TheOtherGM
Registered User
- Jan 8, 2007
- 317
- 212
So the rebuild started last offseason for Arizona in your opinion? I don't often do this DL44, but you get this from me:
Well done. You made smile.
To answer the question in bold: No, it would not have changed my opinion. Because I cannot accurately measure the options forgone in attaining those "hits". Traditionally, I know the biggest hits for any franchise are accrued from the draft. To have opinions overturned on that, we would need mountains of data suggesting otherwise. With full attention on the opportunity cost of switching strategies.
I don't think your counter-argument is sufficient if you, like others, acknowledge that the draft still provides the best opportunity to attain the highest upside players. If you acknowledge that, then you are effectively acknowledging the trade off in pursuing this alternate strategy -- on the whole (not unique cases). "Something positive" just rings hollow when forgoing the chance at a core player. I hope that's understood?
For me to change my opinion on this, a cogent argument that potential upside is not squandered has to be made. Are you saying that the potential upside of either strategy is the same? If you are, then please show your homework. If you aren't, then you have acknowledged why focusing on the draft in a rebuild is the preferred strategy.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting in the bolded that having a six-foot-three swift skating Russian defenceman with a heavy shot and the willingness to play physically (had pro scouting been right and Pedan worked out) would not outweigh the slim possibility of drafting a Norris Trophy winner in the third round?