HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

10/9 - Which is more frustrating?

View Poll Results: Which is more frustrating?
Josh Harding's Injury 0 0%
Todd Richards Behind The Bench 21 58.33%
Craig Leipold's Ownership 0 0%
Chuck Fletcher's Management 3 8.33%
Clayton Stoner's Defensive Play 1 2.78%
Gui Latendresse's Fitness 1 2.78%
≥ Team of 18,000 0 0%
Other (please explain) 10 27.78%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-10-2010, 03:20 PM
  #26
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,836
vCash: 500
Rome wasn't built in a day (cliche, I know). There is no magic turn-around formula available (other than getting the #1 overall in an Ovechkin/Crosby draft year). IMO, you can't judge a GM in 2-3 years. Instability KILLS franchises. If ownership truly believes in Fletcher and his plan, then they can't make a panic switch after year 2 or 3.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 03:29 PM
  #27
D U M B A
The Disaster March
 
D U M B A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 1,171
vCash: 523
I didn't select in the poll yet but a little bit of everything is my choice.

I was thinking about our lines, and despite certain players being in the doghouse, what do you think?

Latendresse-Koivu-Havlat
Brunette-Cullen-Kobasew
Nystrom-Madden-Mittens
Staubitz-Broadziak-Clutterbuck

Line 1: I know some on here say the only benefit from Mittens being on the top line aside from laughing at him shooting 10 ft. above the net is his defensive play opening up more opportunities for Koivu and Brunette. But why I think these lines would work (even though last year the chemistry wasn't there for the limited time we tried it with Koivu and Havlat) is you have the power forward Gui creating havoc and opening up chances for Havlat and Koivu.

Line 2: Cullen is versatile and can play with almost anyone, I'm thinking Brunette and Cullen while they're natural playmakers also can score, they weight of having a sniper like Kobasew on their line might take some of the pressure off of them.

Line 3/4: In the NHL, the third line is the grinding shutdown line. Why isn't Mittens on this line? The last two lines are up for personnel swaps but I thought this third line would work. Madden and Mittens are known for their defensive play, Nystrom can garner energy with his physical play. I hate seeing Clutterbuck on the fourth line but this is why I really want to read what you guys think we should do.

D U M B A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 03:35 PM
  #28
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maltesefalcon View Post
I didn't select in the poll yet but a little bit of everything is my choice.

I was thinking about our lines, and despite certain players being in the doghouse, what do you think?

Latendresse-Koivu-Havlat
Brunette-Cullen-Kobasew
Nystrom-Madden-Mittens
Staubitz-Broadziak-Clutterbuck

Line 1: I know some on here say the only benefit from Mittens being on the top line aside from laughing at him shooting 10 ft. above the net is his defensive play opening up more opportunities for Koivu and Brunette. But why I think these lines would work (even though last year the chemistry wasn't there for the limited time we tried it with Koivu and Havlat) is you have the power forward Gui creating havoc and opening up chances for Havlat and Koivu.

Line 2: Cullen is versatile and can play with almost anyone, I'm thinking Brunette and Cullen while they're natural playmakers also can score, they weight of having a sniper like Kobasew on their line might take some of the pressure off of them.

Line 3/4: In the NHL, the third line is the grinding shutdown line. Why isn't Mittens on this line? The last two lines are up for personnel swaps but I thought this third line would work. Madden and Mittens are known for their defensive play, Nystrom can garner energy with his physical play. I hate seeing Clutterbuck on the fourth line but this is why I really want to read what you guys think we should do.
I don't mind those lines too much, although it seems a little too top-heavy.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 07:13 PM
  #29
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
I say: Other

Looking at Backstom and his $6mil/yr deal, and Bouchard and his $4mil/yr deal... if we had neither, we could have spent $10mil on a proven scorer or two!
And if we wouldn't have signed/acquired Zidlicky, Barker, Kobasew, and Nystrom we'd have nearly 11 million to spend on better players this year and beyond. It's high time you took the past blinders off so you can see the present. The personnel mistakes made in just the past 16 months dwarfs two prior signings that were pretty legit when made.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 07:24 PM
  #30
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
And if we wouldn't have signed/acquired Zidlicky, Barker, Kobasew, and Nystrom we'd have nearly 11 million to spend on better players this year and beyond. It's high time you took the past blinders off so you can see the present. The personnel mistakes made in just the past 16 months dwarfs two prior signings that were pretty legit when made.
Nystrom? Really, I didn't know if it was possible to complain about a guy making $1.4M as if it was an absurd over-payment. Heh, I guess. Though if we're taking that into account I wonder how you're sleeping every night with that $900K+ for the next four years for a guy who's been no where near this roster must be for you...

