Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
Yep, more bullets in the chamber led to more hits on draft picks, good point. Unlike that idiot Flashwalken who believes teams should put more bullets in the chamber to up the odds of uncovering NHL stars and depth.
|
Come on, you're a better poster than that.
Look, it is a given that draft picks are where assets are acquired, and more picks means more assets. It is also a given that a team has to draft
well in order to be successful (though there is a lot more luck in that than most people want to admit). And it is a given that an organization needs to do a good job with development of their players.
These three things are all true, and everyone agrees with that fact. And in order to achieve consistent success in the NHL, you better be above average in all three. No one - literally no one - is arguing against that.
Having said that, being singularly focused on one issue, the way Flash is, to the point where every other aspect of team-building is not only ignored but derided, is far too one-dimensional. There is nothing wrong with trading picks occasionally, if you get worthwhile assets in return. Every great team supplemented their core by trading for assets to fill holes in the lineup. There is absolutely nothing wrong with acquiring assets through trade, when done properly.
But that's not even what we're talking about here. The argument was made that Boston has had more picks than Calgary over the last few years. I simply pointed out that you can't just look at the picks, you have to also consider what the Flames
acquired for the picks they traded away. If you trade away a pick, but acquire a great young player in return, it is obtuse to ignore that fact and simply say "but, less picks".
Or, you can simply keep bleating one view and ignore facts that don't fit the narrative.