View Single Post
Old
02-15-2013, 07:38 AM
  #953
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 36,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
The risk is in stunting the development of the young players in the NHL. Giving sheltered minutes for Galchenyuk and Gallagher is better for them then throwing them to the wolves. Just because it didn't hurt Yzerman and Lemieux doesn't mean it won't hurt our guys.
Nodoby's growth will be stunted... Subban has developed just fine without Markov. Nobody is suggesting a scorched earth where we deal away every last player. There will still be vets on the team man.

There's no risk here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
So for a normal draft you think a top 5 pick is worth 5 picks spread out from 11-30. I think you're alone on that one.
Actually, you're wrong. I'll show you a study that Seventieslord made a few years back on the draft. It's really cool dude. Superstars are much harder to find outside the top five than anywhere else.

I was talking about it last week with somebody. Go look at 2007 for example. There's two or three great players in the top five (with Erik Johnson being hurt otherwise it could've been four) and then there's Claude Giroux at 18. It's uncommon to have that many great players out of the top five all at once but there's a good example of five players being better than the remaining 25.

Your odds of getting a superstar in the top five is about 25%. Odds of getting a good player are much higher than that. Your odds of finding a superstar with 5 picks from 11-30 are much less than 25%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
I didn't agree with what Gainey did but if we are in the same situation now then it hardly set us back. If we had sold everyone in 2009 the prospects we would've gotten would just now be entering the nhl, assuming they weren't rushed. Would 1-2 more Louis Leblanc's make us a better team?

One of the reasons Gainey went after Gomez, Gionta, Moen, Gill was because of their leadership and stanley cup experience. He felt the young players didn't develop well once they got to the NHL, they tended to look good and then plateau and stop developing. So he wanted to change the culture/leadership to address that. It might of even worked. Subban and Pacioretty have both developed well with the new leadership core. Hell even Price was having problems, if the locker room was filled with clique's like it was before, would Price have matured as well after losing the starting job to Halak? How much of that is the players and how much is the leadership/culture is anyone's guess. But pretending it doesn't have any effect is ridiculous. And I'm willing to take the opinion of a guy who played, coached and managed stanley cup teams over yours.
The results speak for themselves.

And the whole, 'he's Bob Gainey' so he knows better just doesn't wash. You don't have to be Sam Polloch to see that he, Gauthier and Houle were terrible GMs. We got Price via fluke and Galchenyuk unintentionally tanking. That's not good.

You are defending the indefensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
And people also claim trading Thornton for scraps was a good move because it freed up cap space to sign Chara.

Unless you are in the room or talking with the players then you are just speculating. I highly doubt Gionta is thinking let's just make the playoffs, and then I'll just coast in the 1st round because it's mission accomplished.
I think you're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
So now Boston knew that they were getting two top 10 picks. Please. They made a good trade and it turned into an amazing trade. Picking up picks looks great when those picks end up working out, they look bad when they don't.
They made a trade with a team that had a horrible roster and a starting goalie by the name of Vesa Toskala. So yeah, they had an inkling that the picks were going to be pretty high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Clearly, maybe check any online dictionary
Rebuild: build (something) again after it has been damaged or destroyed

We tore down one team and rebuilt a new one.
As I said, you and I have different definitions of what rebuilding is. And rebuilding is NOT adding a bunch of mediocre vets with double the cap hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Playing it by ear means selling at the right times and buying at the right times. Last year was the right time to sell and we did. Now we have Price, Pacioretty, Subban, Galchenyuk and others along with a great veteran cast that can show them how to be winners.
We did a terrible job of selling assets last year. It's great that we got some 2nd rounders and maybe those picks will work out. Inexcusable for us not to have gotten a first along the way and doubly stupid to have traded for Kaberle and Bourque.

We're not in terrible shape by any stretch man... but again, look at the players on that list you just gave. Of those four players three were gotten via top pick or rebuild trade. So I'm not sure why you are so set against doing this.

Lafleurs Guy is offline