Barker, I think we can all agree wasn't the wisest of decisions with what we know as of today. Then again Nick Schultz at his contract given his game isn't all that grand.

No one's infallible in the grand scheme of things and we've definitely seen that Fletcher's inexperience does indeed show in his contract decisions. But then again, he's also doing a good enough job from my perspective of restocking this organization. Something that the previous GM gutted and used minimal tools at his disposal to do anything about it.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 08:20 PM
  #31
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
Nystrom? Really, I didn't know if it was possible to complain about a guy making $1.4M as if it was an absurd over-payment. Heh, I guess. Though if we're taking that into account I wonder how you're sleeping every night with that $900K+ for the next four years for a guy who's been no where near this roster must be for you...
Yes, Nystrom. Not a "bad" player to have, but he's redundant here and is under contract for 1.4 million a year for three years to be a 4th-line checker. That's insane. A player making 500-600K can be better, and so there's .8 million thrown away. It adds up. If you take a look at the Wild payroll, the cap problem is not with too many large salaries. It's too many 1-3.5 million salaries.

Of course the single largest frustration with the team is a lack of talent. Right now the current execs aren't fixing it. No wonder Risebrough got 8 years. In this poll, Wild fans have pushed the most blame onto Richards instead of the man who hired him and built his team in the first place. Blindness. It might take another 8 years before they place blame where it's due.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 08:38 PM
  #32
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,836
vCash: 500
I'd be interested to know what GM we could've brought in that would've fixed our lack of talent problem in 1 year and what he should've/could've done. We've had a lack of talent for 10 years (outside of the rare few).

It takes 2 sides to make a trade and 2 sides to bring in a FA.

How should we have brought talent here without sucking and getting number 1 picks for the next few years?

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 08:50 PM
  #33
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Yes, Nystrom. Not a "bad" player to have, but he's redundant here and is under contract for 1.4 million a year for three years to be a 4th-line checker. That's insane. A player making 500-600K can be better, and so there's .8 million thrown away. It adds up. If you take a look at the Wild payroll, the cap problem is not with too many large salaries. It's too many 1-3.5 million salaries.
If you don't draft and develop you don't get those players at 500-600K. You get Brodziak and Nystrom at their respective pay grades. It is what it is and because the Wild lacked players to fill those roles within the system, they needed to go out and find those role players. When Fletcher, Richards, and company took over; where in this organization did you see players that could fill those roles? The quick and easy answer is that they were nonexistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Of course the single largest frustration with the team is a lack of talent. Right now the current execs aren't fixing it. No wonder Risebrough got 8 years. In this poll, Wild fans have pushed the most blame onto Richards instead of the man who hired him and built his team in the first place. Blindness. It might take another 8 years before they place blame where it's due.
I don't see how they aren't fixing it. You honestly can't expect a new regime to come in and in less than two short years turn-over a roster and make it a talented squad without at least some of it already being in place and NHL ready. What I see is execs that are exhausting every avenue they can in an attempt to infuse this roster with talent. It's not going to happen overnight. It's got to be a two way street and there's going to have to be some luck involved with development.

You want to call for Fletcher's head already at this stage, I'm not going to stop you. I can't say that I can predict the future and tell you how this is going to turn out. You're right, Risebrough was given 8 years, but what did he really accomplish? Did he stock this franchise with talent? His time with this franchise ran it's coarse and they're still left picking up the pieces. I'd like to see what Fletcher can do in about half that time before I start getting worked up.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 08:57 PM
  #34
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,836
vCash: 500
Are we getting so big that we need 2 moderators now? Damn.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 08:58 PM
  #35
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,874
vCash: 2037
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
Are we getting so big that we need 2 moderators now? Damn.
yeah I just noticed that aswell. that's amazing!

anyway, congrats TP!

