Craig's List 2014 Prospects

[moon]

Originally Posted by Muta

I dunno, the answer is pretty obvious.

If you are looking for make the play-offs that isnt close to the right answer or close to the first step.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by nik-

It is. Obviously you need to make the playoffs to win the cup, but it's also likely that just making it in as the 8th seed is a road to the last eight Flames seasons.

You may think you're a contender, but you're not.

Were the Flames supposed to be a contender in 2004? How about Edmonton in 2006? These examples prove you can't count out unexpected playoff performances.

[nik-]

We didn't win and didn't challenge again and it's 10 years later. Neither did the Oilers. I don't want a miracle run every 20 years and hopefully the organization doesn't either.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by moon

If you are looking for make the play-offs that isnt close to the right answer or close to the first step.

You're right; don't make the playoffs. They're overrated anyways.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Muta

You're right; don't make the playoffs. They're overrated anyways.

Wow you are thick. Just because you have to make the playoffs to win doesn't mean that it's the first step to winning.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by nik-

We didn't win and didn't challenge again and it's 10 years later. Neither did the Oilers. I don't want a miracle run every 20 years and hopefully the organization doesn't either.

We won the Northwest Division in 2006, and made the playoffs with a solid team that under-performed for various reasons the next several years. We still made the playoffs, just like 15 other teams. Only one team is able to win the Cup, so I'm not sure that saying we either win the Cup or it's a failure is very fair. By that logic, 29 teams are annual failures and shouldn't compete.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by codynw

Wow you are thick. Just because you have to make the playoffs to win doesn't mean that it's the first step to winning.

I never said it was the only, or first, step.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Muta

I never said it was the only, or first, step.

Yes you did:

Originally Posted by Muta

What's the first step to getting to the Cup each year? Can't wait to hear your answer, because it's pretty simple.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Muta

You're right; don't make the playoffs. They're overrated anyways.

Who said don't make the play-offs?

I said the first step is to build a quality team because you don't win the Cup with a crap roster.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It's not possible for us to catch Vancouver after the shootout win last night. We're 4 points back with 2 to play.

Tiebreaker 1: Regulation/Overtime wins. We're 2 behind with 2 to play so at worst would tie and go to tiebreaker 2.

Am I missing something? TSN says Calgary and Vancouver are currently even on wins at 35 each. If we won out and they lost out so that we caught them on points we would finish ahead.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by moon

Yes you did:

Yes, in the context of making the playoffs. Icing a competitive team good enough to get to the playoffs was assumed.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Muta

Yes, in the context of making the playoffs. Icing a competitive team good enough to get to the playoffs was assumed.

Why was it assumed other than to fit your silly scenario of trying to get a specific response?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by icarus

Am I missing something? TSN says Calgary and Vancouver are currently even on wins at 35 each. If we won out and they lost out so that we caught them on points we would finish ahead.

Shootout wins don't count towards tiebreaker.

[moon]

Originally Posted by icarus

Am I missing something? TSN says Calgary and Vancouver are currently even on wins at 35 each. If we won out and they lost out so that we caught them on points we would finish ahead.

ROW (regulation + OT) wins not overall wins.

They have 30 we have 28 so if we win our last two we tie on ROW.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by moon

Why was it assumed other than to fit your silly scenario of trying to get a specific response?

Because you suggested that teams would tank for the 17th pick as opposed to making the playoffs; I countered that teams do, actually, want to make the playoffs and don't have an incentive to repeatedly tank - why draft to get better if you're not going to push for the playoffs with the guy or guys you have drafted?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by codynw

Shootout wins don't count towards tiebreaker.

Ah. My bad. That sucks.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Muta

Because you suggested that teams would tank for the 17th pick as opposed to making the playoffs; I countered that teams do, actually, want to make the playoffs and don't have an incentive to repeatedly tank - why draft to get better if you're not going to push for the playoffs with the guy or guys you have drafted?

Sure now they want to make the play-off because there is no benefit to finishing 9th over 8th in your scenario there would be.

As to why they would rather finish 9th than 8th and miss the play-offs? Because most teams want to win the Cup and getting a top line guy like say MacKinnon, McDavid, Reinhart, Stamkos etc. likely gives them a much, much better chance of winning that cup then hoping for a miracle run that isn't going to happen.

If they are so weak that they are struggling to make the last spot in the play-offs they have zero shot at the Cup.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by moon

Sure now they want to make the play-off because there is no benefit to finishing 9th over 8th in your scenario there would be.

As to why they would rather finish 9th than 8th and miss the play-offs? Because most teams want to win the Cup and getting a top line guy like say MacKinnon, McDavid, Reinhart, Stamkos etc. likely gives them a much, much better chance of winning that cup then hoping for a miracle run that isn't going to happen.

If they are so weak that they are struggling to make the last spot in the play-offs they have zero shot at the Cup.

Geezus, your sub-standard punctuation is hard to read through. My scenario was something that I knew all along after suggesting that specific draft scenario. You can get a superstar at 9th, of course you can; but I don't believe teams would continually use that tactic more than once, if used at all, since revenue and ticket sales depend on making the playoffs. Teams need these, or else you get perennial losers and teams can lose fan interest. Just ask Phoenix or Florida.

It's also not a guarantee that a good team that tanks will get the 17th spot; other teams below them are pushing for that too. That's a risk a tanking team would take.

Playoff upsets happen all the time, too, so discrediting that possibility is short-sighted at best. If anyone knows about underdogs going far in a playoff run, it's us Flames fans.

[moon]

Oh, no my ! punctuation on a message board has you crying whatever will I do??

It isn't that it will happen all the time and isn't the biggest flaw with the system i was pointing out that if people are concerned with tanking for the first pick now teams will have a lot of incentive to lose games for the first pick under your scenario as well.

Sure play-off upsets happen but 1 team has one as an 8 seed and that team made huge changes to the roster so wasn't really a regular 8th seed.

Hoping for upsets and breaking the norm is a terrible way to run a team, especially when the alternative is to get a very likely game changing talent.

[OutOfTheCube]

Everyone would be singing a different tune is Calgary was REALLY bad.

I'm fine with the current system. But knowing the luck of Sabres fans, they'll change it just in time to screw us out of a superstar next year.