Quote:
Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois
I dunno. I think the idea of the plucky young team that's fun to watch lose is a bit of a fairy tale. No team looks like it is giving a great effort while getting stomped most nights.
If the team is not a little competitive it'll suck, and the dome will go from a library to a morgue. If the flames start "building something special' for 3 years the seats will be empty. As they should be IMO.
I don't think that will happen though. What's different compared to the 90s is the team has resources to not suck, and can do something about it.
|
A young team that's fun to watch lose isn't guaranteed or anything but it's far from a fairy tale. Getting stomped most nights is an exaggeration for describing even the worst teams. With the parity the way it is in the NHL right now, the very bottom of the league either wins or goes to OT/SO almost half the time, and then there will will be some number of exciting and/or close games in their loss column. Yes if a team isn't a bit competitive it would suck, but even the sucky teams are somewhat competitive. Even the lowly Oilers were among the top in the west for a couple months before plummeting right to the bottom the season before last.
While a bunch of losses can be hard to watch even if fans know it's in the context of a rebuild, a very hard-working and physical style of game, getting excited for young players, as well as just how many new faces are on the roster can definitely make it much more bearable. As was pointed out, the end of last year with all the young guys up was pretty entertaining. This coming season there's going to be a whole bunch of guys busting their butts to earn their spots and if anybody slacks off there will be a bunch more in the AHL just waiting to bust their butts in the NHL.
The bit about seats being empty if the rebuild falters like the Oilers for three years is also an exaggeration.