View Single Post
05-05-2013, 11:07 AM
joshjull's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 43,868
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
So on the LA comparison, folks have identified 3 different top 5 picks that went into making that team directly or were traded to make that team, plus another top 5 pick that didn't work out. That seems close enough to me to qualify for the long sucky rebuild kind of model. If the Sabres hang in the bottom 5 in the league for four years, I'll say that's in the general area of what they need to do to get the assets to contend.
And how exactly does a team hang at the bottom of the league for 5 or so years? Teams that stay down that long usually do so for 1 of 2 reasons. They are either a cash strapped franchise (Pens) or a horribly run franchise with bad management/owners (Hawks). I can't think of many wealthy teams (which we are now) that had long stretchs of bottom feeder teams that was an intentional rebuilding plan.

Also with the Pens and Hawks, they would have remained bottom feeders if their respective issues hadn't been corrected. The Pens emerged from bankruptcy in better financial shape, with a new arena and a new favorable CBA. The Hawks previous owner, "dollar" Bill Wirtz, died and his son took over changing their approach completely. Plus both teams were, lets be honest, lucky to land a key piece of their respective Cup teams. The Pens won the Crosby lottery and the Hawks won the draft lottery the year they drafted Kane. The Hawks were supposed to draft 5th overall and after Kane it was a drop off in talent. Neither team wins the Cup without those players.

If posters understood how both the Pens and Hawks Cup teams came together. They would realize they are not repeatable models for rebuilding a team.

Last edited by joshjull: 05-05-2013 at 11:28 AM.
joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote