Aside from the obvious players who were fun to watch last year, it's easy to forget that right before Nashville started their insane run, the Flames were nipping at their heels and were really in the race. So that's more than half a season of watching with a chance of playoffs. It's not great, but again... perspective. There are teams who know they're out by the end of November for over half a decade consecutively, and we've never really been treated to that. It's easy to say "being in the bottom 3 would be fun" but until we experience that I'm not entirely sure how true that would be. I think a great deal of us would watch a whole lot less hockey, and that's like putting a hobby on pause for a year or several.
Our "awful" is just that we aren't a dominant team very often (it's been two whole seasons now) and haven't made the Conference Finals in two decades.
The only way I'd be happy drafting top 3 is if we have some awful injury luck or puck luck and we end up winning a lottery ball. I would not be happy if the team mails it in. A little like how Colorado yo yo'd a little or how (sigh, eww) the Oilers were supposed to be playoff bound in 2014-2015 and shat the bed to land CMD.
We'd get an exciting piece, but if the cost is having to replace the remainder of the core or a rotten core, is it worth it? IMO no.
Sharangovich and Kuzmenko are crap. Pospil is a terrible player and a dirty coward, how is that likable? Weegar is good he is the bright spot I agree there. Zary is ok not really anything to get excited about.
Its because I am not a delusional fool and actually honest that I don't overrate garbage.
Are you sure you're a fan of the right team? You occasionally sound like someone who bought a budget brand appliance/utensil and you're mad it's not performing as well or as durable as a name brand appliance/utensil. I'm not saying you're overrating garbage, but you're acting like something we have should perform as well or outperform something of a higher calibre. Those 3 players you're mentioning are performing at around the same calibre as what one would expect of a late first or second rounder and we spent less than that in assets to acquire them new or used. It's great value even if the calibre is considered lower. These aren't assets we spent top 10 picks for.
Yes, I've met a bunch of people like this and I do not understand their logic. Some utensil for a third of the price at Dollarama isn't going to to typically outperform a name brand Kitchenaid or Hamilton Beach or whatever item, and that's not going into the fact it looks less polished and cheaper than those brands in comparison.
