HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Nashville Predators (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Will losing in the first round do anything for the Predators? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=747932)

dulzhok 03-08-2010 07:32 PM

Will losing in the first round do anything for the Predators?
 
Financially, we may net an extra million or so from 2-3 home games.

But from a fan base standpoint, will losing in the first round build any "external excitement" for the team? By external excitement, I mean people who aren't currently a regular follower of the team.

It's surely better than not making the playoffs, but is it really anything more than a marginal impact for the fan base?

Additionally, it will continue to fuel the first-round flop label that we currently have.

Another train of thought.. losing in the 1st round could push Poile to be even more passive in the offseason, because we had such "great success" in making the playoffs.

Here are the two positives I can see: 1) It may help maintain some of the current base. 2) It may help encourage some players to sign longer terms deals with the team, although they too can't be too excited if we bow out in the first round again.

jlsg 03-08-2010 07:38 PM

I'd rather lose in the first round then not make the playoffs in the 9th spot.

Enoch 03-08-2010 07:40 PM

I am reserving my thoughts on Poile and Trotz's decisions this year until the off-season. This is pretty much the ideal Poile/Trotz plan. It is their end-game. If this doesn't work, I think you can essentially lay heavy heavy blame at their feet. If it works, they deserve a lot of credit.

Paranoid Android 03-08-2010 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dulzhok (Post 24382999)
Financially, we may net an extra million or so from 2-3 home games.

But from a fan base standpoint, will losing in the first round build any "external excitement" for the team? By external excitement, I mean people who aren't currently a regular follower of the team.

It's surely better than not making the playoffs, but is it really anything more than a marginal impact for the fan base?

Additionally, it will continue to fuel the first-round flop label that we currently have.

Another train of thought.. losing in the 1st round could push Poile to be even more passive in the offseason, because we had such "great success" in making the playoffs.

Here are the two positives I can see: 1) It may help maintain some of the current base. 2) It may help encourage some players to sign longer terms deals with the team, although they too can't be too excited if we bow out in the first round again.

Your logic makes little sense. I would much rather make the playoffs than not make the playoffs. There is simply no way around that fact, no matter how much spin you put on it.

dulzhok 03-08-2010 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predanerd (Post 24383216)
Your logic makes little sense. I would much rather make the playoffs than not make the playoffs. There is simply no way around that fact, no matter how much spin you put on it.

You didn't read the logic. I said it's surely better than not making the playoffs, for the reasons I laid out (getting the extra million, maintain the fan base, etc).

My point is getting to the playoffs isn't going to do a lot for this organization as a whole. Been there, done that, 5 times. Until we make playoff noise, we aren't going to get new fans / new revenue. Or at least, we can hope and pray that is the thing that will create new fans.

I didn't ask if it's better to not make the playoffs. Let me copy and paste: "From a fan base standpoint, will losing in the first round build any "external excitement" for the team?"

ThirdManIn 03-08-2010 08:17 PM

Losing in the first round again would more likely just cause another stir among those of us who have followed this team for years than it would have a negative impact on new coming fans. We have to look at this in the short term. Interest in the team is growing which will cause the fan base to grow. It might be slower than we'd like, but we have to have patience. Short term we need money. It's unlikely that a second round appearance would net a noticeable difference in attendance next season, especially during football season. Since we shouldn't rely on a healthy spike in attendance anytime soon I think the one thing we have to be happy with is simply making the postseason thus giving us a shot at making noise and being guaranteed extra financial benefits to help strengthen the club.

Making money means the team stays. Losing money means the team leaves. This is one of those big picture situations.

worstfaceoffmanever 03-08-2010 08:32 PM

I don't think bowing out in the first round again would negatively affect the fan base to any significant degree. It might jade a few die-hards, but every playoff berth this team racks up means more media coverage the team receives, which brings in more casual fans.

The important thing is the finances. Even if we pull just $1-2M from a first round exit, it could be the difference between a red season or a black season, fiscally.

