HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Habs management doesn't get it...(umpteenth toughness thread)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-30-2011, 11:23 AM
  #351
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I always tend to agree with LG, who argues well and not with anger.

If you don't like tanking, then at least we MUST find another way to get top 5 picks. That is what people are just not understanding on this site. We have to have top 5 picks over a few years to contend. We really do.

That is exactly what LG is proposing above, and that is exactly what we have not been doing, for years.

One top 5 pick in 25 years is SAD. It is shocking. Inexcusable. There are always some cunning trades that can be made every year to increase your chances of at least a top 10 pick, and higher, every couple of years. Desperate teams. Contenders that need just one piece. On and on....

I know everybody here hates the old timers, (scre-w you by the way), but Pollock consistently and constantly went after high picks. It was his first order of business.

Result? Dynasty. Yeah he had it easier with high Q picks at first, but he understood the system he was in, identified other team's weaknesses, and capitalized, again and again. That is the least we should expect these days as from our GM as well.
at least ? really ? what now, being of Pollock caliber is a minimum or something ?

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:24 AM
  #352
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I always tend to agree with LG, who argues well and not with anger.

If you don't like tanking, then at least we MUST find another way to get top 5 picks. That is what people are just not understanding on this site. We have to have top 5 picks over a few years to contend. We really do.

That is exactly what LG is proposing above, and that is exactly what we have not been doing, for years.

One top 5 pick in 25 years is SAD. It is shocking. Inexcusable. There are always some cunning trades that can be made every year to increase your chances of at least a top 10 pick, and higher, every couple of years. Desperate teams. Contenders that need just one piece. On and on....

I know everybody here hates the old timers, (scre-w you by the way), but Pollock consistently and constantly went after high picks. It was his first order of business.

Result? Dynasty. Yeah he had it easier with high Q picks at first, but he understood the system he was in, identified other team's weaknesses, and capitalized, again and again. That is the least we should expect these days as from our GM as well.
There are very few GM's that will trade a first rounder anymore, let alone a possible top 5 pick......it always takes two to tango to make this happen, and unfortunately there is only 1 Brian Burke who will make these kind of deals....

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:26 AM
  #353
Ivan13
Avs/Habs fan
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 13,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
It happened with the one shot possibility of buying out guys without a cap hit and reducing every players contract by a certain %. If it happens again, it will be with that possibility, otherwise it won't happen, which would fix our problem anyways. I don't see an issue with teh cap for the Habs.
Lets say that cap stays the same next year, with raises for PK and Price they would probably have 44.5 mil tied down in 8 guys, they need to sign 11 skaters and 1 goalie with 20 mil. It can be done, but I don't think that's a smart way of building a perennial contender in the NHL.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:31 AM
  #354
fufonzo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,533
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to fufonzo Send a message via MSN to fufonzo
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I always tend to agree with LG, who argues well and not with anger.

If you don't like tanking, then at least we MUST find another way to get top 5 picks. That is what people are just not understanding on this site. We have to have top 5 picks over a few years to contend. We really do.

That is exactly what LG is proposing above, and that is exactly what we have not been doing, for years.

One top 5 pick in 25 years is SAD. It is shocking. Inexcusable. There are always some cunning trades that can be made every year to increase your chances of at least a top 10 pick, and higher, every couple of years. Desperate teams. Contenders that need just one piece. On and on....

I know everybody here hates the old timers, (scre-w you by the way), but Pollock consistently and constantly went after high picks. It was his first order of business.

Result? Dynasty. Yeah he had it easier with high Q picks at first, but he understood the system he was in,identified other team's weaknesses, and capitalized, again and again. That is the least we should expect these days as from our GM as well.
Completely off topic, but could we please stop perpetuating the myth that this was a significant reason for the Habs winning. Correct me if I'm wrong (going by memory), but this only lasted two years. One in which we got Reggie Houle, and in the other, we got someone who never really contributed to the team.

As for your comment, I don't think that a top-5 pick is a necessity. I think it definitely helps, but I don't think that you need a top-5 pick to be successful.

I could be completely missing someone here, but Boston won without a top-5 pick playing a key role on the team (I'm not going to count Seguin, because at this point in his career, there are many non-top-5 players that can play at and beyond his level).

