4th year anniversary
View Single Post
11-30-2012, 09:20 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Originally Posted by
Couldn't disagree more.
Edmonton has employed a full on drafting rebuild strategy for one; it is a guaranteed form of player acquisition with little cost and two; the Oilers have a very difficult time in the FA market signing established top tier NHL players. It makes perfect sense for their franchise. It isn't as black and white as saying "Tambellini could have signed whomever if he wanted but chose a superior path". Both approaches have risks and the Oilers and Tambellini chose the one best suited for their franchise.
Edmonton has good defensive prospects but where are you getting 2-3 top defensemen? Neither of these prospects have made an impact at the NHL level and chances are they don't have a #1 defenseman in the bunch... to me your assessment is off. I agree they are good, don't get me wrong, but so are Gardiner and Reilly. And where is Edmonton's answer for Phaneuf? The truth is they don't have one.
Burke's strategy is heavily contested and I won't say it is the best strategy either but it is most definitely not a "win now" strategy. I don't think I need to inform you how old Kessel was at the time of the trade and I probably don't have to present to you a list of Burke's trades and acquisitions either to show he's been acquiring young talent for the future of the franchise.
We can debate all day but I think it really boils down to
if you water down the argument of Burke vs. Tambellini into
a comparison of prospects
than you are only telling half the story. You are essentially excluding any players 22 and up due to the nature of any impact player graduating to a different status.
Most of Burke's best acquisitions are still well before or just hitting their prime now. When you consider that you get this:
You could argue all day about who wins the match up and I'd even be inclined to go with Edmonton based purely on their potential, but it surely paints a different picture than you are presenting: top tier versus mediocre. It's simply not true.
A few problems with your post...
First, you write off Edmonton's young defensemen because they haven't proven anything in the nhl... yet a few sentences later you brag about leaf players such as Kadri and Reilly.
You say "where is Edmonton's Phaneuf?" Good question. Where is their dramatically overpaid defensemen who's excellent seaons 5 years ago seem a distant memory? Yeah, where is he?
I'm sure they're pretty glad they don't have a "Edmonton Phaneuf"!
Thirdly, all of Edmonton's rebuilt stars are VERY early in their careers. They are
their primes. It's no wonder they still do lousy in the standings.
But half of the leafs core that you outline above are well into their primes. Kessel is going into nhl year 7. Phaneuf into year 8, and Lupul year 11.
By the time people like Reilly are entering their primes, Kessel, Phaneuf, Lupul, etc will be at the very end (or even well past) their primes.
He's pretty much created two teams in his rebuild. His current team (that just finished 5th last) and our rebuilt team 5 years from now (where the stars of our lousy current team will be in the twilight of their careers).
Compare that to Edmonton, where all of those utterly elite super stars will all mature into their Primes together.
It's no contest.
Burke's simply ****ed up his initial plan. So we have our "retooled" team with Phaneuf, Kessel, and Lupul leading the charge that just finished 5th last. Still no #1 Center. Still
to a bona fide #1 goaltender.
And because he ****ed that "retool" up so ridiculously, he's onto plan B, which is improving this team 4 or 5 years down the road.
If he started that plan 4 years ago, this team would look like a future powerhouse (like Edmonton) as opposed to a future mediocre team with lackluster stars.
View Public Profile
Disgruntled Observer's albums
Find More Posts by Disgruntled Observer