HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lotto or Playoffs?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-23-2014, 01:01 AM
  #76
Nolan11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,306
vCash: 500
Tanking on purpose to win later is not the only way to rebuild, and is a bit offensive. You step onto that ice, you need to try to win. Purposefully putting a weaker team out there is just wrong.

I stopped caring last season at the TDL, when we sat on our hands. I knew our blue line was not cup caliber. It has been obvious for a few years now. Thus far this offseason we are sitting on our hands again. All we need to have a legitimate chance is a tweener RW and a kid like Gelinas or krug. Someone to pair with Braun that can drive the offense from the left. (Mueller/Irwin with demers as 3rd pair). Thus far, dw is refusing to do anything about it. If he did, we would have a 50/50 chance of knocking any team off.

Nolan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 01:02 AM
  #77
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 43,715
vCash: 500
Good team, yes. A team that would've beat any other team in the playoffs with the flaws the team was carrying? Not something I'm prepared to say. The defense was sketchy at best and the goaltending was not making up for it. Anaheim and Chicago were both capable of slaughtering the team as much as the Sharks were capable of beating them.

My issue is that they didn't handle the adversity very well and that didn't get addressed much at all. A big reason why I'm not prepared to say that they'd beat anyone else even if they got past the Kings is because I would bet that that kind of issue would come up down the line. It wouldn't be the first time the team let something snowball on them.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 01:11 AM
  #78
Gene Parmesan
B.Y.O.G.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 57,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolan11 View Post
Tanking on purpose to win later is not the only way to rebuild, and is a bit offensive. You step onto that ice, you need to try to win. Purposefully putting a weaker team out there is just wrong.

I stopped caring last season at the TDL, when we sat on our hands. I knew our blue line was not cup caliber. It has been obvious for a few years now. Thus far this offseason we are sitting on our hands again. All we need to have a legitimate chance is a tweener RW and a kid like Gelinas or krug. Someone to pair with Braun that can drive the offense from the left. (Mueller/Irwin with demers as 3rd pair). Thus far, dw is refusing to do anything about it. If he did, we would have a 50/50 chance of knocking any team off.
So two mythical players that are seemingly out there yet no one acquires. Got it.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 01:18 AM
  #79
Nolan11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan View Post
So two mythical players that are seemingly out there yet no one acquires. Got it.
My point is that we are not far off with our current roster. If dw had tried something of worth on July 1 we could be talking one piece not two.

Heck, try an offer sheet again. Team will match but at least it would show he is not content to wait on nothing

Nolan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 01:37 AM
  #80
Eid Ma Clack Shaw
Registered User
 
Eid Ma Clack Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
1 in 30 teams win a cup

14 in 30 teams get a lottery pick.

So yah, that's just not true.
Well, yeah going by that logic, it's not true and I'm totally wrong.

I thought the consensus was that the Sharks are still pretty much a lock for the playoffs, thus they have a better chance at the cup than a lottery pick. I suppose anything can happen, but this is still a pretty good team.

I was just trying to say that the Sharks are likely to make the playoffs, thus that 1 in 16 chance to win the cup is more realistic than that 1 in 14 shot at a lottery pick.

Edit: Just read some of the replys to your reply and mine, hockeyball. I agree that the Sharks are not a cup contender. I'm just saying that the Sharks are closer to a cup, by just making the playoffs, than a lottery pick, because they will almost certainly make the playoffs. Sorry if I'm being confusing.


Last edited by Eid Ma Clack Shaw: 07-23-2014 at 01:45 AM.
Eid Ma Clack Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 04:06 AM
  #81
Evincar
I have found the way
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vilpertti View Post
Playoffs, of course.

I can't see anyone who has been with the team throughout the years of mediocrity wishing being that again.

And, hey, this time they can only improve. Anything is better than what they pulled off last time.
The Sharks havent been mediocre in nearly 20 years. Im willing to go through some tough years if it means a Cup. Its pretty obvious that this current Sharks team doesnt have what it takes to win a Cup. So why not start the painful rebuild sooner rather than later?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I hope we are a lotto team because there is no chance in hell this is a cup team.
This.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 04:39 AM
  #82
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,738
vCash: 50
Lottery or playoff early exit. No matter what, if there is no big silver thing at the end of the season/playoffs. Then all i care about is wilson being fired.

