HFBoards

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

Embracing the Rebuild: Tank Nation, the Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2013, 12:23 PM
  #676
Moskau
Registered User
 
Moskau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western New York
Posts: 13,342
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Proving that you missed the overall point. You obviously missed the fact that their first two top 5 picks were Whitney at #5 in 2002 and MAF at #1 in 2003. It took until years 3, 4 and 5 of picking at the top to land their two franchise players and best forward after thsoe two; Malkin #2 in 2004, Crosby #1 in 2005 and J. Staal #2 in 2006.


So no they couldn't have just sucked for two years and won the Cup based on the top picks they had in those first two drafts.
Was fairly obvious I was saying they could have just sucked for the Crosby and Malkin drafts and be exactly where they are right now. In fact I did say that. I will say it again. The Penguins could have picked #30 overall in 2002 and 2003 and they would have still won a cup because the 2004 and 2005 drafts were all that mattered.

If Pittsburgh doesn't draft Crosby and Malkin they would likely still be a basement dwelling team similar to Florida. Even if they got Bobby Ryan and Andrew Ladd as loser prizes they would have remained a basement dweller. Even a player like Ryan who people around here seem to love is about 5 tiers below Crosby. They would not have gotten the support from the top that they now have. They would not have been able to sign the free agents that they have.

The Penguins are not where they are because they picked high 5 years in a row. They are where they are because they sucked when generational talents were available at those spots in TWO of those five years. 1st overall picks are rarely generational talents but it doesn't hurt to pick 1st overall. It just so happens that 2015 has not one but possibly two generational talents and some would argue three sure fire franchise players at the top of the draft.

Seriously the Penguins could have forefitted all of their picks in 2002, 2003 and even 2006 and they still have that team.


Last edited by Moskau: 11-16-2013 at 12:30 PM.
Moskau is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:26 PM
  #677
Kyndig86
Registered User
 
Kyndig86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Springville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
**** I've been saying trade Miller now every day since the end of last season, so does it count if I say it anymore?

He's good enough to play you into the 8th pick again. What kind of team do you want to watch the rest of your life. Either circle the drain or take the plunge and come out the other side.

And just spitballing and following some assumptions, you can make the argument that the difference between 8th and 1st pick is more than whatever return Miller would bring you anyways. Which means he'd be worth more off this team than on it.

But I've said all this before.
Thats what I'm worried about as well. We just passed the Oilers, granted its still early theres quite a few teams that are barely ahead of us.

Kyndig86 is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:28 PM
  #678
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moskau View Post
Was fairly obvious I was saying they could have just sucked for the Crosby and Malkin drafts and be exactly where they are right now. In fact I did say that. I will say it again. The Penguins could have picked #30 overall in 2002 and 2003 and they would have still won a cup because the 2004 and 2005 drafts were all that mattered.

If Pittsburgh doesn't draft Crosby and Malkin they would likely still be a basement dwelling team similar to Florida. They would not have gotten the support from the top that they now have. They would not have been able to sign the free agents that they have.
Oh right they can control when they suck and land franchise players. So its that simple. Suck on demand when elite players are available? You can't possibly be serious with this absurd argument.

Nevermind that landing Crosby was pure luck but thats starts getting into more facts. No need need for those.

joshjull is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:29 PM
  #679
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,881
vCash: 500
FWIW, I hear the argument being between tanking for 2 years and tanking for 5 years. Joshjull says good/wealthy teams will tank for 2, but not for 5. Other people say the 5 year time frame isn't relevant to the discussion because it isn't being advocated for.

Joshjull says the 5 year time frame is relevant because the Pens followed it (were poor for a while), and for a tank to be successful, you have to load the odds that your top pick will be a superstar, which is easier over 5 years than 2.

I define the end of trying to tank as being when you go out and start aggressively pursuing trades and FA's that substantially improve your team immediately. So when I advocate for a two year tank job, I mean hold off on all that until you get a couple bluechip prospects in the system. Joshjull is right, you might get Patrick Stefan instead of Sidney Crosby, and it's a big gamble on one player, but I think the 5 year tank jobs are a lot harder to sustain without writing off anything you had on your roster/in your system before the tank job started.

So maybe we can all just agree that it's better to tank short term and then have a deadline past which you decide you're taking your chances on whatever prospects you've managed to assemble, whether it's Stefan or Crosby or there's no telling yet, and start trying to build around them.

Whoever was wrong and when is kind of immaterial six months out.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:34 PM
  #680
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 57,278
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Oh right they can control when they suck and land franchise players. So its that simple. Suck on demand when elite players are available? You can't possibly be serious with this absurd argument.

