Ok. Lets not talk about the NFL. Lets use the NBA for instance
1. The pool in the NBA is as small, if not smaller than the NHL with only 2 round drafts.
2. People are on guarantee contracts
3. NBA careers are akin to that of an NHLer.
4. They pay equal amount of games
5. Now lets look at OKC. A very undesirable place to play in, as much as southern california as you put it. They dumped ALL of their vets, Steven Adams, Westbrook, Paul George, CP3, and accumulated 5 first round draft picks. Now they are on top of the charts. That is a successful rebuild. When you become successful like that, ring chasing vets will come play for you, which makes your team desirable to play for.
This is somehow even more meaningless than the NFL comparison. In the NBA one or two guys can carry a team. In the NHL, ask Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl how well that works. That alone makes rebuilds function differently, not to mention that the drafting and development curve is different.
He is such a stellar player that we are now leading the league (on the wrong side). If all you cared about is emotions, Kariya, Selanne, would not have been traded (let me guess, your next argument is Kariya wanted to leave). They would have found a way for them to stay in those years. Lets look at it more recently, we wouldn't have gotten rid of drysdale.
Well, the argument that Kariya wanted to leave would be a pretty valid one, considering he never
was traded. He bolted in free agency right after going to game seven of the SCF, it was a whole thing.
Also, arguing that emotions and chemistry are
an important factor in roster building decisions is very different than saying "all you care about" is emotions. This isn't a video game. It is, as you point out, a business. A billions of dollars business. How many billion dollar businesses don't have an HR department? Same principle.
Furthermore, the "well we're bad with him now therefore he isn't important to the team" argument is nonsense. First: it can
always get worse, as last season proved. Second: why doesn't this principle apply to everyone? We were the worst team in the league last year with Troy Terry, obviously he's not helping and we should have traded him rather than re-signing him, right? Two time all star who was still an RFA, imagine the value! In fact, let's get rid of all the young guys. Zegras and McTavish don't have us at the top of the league in the three years it's taken OKC to rebuild, time to blow it all up! (What's that, McTavish hasn't played three years yet? Oh, his first year we played him a few games and sent him back to juniors? Oh, in hockey that's totally unremarkable, even for a 3OA? I wonder how often that happens in the NBA, and whether it makes rebuilding any different. Hmmm.)
But no, this argument only ever seems to apply to veteran players, and of course it only applies to the
good ones. We'd much rather have the team's future core learning from five million dollar paperweight Stroke than from Vatrano, right? That's how you build a successful team culture, you only keep the mediocre overpaid guys who don't have trade value! Sounds great.
At some point, you have to actually commit to building something, rather than just pushing everything forward for more and more assets. This is a hockey team, not a Ponzi scheme. And a successful NHL team does, in fact, have to weigh human factors rather than just mindlessly following "buy low, sell high!" as the be-all end-all. Vatrano should not be going anywhere this year unless it's for something similar to the Drysdale trade: an even more high-value piece for the future, not empty dice roll assets for the sake of assets.
Vatrano for captain!!! There I said it!!
Now I want this just for the sheer hilarity.
