dahlin? or how about Matthews/Marner? Even with the Twins we didn't do much other then win some Presidents cups. What would we have been able to do if we had Kessler as the Captain and we actually gave him a credible winger and we had more sandpaper on the team. Instead we put everything on the shoulders of the Twins and Luongo and look what happened. Again, any of these guys are not going to do much unless they have a credible team around them.

This is why teams like Colorado and Tampa are so successful, they have others who will step up when the top guys aren't going. In 2011, the Twins were shut down and we had no one who stepped up. You could say the same for Toronto or Edmonton. With a 23 man roster, 2 or 3 guys are not going make much of a difference if the other 20 guys are doing nothing. Just saying. 

[DSVII]

23 hours ago, EdgarM said:

Oh! so you are going to pick and choose top picks now? .....I see. What about Draisaitl and McDavid? You seem to think there is some magical recipe for success. With so many moving parts, there is no way you could make the right decisions every step of the way. We are talking a decade or more of decisions and that is asking a lot for a club to be right every time.

I mean you've been zeroing in on Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton to build your case, that's less than 10% of the league. Even still McDavid and Draisatl had the potential to be a great team, until Chiarelli tore it apart with his horrible moves which were doubled down on by Holland (Lucic, 2015 Futures for Reinhart, neglecting the goaltending position), he's in the same mold as Benning imo. Similar with Toronto, their tank allowed them the opportunity to put themselves on a great footing, then they got blinded by Tavares who threw off their team structure, and yet they still made the playoffs every year since the tank. 

 

It's not a magical recipe for success. A proper rebuild is based on the accumulation of draft picks, good prospects on ELCs and finding value in your contracts. 

 

Quote

 

The teams we mentioned are perfect examples of failures and successes. I believe Buffalo follows the recipe you are talking about and they don't seem to be doing all that well. The teams you are talking about have built the proper players around their top players and I think that is more of a key then what your core is. What if Toronto and Edmonton had a goalie and half decent defenseman? What if we had more team toughness in 2011? 

You like to mock others thoughts of success when I don't think you really know yourself. I think it would be best to "agree to disagree" IMO.

 

No, i just gave you my examples, much more franchises succeeded at this than failed. Again, you are focusing only on Buffalo.

 

More often than not, teams that are willing to finish in the bottom five make it out of the slump. This is based on empirical evidence. Just look at the cup winners in the salary cap era, almost all of them have picked in the top 5 and rebuilt around the core of elite players.

 

 

https://www.tsn.ca/travis-yost-how-long-should-an-nhl-rebuild-take-1.1819611

 

 

I won't presume to say what your recipe is, but all the supporters of the previous regime always had me worried we'd follow the example of the early 2000s Minnesota Wild. Not quite a perfect rebuild, just good enough to make the playoffs, but never good enough to do damage in them. 

 

And I am not mocking but I am so adverse to the thinking process behind the last regime I'd just never want us to go down that road again. It cost us a decade of this team's life.

Edited July 1, 2022 by DSVII

[TheCammer]

On 5/23/2022 at 2:01 PM, Alflives said:

Actually, if we want a chance to build a team that can win the Cup, we should be keeping Demko and Petey.  Hughes to Jersey for a HUGE haul.  Miller, and Bo for picks and prospects.  Garland too.  

I wish I could cancel this comment just like your horribly, unfunny TV series. 

[EdgarM]

22 hours ago, DSVII said:

I mean you've been zeroing in on Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton to build your case, that's less than 10% of the league. Even still McDavid and Draisatl had the potential to be a great team, until Chiarelli tore it apart with his horrible moves which were doubled down on by Holland (Lucic, 2015 Futures for Reinhart, neglecting the goaltending position), he's in the same mold as Benning imo. Similar with Toronto, their tank allowed them the opportunity to put themselves on a great footing, then they got blinded by Tavares who threw off their team structure, and yet they still made the playoffs every year since the tank. 

 

It's not a magical recipe for success. A proper rebuild is based on the accumulation of draft picks, good prospects on ELCs and finding value in your contracts. 

 

No, i just gave you my examples, much more franchises succeeded at this than failed. Again, you are focusing only on Buffalo.

 

More often than not, teams that are willing to finish in the bottom five make it out of the slump. This is based on empirical evidence. Just look at the cup winners in the salary cap era, almost all of them have picked in the top 5 and rebuilt around the core of elite players.

 

 

https://www.tsn.ca/travis-yost-how-long-should-an-nhl-rebuild-take-1.1819611

 

 

I won't presume to say what your recipe is, but all the supporters of the previous regime always had me worried we'd follow the example of the early 2000s Minnesota Wild. Not quite a perfect rebuild, just good enough to make the playoffs, but never good enough to do damage in them. 

 

And I am not mocking but I am so adverse to the thinking process behind the last regime I'd just never want us to go down that road again. It cost us a decade of this team's life.

I am not trying to prove anything it is your argument we are discussing. You are saying a team needs to "Tank" to be successful. I think we can agree there is examples of it helping and examples where it didn't. 

You are thinking a team follows a certain plan when in reality they may just be taking what is actually available to them and nothing else. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors so we are entirely speculating. 

Again, I believe there is no magical recipe its just being smart of how you do business and managing your assets and liabilities. Other then picking "Top 5" , those teams did a  heck of a lot more then that, they built quality teams around them, that's the key.

We have Petey ,Hughes and Demko and now the key is to build a team that compliment these guys. Get D who can help Demko out, get bigger ,stronger ,faster forwards to play with Petey and a good defensive D man to play with Hughes and OEL. The problem is that we need to accomplish this while getting rid of Benning's excess baggage. I trust the new management will do their best to accomplish this though.

Its funny you question players such as Demko and Hughes when teams like Edmonton and Toronto would kill to have a goalie like Demko and we have never had a PMD like Hughes, EVER, on this franchise. We have waited a long time for a player like this.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

18 hours ago, TheCammer said:

I wish I could cancel this comment just like your horribly, unfunny TV series. 

Ooh… dem’s fightin words! 

[Harold Drunken]

On 6/30/2022 at 11:04 AM, EdgarM said:

Why isn't it relevant?, you are talking about a team "Tanking" and these team certainly did that. The only difference is that you mentioned the successful tankers and left out the ones that were not so successful.

Then you complain about our core not being good enough? You are all over the place man.

I didn't say any of those things......Please find where I said our core wasn't good enough. Also, please find where I said we should tank.