Barrie22 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 09:01 AM
  #83
MarleauApologist
#FireDougWilson
 
MarleauApologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,039
vCash: 500
If you aren't drafting 30th, you ought to be trying to draft 1st overall. That's the philosophy every GM should have.

The quicker we give it all up and tank now, the quicker a cup will come in the future.

MarleauApologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 10:08 AM
  #84
Gene Parmesan
B.Y.O.G.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 57,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolan11 View Post
My point is that we are not far off with our current roster. If dw had tried something of worth on July 1 we could be talking one piece not two.

Heck, try an offer sheet again. Team will match but at least it would show he is not content to wait on nothing
Unless you're part of the Sharks brass, you have no idea what they've been trying to do in regards to the roster. It sounds like you just want a roster move for the sake of a roster move.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 10:20 AM
  #85
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,283
vCash: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
I didn't say that. I said you say that. Let's be clear on that.

And once again you fail to listen and understand. I explicitly said there is a very large population of the fan base that doesn't agree with that assertion. You fail to accept that. As I said, everyone knows what you think about this team, you put it in every thread you think makes sense to put it in.
So you are proposing I don't post in perfectly relevant threads since it is repeating myself? You realize I am no more repeating myself (and others) than you are repeating yourself (and others). I could make the exact same comment to you. You fail to understand my POV, you keep pushing your opinion with no understanding of mine, you seem unable to accept my POV as valid. Etc, etc, etc. It's a discussion board, we discuss things, we repeat ourselves, it's normal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
I'm fine with you having that POV but you don't seem fine with others having a different one, and it gets a little grating. Some people like to be positive and attempt to find odd ways to make the team better without tanking, some simply don't care as long as the hockey is fun to watch. Some fans(most likely not found on this board) don't care at all about the result of the games, they simply enjoying going to games or watching games with friends as a social outing. Sort of like me with baseball or basketball.
I prefer people have other opinions. If all this message board had was people agreeing with each other, I wouldn't be here. What I'm looking for is an argument that sways my opinion, which I am perfectly willing to do, but one has not been presented thus far that I find realistic enough to warrant that. Simply "being positive" is not a valid reason to change my opinion. Frankly, I feel I am being positive. I have no problem losing a season if we get a franchise player out of it, that's a good investment to make. I'm patient, I can still enjoy this season of hockey even if the team isn't winning as much, knowing it's getting us nearer to a cup the following season. It's like in chess when you sacrifice a piece, you do so in order to win, it's not an admission of failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
All I'm trying to say is take a step back and understand that not everyone is disagreeing with you based on facts or theories, and might be in disagreement with you in a philosophical way.
I get that, I just find it pretty frustrating. Why anyone would look at this team at this point and think "yah they can do it!" to me seems like teal colored glasses. And if you really are happy just making the playoffs with virtually no hope at a cup, well we couldn't be more in disagreement then.

If you strive for 100% you may not achieve it, but if you strive for 99% you certainly never will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
See here is a good example of your mindset, and not being willing/able to understand others. When I read the op, the question asked "do you want to be a playoff team, or a lottery team". Hmmm now to me being a playoff team is not synonymous with be a cup contender, which it seems to me is how you interpreted the question.

So ok now we have two different ideas of the question, to which I state, I'm more excited to watch a playoff caliber team, regardless of cup winning potential, then a lottery team.

Now you thought, and maybe rightly so we'll have to ask the op, that the op implied that if we picked playoff team, we were automatically also picking we'd like to take a run at the cup.
The difference is that I dismiss anyone who is actually ok with making the playoffs just for the sake of making the playoffs. We are not the Phoenix Coyotes, and that is the most depressing outcome I can imagine. You either make the playoffs to take a shot at the cup, or you don't. I don't believe this team has a snowballs chance in hell at a cup, so making the playoffs is pointless and counter-productive.

Another season or two of going out in the first round will be absolutely devastating to this franchise. We will be in a position where our best players are too old to beat the best on other teams (we are arguable there now), our younger players are not of the caliber to take over that mantle, and we haven't had high enough draft picks to draft any new franchise players. We'll have a team of good to very good players, with no great players. We still won't be bad enough to get a high pick, but definitely worse than we are now, with no light at the end of the tunnel. THAT is why I choose a lotto pick, because THAT scenario is completely unacceptable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
Now here is something I will disagree with in a non philosophical way. We are not a worse team. We lost Dan Boyle, Stuart, havlat and moved a forward to defense.
As much as we bag on Boyle, he is still a significant loss. We replaced him with Burns, but that created a massive hole up front that was not filled. Will Burns be better than Boyle last season? Probably, but it's not a guarantee, but hopefully. Still though he isn't going to be so much better than Boyle that it makes up for the other holes on defense.

Stuart sucked, but he is still an NHL defensemen and as of now we are likely replacing him with either Irwin or Mueller. Slice it anyway you like it, that is still a downgrade, at least for this season.

And Havlat, while injury prone, was still a top-6 player when he was on the ice. Since we didn't use his cap space to replace him, we now have two huge holes in our top-6 and no new players to fill them.

We can argue how worthless those players all day long, but they were all NHL players and they were all better than nothing whether you want to admit it or not. We replaced them with nothing, we are worse off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
We will add, hockey gods willing, 47 more games of hertl, a whole season of healthy Torres and a more seasoned and ready nieto to this years team.
Hertl was healthy in the playoffs, and we still lost, as was Torres and Nieto. None of those players are additions. The only additions are John Scott and whatever prospects make the roster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
I know you think burns to defense is a negative, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Last year with a healthy lineup we had 7 top 6 forwards. 8 if you want to count havlat if he is ever healthy.
I don't think Burns to D is a negative. I never wanted him moved to forward if you recall. I argued vehemently against it. However, he still creates a huge hole at forward in order to fill a hole on defense. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. We are not a better team by only moving Burns to defense, we are simply shuffling deck chairs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
You may not like it, but pavs will fill the "hole" left by burns. Torres will fill the hole left by pavs, and after that we always have plenty of plugs for the fourth line.
Pavs was on the team last year, he isn't filling any holes. As was Torres. You have to look at the entire picture, you are again borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. You cannot subtract players, add none, and improve as a team. That's unrealistic. Pavs is a great player, but he doesn't fill Burns hole, and Torres certainly doesn't fill Pavs. You are arguably downgrading at both positions, but certainly massive downgrading if you replace Pavs with Torres. Plus as you pointed out, someone has to replace Torres still, and we added no one, especially not of Torres caliber. You are handwaving significant talent loss, and with the parity in the league even a small loss can be plenty to take a team out of contention. Especially a team that already wasn't a contender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
Moving burns to defense if it works out, means the right side of our defense is set without a doubt. Without him we now have 3 holes to fill on defense. Whereas we would have 1 to fill in the top 6 with burns absence, which is already theoretically filled. In other words we have a bigger need on d then o, thus if burns can actually flourish as a top line defenseman paired with vlassic, I think it's the better move.
I don't disagree about moving him to D, but the only thing it solves is replacing Boyle, that's it. We had Boyle AND Burns last year, and if we still had them both we would be better off. Arguing that losing Boyle and replacing him with another player already on the roster makes us a better team is just fundamentally wrong. Your net sum went down, it doesn't matter who you move where, your total talent level went down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
I am as well so I ditto that statement.

P.s. Btw hb, please understand that although I'm specifically pointing out your posts to quote, I'm not trying to attack you. I actually think that you make cogent and well thought out posts, while also asking very good thought provoking questions. I just disagree a bit with your absolutism.
That's great, I enjoy discussion, but I honestly feel like your argument essentially boils down to "I want this team to be a cup caliber team so I am going to believe that it is, despite reality". I'm not trying to be negative here, I'm trying to prepare people for what is very likely going to be a disappointing season.

