View Single Post
01-20-2013, 11:42 AM
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25,414
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Since the lockout 7 teams have won the cup 2 are pure rebuilds (Pit, Chi).
You might want to check your calculator.

Carolina had Staal (2nd overall) leading the way
Pens and Blackhawks.
The Kings were absolutely a rebuild (Doughty, Kopitar)

I was talking about the Kings eventually winning cups years ago. I was laughed at. And now they've leapfrogged us and won a cup.

But yeah, rebuilding doesn't work...
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
I agree we are not likely to challenge for the cup this year, probably not next year either. But we would only get late firsts or equivalent prospects for our vets. Since most guys drafted 20-30 don't have big impacts in the NHL, you are basically hoping to get lucky.

It sounds good in principle but if you trade away too many vets then you risk hurting the development of our young core. Not many players can do what Subban did and jump into the fire and excel. Are those extra picks worth possibly stunting Galchenyuk's development?
Mid to late first in a deep draft is just fine. Plus we can trade up in the draft dude.

Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
The thing most people need to understand with the "Pittsburgh/Chicago model" is that both had major cash flow/ownership issues that contributed to icing a ****** team. They didn't choose not to try and ice a good team it was forced on the GM because the money wasn't there, and at times both had ****** mangement to boot.
Right, they didn't choose to rebuild. But they rebuilt anyway and it led to cups.

Bottomj line rebuilding worked. The WHY doesn't matter. We have tons of cash and can afford to do it intentionally.

Stop with the straw man arguments.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote