It makes it easier if your star players are on ELCs, but that's not realistic.
What is true though is you cannot win the Cup without young, cheap talent. They don't need to be stars, and they don't need to be on ELCs either.
They can be players like Coburn or Carle, on contracts just after their ELC but before their "prime" contract.
Or they can be players like vanRiemsdyk, Nodl, Bartulis; young players basically making ELC money chipping in as much as they can to help the team win.
Basically what you should be saying is that in order to win the cup, your players can't all be in their "prime" contracts like Bryzgalov, Hartnell, Briere, Timonen, etc. You need other contracts in their that are bargains to balance that out.
It's not overblown at all. The poster made an excellent point. You need young quality players on EL deals to make significant contributions.
The core of out team (presuming we can sign them all and they all work out good enough) could be:
JvR - Schenn - Giroux (I'd probably move him to wing again but that's just personal taste)
??? - Couturier - Voracek
Mezsaros - Carle
Coburn - ???
Bryzgalov
Bobrovsky (maybe?)
Plus a few others like Simmonds, Bartulis, Gustafsson, Read, etc... filling out some of the other spots I think the future is fairly bright. Just bring in 2 or 3 good UFA's down the line, add a spattering of role players and I think you have a damn fine team... All hypothetical of course
I read your posts. You were incorrect in stating that the posters point about having young quality players on EL contracts was overblown. Having a continuing pipeline of quality players through the draft couldn't be more important, and is even more important in a Cap era.
The core of out team (presuming we can sign them all and they all work out good enough) could be:
JvR - Schenn - Giroux (I'd probably move him to wing again but that's just personal taste)
??? - Couturier - Voracek
Mezsaros - Carle
Coburn - ???
Bryzgalov
Bobrovsky (maybe?)
Plus a few others like Simmonds, Bartulis, Gustafsson, Read, etc... filling out some of the other spots I think the future is fairly bright. Just bring in 2 or 3 good UFA's down the line, add a spattering of role players and I think you have a damn fine team... All hypothetical of course
I think the best case scenario young core looks something like this:
Bryzgalov (not young but locked in 9 more years)
Bobrovsky
That's not exactly a realistic hope though, and that defense looks really shaky. Right now, my biggest prayers go out to Ranford and Akeson. If Akeson can bulk up and Ranford can fix his skating, they could be real NHL threats on the outside with Giroux-->Couturier-->Schenn down the middle.
Bryzgalov (not young but locked in 9 more years)
Bobrovsky
That's not exactly a realistic hope though, and that defense looks really shaky. Right now, my biggest prayers go out to Ranford and Akeson. If Akeson can bulk up and Ranford can fix his skating, they could be real NHL threats on the outside with Giroux-->Couturier-->Schenn down the middle.
I'm not that up on all those players so I can't pass judgment but I think it's probably always healthy to bring in a few outsiders via UFA and such but essentially it is a pretty decent core... I wouldn't be sold on that D so much, chuck in a really good UFA and I'd be happier but it's all good.
I'm not that up on all those players so I can't pass judgment but I think it's probably always healthy to bring in a few outsiders via UFA and such but essentially it is a pretty decent core... I wouldn't be sold on that D so much, chuck in a really good UFA and I'd be happier but it's all good.
Obviously that's not how our team will look. I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that our team will look nothing like that.
However, hoping that guys like Ranford and/or Akeson pay dividends is nice. If either of them pay off, we have a real powerhouse NHL offense in the making set up long-term considering who we have down the middle and already on the wing.
Most people who understand hockey think Homer is a colossal **** up.
An unproven player is an unproven player is an unproven player. Until we see them consistently for 4-5 years they are still question marks, while Richards and Carter both proved to be excellent players on a consistent basis.
To the person who said Schenn and Couturier shouldn't be allowed near the media, sorry, I disagree. The media contributed heavily to Richards' trade and these new guys shouldn't be sheltered. Let them jump into the fire and see what it's like.
Btw did anyone else see the quote from Homer in the latest issue of the Hockey News? Something along the lines of "I don't know if we got better but we got different.". Makes me sooo confident in the job he and Snider did.
This post screams "I'm emotionally attached to Richards and Carter." You really think they traded these two for no reason? You're the same person who wished Snider never said we needed a goalie, but now you want him to badmouth Richards and Carter to the media?
This post screams "I'm emotionally attached to Richards and Carter." You really think they traded these two for no reason? You're the same person who wished Snider never said we needed a goalie, but now you want him to badmouth Richards and Carter to the media?
I was emotionally attached to a team that has imploded before my eyes. What I see now is the laughing stock of the NHL. It is what it is, right? Enjoy.
I was emotionally attached to a team that has imploded before my eyes. What I see now is the laughing stock of the NHL. It is what it is, right? Enjoy.
Aww come on. What imploded? A team that got swept and a playoff goaltending performance that may go down as the worst ever?
Your top 3 forwards are still here. All your D are still here and time will tell, but you have a huge upgrade at the most important position.
Not to mention your window of opportunity is much larger with all the 18-20 yr old talent acquired.
Why not give it a chance? More than one analyst that likely knows more than both of us thinks the Flyers will be a very tough team.
Obviously that's not how our team will look. I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that our team will look nothing like that.
However, hoping that guys like Ranford and/or Akeson pay dividends is nice. If either of them pay off, we have a real powerhouse NHL offense in the making set up long-term considering who we have down the middle and already on the wing.
For sure, hoping that JvR, Giroux, Schenn, Couturier, Voracek achieve all we want is also not anything like a given, just perhaps a little easier to predict because they should be of some use no matter what.