Nevermind that landing Crosby was pure luck but thats starts getting into more facts. No need need for those.
They were in financial disarray and it wasn't until new ownership took over that they pulled out of their rut. Bringing in a new GM was also part of the shift, along with the talent gleened at the top of the draft.

Again, the teams that regularly stink are often those viewed as being poorly owned/managed/lead.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:35 PM
  #681
Moskau
Registered User
 
Moskau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western New York
Posts: 13,342
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Oh right they can control when they suck and land franchise players. So its that simple. Suck on demand when elite players are available? You can't possibly be serious with this absurd argument.

Nevermind that landing Crosby was pure luck but thats starts getting into more facts. No need need for those.
Your reading comprehension is terrible all of a sudden. Your stance is that it took the Penguins 5 years to make that team good. My Argument is that they are only good because of 2 of those draft years. They completely struck out in the other 3 years. So how can those years be vital to where they are now?

The Penguins were a dog **** team for 5 years but it's not relevant. What matters is that they were lucky enough to be dog **** for the two years that mattered, 2004 and 2005.

I'm essentially agreeing with you that the Penguins model isn't even a model because it's not one you can follow. But so is everyone else you argue with. No one is saying to suck like the Penguins did. No one.

But your whole notion that the Penguins were built on 5 years of misery is 100% wrong. They were miserable for 5 years and built during 2 of those years. Fact.

Moskau is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:39 PM
  #682
Beerz
Registered User
 
Beerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 18,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
FWIW, I hear the argument being between tanking for 2 years and tanking for 5 years. Joshjull says good/wealthy teams will tank for 2, but not for 5. Other people say the 5 year time frame isn't relevant to the discussion because it isn't being advocated for.

Joshjull says the 5 year time frame is relevant because the Pens followed it (were poor for a while), and for a tank to be successful, you have to load the odds that your top pick will be a superstar, which is easier over 5 years than 2.

I define the end of trying to tank as being when you go out and start aggressively pursuing trades and FA's that substantially improve your team immediately. So when I advocate for a two year tank job, I mean hold off on all that until you get a couple bluechip prospects in the system. Joshjull is right, you might get Patrick Stefan instead of Sidney Crosby, and it's a big gamble on one player, but I think the 5 year tank jobs are a lot harder to sustain without writing off anything you had on your roster/in your system before the tank job started.

So maybe we can all just agree that it's better to tank short term and then have a deadline past which you decide you're taking your chances on whatever prospects you've managed to assemble, whether it's Stefan or Crosby or there's no telling yet, and start trying to build around them.

Whoever was wrong and when is kind of immaterial six months out.
A 5 year tank would not be tanking to get better ... it would be a result of cheap owners/dumb management.

After the 2015 draft i expect the organization to start making moves that improves the on ice product ..maybe even a little before hand.

Beerz is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:48 PM
  #683
Moskau
Registered User
 
Moskau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western New York
Posts: 13,342
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerz View Post
A 5 year tank would not be tanking to get better ... it would be a result of cheap owners/dumb management.

After the 2015 draft i expect the organization to start making moves that improves the on ice product ..maybe even a little before hand.
In Pittsburgh's case it was a result of terrible owners and management as well as screwing up 2002 and 2003. If Pittsburgh makes better draft choices in 2002 as well as adds better veteran talent sooner on they likely don't pick nearly as high in 2006. Crosby came in and instantly helped that team but he had very little support which is why they drafted 2nd overall. It wasn't until a year after that trades were made and veterans were brought in which is exactly what you have to do. The catch-22 is that it's very hard to do that when you have to make people want to play for you so you can get yourself into terrible droughts. It's exactly what MacTavish went through this off-season in Edmonton where every free agent told him to go away.

Moskau is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:54 PM
  #684
Beerz
Registered User
 
Beerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 18,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moskau View Post
In Pittsburgh's case it was a result of terrible owners and management as well as screwing up 2002 and 2003. If Pittsburgh makes better draft choices in 2002 as well as adds better veteran talent sooner on they likely don't pick nearly as high in 2006. Crosby came in and instantly helped that team but he had very little support which is why they drafted 2nd overall. It wasn't until a year after that trades were made and veterans were brought in which is exactly what you have to do. The catch-22 is that it's very hard to do that when you have to make people want to play for you so you can get yourself into terrible droughts. It's exactly what MacTavish went through this off-season in Edmonton where every free agent told him to go away.
I agree...and Buffalo will have the same struggles as Edmonton as we try to come out of our rebuild...but I think Buffalo is already in a better position thank Edmonton ever was because Edmonton didn't start off with the assets Buffalo had and it shows in their prospect pool with lack of depth and lack of anything outside of forwards.

