Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan in Exile
Saying that Feaster recognized that "the team as it was built at the time, was on the decline, and an organizatinal shift of focus on the draft and getting younger was needed" does not equate to alleging a "clandestine rebuild"(although saying it began behind the curtains does).
The point is that Feaster strengthened our prospect pool considerably in the two drafts that preceded the decision to give up on trying to win and blowing the core up, which gives us a leg up on starting from scratch.
Recognition that a team's core is on the decline and there is a need to focus on the draft and get younger is something any sound management team does. The Sharks are a great example. Rather than trade the whole core who wasn't getting it done, they replaced an aging Nabakov with the much younger Niemi, developed Couture, drafted Hertl, and moved out pieces like Douglas Murray for picks.
|
Thanks thats pretty much what I meant yes.
re:Tinordi
I do think Sutters later moves set us back a few years. In regards to Feaster: trading for Byron and Butler was to clear cap space, Cammalleri for Bourque was to remove that anchor contract and if we got O'Reily it's unlikely we would have drafted 6th, thus no Monahan anyways....
I get it, I shouldn't have called it a rebuild behind the curtains. It was more like restructuring a malfunctioning roster while still 'going for it'. However I think they planned for the eventual rebuild (as plan b) and kept future pieces in place and traded older vets for younger vets.
All I really meant to do was answer the ppl who claim since we are in yr one of the rebuild we are destined to suck for 'X' number of yrs.
I stand by my original post's final paragraph and think most here agree:
The rebuild may not have officially started until the end of last year but given the amount of work that Feaster and co. have put into redeveloping a younger roster and deeper prospect pool the last few years I think we are further along than most think.