Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
I find it odd that in a competitive league, some people seem to think that having the best players in that league isn’t a significantly better strategy than over-paying 29+ year old players that other teams have decided to let leave for financial reasons.
I guess what the Flames do isn’t broken (it is), so they shouldn’t change and should just keep doing what they’re doing.
Winning two playoff rounds in the modern era is a staggering amount of success. Best course forward is to look up to a team that was built on a 2nd round pick selected back in 2003. Dillon Dube is our Patrice Bergeron.
|
Drafting well is always better than overpaying to sign free agents. The debate is whether tanking to get higher draft picks improves outcomes.
The Oilers tanked hard for a decade (literally the statistically worst decade of any team in NHL history) and had four first overalls and six top four picks between 2010 and 2016, including arguably the second best (or at least second most offensively skilled) player to ever play the game. In spite of that, following the tank model far more closely than should even be possible (and which will never be repeated due to changes in the draft lottery), the Oilers won an amazing one more playoff series than the Flames, even with the direct assistance of the league in changing playoff officiating to explicitly favour the Oilers. And that includes barely beating the severely depleted Kings team last year, which any playoff team could have easily done. I know that E=NG, but doesn't that mean that following their example is also NG?