View Single Post
Old
01-14-2013, 09:40 AM
  #865
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krautso View Post
Trading away all the talent in an effort to surgically tank is pretty much the definition of trying to lose.
We are coming off a season where we came in close to dead last. It's not about trying to lose, it's recognizing that you aren't good enough to win... there's a big difference and it's sometihng that you still don't seem to understand.

We're going to lose anyway dude. Best we can hope for is squeaking into the playoffs. We aren't going to win a cup this year or next. Accept it. Once you do that then maybe you'll understand the common sense of rebuilding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Krautso View Post
I'm all for good asset management but that doesn't mean always sacrificing the present for the future.
We NEVER sacrifice the present for the future. That's the problem.

Nobody is suggesting we have to "always do it" but we should be doing it NOW. We're not winning, we've got some good prospects to build with and we should build towards the future. If we'd done this a long time ago we wouldn't be in this situation. But we never do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krautso View Post
We can rebuild without intentionally losing...intentionally losing and doing a fire-sale for draft picks just takes alot of the guess work out of it, although it is still no guaranteed plan for winning.
Stop with this "intentionally losing" crap. Nobody is suggesting this.

We're going to lose anyway. Accept it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
I've always said that there should be one lottery for all team having an equal chance at the top pick.
Terrible idea. Last year the Kings almost missed the playoffs. Imagine if they wound up with the first overall this season. The purpose of the draft is to make bad teams better. Sure there can be a lottery element to it but giving every team a shot? Why? Makes no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krautso View Post
I'm all for trading vets on expiring contracts to make way for young guys who are ready to step in. Thats a key part of rebuilding. I'm not supportive of trading everyone we can for picks with no thought to what kind of team we would ice just because some people have a stronger stomach for watching bad hockey and losing.
Wth do you mean "no thought to what kind of team we would ice"... Look at our team now. It's not going anywhere man. Maybe we make the playoffs but you can forget about a cup this year or next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krautso View Post
I think the GM position needs to be held to a higher standard. Its his job to balance present/future and to find deals (like paccioretty). Trading everyone for picks and then losing for years on end to stockpile talent is not a strategy I would expect of a professional hockey executive.
I think the GM should be held to a higher standard too. I don't think you understand his role though. It's his job to get us a cup. THAT's his freaking job. And if the present can't get it done then build for the future. If it means a season or two without the playoffs (which we missed last year anyway) so be it.

Just build towards a cup because that's what matters... not 8th place this year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habster33 View Post
This is probably a dumb question but is there a place we can see what draft picks NHL teams have?
Go to hockeyreference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post


-I think that we've already talked about this subject, but i'll add something today, its about an underrated aspect of the plan when you're trying to rebuild, and precisely, to stockpile picks, like you said, and like its often recommanded in such a scenario.

Like Krautso said, obviously, you need to sell at a decent price, dealing away veterans that are at the end of the line, sure, but still, you need to find an appropriate return.
There's always an opportunity for this. Last season we should've tried for Washington's extra pick. We had the resources to do this but the board here freaked out... we can't give up Pleks they said because then we'll lose.

Well, we lost anyway....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Since the lockout, and the sample is quite enough i think, thats eight different drafts, only 8 good picks have been traded in 8 years and 7 trades. Thats one per year. Rebuilding, ok, but lets remember that valuable picks arent traded.

2nd : Kessel
8th : J. Staal, Carter
9th : Kessel, Vokoun
11th : Varlamov, Stewart/Shattenkirk
12th : Penner

Except the trade between Saint-Louis and Columbus (obviously, we cant know what will happen with Staal), every single one of the buyers end up having regrets about the trade he made.

And we have now a new rule with the draft, its probably going to be even harder to grab good picks along the one you may have.
You can try to make up all the excuses you want to not do this. It's all bs. There's no reason why we can't go out and try to make these kinds of deals. If it doesn't work or if the return isn't there, fine. But we don't even try. We've gone for the Kaberles and Bourques instead of doing what we should've been doing....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Their value are largely overestimated, because of the potential of the players.
Teams may only have a very slight chance (10% ?) to find a gem past 10-12th spot, but they dont want another team to got it instead of them.
Assuming you're managing (difficult) to have three first rounders in the same year, you're not going to have bonus picks that are better than 20th.
And i think its quite clear that players, for instance, like Plekanec and Markov are better than 90% of the players picked there, even with a scout like Timmins. They'rein fact better than the 20th best player of 90% of the drafts...
Markov and Plecs aren't going to lead us to cups. They can help other teams out there who are already contenders though. You can't tell me that other clubs won't be interested in both these guys and wouldn't be willing to pay for them.

Just too bad we didn't trade Markov back when I suggested it years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
For us, its easy to take the decisions, but the people involved are playing with their careers, and the safe route isnt synonymous to scorched earth or playing heads or tails.
The earth is already scortched. We came in almost dead last this past season.

Coming off a terrible year, 48 game season, team that isn't a contender. It's a GREAT time to rebuild for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Another example might be Andrei Markov to Washington for Filip Forsberg.
Last season I mentioned dealing him or Pleks or some other vet for that pick. People freaked out saying we can't do this.

I don't know about you, but I'd be a lot more excited now if we had that guy in our prospect pool to go along with what we already have. But no, 8th place was too important so...

Lafleurs Guy is offline