Beerz is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:55 PM
  #685
Moskau
Registered User
 
Moskau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western New York
Posts: 13,342
vCash: 67
Can I just say that I really hate the word tank and the way that it's used?

Drafting comes first in situations like this. Having a top pick makes drafting easier and takes some of the work out of it but there's plenty you have to do. I very much believe that any team that can draft well for 2 or 3 years in a row is setup to become a contender. But a GM has to supplement those picks with trades and free agent signings. It's why a team like Chicago and Anaheim is very scary to me because they are continuing to draft incredibly well even with a great team already. If you want to be jealous look at some of the players Anaheim is going to be adding to that already great roster in the next 2 years. That defense and goaltending is going to be absurd and then you add it to Perry and Getzlaf. Not even mentioning Etem and Silfverberg. San Jose is the same way. Have a great core already and continue to hit home runs on draft picks. There is a lot of longevity there. THAT is what I want Buffalo to become. Having 1st overall this year or next year isn't vital to that but it gets the ball rolling faster.

Moskau is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 12:57 PM
  #686
Beerz
Registered User
 
Beerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 18,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moskau View Post
Can I just say that I really hate the word tank and the way that it's used?

Drafting comes first in situations like this. Having a top pick makes drafting easier and takes some of the work out of it but there's plenty you have to do. I very much believe that any team that can draft well for 2 or 3 years in a row is setup to become a contender. But a GM has to supplement those picks with trades and free agent signings. It's why a team like Chicago and Anaheim is very scary to me because they are continuing to draft incredibly well even with a great team already. If you want to be jealous look at some of the players Anaheim is going to be adding to that already great roster in the next 2 years. That defense and goaltending is going to be absurd and then you add it to Perry and Getzlaf. Not even mentioning Etem and Silfverberg. San Jose is the same way. Have a great core already and continue to hit home runs on draft picks. There is a lot of longevity there. THAT is what I want Buffalo to become. Having 1st overall this year or next year isn't vital to that but it gets the ball rolling faster.

Agreed.

"tanking" is only the first step.

Beerz is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 01:23 PM
  #687
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 37,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
My belief is wealthy teams don't try to suck for years on end to build a winner down the road with high picks.
i don't mind your revisionist history.

previously, you lectured people on "the facts"

Quote:
Teams that lose year after year are either poor franchises, poorly run franchises or both.
you don't need to recap... i know your argument. ive never even argued against it. only your use of it as a straw man against those who preferred a tank strategy, and pointed to toews/kane or crosby/malkin.... note: 2 years... not 3, or 4, or 5...

you built your straw man argument because you hated the idea of the tank, so your argument had to be that it wasn't "possible"... no team with stable ownership and money would tank.

Quote:
Now, as is typical with you, we are getting your usual spin on things to try and attack someone.
ok now that's funny, coming from Dr. Spin himself. I'm not attacking you. In fact, you are the one who attacked ANYONE who suggested a tank as a strategy, and you attacked them by building the mountainous straw man discussed above.

Quote:
In this case me. I've never argued teams don't try to rebuild by shedding established players and bottoming out.
you flat out stated, no team with stable ownership would make the pursuit of a #1 pick a strategy. between stability and the luck of getting that pick, it would NEVER be employed as a team building strategy or a franchise goal.

later on you provided cover for your self with caveats like "several years", "3-5 years", etc... but there is plenty of your statements that point to you actual opinion (always stated as fact)

Quote:
The idea that the time frame is shallow cover tells me you don't quite get it.
your shallow dodges tells me you aren't man enough to own your past:
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Sucking for multiple years, like the Pens and Hawks did, is NOT something any team does intentionally. Its the product of either financial issues with the franchise or inept/terrible ownership. The few posters that think the Sabres should use the Pens/Hawks "rebuilding model" are not grasping that its not an actual rebuilding plan. So to advocate its use is beyond daft.
they intentionally tanked last year (after firing Ruff... and bouncing the Captain)
they intentionally tanked this year (hiring rolston... dumping Sekera and Vanek for futures... carrying 4 teenagers... signing no one to help)

we are already in multiple years... and the discussion about next years draft implies a 3rd...

in fact... i replied to the above quote to try to clarify... and your response is hillarious in hindsight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
So, if the Sabres moved Miller for a 1st round pick... and made no spectacular signings or trades for high end talent in the offseason. They continued to develop Hodgson, Ennis, Foligno, Myers... and brought in the next group of young talent (Armia, Girgensons, Pysyk, etc)... Would that be considered "intentionally" sucking?