Again, if we can get a top-5 pick, great, but I wouldn't overpay for the opportunity to potentially get a top-5 pick if the other team does very poorly (and generally, teams know when they're going to do poorly so they hold onto those picks...unless you're Burke and the Leafs, who, I'm guessing, learned their lesson)

fufonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:33 AM
  #355
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
Lets say that cap stays the same next year, with raises for PK and Price they would probably have 44.5 mil tied down in 8 guys, they need to sign 11 skaters and 1 goalie with 20 mil. It can be done, but I don't think that's a smart way of building a perennial contender in the NHL.
put it this way, first two lines alerady signed up, #1 goalie signed up (going with your stuff) as well as our #2 (Budaj), half our D signed up... also some of our youngsters not getting that much of a raise - if any (Eller, White for example)...

and Gill/Spacek coming off the books as well as Laraque buyout (only 500K but still)

so, Habs situation may not be perfect, but considering our roster is complete and we still have a few Mil left... it isnt that bad...

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:40 AM
  #356
Ivan13
Avs/Habs fan
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 13,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
put it this way, first two lines alerady signed up, #1 goalie signed up (going with your stuff) as well as our #2 (Budaj), half our D signed up... also some of our youngsters not getting that much of a raise - if any (Eller, White for example)...

and Gill/Spacek coming off the books as well as Laraque buyout (only 500K but still)

so, Habs situation may not be perfect, but considering our roster is complete and we still have a few Mil left... it isnt that bad...
I didn't say Habs situation is bad, but they could be in a better position IMHO. My point was that those guys are all signed longterm, which reduces the cap flexibility (not sure that's the best term) for Canadiens in the future.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:42 AM
  #357
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
The problem is that, like all trades, plenty can go awry. The deals you've suggested look good now because you have the benefit of knowing how the individual players turned out. If you had proposed Koivu for Ryan in 2006, it would probably look about as good as Markov for Pouliot in the same year. But we all know that would be a disaster of a trade.

No offense but your general strategy for team building seems to be unrealistic. You cite the Rivet trade as the kind of trade we should be making, but not every trade is going to turn out so well in our favor. Trading's a can be a double edged sword and to pick out the good ones and to say "do more of that" is a lot easier said than done.

You also complain that we shouldn't be signing vets, but we went farther than we'd been since 93 with a line-up comprised almost entirely of vets. There's really no legitimate basis for this complaint as the team stands now. We may have "regressed" by getting eliminated in the first round, but this team took the champs to seven games without three key players.

And what should PG have done after nearly knocking off the eventual champs? Should he have NOT signed Cole and let the team get immediately weaker? Should he have traded assets for some prospect who may or may not ever play in the NHL because he's got good size, so that he may or may not make this team better in the future? No, he took the most obvious course of action; he addressed a need. He picked up a big winger who can hit and score and is coming off one of the best seasons of his career. The last year of his contract may be a bit much but there really isn't anything to legitimately complain about with regards to this signing.

Really, what it sounds like you want to do is blow the team up and tank. But that won't happen, and it's not management's fault. Not one single team in the Habs current position is going to run their team that way. Not one. They're following a precedent. The Bruins pretty much proved you don't need a bunch of lottery picks to win. It takes a mix of good drafting, good development, good trades, and good FA signings.
Look, I'm really going to go out on a limb here and defend LG.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that top 5 picks over a few years increase your chances of becoming a contending team? Yes or no. Answer the question. If you answer no, skip the rest of this post.

2. Do you contend that aging but currently valuable UFA players are as effective as very good young prospects in building a contending team? Answer the question. Yes or no? If you answer yes, skip the rest of this post.

3. Do you disagree with tanking to get top 5 picks? Answer the question, yes or no? If you answer yes, you are rare here, and almost no one will agree with you. If you answer no, go to question 4:

4. You now believe that top 5 picks are better than UFA's at building a contender, and further, you do not want to tank: So now answer this question with reasoned answers:

Please suggest to us, how without tanking do we bloody well get top 5 picks? You have not. None of you have except LG. LG has, and I think he is correct:

Trade valuable vets when you cannot contend, to contenders who will give you high picks for them. Correct. Door closed. End of. It hurts, yes. It also works.