Joe T Choker 03-08-2010 11:09 PM

nothing positive comes out of bowing out in the first round ... and if Poile/Trotz bow out again ... one of if not both need to go

jstreet 03-08-2010 11:29 PM

either option will not set well with me. After so many years of being a diehard fan, Im starting to get weary of the mediocrity.

Nothing would ever make me want to leave the game or this team, but my enthusiasm has taken a small hit these last 2 seasons.

worstfaceoffmanever 03-08-2010 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conando (Post 24387115)
nothing positive comes out of bowing out in the first round ... and if Poile/Trotz bow out again ... one of if not both need to go

Prepare to be disappointed, then. Trotz's option for next year has already been picked up, and management has absolute confidence in Poile.

quoth the Raven 03-08-2010 11:50 PM

You guys need to be more positive. Let's just focus on getting into the playoffs right now, that's the first step. We'll worry about getting to the second round if and when that bridge comes.

sparkle twin 03-09-2010 02:52 AM

Depends on how we lose. If we get swept and never put up a fight it could be bad. But if we play a hard-fought 7 game series it could be good.

After not making the playoffs last year, just making it this year would get the casual fan excited again. Like others already said, making the playoffs means more money and media exposure.

And if the Preds office were smart they would try to use some of the leftover Olympic excitement and playoff excitement to get the casual fan to buy some more tickets next season.

Jarnberg 03-09-2010 08:20 AM

Obviously going past the first round is the optimal choice, however, between the two choices in this thread, I'd still go with losing in the first round, mainly for financial reasons.

It would probably take finishing near the bottom of the league for a change to coaching and I'm not sure if we'll ever get rid of Poile.

Our franchise is what it is, getting the most out of a small budget and getting the most out of younger guys until we cannot afford them anymore.

I agree, we better hope that one of these seasons we strike gold and put together a great team and make a run, because otherwise, over time, the above methods will sour our existing fan base.

utmfisher19 03-09-2010 09:51 AM

I think it is funny to hear the words "mediocre" describe a team that makes the playoffs...

If that were the case, we wouldn't make the playoffs year after year. Try to be an Islanders, Maple Leafs, Thrashers, Blue Jackets, Coyotes, Kings, Oilers, and Panthers fan for medicrity year after year after year.

I am very pleased with this team. You are not going to win every game. 100 points (which is a great NHL team, btw) is a 60 win %. Point is, you are going to only win 6 out of every 10 games at best. Stop getting so low after losses and high after wins.

We can make it past the first round as an 8 seed, much less 7th, or 6th.... Just as the Hurricanes, Oilers, and many other teams that have done it.

IngloriusBuzzards 03-09-2010 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conando (Post 24387115)
nothing positive comes out of bowing out in the first round ... and if Poile/Trotz bow out again ... one of if not both need to go

Get real. You have to ask yourself from a logical (not emotional) standpoint on how that would "Help" the franchise. Who would you replace them with?

You would need a coach who understands our system, our players and how to develop our core not thru free agency - but thru the draft. Someone who has a proven track record of "overachieving" to keep his team in playoff contention. A coach who has been established in this league for a number of years and has earned the respect of not only his players, but from his peers..... Oh Wait, Let's hire Barry Trotz!

I hear ya man, but seriously - who are you gonna upgrade with? Poile you could make some argument for, but once again - who do you get?

dulzhok 03-09-2010 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by utmfisher19 (Post 24391013)
I think it is funny to hear the words "mediocre" describe a team that makes the playoffs...

Over half the teams in the NHL make the playoffs. By making the playoffs, you are in the 46th percentile. In reality, that's right at mediocre. If you make it pass the 1st round, you jump to the 76th percentile.

Sure, there are a couple of teams that have done worse than us over the course of our existence (i.e. Florida, PHX), and they too are just screeching by.

I think DP was great for our franchise in the 1st 5 years, but has been way too complacent in the last 5. Sure, he has some budget constraints and we went through the ownership ordeal, but does that automatically excuse him from everything? We can point to excuses, but how about the results? He hasn't made a good trade since 2003 when he traded for Sullivan. He "made our bed" (his words) by handing out big contracts to mediocre players (Legwand, Erat, Dumont), which is handicapping us now. He watched as a bystander as our best offensive player walked away from his contract. His 1st round drafting has been average, at best. He sits on his hands off-season after off-season.