Fel 96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 08:59 PM
  #36
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
I'd be interested to know what GM we could've brought in that would've fixed our lack of talent problem in 1 year and what he should've/could've done. We've had a lack of talent for 10 years (outside of the rare few).

It takes 2 sides to make a trade and 2 sides to bring in a FA.

How should we have brought talent here without sucking and getting number 1 picks for the next few years?
Since you used the past tense, likely no one. That's why I said "fixing". That of course was attainable by a good manager. So why are you asking me, a fan, how to do it?

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 09:07 PM
  #37
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Since you used the past tense, likely no one. That's why I said "fixing". That of course was attainable by a good manager. So why are you asking me, a fan, how to do it?
You are saying he is doing wrong, implying that you know the right way. I'm asking for what those ways are.

You disagree with most of what he has done; that doesn't make him a bad GM.
I agree with a lot of what he has done; that doesn't make him a good GM.
Time is the only true judge and I have a hard time judging either the GM (or the HC) after barely 1 1/2 years.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 10:16 PM
  #38
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
If you don't draft and develop you don't get those players at 500-600K. You get Brodziak and Nystrom at their respective pay grades. It is what it is and because the Wild lacked players to fill those roles within the system, they needed to go out and find those role players. When Fletcher, Richards, and company took over; where in this organization did you see players that could fill those roles? The quick and easy answer is that they were nonexistent.
Negative. It's not the only way in the current NHL. Many NHL quality players this offseason were signed to that amount or very close to it. In the first seven teams I checked, I saw names like Dawes, Pisani, and O'Sullivan that made no more than 600K (some 2-way deals there too). A name like Morrison made only slightly more. There was plenty of cheap, short-term options to fill a 4th-line role (or better). The argument that we didn't have any in the system is also very shallow since 4th liners are present in every system. Cody Almond and Robbie Earl are two of them right off the bat. That argument is a quick and easy way to get Fletcher and Richards off the hook.


Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
I don't see how they aren't fixing it. You honestly can't expect a new regime to come in and in less than two short years turn-over a roster and make it a talented squad without at least some of it already being in place and NHL ready. What I see is execs that are exhausting every avenue they can in an attempt to infuse this roster with talent. It's not going to happen overnight. It's got to be a two way street and there's going to have to be some luck involved with development.

You want to call for Fletcher's head already at this stage, I'm not going to stop you. I can't say that I can predict the future and tell you how this is going to turn out. You're right, Risebrough was given 8 years, but what did he really accomplish? Did he stock this franchise with talent? His time with this franchise ran it's coarse and they're still left picking up the pieces. I'd like to see what Fletcher can do in about half that time before I start getting worked up.
What will you need to see before you turn negative on the new regime? What is it that you see that makes you think they're fixing it?

-2009-10 was the worst season for the Wild since before the previous (failed) regime even started spending top money.
-our present team is widely considered just a playoff contender, not Cup contender, no better than before the regime change.
-we have a coach that isn't well-liked, as demonstrated by the poll.
-we're as cap strapped as ever with nearly 50 million already on the books for next year.
-our prospect pool, even after lottery seasons, is considered near the bottom of the NHL and lacks much top-end talent.

All those are either facts or popular opinions. Where your evidence of him doing a good job? I didn't even get into individual personnel moves, which again are questioned by many. If Fletcher is the next failure as a GM, why give him even four years before the pieces are picked up? Trying is one easy thing. Anybody can try. Heck, DR tried on occasion. When we look back at his failed tenure, do we grade him on how much he "tried"? No, we grade on his successes or failures. Time to start grading on Fletcher's successes and failures because there's plenty to grade already.

I'll preface this by saying that I don't believe it's the best way to build a Cup winner, but Brian Burke is showing us all what a Cup-winning GM can do to a franchise that had much farther to go. That's an example of apparently "fixing" it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
You are saying he is doing wrong, implying that you know the right way. I'm asking for what those ways are.

