All Encompassing Tanking/Rebuilding/Selling at Deadline Thread 2.0
View Single Post
01-20-2013, 12:09 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
Having more prospects is great but it's more important that the ones you already have develop properly. Your plan is to over 2 years dump Plekanec, Markov, Gionta, Cole, Kaberle, Bourque. And when we are unable to get Malkin/Perry you plan to just use rookies instead. Which means we will end up rushing guys like Collberg, Gallagher into the NHL, they won't do well, they'll lose their confidence and they'll end up traded or busting. If we're lucky one or two might overcome the odds and develop anyways.
In 2008-09, Gainey wanted to make the playoffs, and so he didn't trade Kovalev, Koivu, Tanguay, Komisarek, etc at the trade deadline. He held on to them.
But then we lost them all anyway. Does that mean our young players had no one to learn from? No, because when you have cash you can always sign mediocre players on the UFA market. You can't replace stars, but you can replace 2nd and 3rd line players and 3rd pairing dmen. We got Gionta, Cammalleri, Spacek, Gill, and could have had Gomez for cheaper.
We would have been better off getting draft picks for Kovalev, Tanguay, Koivu, Komisarek and then replacing them, rather than just replacing them without getting draft picks in the first place.
Originally Posted by
Well. As far as I know, teams that finish 8th year after year don't get top 3 picks. That is the reality. Adjust to it.
Part of the problem is that this team's luck in recent years is clouding people's opinions.
Do you agree that in any given year, an 8th place team is equivalent to a 9th place team in skill, and the difference is just due to luck?
I bet you do.
We might even agree that the difference between 7,8,9,10 is almost entirely luck. I think it is.
In the post-lockout era, we finished:
2005-06, 8th place
2006-07, 10th place
2007-08, 1st place
2008-09, 8th place
2009-10, 8th place
2010-11, 6th place
2011-12, 15th place
In the years where luck mattered, we were 8th, 10th, 8th, 8th, 6th. Out of those five years, we were lucky 4 times. We got to see the early playoff exits that people think is the apex of hockey. It could have just as easily been 9th, 7th, 11th, 10th, 9th. If we had had that virtually identical result in regular season standings, most of these boards, particularly the people who just react to life rather than taking a step back and thinking and being active agents in life, would likely be in favor of a proper rebuild. Their minds are clouded by the fact we were lucky. We didn't need to be in 8th place for 3 years out of 6. The same exact teams could have just as easily finished in 9th, and if that **non-structural** change had happened people would have different opinions.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion