[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're arguing with a strawman. I never said a team should ‘just acquire top UFA talent’. I'm saying you need a mix, and dumping players because they turned 27 is a dumb idea.

You've been straw maning this entire thread. Rich that you now call me out for it.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But you want to dump players when they turn 27, which means they can never win any game.

Hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And you would have traded Iginla when he turned 27, I suppose? At the deadline in 2004, let us say? Hot take.

Straw man. Already said I'd keep a generational talent like Iginla.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So you only dump 90% of your 27-year-olds. I guess that means one of your good prospects can stay in junior until he's 19. Bravo.

One? You're eating the straw now. An NHL franchise can have 50 players under contract and 90 players on their reserve list. What the hell are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's if you play all of them from the moment you draft them.

Yeah, if you are too stupid to figure out you can have up to 90 players in your system. Then sure.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're not doing well unless you have some young players who are going to be NHL calibre developing in your farm system. If you need to promote them before you're ready because you have no veterans, that's not ‘doing pretty well’. That's how you build the Buffalo Sabres.

We appear to have different definitions for "NHL calibre".

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Freeing up roster spots is not the problem. Filling them is.

And I'm saying futures are the way. Especially if your alternative is UFA leftovers.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you think there is no distinction between building a team that MIGHT lose and one that is GUARANTEED to lose, there is no talking to you.

Hyperbolic straw man now? You haven't even made a case as to why a roster of predominantly 20-27 year old RFAs is guaranteed to lose. Just asserting something over and over does not make it so.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

To improve your odds of what? Playoff runs may be a crapshoot, but if you always miss the playoffs you are absolutely certain never to win in the playoffs.

See? Just asserting the same thing, over and over. No actual basis for this claim. Just a broken record.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's a stupid argument. The movie industry regularly produces movies that flop, TV produces shows that get cancelled, Netflix does both of these things. That is because there is no way to perfectly predict what audiences will like.

Your claim was that sports wasn't a math problem. And it absolutely is a numbers game. To pretend otherwise is naive.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But in sports, there is a way to perfectly predict what audiences won't like. They won't like a perennial loser that has no way of ever improving, which is what your system is purposely designed to produce.

There it is again. Starting to think you don't actually have an argument at all? Just "Won't work. You'll just lose."

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I was directly responding to you saying that. You said teams should not be built with trades or free agency, but ALL the players should develop together. The only trades your system allows are those to dump players after they have developed for more futures.

Ah, I see you haven't quoted where I said you can't trade or sign players. So more straw men?

What I did say is that if your focus is on scouting and developing players instead of trying to acquire them through free agency then the inevitable side effect of this is that most of your NHL roster will have come up through the same system. This seems obvious? Guess not to some.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This doesn't even make sense. The players you are dumping every year are the best players you got from the draft 9 years prior. You're not dumping the others, because they never panned out. And you are dumping those players right at their peak performance.

You call it dumping. I call it selling high. I hope you're not managing your own stock portfolio with this attitude...

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's stupid to do something that guarantees you will never be competitive.

And again.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There's no place in your system for a solid defensive defenceman or a wily penalty-killing centre. Those guys aren't elite talents, but you need them to win, and it takes a long time to learn how to do those jobs.

You clearly aren't reading any of my posts.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I've picked a side. Your side says that every team should be managed in a way that only works if they have someone to sell all their 27-year-olds to. But if that happened, nobody would ever want to trade for those guys. What will you do then, take them out behind the barn and shoot them?

Straw man, man. I never said all teams should be managed this way. But small market teams like the Flames need to fundamentally rethink how they run their teams if they want any hope of competing with the big market clubs.

It's supply and demand. If you have a disproportionate amount of quality young talent that means there's a shortage of supply somewhere else. There will be demand for such talent and as such you will be at an advantage and can maximize the return. You then take these maximized returns and reinvest them into staking a disproportionate claim on future talent (having more draft picks). Rinse and repeat. The result will compound if your scouting/development teams perform.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The following teams are over the cap at the moment: Toronto, Tampa Bay, Colorado, Vegas, Montreal, Washington, Vancouver, Minnesota, Los Angeles, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, the Islanders, New Jersey, Boston, and the Rangers. Eight of the 15 are in playoff positions, including all four division leaders. Montreal is over the cap because Carey Price is on the books and will never play again. Minnesota is over because it has $14.7 million in buyout penalties. That leaves 13 teams that are over the cap and trying to win. Of those 13, 62% are in playoff spots. Of the 17 teams under the cap, 47% are in playoff spots.

Strapped doesn't mean over. So no idea what you're on about here.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

People will pay to watch winners. That has been proven again and again in every sport. The market has been speaking for over a century. This isn't about what I prefer. It's about how to appeal to customers whose preferences are already well known.

And how do you propose a small market team like the Flames get there? I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you want 23 players on your roster, and you graduate 2.5 players per year, it will take you 9 years to fill your roster with players. But you are dumping all those players 9 years after they are drafted, so you will never have any extras. You have to start playing them at age 18, or the numbers don't work.

And if you are using up all 90 spots on your player reserve list does your math still check out?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I never assumed that. I simply multiplied 9 years in the system by 2.5 players per draft year. It's the only way you can get a full roster under those conditions.

If only those were the conditions...

Am growing tired of you will fully misrepresenting my position, so will stop here.

I'm sure you have much better ideas on how the Flames should be managed. You won't express any of them. But I'm sure they're there in that noggin of yours.