Quote:
Originally Posted by ST20
I think you missed the point of my post. I am just saying there is a wide spectrum of "re-building" and even I want the team to be more aggressive in getting high draft picks it doesn't mean I want them to blow up the entire team. The point was already made by many that you cannot draft higher than 1 or get better odds from being last by a large margin.
But since you immediately jumped to the extremes in the process you outlined...
Why would they trade away really young good pieces when they are already losing and are on target for a top draft pick this year?
Also, your order is wrong. Why would you trade away young pieces before vets? You'd see what you can get for the vets first and trade away the ones where you can get a good haul of futures. I wouldn't trade away all unless the futures package is hard to ignore. If somehow the flames are still winning their way to the mushy middle after all of this then maybe you start looking at Wolf and young pieces but at the same time if they are still miraculously winning with no vets then maybe you have a core and some of these pieces have developed into superstars and now you have first round picks to build around a core of super stars.
|
You need to make a statement about how badly you want to tank. You said it is hard to argue that a steady accumulation of assets, what you called the Dallas model, was less desirable than high picks. If you want high picks really go for high picks. Don’t do it half assed. Trading a goalie who is closer to 30 than he is to his draft day would be a good way to really drive home that message.
To your final point, if they are still winning that would be an abject failure for the argument that you need multiple top 3 picks to actually rebuild. Fact is they have been rebuilding for 3 years, now that Team Tank has finally admitted that (spent a lot of time arguing they were not rebuilding and were trying to actually compete) the argument has shifted to how is the right way to rebuild.