Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
So you set a timeline that eliminates the movement out of 7 veteran players, and then decide that doing nothing after that isn't rebuilding?
Lets just agree to disagree ...
Sitting on mountains of cap space and draft capital and not adding is doing something ... it's purposely not trying to get better.
Which is my mind is rebuilding.
|
I did not set a timeline that excluded the 7 veterans. In the post you responded to it was clearly stated and commented on.
This is a club with a long history of avoiding rebuilds and persuing mediocrity. It is a club that says they are not rebuilding. It is a club whose rebuild actions have been nearly exclusively limited to expiring contracts, many of which they tried to extend. This is a club that told its players they were not rebuilding when several requested trades. This is a club that has taken no rebuild action for 16 months, almost certainly influenced by a "successful" season of missing the playoffs again. This is a club that has been mediocre since the 80s and yet marches out their president to publically say they like their team and are pursuing a "winning culture" not a rebuild.
Nearly the entire hockey community acknowledges the above as both fact and a problem.
How can anyone look at the facts and history and not acknowledge even the possibility this club is reluctant to commit to a rebuild?