Originally Posted by Jay Random
Bull.
No doubt you'd try. Can't imagine why he would stay with a team that was guaranteed never to win anything.
I didn't expect you to understand. You can't do math.
If you are dumping all your players at age 27, and you get 2.5 NHL-capable players per year, you need EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM on your roster from ages 18 to 27. That means NONE of them get any development time AT ALL. The only alternative is to deliberately put players on your roster who are not good enough for the NHL, which guarantees that your team will suck.
To get 90 players in your system, all under 27, you would need 10 draft picks every single year. Good luck with that.
Yes. I have a definition, and you have hot air.
No, you are saying ALL futures is the ONLY way, and there is no alternative BUT UFA leftovers. Your whole position is idiotic.
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.
You're the ONLY one asserting that a team with no players over 27 can make the playoffs. Show me where it has EVER been done.
Hockey players aren't numbers. They are human beings. They have free will. They are not compelled to go along with your plan. Real things happen in reality that are not predicted by your model (or anyone's model). You don't allow for any of that.
This isn't a video game.
Teams that go through rebuilds always lose until they build something up. That's the history of the sport. You are saying a team should ALWAYS be rebuilding, and that as soon as it has anything built up, it should burn it to the ground for more futures.
There is a REASON why nobody ever ran their hockey team that way, and it is not because every NHL manager in history is an idiot and you're a genius.
You were the one who said, and I repeat, that ALL your players would be developed together. That means no trades. That means no signings.
What you did say is that you want to get rid of every player at 27. That means you are never signing free agents EXCEPT for undrafted prospects (for which you are competing with all the other teams), because actual NHL players don't reach free agency until they're too old for your stupid rule.
The purpose of a stock portfolio is to make money. The purpose of a hockey team is not to accumulate young players, it is TO WIN HOCKEY GAMES. You have completely lost sight of this.
The onus is on you to demonstrate that a team built your way WON'T lose, when the entire history of the sport shows otherwise.
Right, that's why I am responding to every bloody one of them line by line. Liar.
If no other way makes sense, then why wouldn't they be? If your strategy is so brilliant, everyone will adopt it – and then it will stop working, because every team can't be trading all its 27-year-olds for futures when there are no buyers.
By being nothing ever again but glorified AHL teams that develop talent for the big markets to use? How is that competing? IT ISN'T.
And then all you ever have is futures.
If being over the cap doesn't make you cap-strapped, I don't know what does. But we already knew you don't grasp math.
Draft, develop, and DON'T GET RID OF ALL YOUR GOOD PLAYERS AS SOON AS THEY'RE IN THEIR PRIME. Keep them to win some goddamn hockey games!
If you are getting rid of every player that turns 27, you never will fill up your reserve list, so it's a moot point.
They were the precise conditions you stated.
Good!
It's not my job to manage the Flames. But I can tell that your ideas are such awful crap that they wouldn't even flush without clogging the pipes.
|