What I am afraid of most right now is that Platner's plan here is to intentionally cripple the team for a season or two in order to drive down ratings just enough to make a realistic threat to move the team in order to re-negotiate a terrible TV deal. There is no way a businessman of his caliber is going to accept another 10+ years of no hope of profitability (a TV deal like that coupled with our limited seating space pretty much guarantees the team will not see a profit or even break even). Sure he's rich and he can afford it, but he got rich by being a smart businessman, and a smart business man would not allow a deal like that to stand. They tried the 'win a cup' to fix it route, that didn't work and they have clearly abandoned it, so now they look to be going to the opposite route and THAT is terrifying for us. It means multiple seasons of intentionally mediocre teams in order to sell the threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolan11 View Post
Tanking on purpose to win later is not the only way to rebuild, and is a bit offensive. You step onto that ice, you need to try to win. Purposefully putting a weaker team out there is just wrong.

I stopped caring last season at the TDL, when we sat on our hands. I knew our blue line was not cup caliber. It has been obvious for a few years now. Thus far this offseason we are sitting on our hands again. All we need to have a legitimate chance is a tweener RW and a kid like Gelinas or krug. Someone to pair with Braun that can drive the offense from the left. (Mueller/Irwin with demers as 3rd pair). Thus far, dw is refusing to do anything about it. If he did, we would have a 50/50 chance of knocking any team off.
I'm not proposing Wilson go into the locker room and tell them to lose, that's not something you do. You simply don't supply them with a team capable of winning until such time that it is worth the assets to do so. Supplying them a team capable of being a good regular season team is counter productive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolan11 View Post
My point is that we are not far off with our current roster. If dw had tried something of worth on July 1 we could be talking one piece not two.

Heck, try an offer sheet again. Team will match but at least it would show he is not content to wait on nothing
You don't offer sheet away your 1st pick in 2015, this is not a draft you give up a 1st rounder in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eid Ma Clack Shaw View Post
Well, yeah going by that logic, it's not true and I'm totally wrong.

I thought the consensus was that the Sharks are still pretty much a lock for the playoffs, thus they have a better chance at the cup than a lottery pick. I suppose anything can happen, but this is still a pretty good team.

I was just trying to say that the Sharks are likely to make the playoffs, thus that 1 in 16 chance to win the cup is more realistic than that 1 in 14 shot at a lottery pick.

Edit: Just read some of the replys to your reply and mine, hockeyball. I agree that the Sharks are not a cup contender. I'm just saying that the Sharks are closer to a cup, by just making the playoffs, than a lottery pick, because they will almost certainly make the playoffs. Sorry if I'm being confusing.
I disagree. Making the playoffs does not make you a cup contender, I don't buy that silly platitude that is often used. You are either a cup contender, or you are not. It's one thing to be a team on the rise and making the playoffs being a stepping stone to contending, but the Sharks are a team on the decline and making the playoffs at this point is pissing in the wind.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 10:22 AM
  #86
hohosaregood
Drunken Snacking
 
hohosaregood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas!
Posts: 12,650
vCash: 1250
Tanking just seems like the crappiest idea. Screw up everything you've built so that maybe, just maybe, you have something to work with in 3-5 years. It wouldn't even be cutting losses here, it'd just be giving up.

hohosaregood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 10:50 AM
  #87
Gene Parmesan
B.Y.O.G.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 57,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohosaregood View Post
Tanking just seems like the crappiest idea. Screw up everything you've built so that maybe, just maybe, you have something to work with in 3-5 years. It wouldn't even be cutting losses here, it'd just be giving up.
Plus no one tanks into account that DW had to okay his plan with Plattner, since its his money. Tanking sounds easy in the HF world where everything hockey related is black and white.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 10:52 AM
  #88
spintops
Registered User
 
spintops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarleauApologist View Post
If you aren't drafting 30th, you ought to be trying to draft 1st overall. That's the philosophy every GM should have.

The quicker we give it all up and tank now, the quicker a cup will come in the future.
Yea I bet the Kings knew they were going to win the cup 2 years ago, if you were GM you probably would have traded everyone away when they fired Terry Murray.

