Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurs
Are we going back to Detroit in a different era Capwise?
|
Was there no cap in 2008?
Quote:
|
Vegas a unique team because of the expansion draft?
|
You don't get to say ‘YOU CAN ONLY EVER POSSIBLY WIN THIS WAY,’ and then just dismiss the exceptions.
Quote:
|
St. Louis didn't do it differently, they had their own top 5 draft pick in their team.
|
So has every other team. That's the point!!!!!!!
Quote:
|
Edit: Eichel was the leading scorer in the regular season and play-offs, how is that not a big star?
|
He wasn't THE big star, or he would have won the Conn Smythe. Jason14h's damn fool theory does not allow for the existence of players like Marchessault.
I repeat: He is not saying that you need elite talent to win the Stanley Cup. He is saying that it ONLY counts as elite talent if you draft it with the TOP TWO PICKS. And then he ignores all the top-two picks that never won anything, and the teams that won the Cup without having top-two picks. His entire argument is totally illogical, and it comes from ignoring this bit which I posted earlier:
An awful lot of people seem fixated on Cup winners. They look at a winning team and ask, ‘How can we build a team just like this?’ Instead they should be looking at them alongside all the other teams and ask, ‘What made the winners different from the rest?’
Jason14h hasn't pointed out anything that SEPARATES winners from non-winners. There are winners in the small group of teams that don't meet his criteria. There are many, many losers in the large group of teams that do. His analysis does not account for the facts. This is what is known in highly technical language as ‘being wrong’.