Give us alternatives if you disagree. I want to hear them. And do not include building slowly with UFA's and constantly drafting bottom 15 1st round picks, because I think we have enough evidence since 1993 that that strategy is not working.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:43 AM
  #358
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
There are very few GM's that will trade a first rounder anymore, let alone a possible top 5 pick......it always takes two to tango to make this happen, and unfortunately there is only 1 Brian Burke who will make these kind of deals....
there are probably more than we think, but the thing is... it's the moves like Pollock used to do that are the ones impossible to make...

you can not trade average or slightly above average players to move up enough to get a top 5 pick anymore... and it isnt so much the last few Habs GM who werent good enough but more like the other 29 who got way better! I mean, how often does it happen in a season that a team gets fleeced in a trade, not so much anymore...



want the #1 pick ? get ready to give at least one of your own 1st rounder, plus one or two prospects, and depending on the prospects "quality" one or two GOOD roster player...

I mean, I'm all for trading to get uber talent... but if it means depleting our roster and having to play him alongside Darche and Moen... I dont see the point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Trade valuable vets when you cannot contend, to contenders who will give you high picks for them. Correct. Door closed. End of. It hurts, yes. It also works.

Yuo pretty much explained there why most disagree with the guy... and could have saved you a lot of typing...


contenders DO NOT have top 5 picks... they usually pick in the 20 to 30 range...

I mean, care to name the last CONTENDER to end up with a lottery pick ?


his logic is pretty simple : tank, get picks/prospects for players, be bad (as in NYI bad) enough for a few years to get OWN top 5 picks...




seriously...

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:50 AM
  #359
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
If you don't like tanking, then at least we MUST find another way to get top 5 picks. That is what people are just not understanding on this site. We have to have top 5 picks over a few years to contend. We really do.
No, we don't. That's where the fallacy lies. While top-5 picks are nice, they aren't necessary. Detroit has not picked in the top-5 in 20 years. Boston did so twice since picking Thornton in '94, and only because they traded one (Kessel) for another (Seguin). Anaheim had three top-5 picks 10 years before they won the Cup... and they were Vitaly Visnievski, Stanislav Chistov, and Chad Kilger. None of those clubs had one of their top-5 picks playing a "star" role in their Cup runs, and that's 2/3rds of the Cups since the lockout. These are the things LG is trying very hard to wrangle into his "top 5 pick" world-view, with occasionally mind-boggling stretches (like mentioning Detroit's 'Dead Things' era -- which ended almost thirty years ago -- as significant to their current success).

Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Washington are getting all the hype because they went suck-and-draft and got good results out of it, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and they were exception because of the masonry work they did to surround the players they got from their picks. The Scorched Earth rebuild and gunning for top-5 picks fails more often than it succeeds, but the media doesn't talk about the failures, they only ever talk about the success stories, which is why people are left with the impression it's the only good way to build a successful team, when it's not. It's a good way to generate hype for a team though and sports media thrives on hype, not analysis.

Superstars are exciting to have, and they do help your club be competitive. But in a high-parity, salary-capped league, your best bet for a Cup is gradual improvement, building consistent competitiveness, and looking to hit a year when things fall your way. There's really no such thing as a dynasty team anymore, and even less if high end RFAs start consistently getting UFA money.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:51 AM
  #360
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
But they did so on the back of percentages: unsustainably high shooting percentage, and excellent goaltending. The Avs were a terrible puck possession club (they got outshot 27.4 to 31.3 at evens) which is a sign of a team that won't be sustainably good unless it improves that aspect.

And they did improve incrementally (29.0 to 31.1) but their goaltending cratered and their great shooting percentage went back to league average (as shooting percentage always eventually does, though almost nobody here believes this will happen to the Habs. ). Now that's better than I remembered, perhaps "terrible" was an overstatement, but it's still not good. With average goaltending they wouldn't be in the league basement, but the playoffs are a long shot; that pick they handed to Washington still looks like a 9-10th overall, which is an awful thing to trade for a goalie, unless you're sure he's Carey Price (and even then...)

Habs fans are quite familiar with teams with bad puck possession and really good goaltending...
MM: I like your logic, and I understand the Math, but some shots are weak and ****, and some are perfectly aimed and unstoppable. No?

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:55 AM
  #361
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Yuo pretty much explained there why most disagree with the guy... and could have saved you a lot of typing...


contenders DO NOT have top 5 picks... they usually pick in the 20 to 30 range...
Yep. If you're not going to make the playoffs, by all means, trade expiring contracts away at the deadline. Just don't expect top-5 picks out of that; contenders, practically by definition, get low picks. It can net you nice players though (Paciorretty and Gorges being the object case).

If you're going to make the playoffs, then don't! The playoffs are a crapshoot to begin with, and you need to give your guys the experience anyway. Obviously it can be a balancing act (like when the Habs traded Rivet but held onto Souray) but the path to long-term success is consistent competitiveness.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:56 AM
  #362
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Its way more interesting than anything the silly toughness subject has to offer.
Budda strikes again. Another poster I like. Dead on. Bored with this thread? Go read comic books then.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:57 AM
  #363
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I always tend to agree with LG, who argues well and not with anger.

If you don't like tanking, then at least we MUST find another way to get top 5 picks. That is what people are just not understanding on this site. We have to have top 5 picks over a few years to contend. We really do.

That is exactly what LG is proposing above, and that is exactly what we have not been doing, for years.
The problem is LG and yourself make it seem as an unavoidable and guaranteed way to success. We can tank for 10years, doesn't mean our team will necessarily be better than what we have now.

The Sens put themselves in a position of tanking. Are they guaranteed of anything? No. I agree, there are certain that we could have done. I wanted to sell Souray and Ryder the same year we moved Rivet. Little moves like that could have been done, but tanking is a foolish idea unless there really is no choice.

How many top 5 picks have been moved in recent years? I have to decline the Avs-Wsh deal of this summer because that was simply retarded from the Avs. Outside that one, how many others??..

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
One top 5 pick in 25 years is SAD. It is shocking. Inexcusable. There are always some cunning trades that can be made every year to increase your chances of at least a top 10 pick, and higher, every couple of years. Desperate teams. Contenders that need just one piece. On and on....
I wonder, is two top 5 in 25 years SAD? What about one in 24 years??...That would be Detroit. Shocking, inexcusable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I know everybody here hates the old timers, (scre-w you by the way), but Pollock consistently and constantly went after high picks. It was his first order of business.
The reason some hate old timers is because they use examples like Sam Pollock. His last GM year was in 78. That's more than 40years ago. Shall we compare players to the Rocket? It was completely different back then, simply mentioning his name is foolish. You cannot compare things, not even his attitude or approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Result? Dynasty. Yeah he had it easier with high Q picks at first, but he understood the system he was in, identified other team's weaknesses, and capitalized, again and again. That is the least we should expect these days as from our GM as well.
If only things were that easy again, I'm sure PG would have no problem capitalizing on it as well.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 11:58 AM
  #364
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
No, we don't. That's where the fallacy lies. While top-5 picks are nice, they aren't necessary. Detroit has not picked in the top-5 in 20 years. Boston did so twice since picking Thornton in '94, and only because they traded one (Kessel) for another (Seguin). Anaheim had three top-5 picks 10 years before they won the Cup... and they were Vitaly Visnievski, Stanislav Chistov, and Chad Kilger. None of those clubs had one of their top-5 picks playing a "star" role in their Cup runs, and that's 2/3rds of the Cups since the lockout. These are the things LG is trying very hard to wrangle into his "top 5 pick" world-view, with occasionally mind-boggling stretches (like mentioning Detroit's 'Dead Things' era -- which ended almost thirty years ago -- as significant to their current success).

Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Washington are getting all the hype because they went suck-and-draft and got good results out of it, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and they were exception because of the masonry work they did to surround the players they got from their picks. The Scorched Earth rebuild and gunning for top-5 picks fails more often than it succeeds, but the media doesn't talk about the failures, they only ever talk about the success stories, which is why people are left with the impression it's the only good way to build a successful team, when it's not. It's a good way to generate hype for a team though and sports media thrives on hype, not analysis.

Superstars are exciting to have, and they do help your club be competitive. But in a high-parity, salary-capped league, your best bet for a Cup is gradual improvement, building consistent competitiveness, and looking to hit a year when things fall your way. There's really no such thing as a dynasty team anymore, and even less if high end RFAs start consistently getting UFA money.
not only that, but none of them had the "rather sell than finish 7th or 8th" philosophy... the didnt get the AO, Crosby (lottery), Malkin (a guy this caliber still avail at #2 ? what are the odds), Kane or Toews by trading players for picks... they just happened to be VERY bad for a VERY LONG time...