You disagree with most of what he has done; that doesn't make him a bad GM.
I agree with a lot of what he has done; that doesn't make him a good GM.
Time is the only true judge and I have a hard time judging either the GM (or the HC) after barely 1 1/2 years.
I'm not stating "I know the way" (if I did my name would be on the Cup). That's your creation and unsubstantiated request. By default, posting as a fan on an online forum implies "in my opinion", not "I know". I've given you enough info on my opinions. I need to see some from you on why you agree with the job done.

If a poll was made asking whether or not, in hindsight, Riser should have been fired after 17 months, I think the popular answer would be "yes" (I'd vote that way). So the standard "give it time" argument is a very questionable.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 10:40 PM
  #39
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,186
vCash: 500
Fletcher is making trades to unload talent that isn't fitting into the organization and bring in scorers. Hell, Pouliot/Latendresse alone earned him another year or two in my book. He is using draft picks, rather than trading them away, and frankly I think our '10 draft was better than almost any in franchise history, in terms both of holding on to/getting more picks, but also of the quality of players selected. He's looking at college free agents to find extra talent because, frankly, the talent pool he was given is sucky and he's trying to replenish it much faster than the average team does. He's making smart choices about who to re-sign; I was very glad to see Harding (injury notwithstanding) and Khudobin get new contracts; the Latendresse contract was a smart one (relatively small and short considering his production, so as to make sure we're getting "the real Latendresse"); I was quite pleased with Clutterbuck's deal; and players like Ebbett and Nolan were allowed to walk.

Here are the only really questionable things he's done that come to mind:

The Leddy-Barker deal hasn't panned out. I can't blame him too much, because based on the intel we had we were essentially trading a defensive prospect and a "rental" in Johnsson for an NHL-ready D-Man to fill out our defensive ranks in preparation for losing a major part of our defense at the end of the season. We're disappointed in Barker, but based on what he saw at the time it wasn't necessarily the wrong call.

The Kobasew trade hasn't quite panned out...yet. Again, Fletcher saw a 20+ goal threat he could add to team of what is essentially all playmakers. Kobasew lost a lot of time to injury last year, and struggled to find his stride for part of the year as a result; I wouldn't blame Fletch for that. He looks better this year, too. In exchange, we lost Weller (a career AHLer), Fallstrom (a fourth-rounder), and a 2nd in 2011, which is frankly the thing I think we'll miss the most out of the deal.

Koivu's contract is a little on the big side. I have heard (and occasionally made) the arguments in defense of the value; Koivu is a fantastic player, one of the few with the right attitude in this locker room, the face of the franchise, yadda yadda. But considering this is a team struggling because of how saddled down with large contracts, I would have liked to see a bit more negotiation, maybe bringing the cap hit down to 5.5 or 6, possibly for another year or two in exchange. All that said, I think he saw what happened the last time they hardlined the franchise player, and how much **** the last GM got for it.

Coach Richards, which was either a genuine (albeit easily-corrected) screw-up, or pressure from ownership to "pick a nice Minnesotan boy."

