It’s not dumb when your roster consists of Cozens (13 in 31), Benson (10 in 25), Krebs 10 in 30), Quinn (7 in 25), Kulich (4 in 21). There roster is full of players drowning without any support, and their GM has outright proclaimed they can’t attract players in free agency. I’m not suggesting they do Cozens for a player like Coleman straight across, they can add some legitimate veteran talent using all these young players struggling due to the lack of said veteran talent.
Speculation: Armchair GM 2024-25 Season, Craig Conroy's Can Do Calgary Flames
- Thread starter Bounces R Way
- Start date
Figgy44
A toast of purple gato for the memories
- Dec 15, 2014
- 14,120
- 9,513
I think it's a semantics issue. You said you'd trade all of them except for the big names. That's the confusion IMO. Is Cozens or Thompson a big name?
I agree that we are good trading partners and that our offerings are likely lower value than your younger guys, but I also am not too sure who is technically "untouchable" in a retool like that. Buffalo has been super weird for the last decade.
Honestly I pretty much named the list I’dsay I’d leave as untouchable, but I’ll re-iterate.
Once again, I will never be hired as a GM and for good reasons. But pretty much I’d say any name who currently is struggling because they really don’t have a spot to develop them, with maybe one younger player who’s doing great to land a big fish (Cozens, Kulich, Quinn, Krebs, with maybe one of Benson, Byram or Peterka). That team needs a culture shock and an influx of veterans who don’t just help the young guys but are great contributors themselves. I would be calling up all those teams you think of that are always in the mushy middle or trending for it like Boston, St. Louis, us, Islanders etc. and offer them these names for some of their high end vets.
So trade good young talent for declining vet talent that will then become anchors for said team? I mean great deal for Calgary to pick up some potentially great young pieces and get rid of their problems too, if only it were so easy!
There's nothing wrong with supplementing a roster with those types of players, but giving away the pipping for the kitchen sink isn't the way to do it. You do it through FA or giving up a reasonable level futures, not the current talent on the roster which Buffalo so desperately needs lol.
- Oct 12, 2012
- 58,122
- 10,163
Volica
Papa Shango
- May 15, 2012
- 21,756
- 11,467
Could probably use some actual veterans who aren’t just plugs on both forward and D as well.
Seems to be a rebuild purgatory staple, you have a bunch of young guys and then old guys are just junk filler. You need some 28-32 year old guys who are actually good players. Like, Chicago becomes a powerhouse when along with graduating a bunch of guys to the NHL full time from the AHL, they also bring in Marian Hossa and Brian Campbell. These teams that are all 19-23 year olds and then a 30 year old guy playing 12 minutes a night as the ‘leader’ has never worked.
Honestly, if I’m Buffalo. The question to Calgary is: will Kadri waive to come here? Would Coleman waive to come here? Will Andersson sign here long term? All three guys will play 19-22 a night in prominent roles.
First of all the GM has come out and explicitly said he’s struggling to attract FAs, and declining veterans is a derivative view on it. Is Weegar a declining veteran who teams should avoid having? Making their team very much better now while gaining players who can insulate their young players should be priority #1.
The number one fallacy HFBoards believes in is that youth should be supplemented by veterans. A good team has veterans supplemented by youth.
This mentality is exactly how Buffalo became Buffalo, young talent is the only priority and everything else is extra.
UPL is a good enough starter in the league, and Lindy Ruff has a storied NHL coaching career. Neither of these are their current problem.
Come on, the bolded is just silly. Youth should be supplemented by veterans = young talent is the only priority and everything else is extra. Besides being what I like to call conceptual spaghettification (specifically that youth being supplemented by vets means they are the only priority), it's also a fallacy argument itself in assuming one path to success in NHL team building when there isn't.
There isn't one formula for building a good team. You can have a team of veterans supplemented by youth, or you can have a team of youth supplemented by vets . There are plenty of case studies to this - see the late 2010s Leafs which were supplemented by players such as Tavares and Marleau and Hainsey. Buffalo's problems have been incredibly multifaceted - institutional rot, a market that isn't exactly the most attractive, continued losing (which leads to talent wanting out), bad luck (a few bounces go their way in 2022-23 and they supersede Florida for a spot in the playoffs), etc. You can have all the veterans in the world, it doesn't change those fundamental issues.
Just addressing your first point quickly, it is interesting yet obvious how you exclude the other 4 other players mentioned so you can dismiss the general point, which makes sense because I think anyone with half a mind would know that Buffalo shouldn't be having interested in GMs "gifting" their Coleman's and Kadri's to them for their young talent (unless their interest is bending Buffalo over). Weegar is a good option, but if the calculation is to try to insulate their young talent on the roster now, then give up your futures or prospects who aren't NHL contributors. Otherwise it's just injecting anti-biotics when gangrene has already set in.
Now I don't mind these back and fourth arguments (and that is why I've always assumed you are generally a little more provocative towards me than other posters) but if your retort towards my "there isn't one way to build a team" is that Matthews and Marner and Nylander and co supplemented the vaunted veteran core of Bozak and JVR and Kadri, then I will not bother to reply to you regarding this topic again lol.
Last edited:
This really isn’t an arguable point young teams are bad and older teams are good. It’s a fallacy to expect otherwise. Young players usually are high skill players, but are bad at systems play and don’t contribute to wins as much as their elders. We can prove this without the ability to argue the point really.
8 of the top 10 oldest teams made the playoffs in 2023-24. 0 out of the 10 youngest teams did.
7 out of the 10 oldest teams made the playoffs in 2022-23. 2 out of the 10 youngest teams did.
9 of the 10 oldest teams made the playoffs in 2021-22. 4 of the 10 youngest teams made it.
This list could go for years. How to become a good team is have quality veterans supported by high quality youth. Practically every team who has tried to build around elite youth solely has failed (looking at you Ottawa and Buffalo). This is a measurable, quantifiable fact. You can believe otherwise, but adding elite youth to a veteran core is the sole way to win. The last 7 cups winners, only one is outside the top 10 oldest teams in the league, at a whopping 18th oldest team.
By your own example, Toronto had success because they had the luxury to play Matthews 17:30 a night, Marner 16:45, and Nylander 16:00. Those ranked 7th, 9th, and 15th on their roster respectively. So yes you can downplay the talent they had. But Toronto was good because they had amazing youth that they supported extremely well, and did not put the team on their veritable back despite the great numbers they put up.
You want to know what institutional rot looks like? The only older forward at age Thompson has on the entire team to look up to and learn how to lead a franchise from is Jason Zucker. Dahlin currently has Dennis Gilbert and Connor Clifton as his elder statesman mentors. That’s how perennial terrible teams are made.
Last edited:
