The common example ( though not very recent ) is the case of the 93-94 New York Rangers.
I still don't know the full details but growing up everyone told me they did a very big job in having the team built to be a Cup contender.
What happened was they supposedly mortgaged the future for immediate success, which they got.
This isn't a question about the Rangers but a question to all fans about their team.
Would you mortgage your team's future for perhaps a decade if you could have a prime team built for a 3 year period?
No guarantees on winning it all, but you'd be a strong contender and the floor would be a Conference Finals loss.
Would you take the chance?
Oilers fan here
This is the 6th year we've missed the playoffs but we've only been rebuilding for 3 years. chances are we get close to the playoffs next year but no guarantees we'll make it but there seems to be a consensus among analysts and experts that this team will be elite so this doesn't make sense for us at all.
I'd look to the Blackhawks as a more recent example. They loaded up on talent and had a small window to win and cashed in. For Blackhawks fans, it's totally worth it as they can still compete but aren't a true contender like the current Rangers/Penguins/Flyers/Canucks.
It is tough for teams like San Jose to mortgage their future. Their prospect pool (though I am not intimately familiar with it) is considered near the bottom. I am not sure if they have been mortgaging the future in the past or not, and this is the cause.
I look at the Flames - they have mortgaged the future every year for a few years to try and get them 'over the hump'. Now everyone is saying they should rebuild.
Teams like LA, Philadelphia, Boston - they can 'afford' to mortgage the future, since their prospect pools is fairly deep, and so is their player development programs.
Regardless of the age of your franchise, before you mortgage the future, an organization really has to look at its' drafting and player development program (if it sucks, it is less 'important' to keep those picks), how thin the prospect pool is, and how 'close' a team may be to a championship.
With respect to Calgary, their drafting and prospect development program was terrible, so from the outside looking in you would think they should not have traded picks away. Those picks would have just been more of the same, however - flops. Not even mentioning the horrible player development program in place.
Regardless of how the franchise is doing at the moment - those picks are now more important, as the last few years' worth of drafting has produced better prospects, and their own AHL team will help to develop prospects. Draft picks/prospects are now worth a bit more to the organization than they were for the first 4-5 years of Darryl Sutter's reign.
I think in San Jose's case, what else could they have done? In a salary cap world, it becomes a bit tougher. Teams like Pittsburgh are at the cap, with not much 'dead weight' on their cap at all to exchange for 'upgrades' without creating a hole somewhere.
I don't really think of the teams that go out and trade for upcoming UFA's at the trade deadline to necessarily fit into this logic. I don't think teams that do this routinely (like the Flames and various other teams) attained much post-season success (though I am sure someone will find a few exceptions). Teams that add character or role players I think are the ones that seem to get more success in the playoffs, rather than the high-priced and high profile player that would cost them serious futures.
Interesting case study, however. If you look at the prior 5 years of an organization that won the Stanley cup, there is always a certain amount of futures, but the teams that give up too much in the 'chase' SEEM to never do it, and eventually just fade away.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're addicted my friend.
Currently have 4 threads on the 1st page of the Main Boards, 6 threads on the first 2 pages alone.
Over the past 7 days you have made roughly 25 threads throughout the Forums overall. It's not even that all your threads are bad. I'm just wondering how it's even possible. Do you simply post every idea that comes to your head in thread form? What aspect of discussion are you so attracted to? Igniting the discussion, discussing your topic, or watching other people rip each others head off in your very own thread?
That year the most notable 'young' players they dealt away was Darren Turcotte, Todd Marchant and Tony Amonte.
Kept the Ferraro twins though.
The rest of the moves were pretty lateral. They acquired a stay at home D man in Lidster for Beezer, who was old, but still had some years left in him, which sent a clear signal to Richter he was the #1.
Leafs attempted too do it in the early 2000 and we are still paying for it..... so no it is not worth it
It only sucks because it failed. I'd also be pissed off if they didn't make an effort to try and win those years. I loved the short term gain both the Leetch and Nolan trades gave the Leafs. And what did those trades really cost us?
The leafs in the early 90's also made some significant deals for Fuhr where they mortgaged their future and Fletch is considered a hero for getting us to the conference final 2 years in a row. Imagine if we'd have had Damphouse through his prime years.
The bigger failure for the Leafs is when they tried to do it after the lockout. The failed deals for goalies was very costly to this team in the long and short term. Imagine if we'd have kept Rask, and not ever needed to make the Toskala deal.