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:00 PM
  #365
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,038
vCash: 500
Guys Toughness is not pronounced tanking. Seriously though, it can be possible that every thread LG touches turns into a tanking argument.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:01 PM
  #366
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
MM: I like your logic, and I understand the Math, but some shots are weak and ****, and some are perfectly aimed and unstoppable. No?
Individual shot quality is a real thing (otherwise we wouldn't bother with scoring chances, right?) but on the aggregate, it gets drowned in the mass; a team's total set of shots is not likely to have significantly higher or lower quality than another's.

Likewise, player's shooting percentages trend strongly to their career average. A player with an unusually high shooting percentage for one year is a red flag and is very likely to score less the next year. Likewise, a player with an unusually low shooting percentage for one year is a good trading target -- odds are he'll go back to normal right after.

This goes double for a player's on-ice shooting percentage (his team's overall shooting percentage while he's on).

And no, lack of toughness and grit does not result in low shooting percentage. Low and high shooting percentages though is one of those things we humans insist in trying to explain as more than transient variation.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:02 PM
  #367
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Yep. If you're not going to make the playoffs, by all means, trade expiring contracts away at the deadline. Just don't expect top-5 picks out of that; contenders, practically by definition, get low picks. It can net you nice players though (Paciorretty and Gorges being the object case).

If you're going to make the playoffs, then don't! The playoffs are a crapshoot to begin with, and you need to give your guys the experience anyway. Obviously it can be a balancing act (like when the Habs traded Rivet but held onto Souray) but the path to long-term success is consistent competitiveness.
easier said than done... I mean, there still a whole month of hockey to play after the deadline...

I mean, 1 month is enough to go from 9th to 5th or 6th...

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:10 PM
  #368
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
there are probably more than we think, but the thing is... it's the moves like Pollock used to do that are the ones impossible to make...

you can not trade average or slightly above average players to move up enough to get a top 5 pick anymore... and it isnt so much the last few Habs GM who werent good enough but more like the other 29 who got way better! I mean, how often does it happen in a season that a team gets fleeced in a trade, not so much anymore...


want the #1 pick ? get ready to give at least one of your own 1st rounder, plus one or two prospects, and depending on the prospects "quality" one or two GOOD roster player...

I mean, I'm all for trading to get uber talent... but if it means depleting our roster and having to play him alongside Darche and Moen... I dont see the point...
I agree it's tough to trade for high picks. But it is not impossible, and every attempt should be made to do so by any good GM. There are always a few desperate GM/s out there. Always. 'Have to win this year or I'm gone!' There are also ways to trade for high picks 2 or 3 years down the line, not just next year.

Also, most GM's were not stupid in Pollock's day either. The trades I'm talking about are not always obvious. Pollock used to trade to make certain teams BETTER, in order that others finished lower, the ones he wanted something from. There are many ways...

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:12 PM
  #369
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
I didn't say Habs situation is bad, but they could be in a better position IMHO. My point was that those guys are all signed longterm, which reduces the cap flexibility (not sure that's the best term) for Canadiens in the future.
Those guys will have one year remaining on their contracts except for Cole and Plek. Nothing to worry about. If they need to be moved, I'm sure we'd have no problem doing it.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:18 PM
  #370
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The problem is LG and yourself make it seem as an unavoidable and guaranteed way to success. We can tank for 10years, doesn't mean our team will necessarily be better than what we have now.

The Sens put themselves in a position of tanking. Are they guaranteed of anything? No. I agree, there are certain that we could have done. I wanted to sell Souray and Ryder the same year we moved Rivet. Little moves like that could have been done, but tanking is a foolish idea unless there really is no choice.

How many top 5 picks have been moved in recent years? I have to decline the Avs-Wsh deal of this summer because that was simply retarded from the Avs. Outside that one, how many others??..



I wonder, is two top 5 in 25 years SAD? What about one in 24 years??...That would be Detroit. Shocking, inexcusable.


The reason some hate old timers is because they use examples like Sam Pollock. His last GM year was in 78. That's more than 40years ago. Shall we compare players to the Rocket? It was completely different back then, simply mentioning his name is foolish. You cannot compare things, not even his attitude or approach.

