Making the playoffs or keeping our top-10 first round pick 2025?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hackey

We could have had Necas but chose Huberdeau instead.

We didn’t do anything. The guy managing Toronto did.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That was the same build. McKinnon was a key player on that 112-point team. They did not do a tear-down again in order to draft 4th in 2017.

You aren't even bothering to read what I post before shooting your yap off, are you?

Do you remember how that happened?

Remember when you went out of your way to defend a racist and bully. Maybe you should keep your yap shut

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That was the same build. McKinnon was a key player on that 112-point team. They did not do a tear-down again in order to draft 4th in 2017.

You aren't even bothering to read what I post before shooting your yap off, are you?

So the strategy is to try and have a random abnormally bad year? What kind of strategy is that?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Do you remember how that happened?

Remember when you went out of your way to defend a racist and bully. Maybe you should keep your yap shut

Oh boy. If we walked down memory lane for every bad post you made we would be 5 pages deep. Talk about pot meeting kettle. Why don't you stick to the current debate?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Do you remember how that happened?

Yes. They lost a ton of games.

Remember when you went out of your way to defend a racist and bully. Maybe you should keep your yap shut

No, I don't remember that at all. Nor does it have any bearing whatever on this argument. But it fits with your long-established tendency to try to use personal attacks as a substitute for facts and logic.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Hackey

So the strategy is to try and have a random abnormally bad year? What kind of strategy is that?

No matter how badly you want there to be a strategy, there isn't one. There are things management can do to put their team out of contention, but there is nothing management can do to make the team win a Stanley Cup.

Paulie Walnuts was claiming that you can only draft top-5 if you deliberately tear down the team and do a scorched-earth rebuild. I gave a counterexample. I was not attempting to solve the general problem of how to win the Stanley Cup, because there is no general solution.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No matter how badly you want there to be a strategy, there isn't one. There are things management can do to put their team out of contention, but there is nothing management can do to make the team win a Stanley Cup.

Paulie Walnuts was claiming that you can only draft top-5 if you deliberately tear down the team and do a scorched-earth rebuild. I gave a counterexample. I was not attempting to solve the general problem of how to win the Stanley Cup, because there is no general solution.

I mean... the general solution for the last half a dozen cups seems to be salary cap circumvention through LTIR-ing players through a season to have a magical recovery for the playoffs.

Drafting all-star talent helps too, but anyone can do that.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes. They lost a ton of games.



No, I don't remember that at all. Nor does it have any bearing whatever on this argument. But it fits with your long-established tendency to try to use personal attacks as a substitute for facts and logic.

It’s not a personal attack at all the thread is open for everyone to see.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Oh boy. If we walked down memory lane for every bad post you made we would be 5 pages deep. Talk about pot meeting kettle. Why don't you stick to the current debate?

Don’t have to walk down memory lane, 5 pages of bad posts today alone!

[Roof-Daddy]

Man it's getting hard to filter through the garbage in most threads on FOI lately. Especially with one poster in particular spamming us with his opinion what feels like at least 100 times a day.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

It’s not a personal attack at all the thread is open for everyone to see.

‘You defended a racist bully!’ is absolutely a personal attack. Even if true (which I do not concede), it is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. To borrow a line from George Orwell, it's like trying to win a chess match by accusing your opponent of arson or bigamy.

It appears that you are utterly incapable of arguing in good faith; don't even believe in trying; and may not even understand the concept.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No matter how badly you want there to be a strategy, there isn't one. There are things management can do to put their team out of contention, but there is nothing management can do to make the team win a Stanley Cup.

Paulie Walnuts was claiming that you can only draft top-5 if you deliberately tear down the team and do a scorched-earth rebuild. I gave a counterexample. I was not attempting to solve the general problem of how to win the Stanley Cup, because there is no general solution.

I think the difference is a tear down is deliberate and works. What happened with Colorado was just random luck. We should be operating deliberately based on statistical probability. Creating our own opportunities for luck not just hoping it happens by chance.

[Jason14h]

What do you mean there’s no strategy ? Every team has a strategy to win the cup . They may not all work but they all have a strategy.

You really think front offices are showing up and telling their owners “nothing we do matters and we have no strategy other than luck?”

Just because the Flames have had some of the least success over the last 20 years and some of the least strategical visions / plans doesn’t mean that teams as a whole do not have strategies

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I think the difference is a tear down is deliberate and works. What happened with Colorado was just random luck. We should be operating deliberately based on statistical probability. Creating our own opportunities for luck not just hoping it happens by chance.

It works sometimes. It also doesn't work sometimes. One might even say it doesn't work more often than it does. This is a silly sticking point in the argument I have been seeing but a number of people have been suggesting that tanking is guaranteed championship success which is simply not true.

Buffalo has been tanking for 14 years and doesn't look to be coming out of it any time soon. UHC / Coyotes keeps rebuiding and never really goes anywhere. Columbus, Ottawa, Montreal, Philly, Vancouver, Minnesota... They have all tanked, drafted high, built their team around their good prospects and not won the cup.

The point is, there is a much larger list of teams who tear down and fail to win the cup than the list of teams who tear down and succeed.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Cale Makar: drafted 2017, 4th overall.

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/...php?pid=178719

Colorado's record in 2013-14: 52-22-8, 112 points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lanche_seasons

You were saying?

This is honest to Christ the best post in the thread. The village idiot who just makes up #### runs his mouth and then you throw some facts at him. Well done.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Wolven

It works sometimes. It also doesn't work sometimes. One might even say it doesn't work more often than it does. This is a silly sticking point in the argument I have been seeing but a number of people have been suggesting that tanking is guaranteed championship success which is simply not true.

Buffalo has been tanking for 14 years and doesn't look to be coming out of it any time soon. UHC / Coyotes keeps rebuiding and never really goes anywhere. Columbus, Ottawa, Montreal, Philly, Vancouver, Minnesota... They have all tanked, drafted high, built their team around their good prospects and not won the cup.

The point is, there is a much larger list of teams who tear down and fail to win the cup than the list of teams who tear down and succeed.

We're talking about ways to land a top 5 pick. He was arguing you don't need to tank to get a top 5 pick. I was arguing his example of Colorado in the Makar draft year was random luck. Typically if you want to drop into the bottom 5 you can. Chicago, San Jose. I think you'd be better off deliberately doing it than just waiting and seeing if you get some random fluke year where it happens.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wolven

The point is, there is a much larger list of teams who tear down and fail to win the cup than the list of teams who tear down and succeed.

True. There’s also a much larger list of teams that don’t tear it down and fail than the list of teams that don’t tear down and succeed.

In any given 10 year span, 6 or 7 teams out of 32 win the Cup. Most strategies by most franchises fail.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Man it's getting hard to filter through the garbage in most threads on FOI lately. Especially with one poster in particular spamming us with his opinion what feels like at least 100 times a day.

In all fairness he did miss replying to a few of them.

3% leakage rate.

[Knut]

Hoping for the best case scenario here of the Flames battling hard but falling off and ending up in 8-10 range for pick. NJD to implode with Hughes out and end up in the 14-18 Range and FLA to end up 26-31.

It is a possibility. Could also end up with two picks in the 20's... which would be the typical Flames result

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Bingo

In all fairness he did miss replying to a few of them.

3% leakage rate.

There's good posters and there's bad posters.
Then there's 5 pages of crap......