Every year a good handful of teams have a shot, the Sharks were one of those teams last year. Do you forget how confident you were they were going to beat the kings?

This notion also is silly because the Sharks will never outright tank with all of the pieces that already have. We might as well discuss how the Sharks won't win without trading for a franchise piece like Malkin because that is more likely then the Sharks getting the 1st pick in the draft anytime soon.

spintops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:12 AM
  #89
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 43,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarleauApologist View Post
If you aren't drafting 30th, you ought to be trying to draft 1st overall. That's the philosophy every GM should have.

The quicker we give it all up and tank now, the quicker a cup will come in the future.
Unfortunately, business gets in the way of being able to commit to an absolute idea like tanking or even going for the Cup. I think that's partly in play here whether they want to admit it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hohosaregood View Post
Tanking just seems like the crappiest idea. Screw up everything you've built so that maybe, just maybe, you have something to work with in 3-5 years. It wouldn't even be cutting losses here, it'd just be giving up.
Well, what they've built hasn't been good enough and really not even close. If they're building to win a Cup, they're failing miserably. They don't have to lose everything to have something to work with and it doesn't necessarily have to take 3-5 years. It depends on your assessment of management. There is plenty of evidence of teams that had a horrible year with talent, got a really good piece and then went back into the playoff picture. People are grossly exaggerating what a tank is these days because they point to mismanaged franchises like Edmonton, Florida, and the Islanders like that's the way it'll be. But they ignore the many more teams that have drafted in the top five for a year or two or three and turned it around like Pittsburgh, Chicago, Anaheim, Boston, Columbus, Washington, St. Louis, Colorado, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Tampa Bay, and Montreal over the years.

I may not have the utmost faith in this team's ability to manage but I have faith that they'd do a good enough job in that phase to not be like Edmonton, Florida, or the Islanders. This team's type of rebuild wouldn't be all that much different than what happened when DW originally took over the job in 2003.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:17 AM
  #90
matt trick
Registered User
 
matt trick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,212
vCash: 50
Can we get rid of no one else, and be bottom 5? If so, I would take that. I could tolerate a year of sucking if was Philly style.

I'll take one Hanafin//McDavid/Eichel/Konecy/Barzal please!

if the team wanted to be in the lotto, we needed to move Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski, and Burns at a minimum.

Acquisition-Couture-Nieto
Acquisition-Hertl-Wingels
Torres-Sheppard-Kennedy
Brown-Desjardins-Burish

Vlasic-Braun
Mueller-Demers
Hannan-Tennysson
Shauser

Stalock

Not sure that team is worse than Calgary or Edmonton, especially because we would have gotten some quality players for the guys traded.


Last edited by matt trick: 07-23-2014 at 11:34 AM.
matt trick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:18 AM
  #91
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,504
vCash: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohosaregood View Post
Tanking just seems like the crappiest idea. Screw up everything you've built so that maybe, just maybe, you have something to work with in 3-5 years. It wouldn't even be cutting losses here, it'd just be giving up.
Exactly. People seem to forget we cannot sign a Hossa to finish that rebuild. We have to keep building on what we have.

A great start would be putting together a bottom-6 and bottom pair that's better than Chicago or LA's, since we all know our top end players are worse. But I guess that time has passed...

magic school bus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:20 AM
  #92
hohosaregood
Drunken Snacking
 
hohosaregood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas!
Posts: 12,650
vCash: 1250
A lot of people that want tanking seem to want to go scorched earth and draft in the top 5 at the very least.

hohosaregood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:23 AM
  #93
hohosaregood
Drunken Snacking
 
hohosaregood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas!
Posts: 12,650
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt trick View Post
Can we get rid of no one else, and be bottom 5? If so, I would take that. I could tolerate a year of sucking if was Philly style.