You are defining things in hindsight.

Choosing to rebuild via a youth movement is likely to lead to a poorer season... but it's not synonmous with "intentionally sucking".
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Couple of flaws with this scenario.

1. Trading Miller as part of a youth movement would imply there is young goalie in the system ready to take his place. No such goalie exists.

2. Why would any team arbitrarily rush a bunch of kids into the NHL if they didn't have to? Particularly one with the financial resources of the Sabres. Its a nonsense scenario.
----------


you've got gems all over this board....

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I'm also responding to the idea some posters have that drafting high for several years, in and of itself, is a path to success. It isn't. Even the Pens, with all that broke right for them, still needed some shrewd moves and a roster full of more than just a bunch of kids to have success. Because I'm also seeing lineups in this thread made up of our current youngsters (Hodgson, Ennis, Foligno) and high end prospects (Grigs, Girgs, Armia) with players they hope we draft (Mackinnon) and a few current roster players (Some combo of Vanek, Pommer, Ott, Kaleta and Leino). Does anyone really think we will ever see that group together any time soon? Or thinks it makes sense to put all those kids out their together and hope for the best?

And realistically there is no way Pegula/Black or Regier will allow a team like that to be iced. Regardless of what posters think of it the management of this team will try to ice better team than the type it would take to draft high for several years.
you want a mulligan on that one?

you need to check yourself boss...

Quote:
Yes I love listening to people clearly lay out their plans.
you're not a good listener

it's reminiscent of how i asked you to point to specific posts where posters SPECIFICALLY said their choice was to INTENTIONALLY lose for SEVERAL years...

you failed, thread after thread, to provide such evidence... you usually just disappeared for a day without responding...
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...383699&page=11

you built a straw man argument because you were opposed to tanking... and now, after more sell off, and consistent talk of focusing on the 14 and 15 drafts... your crow is warmly awaiting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
When I was talking about teams intentionally losing or icing crappy teams. I was referring to the idea some posters had of gutting the roster then icing crappy teams for several years in a row. All with the idea of getting a bunch of high draft picks several years in a row (like the Pens for example). I said no teams intentionally do that. When that happens its usually due to crappy ownership/management or financial instability. You disagreed and we had several back and forths on that.
you took references to Chi and Pitt, and associated several years... when the reality was, people were only talking about crosby/malkin, and toews/kane... 2 years... never several...

despite your straw man cover of "several seasons" a comment that you were constantly asked to back up with evidence... you still ended up being wrong...

the Sabres DID gut the roster
the Sabres did so, because they are looking towards the draft...

start chewing
(oops i just necro bumped...by mistake)

Quote:
I've listen to Lafontaine in several interviews and take away something different than you do. You do realize neither of us will be proven right until the next 3 years happens?
i realize you'll need 3 years to twist the story...
you were wrong about what a team was capable of deciding to do as a team building strategy.

you were wrong about them icing a young team
you were wrong about them gutting the team
you were wrong about them intentionally icing a crappy team
you were wrong about them tanking as a strategy towards getting top picks



Quote:
I was disappointed to see that Regier definitely had this approach coming into this season and thank god he was fired. Its not how its done. I'm just happy this rebuild seems to be in the right hands finally.
im sure it was disappointing when you realized how wrong you were...

Jame is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 01:43 PM
  #688
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moskau View Post
Your reading comprehension is terrible all of a sudden. Your stance is that it took the Penguins 5 years to make that team good. My Argument is that they are only good because of 2 of those draft years. They completely struck out in the other 3 years. So how can those years be vital to where they are now?

The Penguins were a dog **** team for 5 years but it's not relevant. What matters is that they were lucky enough to be dog **** for the two years that mattered, 2004 and 2005.

But your whole notion that the Penguins were built on 5 years of misery is 100% wrong. They were miserable for 5 years and built during 2 of those years. Fact.
My stance on the Pens was simply this.... They sucked for 5 years and drafted high because they were in financial disarray not because they were "tanking" to build a winner.

and sorry about the reading comp problems.