The bigger problem is perhaps how we make that transition... Lets say we're 2 years down the line, we've resigned those aforementioned players for the longer haul, Mezs still has a year at 4mil cap hit (which should hopefully be a bargin) Carle and Coburn also resigned. Timonen has gone, Hartnell is UFA. You only have Talbot, Briere, Pronger and Bryz still around. at this point i think the Briere and Pronger deals become bad. $11.4 cap hit and you can't do anything at all with Prongers as its 35+ (cept trade him?) and Briere has a NMC... Of course if Briere still rocks then it's ok(ish) though we'd have loads of centres... I can't see Pronger living up to his cap hit for enough of the rest of his contract... Still I think the futures deffo bright.
I was emotionally attached to a team that has imploded before my eyes. What I see now is the laughing stock of the NHL. It is what it is, right? Enjoy.
Laughing stock? We aren't the leafs.. Still a playoff team imo.. Get over the trades already
As to the unproven player is an unproven player etc. etc.
I want you to look up past MVP's of World Junior championships. Then look at the top 8 picks in the past drafts. History says it's unlikely that all 3 top 8 picks will be busts.
Not to mention Voracek is already "proven". Wasn't he a 50pt player on a bad team? Ok so put him with talent like Jagr, Giroux, and Briere and give him all the pp time that Richards got and see what the goal totals look like.
They're gone. Accept it and move on. I feel you've seen the best of both their careers already. Richards doesn't have the talent and Carter doesn't have the guts to get it done when the going get's tough. Maybe Bryzgalov, Voracek, Couturier, and Schenn will.
I prefer the sure thing to a "maybe." Unless that maybe is essentially a "sure thing" as well. Even then, id only trade the proven talent if there were absolutely no doubt that the prospect would end up being better than my proven player.
It seems many other gms agree with that, too. Hence why other pieces came back with schenn and voracek.
It would be like handling very risky stocks versus vary safe stocks, and it would also be based on if you're risk averse, neutral or lover.
I'll just use a simple Wiki example:
Quote:
A person is given the choice between two scenarios, one with a guaranteed payoff and one without. In the guaranteed scenario, the person receives $50. In the uncertain scenario, a coin is flipped to decide whether the person receives $100 or nothing. The expected payoff for both scenarios is $50, meaning that an individual who was insensitive to risk would not care whether they took the guaranteed payment or the gamble. However, individuals may have different risk attitudes. A person is:
risk-averse (or risk-avoiding) - if he or she would accept a certain payment (certainty equivalent) of less than $50 (for example, $40), rather than taking the gamble and possibly receiving nothing.
risk-neutral - if he or she is indifferent between the bet and a certain $50 payment.
risk-loving (or risk-seeking) - if the guaranteed payment must be more than $50 (for example, $60) to induce him or her to take the guaranteed option, rather than taking the gamble and possibly winning $100.
Even when they have the same expected value, we can see how someones preference's value it differently.
Unfortunately we can't accurately measure their probability to succeed or fail, nor all the outcomes in between. (Some may argue that)
Even then you still have to deal with a "lag" effect, of not acquiring that potential until down the road.
Lastly the law of averages will eventually kick in, and not every prospect will pan out no matter how "good" they looked.
Last edited by KimiFerrari: 07-23-2011 at 10:16 AM.
It would be like handling very risky stocks versus vary safe stocks, and it would also be based on if you're risk averse, neutral or lover.
I'll just use a simple Wiki example:
Even when they have the same expect value, we can see how someones preference's value it differently.
Unfortunately we can't accurately measure their probability to succeed or fail, nor all the outcomes in between. (Some may argue that)
Even then you still have to deal with a "lag" effect, of not acquiring that potential until down the road.
Lastly the law of averages will eventually kick in, and not every prospect will pan out no matter how "good" they looked.
Theoretically though in this scenario...
Richards + Carter = 50
Schenn + Couturier = 0-50
Voracek + Simmonds = 25-50
So in this case scenario, the worst you come out with is 25 (aka the level Simmonds and Voracek are now). Best case scenario talent-wise you come out with 100 (though unlikely because Simmonds certainly does not have to potential of the rest).
So in this case scenario, the worst you come out with is 25 (aka the level Simmonds and Voracek are now). Best case scenario talent-wise you come out with 100 (though unlikely because Simmonds certainly does not have to potential of the rest).
As I said it is difficult to accurately gauge their potential and the probabilities.
Even if we go with you scenario of; Carter + Richards has a 100% = 50 (would probably be more complicated than that). I just used that example to provided something simple to get the point across.
What are the probabilities of Schenn + Couturier = 0-50 and Voracek + Simmonds = 25-50? You have to quantify almost every outcome and then sum their expectations.
As I said it is difficult to accurately gauge their potential and the probabilities.
Even if we go with you scenario of; Carter + Richards has a 100% = 50 (would probably be more complicated than that). I just used that example to provided something simple to get the point across.
What are the probabilities of Schenn + Couturier = 0-50 and Voracek + Simmonds = 25-50? You have to quantify almost every outcome and then sum their expectations.
As I said it is difficult to accurately gauge their potential and the probabilities.
Even if we go with you scenario of; Carter + Richards has a 100% = 50 (would probably be more complicated than that). I just used that example to provided something simple to get the point across.
What are the probabilities of Schenn + Couturier = 0-50 and Voracek + Simmonds = 25-50? You have to quantify almost every outcome and then sum their expectations.
You admittedly reached to put a major question mark on your first line
I don't care if every single forward on that roster over-reaches the hf's crystal ball of career/potential projection.........that team gets mangled by the one we just disassembled.
AND it's chock full of holes that we will need to overpay FAs to plug.