I'll take one Hanafin//McDavid/Eichel/Konecy/Barzal please!
Technically you could but you literally need every member of the organization to be on board with it. This means players have to know that they're gonna need to float and stop trying and they need to have to let go of any sense of pride that they have so their self confidence isn't absolutely crushed by the end of it. The coaches could also implement the most useless and risky as hell system that either means no scoring at all or no defense.

hohosaregood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:37 AM
  #94
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,283
vCash: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohosaregood View Post
A lot of people that want tanking seem to want to go scorched earth and draft in the top 5 at the very least.
Naw, 10 ten would be great, top 15 acceptable. Really I'd like us to get a pick around 10th.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:39 AM
  #95
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,283
vCash: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohosaregood View Post
Technically you could but you literally need every member of the organization to be on board with it. This means players have to know that they're gonna need to float and stop trying and they need to have to let go of any sense of pride that they have so their self confidence isn't absolutely crushed by the end of it. The coaches could also implement the most useless and risky as hell system that either means no scoring at all or no defense.
Or you just tell them to keep winning, but clearly an intentionally make the roster worse leaving them with no hope of actually winning. After a few months they get frustrated and enough of them give up and you end up with an under-performing team.

The bonus is this allows you to identify who you should get rid of.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:47 AM
  #96
hohosaregood
Drunken Snacking
 
hohosaregood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas!
Posts: 12,650
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Or you just tell them to keep winning, but clearly an intentionally make the roster worse leaving them with no hope of actually winning. After a few months they get frustrated and enough of them give up and you end up with an under-performing team.

The bonus is this allows you to identify who you should get rid of.
He said by not getting rid of anyone. Intentionally making the roster worse means getting rid of people we have.

hohosaregood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:50 AM
  #97
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 43,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Or you just tell them to keep winning, but clearly an intentionally make the roster worse leaving them with no hope of actually winning. After a few months they get frustrated and enough of them give up and you end up with an under-performing team.

The bonus is this allows you to identify who you should get rid of.
It also allows you to take your time returning guys to the lineup who are injured which only helps that cause. In the 2015 draft, them just missing the playoffs and even losing in the first round will net them a very good player if they don't trade back.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 11:57 AM
  #98
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,283
vCash: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohosaregood View Post
He said by not getting rid of anyone. Intentionally making the roster worse means getting rid of people we have.
We already got rid of Boyle, Havlat, and Stuart. Those are subtractions. We added nothing of value.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 12:18 PM
  #99
TheJuxtaposer
#LetJohnPlay
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 32,664
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
The difference is that I dismiss anyone who is actually ok with making the playoffs just for the sake of making the playoffs. We are not the Phoenix Coyotes, and that is the most depressing outcome I can imagine. You either make the playoffs to take a shot at the cup, or you don't. I don't believe this team has a snowballs chance in hell at a cup, so making the playoffs is pointless and counter-productive.
This is my position in a nutshell. Striving for the playoffs just to make the playoffs is depressing as hell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magic school bus View Post
A great start would be putting together a bottom-6 and bottom pair that's better than Chicago or LA's, since we all know our top end players are worse. But I guess that time has passed...
Seriously. If our top-end players can't be as good as LA's or Chicago's, we have to make up for that by making the bottom-end of our roster better than theirs. But with players like Burish, Brown, Scott, and Hannan, that's rendered impossible. The only place we could try and catch them, and we refuse to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Naw, 10 ten would be great, top 15 acceptable. Really I'd like us to get a pick around 10th.
8-10 would be a pretty decent spot IMHO. I like the whole top-14 (so any non-playoff spot), but if we were on the outside of that group I'd worry about Burke and co. going off the board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
We already got rid of Boyle, Havlat, and Stuart. Those are subtractions. We added nothing of value.
Stuart and Havlat will be addition by subtraction. Havlat wasn't playing anyway, so getting his presence out of the lockerroom and salary off the cap is a positive, and frankly I bet Mueller could do better than Stuart even if he isn't ready yet; Stuart was just awful.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2014, 12:27 PM
  #100
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,504
vCash: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
We already got rid of Boyle, Havlat, and Stuart. Those are subtractions. We added nothing of value.
We should've kept Boyle if we were tanking. The media still thinks he's good so it wouldn't have gotten a negative reaction

magic school bus 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 09:54 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.