Quote:
I'm essentially agreeing with you that the Penguins model isn't even a model because it's not one you can follow. But so is everyone else you argue with. No one is saying to suck like the Penguins did. No one.
For starters this entire Pittsburgh nonsense was brought to the forefront by Jame and his obsession to get me to admit I was wrong about something. Second, if you're talking about this thread, I agree. But you're crazy if you don't think many have argued the Pens (and Hawks) are models to follow. Just like on the other side of that coin you have some that think we can rebuild without losing at all.

joshjull is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 01:46 PM
  #689
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
FWIW, I hear the argument being between tanking for 2 years and tanking for 5 years. Joshjull says good/wealthy teams will tank for 2, but not for 5. Other people say the 5 year time frame isn't relevant to the discussion because it isn't being advocated for.

Joshjull says the 5 year time frame is relevant because the Pens followed it (were poor for a while), and for a tank to be successful, you have to load the odds that your top pick will be a superstar, which is easier over 5 years than 2.

I define the end of trying to tank as being when you go out and start aggressively pursuing trades and FA's that substantially improve your team immediately. So when I advocate for a two year tank job, I mean hold off on all that until you get a couple bluechip prospects in the system. Joshjull is right, you might get Patrick Stefan instead of Sidney Crosby, and it's a big gamble on one player, but I think the 5 year tank jobs are a lot harder to sustain without writing off anything you had on your roster/in your system before the tank job started.

So maybe we can all just agree that it's better to tank short term and then have a deadline past which you decide you're taking your chances on whatever prospects you've managed to assemble, whether it's Stefan or Crosby or there's no telling yet, and start trying to build around them.

Whoever was wrong and when is kind of immaterial six months out.
My entire point was about how a well run and wealthy franchise would never intentionally ice a crappy team in order to lose for an extended period to try and pick at the top of the draft is the team building strategy. It started initially in response to the fans pointing to the the Pens and Hawks as a model to follow. I used a rough window of 3-5 years to make this point.

Wealthy teams can walk and chew gum. Meaning that while they are bottoming out they would also be aggressive in trades and use free agency to augment the rebuild. Also their focus in the draft would be as much about volume of picks (particularly at the top of the draft) as it is how high their top pick is. Because of this it would be highly unlikely for them to ice such a crappy team 3+ years down the line that they would still be picking in the top 3 or 5.

joshjull is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 01:50 PM
  #690
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 37,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
My stance on the Pens was simply this.... They sucked for 5 years and drafted high because they were in financial disarray not because they were "tanking" to build a winner.
and no one has ever disagreed with that, right?


Quote:
For starters this entire Pittsburgh nonsense was brought to the forefront by Jame and his obsession to get me to admit I was wrong about something. Second, if you're talking about this thread, I agree. But you're crazy if you don't think many have argued the Pens (and Hawks) are models to follow. Just like on the other side of that coin you have some that think we can rebuild without losing at all.
it's your twisting of "models" into something that you could argue against that i have an obsession with attacking.

people talked about "gutting the team" to get "top draft picks"... and pointed to Crosby/Malkin, Kane/Toews.... that was the argument.

You didn't want to tank... so your warped other peoples views into something you could have a stronger argument against...

you twisted things... "blowing it up" became, "intentionally losing", and "getting top picks" became "losing for several seasons"... that was the strawman you built so you could beat others down who were advocating something you disagreed with (which then happened to be EXACTLY the path the team pursued)

Jame is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 01:54 PM
  #691
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 37,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
My entire point was about how a well run and wealthy franchise would never intentionally ice a crappy team in order to lose for an extended period to try and pick at the top of the draft is the team building strategy. It started initially in response to the fans pointing to the the Pens and Hawks as a model to follow. I used a rough window of 3-5 years to make this point.
complete straw man argument

not to mention: your definition of icing a crappy team was given as starting a bunch of kids... and not looking to improve the team with veterans... something you said pegula/regier would never do.... that turns out to be false

The Sabres did intentionally ice a crappy team, based on your definition of crappy team

you were wrong.


Last edited by Jame: 11-16-2013 at 02:07 PM.
Jame is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 01:57 PM
  #692
misterchainsaw
Garbo is coming
 
misterchainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 21,801
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to misterchainsaw
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
and no one has ever disagreed with that, right?




it's your twisting of "models" into something that you could argue against that i have an obsession with attacking.

people talked about "gutting the team" to get "top draft picks"... and pointed to Crosby/Malkin, Kane/Toews.... that was the argument.

