Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole
Lots in your post, thanks for the thoughtful response, but I wanted to address this first.
Is it? I think the GM's job is to ensure the team is taking whatever strides are necessary to be a cup-contending team more often than not. No team can contend for the cup year in, year out. Detroit made the playoffs for 25 straight years, and a good portion of that pre-dated the salary cap and isn't really relevant to the current discussion, but they haven't been a cup contender since they last won it in '08 and re-appeared in the finals the year after.
You don't always ice the best possible team this year, because sports teams evolve over time. VGK is a great example right now. Should GMGM be icing the best possible team this year? Or should he be trying to ice the best possible team in 4 years time? Or 7 years time? I can tell you that icing the best possible team now means the best possible teams 4 or 7 years down the line are significantly worse. Further, the best possible team now is significantly worse than the best possible team in 4 years, or 7 years, because you lose out on the possibility to pick up some elite or even generational talent in the draft.
In my opinion, categorically preferring veterans who are better hockey players right now to rookies who may be worse now but may be better in the future:
1) Stunts the growth of all the organization's prospects, as hope is an essential part of any human being's career;
2) Stunts the maximum upside of a team's competitiveness by preferring known commodities to riskier prospects who could become very good or even elite players;
3) Stunts the maximum upside of a team's competitiveness because the roster is occupied by vets (especially UFA-signed vets) making more than young players who can fulfill a similar function;
4) Strips assets from your organization as you trade futures for short-term fixes;
5) Plugs one of the only true asset value pipelines into the organization, as you will never have rookies making vets expendable to be traded for assets, and you diminish your overall prospect value, thereby diminishing the value they can recoup in trade if you have too many.
All of this, in exchange for:
1) More reliable competitiveness from established vets on a short-term basis.
Great teams need a mix of both, but usually the injection of reliable vets comes after establishing an excellent asset core of homegrown assets. There is still time to do that, but the time is now. Our asset base pre-Feaster was atrocious, and it's taken this long to build a stable of prospects who have a legitimate shot at playing in the NHL. It's now time to reap the rewards of that process, not to continue plugging holes to be competitive.
|
All fair points.
Personally, I believe there is a very, very tricky balance to find between playing vets vs prospects.
How many wins per season or spots in the league standings are you prepared to trade in exchange for prospect development at the NHL level over icing the best possible team?
Let's try to quantify.
Personally, I would favour icing a veteran team more if it meant home ice advantage in the playoffs. And that could come down to 4-6 points. Not much margin for error.
Let's not take our eyes off the prize.
As other posters have mentioned in other threads. The Flames will have injuries. Kids will get their chance. If a prospect outplays a vet, he will force the Flames into making a move. There's no need to force a prospect into an NHL role for the sake of it.