If only things were that easy again, I'm sure PG would have no problem capitalizing on it as well.
I have not once suggested tanking. Please stop suggesting I have. But I stand by my belief that our chance of contending are MUCH higher with top 5 picks. If you disagree, OK no probs. For every Detroit, there are many Tampa's and Pittsburgh's the last 10 years, anyone notice that? And I think there will be many more.

And you HATE old timers? Geez, I hate, like, Hitler, not old timers. And I don't hate you. Calm down dude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Individual shot quality is a real thing (otherwise we wouldn't bother with scoring chances, right?) but on the aggregate, it gets drowned in the mass; a team's total set of shots is not likely to have significantly higher or lower quality than another's.

Likewise, player's shooting percentages trend strongly to their career average. A player with an unusually high shooting percentage for one year is a red flag and is very likely to score less the next year. Likewise, a player with an unusually low shooting percentage for one year is a good trading target -- odds are he'll go back to normal right after.

This goes double for a player's on-ice shooting percentage (his team's overall shooting percentage while he's on).

And no, lack of toughness and grit does not result in low shooting percentage. Low and high shooting percentages though is one of those things we humans insist in trying to explain as more than transient variation.
Well argued. I buy it. I would say: If a team has over 50 % of their returning players produce a lower shooting percentage than the year before, they will regress to the mean.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:31 PM
  #371
WeeBey
Registered User
 
WeeBey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Look, I'm really going to go out on a limb here and defend LG.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that top 5 picks over a few years increase your chances of becoming a contending team? Yes or no. Answer the question. If you answer no, skip the rest of this post.

2. Do you contend that aging but currently valuable UFA players are as effective as very good young prospects in building a contending team? Answer the question. Yes or no? If you answer yes, skip the rest of this post.

3. Do you disagree with tanking to get top 5 picks? Answer the question, yes or no? If you answer yes, you are rare here, and almost no one will agree with you. If you answer no, go to question 4:

4. You now believe that top 5 picks are better than UFA's at building a contender, and further, you do not want to tank: So now answer this question with reasoned answers:

Please suggest to us, how without tanking do we bloody well get top 5 picks? You have not. None of you have except LG. LG has, and I think he is correct:

Trade valuable vets when you cannot contend, to contenders who will give you high picks for them. Correct. Door closed. End of. It hurts, yes. It also works.

Give us alternatives if you disagree. I want to hear them. And do not include building slowly with UFA's and constantly drafting bottom 15 1st round picks, because I think we have enough evidence since 1993 that that strategy is not working.
my god...

Yes, a top 5 picks gives you a better chance at becoming a contender. But so does good drafting, development, trades and fa signings.

Boston did it without a top 5 pick (one good game from Seguin doesn't count) Detroit hasn't picked in the first round in like 10 years. Anaheim did it without their own lottery picks. Without Cam Ward (the 25th overall pick) the Canes don't do it either. The only cup winning teams that you can point to that undoubtedly did it with lottery picks are the Penguins and the Blackhawks. And even they had a lot of FAs and high picks to help them win the cup (Keith was picked 54th overall)

What about the Thrashers, who had multiple first lottery picks? What has that gotten them? How about Columbus?

Slowly building with FAs is probably not the best route to winning a cup, but it brought us closer than we've ever been since '93, and is now the major make-up of what I consider to be the best team we've had in a long time.

Quote:
I agree it's tough to trade for high picks. But it is not impossible, and every attempt should be made to do so by any good GM. There are always a few desperate GM/s out there. Always. 'Have to win this year or I'm gone!' There are also ways to trade for high picks 2 or 3 years down the line, not just next year.
What let's you speak with such authority? Are you a GM? How many "desperate" GMs are there to give up a top 5 pick? You'd have to be out of your mind to think anyone's desperate to trade those away unless it's for a MASSIVE overpayment. Also, you don't know what goes on between GMs, maybe Gauthier has been shopping around players for high picks? You don't know because you're not Gauthier.

And what's this nonsense about picking 2 or 3 years later? What if you trade with someone and they win the cup in 2 years? Yay! The 30th overall pick, which some people here seem to think is poisonous.