You didn't want to tank... so your warped other peoples views into something you could have a stronger argument against...

you twisted things... "blowing it up" became, "intentionally losing", and "getting top picks" became "losing for several seasons"... that was the strawman you built so you could beat others down who were advocating something you disagreed with (which then happened to be EXACTLY the path the team pursued)
I think it's funny that people still refer to Pittsburgh as "tanking to get Crosby" when the reality is that every team in the NHL had a shot at getting the #1 pick that year, and teams like Buffalo and the Rangers, neither of whom finished in the bottom 5 that year had an equal chance at getting him than Pittsburgh.

misterchainsaw is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 02:05 PM
  #693
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 37,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
I think it's funny that people still refer to Pittsburgh as "tanking to get Crosby" when the reality is that every team in the NHL had a shot at getting the #1 pick that year, and teams like Buffalo and the Rangers, neither of whom finished in the bottom 5 that year had an equal chance at getting him than Pittsburgh.
all the original "tank" or "rebuild" or "blow it up" debates were centrally about 2 things.

1. The team as constructed has no chance of competing for a cup, and therefor it needed to be changed by dimantling and starting over (some of us recognized this far earlier than others)

2. Elite talent is required to be a contender... and the best place to get that talent is at the top of the draft (not the only place, not the only way).

Those 2 points being accepted... the best way to reach the team goal of a stanley cup, was to begin selling assets for futures... the end result of which would be a plummet in contention/standings and thus the pursuit of top picks.

When teams like Chi and Pit were referred to as "models" it was the model of their team being built around a couple top picks, NOT a model for how they got those picks (the direction Joshjull went on his crusade to de-legitimize the proposed path back to contending... simply because he couldnt stomach it personally.)

Jame is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 02:07 PM
  #694
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
complete straw man argument

not to mention: your definition of icing a crappy team was given as starting a bunch of kids... and not looking to improve the team with veterans... turns out to be false

The Sabres did intentionally ice a crappy team, based on your definition of crappy team

you were wrong.
You mean Regier iced a crappy team (bunch of kids) and got fired for it. The comments from the new guy running things and the new head coach basically repudiated the idea of icing a bunch of kids. That its not fair to them, nor the proper way to develop them. SOunds an awful lot like what I've been saying.

But you're still going to argue its the way wealthy teams build winning rosters? I've been vindicated not proven wrong.

And if Regier stayed on as GM with this strategy. The only way I would have been proved wrong was not by their attempt at doing it but if they were successful building a team that way.

joshjull is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 02:09 PM
  #695
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 37,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
You mean Regier iced a crappy team (bunch of kids) and got fired for it. The comments from the new guy running things and the new head coach basically repudiated the idea of icing a bunch of kids. That its not fair to them, nor the proper way to develop them.

But you're still going to argue its the way wealthy teams build winning rosters? I've been vindicated not proven wrong.
saying something will NEVER happen... only to have that exact thing happen, doesn't vindicate you in the least...

your correlation changes nothing about you being wrong...

Jame is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 02:17 PM
  #696
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 57,278
vCash: 500
Awards:
Guys, I think it's time to take a break from one another.

Chainshot is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 02:18 PM
  #697
Moskau
Registered User
 
Moskau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western New York
Posts: 13,342
vCash: 67
Just skimming this discussion over it sounds like maybe joshjull just had more faith going into the season that Regier wasn't as clueless about building a team as he apparently turned out to be. While Jame had little faith in him building a team from the get go. "I told you so" is great and all but none of this seems worthy of the walls of text that have been happening for the past 5 pages.

And while we're on the subject of I told you so, both of you shot me down when I said that both of Buffalo's 1st round picks would see playing time with the team this year so ha.

Moskau is online now  
Old
11-16-2013, 02:25 PM
  #698
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moskau View Post
And while we're on the subject of I told you so, both of you shot me down when I said that both of Buffalo's 1st round picks would see playing time with the team this year so ha.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 02:26 PM
  #699
Myers888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerz View Post
A 5 year tank would not be tanking to get better ... it would be a result of cheap owners/dumb management.

After the 2015 draft i expect the organization to start making moves that improves the on ice product ..maybe even a little before hand.
Exactly:

2014 Draft Reinhardt
2015 Draft McDavid
2016 Sign UFA Patrick Kane
2017 Lift the Cup


Myers888 is offline  
Old
11-16-2013, 02:27 PM
  #700
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 37,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Guys, I think it's time to take a break from one another.
When someone starts multiple threads over the course of months, mis representing your position in a way so that they can argue against it... Only to have the franchise pursue the path you had preached for years... Definitely deserves a few pages of reveling.

Lol

Jame is online now  
Closed Thread

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 12:48 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.