Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon7
I don't think a roster of predominantly 20-27 year olds that are a part of a top scouting and development system in the league is destined to lose any more than I think a team that just acquires top UFA talent from other teams to fill out the core of their roster is destined to win. But we can just disagree here.
|
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.
Quote:
|
In the 1990s the NHL was a game the Flames could not win. But today, even though I still think the Flames can not win the free agency game, I do think they can win the drafting and development game. Stop doing the former, focus on the latter.
|
But you want to dump players when they turn 27, which means they can never win any game.
Quote:
|
Considering Nieuwendyk was traded to Dallas when he was 28 for Jarome Iginla, yeah, pretty much.
|
And you would have traded Iginla when he turned 27, I suppose? At the deadline in 2004, let us say? Hot take.
Quote:
|
I didn't say anything about offense? And I've repeatedly said I'm fine with retaining elite talent long term?
|
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.
Quote:
|
If you have 22.5 NHL caliber players in your system I say you're doing pretty well overall? And you're only consistently playing 21 of them, which means you potentially have two players (rounding up) looking for a spot.
|
That's if you play all of them from the moment you draft them.
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.
Quote:
|
I wonder if there's a way to free up a roster spot while at the same time acquiring assets that will (if all goes right) will eventually replace the players I'm moving in...
|
Freeing up roster spots is not the problem. Filling them is.
Quote:
|
This is possible. But that could be the case anyway, so not much of a distinction?
|
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.
Quote:
|
In my book, and in reality, playoff runs are crapshoots. So are draft picks. But unlike playoff runs, you can acquire more draft picks to improve your odds.
|
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.
Quote:
|
So the movie industry tracks box offices, the television industry tracks ratings, YouTube tracks view counts, Netflix tracks subscribers all because it is not a numbers game?
|
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.
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.
Quote:
|
Where did I say that? Please quote me.
|
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.
Quote:
|
If they are the best players then that's a pretty uneven drafting/development record. But even so, all it means is more futures for your top notch scouts to work with.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Most teams struggle to remain competitive or in some cases are never competitive. So following what most teams do seems stupid?
|
It's stupid to do something that guarantees you will never be competitive.
Quote:
|
If they're an elite talent we can keep them. Otherwise they're replaceable.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Not only are they, but you're actively advocating for those antiquated methods. Please pick a side.
|
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?
Quote:
|
And I am saying that is wrong. Evidenced by the fact that more than half these cap strapped teams are out of a playoff spot. So maybe this whole "trying" business is just deluded bull####?
|
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.
It doesn't seem stupid to me to increase your chances of making the playoffs by 15 percentage points.
Quote:
|
If a fanbase doesn't want to watch the best scouted and developed team in the league, then I guess the market has spoken. But it seems you prefer modern day mediocrity, so not sure you're the best person to judge?
|
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.
Quote:
|
You're thoroughly confused. The 9 years mentioned previously is the time the players spend in the same system. I never said they'd be in the NHL for 9 years.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Furthermore your math assumes that players from the same draft class are graduating at the same time. I did not make this claim, either.
|
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.
Quote:
|
What I did say is the goal of the scouting/development team should be to graduate 2-3 players per season, but that would be graduating from the talent pool as a whole. So in one season you might have a 19, a 21 and a 23 year old graduating.
|
But you can't, because you can't afford to wait for a guy to turn 23, or 21, or even 19. Every promising player that you draft has to be rushed into the NHL, because you're bleeding 27-year-olds every single year.
Quote:
|
Never said you couldn't trade or sign players.
|
You did, actually, because you said ALL your players would develop together.
Quote:
|
Futures are futures, sign all the undrafted players your scouts think are worth a damn.
|
How many undrafted players are in the NHL at the moment? About 11% of the total. And every other team is competing with you for those guys, so don't imagine you will land more than your share.
Quote:
|
Yet your preferred approach is to spend to the cap to end up sixth in the division?
|
That's a strawman. Does every team that spends to the cap end up sixth in their division? Of course not; that's a stupid thing to say.
Quote:
|
And to double down and lock up the aging talent long term that got you to that sixth place finish? That doesn't just seem silly, it seems stupid. But it's "business as usual", so keep doing it, I guess. Brilliant.
|
So you are comparing a really, really bad result from the current system with the imaginary best possible result from your proposed system. Cherrypicking much?
There is a very good reason why no team in any sport has ever chosen to do business your way. It's stupid to build a team that is always guaranteed to lose because it is constantly rebuilding.