DP is great a building a mediocre team; a team that makes it to the playoffs. Through his career, he has failed at building a playoff competitive team. It's why Washington canned him, and ironically, they made it to the finals the next year.

I don't think he's the man to get us over this hump.

jstreet 03-09-2010 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by utmfisher19 (Post 24391013)
I think it is funny to hear the words "mediocre" describe a team that makes the playoffs...

If that were the case, we wouldn't make the playoffs year after year. Try to be an Islanders, Maple Leafs, Thrashers, Blue Jackets, Coyotes, Kings, Oilers, and Panthers fan for medicrity year after year after year.

I am very pleased with this team. You are not going to win every game. 100 points (which is a great NHL team, btw) is a 60 win %. Point is, you are going to only win 6 out of every 10 games at best. Stop getting so low after losses and high after wins.

We can make it past the first round as an 8 seed, much less 7th, or 6th.... Just as the Hurricanes, Oilers, and many other teams that have done it.

those teams arent mediocre, they are terrible, have been for a long time. We are a middle of the pack team consistently, not terrible, not fantastic outside of a few small streaks, that my friend is the definition of mediocre.

MarkMM 03-09-2010 02:09 PM

I think it would depend, not having been to Nashville, take this for what it's worth:

- When Vancouver had the NBA Grizzlies, everyone was pressed to get behind the team so we could keep it here; problem was, it was tough to get emotionally committed to a team when deep down you expect it to leave, and that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I think ThirdManIn is right there, anything to buy more time and slowly build a foundation of consistency will in the long-term make it easier to get fans, if not this year then years from now.

- Spank303 has a point, it depends. If you're the 8th seed and go 7 rounds and push Chicago to the brink of elimination in overtime, I'd have a hard time believing that this wouldn't excite at least some people and catch media attention. Even if you don't make it far this year, if you show promise that this is a team to be taken seriously, then that may be the next best thing to a second round.

- And yes, UTMFisher19 has a point (though I don't think making the playoffs means you're not mediocre), once the post-season begins, all bets are off. If everything goes your way and all your players play at their best, anything is possible and that has to excite or interest at least some people, it may not be enough to notice right away, but compare it to the perennial non-playoff teams and you'll see what I mean.

One thing I'll also say coming from Vancouver, I think being in a playoff fight may actually help, when you're on the verge of getting in or falling out, it really becomes a suspense-ridden extended playoff run that can build emotional commitment from fans who start with a curiosity, then get all caught up in it, then get euphoric went the team squeaks in...and whether or not the team gets to the second round or not, you've got some new fans hooked. In Vancouver, a common thing you hear is "I only watch hockey when the playoffs begin", since it's assumed we're in anyway, a lot of people check out and just wait for the playoffs, but when we're fighting for a spot it's easier to get the media to really follow things.

101st_fan 03-09-2010 04:40 PM

I can't find anything about missing the playoffs that is better than making them. Monetarily it's an easy choice.

Casual fans aren't the ones who wring their hands for years after a first round exit, it's the diehards. Let's be honest with ourselves ... of our four postseason appearances, we could have been favored once, underdogs twice, and one at best tossup.

101st_fan 03-09-2010 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstreet (Post 24394930)
those teams arent mediocre, they are terrible, have been for a long time. We are a middle of the pack team consistently, not terrible, not fantastic outside of a few small streaks, that my friend is the definition of mediocre.

This is a team with 6th best regular season record since the lockout. Not quite mediocre.

dulzhok 03-09-2010 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 101st_fan (Post 24397811)
This is a team with 6th best regular season record since the lockout. Not quite mediocre.

By that logic, we are a better team than Pittsburgh and Washington.

We've had consistent mediocre success in the regular season the past 5 years, with one season of above average success. When it comes to the post-season, we've had zero success.

101st_fan 03-09-2010 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dulzhok (Post 24398010)
By that logic, we are a better team than Pittsburgh and Washington.