Everyone (well, some people) keep screaming, trade vets! Trade this! Trade that! Trade it for other team's valuable stuff! I seriously don't think people understand that 1) you have to give to get (unless you're Boston trading with Toronto) and 2) not all trades work out in your favor. It's easy to make trading look easy and always beneficial if all you do is look at examples of "good" trades.

Go to the trades board and propose a trade for some teams prospects or high picks. I can almost guarantee that if the deal doesn't at least include PK and/or Price, you're probably gonna get laughed out of the thread.

WeeBey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:35 PM
  #372
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I have not once suggested tanking. Please stop suggesting I have. But I stand by my belief that our chance of contending are MUCH higher with top 5 picks. If you disagree, OK no probs. For every Detroit, there are many Tampa's and Pittsburgh's the last 10 years, anyone notice that? And I think there will be many more.
You're talking about top 5 picks and saying you agree with LG's views which has always been about tanking.
How do you suggest we get top 5 picks without tanking? Trading for them? Okay. What do you trade for a top 5 pick? Gomez? Moen?...Obviously not. It'll have to be guys like PK, Price, MaxPac, Plek, etc. Giving these guys up is what people consider tanking, unless we have an abundance of them and can spare them.
TB made the POs once in 10years which ended in the first round. I have no interest in that.
It took the Pens 5 years but they got lucky with their lottery pick. They don't win without Crosby and that's entirely due to pure luck.

You need a lot of things in order to win a cup. Generally speaking top 5 players will be better than the ones selected in 50-55 range. Just like a first overall is better than a 20th. It doesn't mean it's a necessity for winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
And you HATE old timers? Geez, I hate, like, Hitler, not old timers. And I don't hate you. Calm down dude.
I don't hate anybody. I was repeating your words, so I'm not sure why you get sensitive there.
Here's the what I was quoting from you :

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I know everybody here hates the old timers, (scre-w you by the way), but Pollock consistently and constantly went after high picks. It was his first order of business.
For the record, I don't have a problem with anybody's age. I have an issue with people of whatever age making comparison with players/gms that were involved in the game more than 50-40years ago.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:36 PM
  #373
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
For every Detroit, there are many Tampa's and Pittsburgh's the last 10 years, anyone notice that? And I think there will be many more.
Acutally, no. There's Washington, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Tampa... and that's it. And only half those teams have Cups.

The top six teams in the East this year were evenly split between three recent tankers (Washington, Pittsburgh and Tampa) and three non-tankers (Philly, Boston and Montreal). And out West, really, do any of the top-6 clubs qualify as recent tankers?

Half of the last Cups since the lockout also went to non-tankers: Boston, Anaheim, and Detroit. (And not 2/3rds like I said earlier -- some MathMan I am sometimes).

Being consistently successful does not preclude grabbing the occasional high pick due to an unlucky or down season or via trade (like Philly and Boston did). The successful-to-failed tanker ratio is pretty grim, though. Edmonton seems to be held up as an example where all they've demonstrated so far is management incompetence; I doubt they will contend with that management team in place.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 08:06 PM
  #374
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Mediocre means average, middle of the pack, so so.

30 teams in the league

10-11 Montreal finishes 14th overall - loses in the 1st round
09-10 Montreal finishes 19th overall - loses in the 3rd round
08-09 Montreal finishes 13th overall - loses in the 1st round
07-08 Montreal finishes 3rd overall - loses in the 2nd round
06-07 Montreal finishes 19th overall - out of the playoffs

I'll let the stats speak for themselves.
Habs are among the only 8 teams to have made the playoffs at least 4 times in the last 5 years. All other 22 teams have made them 3 times or less, or none.

Habs are among only 5 teams to have made the playoffs 4 years in a row in the last 4 years.

Habs are in the top 10 for the number of rounds played in the last 5 years.

Top 8, top 5, top 10. That's not average.

Oh yeah, I also forgot, Habs are top 5 for man-games missed to injuries in the last 5 years.

It's all nice and well that you decided that there was only ONE stat that had any importance, but reality isn't like that.

Now before you argue any further, re-read by previous post and notice the wording 'over-average in many respects'. I just proved that.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 08:52 PM
  #375
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,466
vCash: 500
Atlanta/Winnipeg had 6 top-5 picks since 1999...

Florida had 5 top-5 picks since 2001...

NY Islanders had 6 since 1999...

Lots of playoff success with those teams, huh?

Fozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.