[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But you have already stated that you want to get rid of that talent as soon as it turns 27. So you're developing it for other teams, and you are always guaranteed to lose on the ice.

I don't think a roster of predominantly 20-27 year olds that are a part of a top scouting and development system in the league is destined to lose any more than I think a team that just acquires top UFA talent from other teams to fill out the core of their roster is destined to win. But we can just disagree here.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So why do you want to do the same thing voluntarily?

In the 1990s the NHL was a game the Flames could not win. But today, even though I still think the Flames can not win the free agency game, I do think they can win the drafting and development game. Stop doing the former, focus on the latter.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, and you would have got rid of them both at age 27.

Considering Nieuwendyk was traded to Dallas when he was 28 for Jarome Iginla, yeah, pretty much.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You are focused entirely on offence, and too much on averages. Players' highest-scoring years are not necessarily their best years overall; and the best talents tend to have longer primes than other players.

I didn't say anything about offense? And I've repeatedly said I'm fine with retaining elite talent long term?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, you don't have more players than you can use. The median between 18 and 27 is 22.5, which is under the maximum size of an NHL roster.

If you have 22.5 NHL caliber players in your system I say you're doing pretty well overall? And you're only consistently playing 21 of them, which means you potentially have two players (rounding up) looking for a spot.

I wonder if there's a way to free up a roster spot while at the same time acquiring assets that will (if all goes right) will eventually replace the players I'm moving in...

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You just have a roster of young players who have all learned to lose together.

This is possible. But that could be the case anyway, so not much of a distinction?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In your books, deep playoff runs aren't worth anything. In fact, the plan you propose would keep your team out of the playoffs most years, and if you did by sheer luck make the dance, the inexperience of your roster would make them an easy out.

In my book, and in reality, playoff runs are crapshoots. So are draft picks. But unlike playoff runs, you can acquire more draft picks to improve your odds.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Hockey isn't a math problem, and neither is the entertainment business. You haven't explained why fans would buy tickets to watch you lose year after year after year.

So the movie industry tracks box offices, the television industry tracks ratings, YouTube tracks view counts, Netflix tracks subscribers all because it is not a numbers game?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, that's because teams don't develop talent evenly at all positions. Trades and FA signings are a way to improve positions of weakness. Now you want to take even that away.

Where did I say that? Please quote me.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No they won't, because every year three of the best and most seasoned players will be sold for picks.

If they are the best players then that's a pretty uneven drafting/development record. But even so, all it means is more futures for your top notch scouts to work with.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Most NHL teams keep their core players a lot longer than 1-2 years. Guess what? Most NHL teams keep their core players past age 27, which is exactly when you want to get rid of them. Players have a shorter time together when you arbitrarily sell them off at a certain age.

Most teams struggle to remain competitive or in some cases are never competitive. So following what most teams do seems stupid?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No it doesn't, because you keep selling off talent just as it's getting mature enough to win anything.

If they're an elite talent we can keep them. Otherwise they're replaceable.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The only way your system is even possible is if most of the other teams are managed by those ‘antiquated methods’ so you can take advantage of them.

Not only are they, but you're actively advocating for those antiquated methods. Please pick a side.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Half the teams in the NHL spend over the cap. Spending to the cap is simply the minimum price of even trying to compete.

And I am saying that is wrong. Evidenced by the fact that more than half these cap strapped teams are out of a playoff spot. So maybe this whole "trying" business is just deluded bull####?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But I suppose that's all right, because your plan is set up to make sure a team never becomes competitive. I guess spending 80% of the cap instead of 100% is meant to make up for some of the huge financial losses because nobody wants to see your crappy product.

If a fanbase doesn't want to watch the best scouted and developed team in the league, then I guess the market has spoken. But it seems you prefer modern day mediocrity, so not sure you're the best person to judge?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Here, by the way, is another number for you: If you are graduating an average of 2.5 players per season, and dumping them all 9 years after being drafted, then you need those players to start graduating at age 18 to fill a roster. You need the whole 9 years from each and every one of them. That means nobody worth keeping stays in junior or college, nobody plays in the AHL, and every year you have four to six teenagers who really aren't ready for the NHL being pushed into jobs too soon.

You're thoroughly confused. The 9 years mentioned previously is the time the players spend in the same system. I never said they'd be in the NHL for 9 years. Furthermore your math assumes that players from the same draft class are graduating at the same time. I did not make this claim, either. What I did say is the goal of the scouting/development team should be to graduate 2-3 players per season, but that would be graduating from the talent pool as a whole. So in one season you might have a 19, a 21 and a 23 year old graduating.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you are even a wee bit realistic, and suppose that your players on average won't be NHL-ready until age 21, you need to graduate FOUR players every year to fill a roster. And since you don't want to ‘cobble together’ anything with trades or signings, you had better hope and pray that each year's crop miraculously fills exactly the same positions as the players you dumped for futures the previous season.

Never said you couldn't trade or sign players. Futures are futures, sign all the undrafted players your scouts think are worth a damn.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The whole idea is altogether too silly for words. There's a reason why nobody does business this way, and it is not ‘antiquated methods’. It's because the purpose of an NHL team is not to develop talent, but to win hockey games and entertain paying customers.

Yet your preferred approach is to spend to the cap to end up sixth in the division? And to double down and lock up the aging talent long term that got you to that sixth place finish? That doesn't just seem silly, it seems stupid. But it's "business as usual", so keep doing it, I guess. Brilliant.