llamapalooza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 12:40 AM
  #40
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,283
vCash: 500
It comes from the top down. This team has no direction, their prospect system is slowly being rebuilt and we're wasting the best year of our franchise player on these mediocre rebuilds.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 12:34 PM
  #41
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamapalooza View Post
He is using draft picks, rather than trading them away, and frankly I think our '10 draft was better than almost any in franchise history, in terms both of holding on to/getting more picks, but also of the quality of players selected.
You're right, he traded a pick to move up, and another pick for Brad Staubitz
We had 6 draft picks. We start out with 7, and had an easy trade to move Belanger and his expiring contract for a 2nd. Doug Risebrough had 2 drafts where he took 6 players or less in 9 years, Chuck Fletcher now has 1 in 2 years. So I think you're confused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by llamapalooza View Post
The Leddy-Barker deal hasn't panned out. I can't blame him too much, because based on the intel we had we were essentially trading a defensive prospect and a "rental" in Johnsson for an NHL-ready D-Man to fill out our defensive ranks in preparation for losing a major part of our defense at the end of the season. We're disappointed in Barker, but based on what he saw at the time it wasn't necessarily the wrong call.
Really, what did we see from Barker at the time? I saw a guy playing 13 minutes a game as a #6 d-man. Other guys were being overworked on that team because of Barker's terrible play. Chicago was cap-strapped moving forward. And here not only did we hand them an easy way out by offering Johnsson for Barker, but we threw in a 1st round pick, which Chuck Fletcher called gold. I wouldn't of given Johnsson for Barker all things considered, let alone toss in a 1st rounder in Leddy. Johnsson played almost 3:30 more per game than Barker for Chicago, and he didn't even have enough time to get comfortable, so this whole "13 minutes because of whos in front of him" BS that we heard was a lie, but I knew that at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by llamapalooza View Post
The Kobasew trade hasn't quite panned out...yet. Again, Fletcher saw a 20+ goal threat he could add to team of what is essentially all playmakers. Kobasew lost a lot of time to injury last year, and struggled to find his stride for part of the year as a result; I wouldn't blame Fletch for that. He looks better this year, too. In exchange, we lost Weller (a career AHLer), Fallstrom (a fourth-rounder), and a 2nd in 2011, which is frankly the thing I think we'll miss the most out of the deal.
Kobasew has so much more time to pan out, a whole 80 games on a non-playoff team. Trading a 2nd for Kobasew was a move for a contending playoff team, not a contending lottery team. We were the 2nd worst team in the NHL when we made that deal. We had already dug ourselves too big of a hole. Why try to fix it? Did we see the Oilers moving picks to try to make their team better? No, we saw Tambellini say "we're going to suck this year, but we'll get a top-2 pick". We had a realistic shot at a top-2 pick if we don't make the Kobasew trade, as it did serve as a wake-up call for this team.


I hated Doug Risebrough and was very critical of him, but it would be blind homerism on my part to not be questioning Chuck Fletcher's managing at this point.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 12:50 PM
  #42
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
Kobasew has so much more time to pan out, a whole 80 games on a non-playoff team. Trading a 2nd for Kobasew was a move for a contending playoff team, not a contending lottery team. We were the 2nd worst team in the NHL when we made that deal. We had already dug ourselves too big of a hole. Why try to fix it? Did we see the Oilers moving picks to try to make their team better? No, we saw Tambellini say "we're going to suck this year, but we'll get a top-2 pick". We had a realistic shot at a top-2 pick if we don't make the Kobasew trade, as it did serve as a wake-up call for this team.
So you're saying that on October 19 of last year, it was time to pack it in and tank. Barely 3 weeks into the season. Absurd.

Maybe if Koivu sees that front office doing nothing and just sitting back and waiting and hoping that the team stinks and that they get a top pick, he decides that this isn't the place for him and wants to test free agency. Great, now our retool/rebuild just got set back another 2-3 years; what a great time to be a Wild fan. What if we suck, just not enough and get the #3 overall? Great, now we gave up on a year and didn't get 1 of the 2 can't miss offensive players in the draft. I guess we'll just have to suck on purpose for couple more years in hopes that we eventually get that coveted #1 overall pick.

As a fan, you hope your team does well and is entertaining and all that, but being fan is also about feeling a sense of pride in your team. I would feel no pride watching them fold up shop 3 weeks into the season and tank for a top draft pick. None.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 01:11 PM
  #43
BigT2002
Registered User
 
BigT2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: some other continent
Country: United States
Posts: 12,490
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
As a fan, you hope your team does well and is entertaining and all that, but being fan is also about feeling a sense of pride in your team. I would feel no pride watching them fold up shop 3 weeks into the season and tank for a top draft pick. None.
God, could you imagine the next 70 games of a season like that? It would be like the Timberwolves on ice

BigT2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 01:38 PM
  #44
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,533
vCash: 500
I'd actually pay to see the Timberwolves on ice though. That'd be hilarious.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 05:31 PM
  #45
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
So you're saying that on October 19 of last year, it was time to pack it in and tank. Barely 3 weeks into the season. Absurd

As a fan, you hope your team does well and is entertaining and all that, but being fan is also about feeling a sense of pride in your team. I would feel no pride watching them fold up shop 3 weeks into the season and tank for a top draft pick. None.
I don't see the work "tank" in Saywut's post. Better rephrase. There's a difference between rolling with what you have and making desperate moves that have little chance of paying off.

