Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurs
So if they have good management and bottom out they can't succeed? Isn't that exactly what Colorado and TB did (to counter the Edmonton and Buffalo examples)?
|
That's not what I said.
If they have good management and bottom out, they can succeed. If they have good management and
don't bottom out, they can also succeed. If they have bad management, bottoming out won't make them succeed. Tampa Bay bottomed out hard after the team was bought by an idiot, and recovered quickly after the next owner brought Steve Yzerman in as GM. That's nice work if you can get it; but it's not a good bet to fire a good GM and hire a bad one just in order to tank. You never know how long it will take to find a good GM again – to say nothing of all the other front-office and scouting people.
What complicates matters is that teams don't usually get multiple top-2 or top-3 picks in rapid succession unless they were put in that position by bad management. At that point, the hole is so deep that the same or similar management can't fix it.
Quote:
|
If Edmonton with Lowe, Mac-T and Chiarelli had decided not to bottom out do you think they would have done well? Competed for anything?
|
They never
decided to bottom out. They did their very best according to their very dim lights to build what they honestly believed would be winning hockey teams, and they failed utterly.
Quote:
|
They need good (or great ideally) management but even the top GM's can't do anything if they don't have talent.
|
The top GMs know how to identify talent and how to develop it. The bottom GMs get high picks and waste them on Nail Yakupov or Griffin Reinhart.