View Single Post
Old
10-08-2012, 10:28 AM
  #61
The Messenger
Registered User
 
The Messenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,003
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7even View Post
Erm, no, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. If you're losing year in and year out, you likely have assets that are underperforming or are otherwise not valuable (good players = valuable, bad players = not valuable.) If your team is stacked with low value assets, you're not going to be able to return anything significant in trade unless the other GM is Mike Milbury or Jay Feaster, so that's one avenue rendered largely ineffective. Next avenue of improvement: free agency. Top free agents don't sign on to play for terrible teams. Toronto is fantastic proof of this. Last avenue? The draft. Excellent for your team, your years of mediocrity have a silver lining and you end up with the first overall pick. Unfortunately, you can't even get a top 5 pick for the 5 years. So you're Edmonton minus RNH and Yakupov. Basically your team is Taylor Hall and a bunch of scrubs. And the next time you're eligible for a top pick is when your prized 1st overall pick is closing in on his UFA years behind a terrible team who hasn't been able to improve much beyond "awful" because all avenues of improvement have largely been stacked against them. And even if you were able to score multiple top picks in a row, that doesn't guarantee that you're going to be better. Look at Atlanta. We were managed terribly despite multiple top picks and it cost me my damn team. Look at Florida, Phoenix, NYI, Edmonton, Toronto, Columbus. Multiple top picks don't mean you're automatically going to get better. So why do want to make it even harder to get good?
Did Atlanta have three consecutive first round picks? BTW the way if the brain-trust in Edmonton had their way they would have Vanek and Hall, Yakupov and Hopkins would all be Sabres.

The Messenger is offline   Reply With Quote