We've had consistent mediocre success in the regular season the past 5 years, with one season of above average success. When it comes to the post-season, we've had zero success.

I'd suggest that you look at the actual team performance for the past five years, but it appears that would be a waste of time because your mind is made up.

dulzhok 03-09-2010 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 101st_fan (Post 24398040)
I'd suggest that you look at the actual team performance for the past five years, but it appears that would be a waste of time because your mind is made up.

I have... our best finish was 4th in the western conference. Our worst was 10th, last year. Add in a couple of 8th place finishes. It's not bad, it's average (average of about 7th place- right in the middle of the pack). I might give it you that we've had a "slightly above average" regular season success over the past 5 years.

Thankfully, we're in the NHL, and over half the teams make the playoffs.

But we know this, regular season mean nothing. It's your ticket to the post-season, where the games really matter. And we all know our record there.

That's really our only hope of generating real excitement for this team. Until we have post-season success, I don't see our fan base improving. And a lot people who have stuck by this team for 12 years, will continue to back off.

How long is acceptable for us not to win in the 1st round of the playoffs?

Currently, I think we hold the 2nd longest drought for not winning a playoff series (behind Phoenix, if I'm correct).

How long is acceptable for the current mgmt? 15 years? 20 years?

ThirdManIn 03-09-2010 05:24 PM

'04 '05 - Lock out

'05 '06 - Started the season with an eight game winning streak. Finished with 106 points (the first 100 point season in team history). Also had a pretty decent home record. (32-8-1)

'06 '07 - Spent a month at the top of the league. Finished the season with 110 points for 4th in the conference (coincidentally, we were tied with San Jose for most wins in the conference at 51. Two wins shy of President Trophy winning Buffalo).

'07 '08 - Began a season after a fire sale during which we lost Paul Kariya, Peter Forsberg (if you count him), Tomas Vokoun, Kimmo Timonen, Scott Hartnell. Ended the season with 91 points; good enough for eighth in the conference. Had a good play off series against eventual SC winners Detroit.

'08 '09 - Lost Radulov in the off-season. Mediocre season with plenty of offensive worries. Finished with 88 points. 10th in the conference. Missed the play offs for the first time since '02 '03

I'm just as frustrated with losing in the first round of the play offs, but let's be realistic; it's happened four times in our short history. As 101st said, two of those times we were definite underdogs. So now you have two seasons where we should have had a better run. Of course, then you take into account our opponent both of those times was a much larger, grittier, more experienced San Jose team.

As for the regular season meaning nothing, tell that to fans of teams who just miss the play offs. The only way to make it to the post season is through success during the regular season.

101st_fan 03-09-2010 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dulzhok (Post 24398424)
I have... our best finish was 4th in the western conference. Our worst was 10th, last year. Add in a couple of 8th place finishes. It's not bad, it's average (average of about 7th place- right in the middle of the pack). I might give it you that we've had a "slightly above average" regular season success over the past 5 years.

Thankfully, we're in the NHL, and over half the teams make the playoffs.

But we know this, regular season mean nothing. It's your ticket to the post-season, where the games really matter. And we all know our record there.

That's really our only hope of generating real excitement for this team. Until we have post-season success, I don't see our fan base improving. And a lot people who have stuck by this team for 12 years, will continue to back off.

How long is acceptable for us not to win in the 1st round of the playoffs?

Currently, I think we hold the 2nd longest drought for not winning a playoff series (behind Phoenix, if I'm correct).

How long is acceptable for the current mgmt? 15 years? 20 years?

How many other management teams could put together competitive teams on our budget?

3rd in the conference wins in 05-06, tied 1st in 06-07 (t-2nd in NHL) ..... one season below 41 wins since the lockout.

Or would you prefer we perform like Minnesota, Atlanta, Columbus, Rangers ... up and down ... all over the place ... spend money and get nothing out of it ... that is the alternative.

For the Preds to survive in Nashville means building from within and the pains that brings. It means never getting that flashy big dollar player. It means that every year the first step is getting to the playoffs, then worrying about if it is a first round exit or not.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.