SighNah, I've given up on you, and a few others. The proposals are often such far fetched fantasies that I've given up trying to add sanity to the discussion.
@Gocanes0506 can carry on the mantle.
I'm not sure I agree with this logic...not the math, the logic that one cup, then a lull, is worse than no lulls but less chances to win. Ask fanbases that have had sustained good teams that failed to win a cup (San Jose, Vancouver, Buffalo) and you will see a desire for a cup. In fact, I bet they have less engagement now as fans then teams like Chicago or any other team that has won a cup and then has to suffer through a rebuilding lull.
We've actually seen our market go through winning a Cup and then a lull, and it wasn't good for our market. The sustained success model seems to work much better. Of course, you take the Cup any day over not but given there are no guarantees to either strategy, I can see the appeal of sustained success. The east is difficult this year, has been for a while, and could be for years to come. Pushing all in probably doesn't even raise your chances all that much because of that.
music adds to Mitch: Glenn & the "king of the road" Roger.
And one needs to look at it from an owner's view. TD I am sure would love to win a cup. But I would figure he'd rather have sustained success to fill the coffers than a cup followed by half empty arenas.
It wasn't good then for Raleigh in the late 2000s. This is a different Raleigh though. I live in an insanely expensive area now and Raleigh/Triangle area was a candidate for us to move to a cheaper area and closer to my inlaws for a long time until the last couple of years. And when Apple builds their second campus there... no chance. This is also a different team, management group and ownership. The team isn't going to miss the playoffs for a decade by going for it one of these seasons. I get what you're saying though. Still need to be very cautious with things that could affect the franchise long term.
The thing is you're not guaranteed to win a cup when you try to go all in on one year while jeopardizing the future. Hockey playoffs are so dependent on momentum, goaltending, health, luck, etc. that any team that gets in can win it that year. Having a team that can get in and has a shot to win it as a top 5-10 team for 10 straight years is more likely to win a cup (or more than 1 of course) than a team going all in to have a dominant team 1 year when maybe at best their odds to win it all would be like 50%, and that's being generous.
I don't think the arena will be half empty unless we miss the playoffs for multiple seasons again. And trading a 1st or two and some prospects will not be the reason for that, not re-signing current players or replacing outgoing players will likely be the reason. And yes, the window for *this* specific group of players is getting smaller and smaller. To not even try to add to them and just being content with winning a playoff series or two every few years in the sake of keeping attendance up but not actively trying to win the Cup would border on malpractice. Just my opinion though.
Basically the point of my second paragraph.
Interesting depending on what they give up.
Horvat to Islanders. Tarasenko to NYR. Meier to NJ. ROR to Boston. Would certainly up the ante in the East. Has Carolina been too good?
Sure, but like I've said many times before I get it's the owner especially Dundon calling the shots. And I'm not a fan of the owner. I root for the the team and in this case, the coach as well. If that's his prerogative and fans accept it, that's cool too. But I'm not in this game for the owner's bottom line.
