freakydallas13
Registered User
If most teams fail, then stop using "X team failed" arguments in favour of whatever roster building strategy you are trying to push.Most teams fail. Only 1 of 32 succeed if winning the Cup is your standard.
If most teams fail, then stop using "X team failed" arguments in favour of whatever roster building strategy you are trying to push.Most teams fail. Only 1 of 32 succeed if winning the Cup is your standard.
I've said repeatedly I'm not pushing any strategy.If most teams fail, then stop using "X team failed" arguments in favour of whatever roster building strategy you are trying to push.
You're not pushing any strategy? Literally two of your posts ago in this thread you are talking about ideal team construction and used the Rangers as a counter example.I've said repeatedly I'm not pushing any strategy.
To me, there are a number of possible strategies, their success is probably a combination of competent implementation and luck.
I have no idea Briere will succeed, but as long as they're patient, accumulate assets it's not a "failure." That is, if in 3 years they're a bottom ten team, they'll have lots of assets for the new GM.
So my measure is whether they continue to add assets and build for the future (1st and 2nd rd picks and young prospects). As long as they don't end the rebuild prematurely and start burning assets for older veterans, I'm happy. Mistakes are inevitable, so go with "safety in numbers."
And I'm patient within those parameters. Whether they trade Risto at the TDL or next summer is irrelevant if your target season is 2027-28.
So the other teams just stop showing up?Basically there was a mini-Dead Puck Era for a few years that they happened to be built and coached perfectly for. League offense and playstyle coincidentally regressed in a way that benefitted them. It would be like if everyone suddenly started doing stuff that gave the Flyers a weird advantage that was unforseeable.
I think the model isn't the style of play but team construction:
1) you need one superstar
2) you need to build quality depth
3) you need good goalies
These posts are like 90 minutes apart, come on man.I've said repeatedly I'm not pushing any strategy.
you shoulda said Ghost you coward...... and Frost would still miss
I used the Rangers to show that merely picking high wasn't enough, you need both good scouting and luck.You're not pushing any strategy? Literally two of your posts ago in this thread you are talking about ideal team construction and used the Rangers as a counter example.
I feel like I'm having a stroke here.
Believe it or not, but by telling people which strategy to avoid ("you can't just pick high every year") you are actually pushing a strategy. You can't say "I'm not telling you want to do, I'm only telling you what not to do" and pretend you have the high ground here. That's bush league, do better.I used the Rangers to show that merely picking high wasn't enough, you need both good scouting and luck.
Don't count on landing a McDavid, you may get one or two shots at an elite player even in a tank, Nico is a very good center but he's not elite. Any viable strategy has to be more than pick high for five or six years and hope you don't miss.
Point wasn't HOW you get there, but what you want to get.
I used the Rangers to show that merely picking high wasn't enough, you need both good scouting and luck.
Don't count on landing a McDavid, you may get one or two shots at an elite player even in a tank, Nico is a very good center but he's not elite. Any viable strategy has to be more than pick high for five or six years and hope you don't miss.
Point wasn't HOW you get there, but what you want to get.
No. Luck is always relevant. Though as Branch Rickey said: "Luck is the residue of design."There's a reason the well managed teams are the "lucky" ones and all the badly managed teams are the "unlucky" ones.
Luck is irrelevant. If you're competent and you make a series of good moves, bad luck gets fixed and left in the rear view in short order. If you're managed like the Flyers, though, they compound bad luck with bad decisions and vice versa. And then lament their "bad luck" while pretending good teams are merely lucky.
No. Luck is always relevant. Though as Branch Rickey said: "Luck is the residue of design."
The world is stochastic in nature, the best you can do is improve your odds.
NYR propaganda?
So I’ve been told. This year has more desperation happening than in past ones.I thought trades didnt happen until the deadline or in the off-season?
Risto says hold my 800 game development (and he still sucks)Kakko’s draft position is still doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Seattle got him for cheap & he is a decent bottom of the lineup player in current form. But at this point you're counting on a pretty sizable leap in development that just isn’t very likely at his age.
When GMs get it in their head that there's a trade freeze period upcoming, they tend to get busy.Three trades in one night?!