No team "folds up shop" three weeks into the season. None. When you're bad, you're bad. Then it's management's responsibility to make the best of the season. Since you're so into pride, is the team you're watching now worthy of pride? I tell you what. I don't think Pittsburgh or Chicago fans give a darn about how they won a Cup.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 06:34 PM
  #46
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
I don't see the work "tank" in Saywut's post. Better rephrase. There's a difference between rolling with what you have and making desperate moves that have little chance of paying off.

No team "folds up shop" three weeks into the season. None. When you're bad, you're bad. Then it's management's responsibility to make the best of the season. Since you're so into pride, is the team you're watching now worthy of pride? I tell you what. I don't think Pittsburgh or Chicago fans give a darn about how they won a Cup.
Yes, by saying that we shouldn't trade for Kobasew, shouldn't make moves to try to improve our roster, because we have a shot at getting a top 2 pick in the draft 3 weeks into the season, I see that as tanking the season. Fletcher saw an opportunity to bring a 20 goal scorer to this team to try and turn things around and he took that chance. I respect that.

I'm sure Chicago fans don't care now, but how fun was it to be a Blackhawks fan up until a few years ago? I want my team to try and compete. If they can't, and they finish low in the standings, at least I can respect the effort, from the players up through management.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 01:20 AM
  #47
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,283
vCash: 500
This is what is frustrating; we have absolutely no direction with this team. Are we rebuilding? Are we going all out?

We don't have the depth to go all out. We have too much pride to rebuild. We make baffling roster moves and even worse trades at the worst time.

With this sluggish start, what is Fletcher going to do? Trade Bulmer next year's 2nd and Miettinen for Prucha?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 09:28 AM
  #48
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
This is what is frustrating; we have absolutely no direction with this team. Are we rebuilding? Are we going all out?

We don't have the depth to go all out. We have too much pride to rebuild. We make baffling roster moves and even worse trades at the worst time.

With this sluggish start, what is Fletcher going to do? Trade Bulmer next year's 2nd and Miettinen for Prucha?
1. Why does it have to be one or the other? I don't see anything wrong with trying to be competitive AND keeping an eye out for the future.

2.We've played 2 games, in a foreign country, and we're 0-1-1, facing a tremendously talented goalie, who everyone pretty much agrees is the only reason that we didn't win the second game outright. It's barely even a start so how can we be sluggish already? 8 of our next 10 game are at home, I have no problem evaluating this team after that. If they keep struggling, then changes may have to be considered.

3. No, that's a bad trade, but if he sees something out there that could help us, I hope he tries to make something happen.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 11:30 AM
  #49
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,533
vCash: 500
Good news, I just spent an hour staring at statistics, and I have to agree with you, tanking does equal success. But you have to tank A LOT. I compared playoff success in rounds won from 2006-2010 and top-5 draft picks from 2003-2007 (to let them develop):

4 picks = 8 avg rounds won, 1 Cup (Pittsburgh)
3 picks = 4.33 avg rounds won, 2 Cups (Carolina, Chicago)
2 picks = 0 avg rounds won, 0 Cups (Phoenix)
1 picks = 2.1 avg rounds won, 1 Cup (Anaheim)
0 picks = 2.2 avg rounds won, 1 Cup (Detroit)

So what we need to do is tank this year, next year, and the year after. That should give us 2 in 3 odds of winning a Stanley Cup!

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 02:02 PM
  #50
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
1. Why does it have to be one or the other? I don't see anything wrong with trying to be competitive AND keeping an eye out for the future.
Because we're going to have to get depth if we want to be competitive. This team doesn't have a lot of depth. And as well, that means a lot of our players are going to again walk for nothing. It has to be one or another or else you get a mediocre product for the next decade.
Quote:
3. No, that's a bad trade, but if he sees something out there that could help us, I hope he tries to make something happen.
It's similar to the trade we did for Kobasew.

thestonedkoala 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 05:46 AM.

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.