Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXX

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I'm back. Aaaaand nothing happened. Sigh.

Good to see a TDL gameday thread though.

 

[Levitate]

We're not really at risk of him being undervalued in a trade because we have already set the market for him as "We will not move him without an overpayment" so its not like we are 100% moving him, someone will HAVE to cough up more than they would like if they really want him.

Well that's kind of what I mean. Teams will try to lowball but it' not worth it for the Rangers just to trade him this year for whatever comes along. In some ways he seems like the kind of guy you might even want to just keep rather than trade as you need some veteran structure on the team, but who knows

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

So what’s your point? Rangers had Sather whose a Hall of Fame GM, who got them a million wins after 2005 and Gorton whose very good. That’s tremendous management.

My point was, there are people who believe that the only way to win a Cup is to tank and draft 1st or 2nd but when you point out that Buffalo, Florida and Edmonton have all picked in those spots and haven't won anything, they respond with "well their management sucks"

 

[duhmetreE]

I’d rather have Stamkos than anyone on this roster not named Hank since 1994

ehhhhhhhhh... Leetch in his prime? Jagr?

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Any word on who the scratches are tonight?

 

[LORDE]

ehhhhhhhhh... Leetch in his prime? Jagr?

Since 1994... and yes above Jagr

 

[duhmetreE]

Any word on who the scratches are tonight?

Smith Andersson Brickley ... the new-new top line

 

[Thirty One]

Any word on who the scratches are tonight?

DeAngelo and Chytil.

Seriously, I don't think we'll find out till pretty close to puck drop.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

My point was, there are people who believe that the only way to win a Cup is to tank and draft 1st or 2nd but when you point out that Buffalo, Florida and Edmonton have all picked in those spots and haven't won anything, they respond with "well their management sucks"

But that is the actual answer why they haven't won. You just don't like the answer because it completely disproves your argument. To ignore these facts is essentially being willfully ignorant of the truth.

 

[mulli25]

Skimmed this conversation re:needing a top 5 pick to win, and at the end of the day what's undeniable is that you need elite talent to win.

If you can find me a better way (statistically or otherwise) for acquiring that level of talent other than drafting high & often, I'm all ears.

I'd love to not suck for 3+ seasons, but the only other alternative is to get really, really lucky.

 

[Profet]

It's also flawed since teams that received top picks AND WERE THERE short term/briefly start building a winner slowly. Teams that are there long term stay there indefinitely.

so your vast insight is:

teams who only lose for a short amount of time eventually start winning.
teams that aren't winning continue to lose.


Wow... in other news, water is wet and snow is cold.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

But that is the actual answer why they haven't won. You just don't like the answer because it completely disproves your argument. To ignore these facts is essentially being willfully ignorant of the truth.

No, this is your excuse when presented with a different opinion. I'm not saying you don't need elite talent to win. All I'm saying is, there's more than one way. Tanking does not guarantee anything.

 

[NYRKING30]

I predict Zucc & Webster to the Flames for their 1st and a prospect.
That's a pretty good deal, you wouldn't get the prospect without me, that's for sure.

I'll take you to Calgary on horseback right now.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

No, this is your excuse when presented with a different opinion.

Huh? I'm offering facts here. This notion that opinions can't be right or wrong is not realistic. People can have opinions that can be disproven by facts. Much like I did with yours.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Huh? I'm offering facts here. This notion that opinions can't be right or wrong is not realistic. People can have opinions that can be disproven by facts. Much like I did with yours.

How can you prove that the reason Edmonton, Buffalo and Florida haven't won is because they have bad management? Do they have bad management, maybe. But is that the main reason why these teams loaded with high picks don't even make the playoffs???

 

[duhmetreE]

Skimmed this conversation re:needing a top 5 pick to win, and at the end of the day what's undeniable is that you need elite talent to win.

If you can find me a better way (statistically or otherwise) for acquiring that level of talent other than drafting high & often, I'm all ears.

I'd love to not suck for 3+ seasons, but the only other alternative is to get really, really lucky.

Top Talent... available all over the draft..

Top 3 picks, no longer guaranteed no matter how much you suck.

YES, teams that win have top talent. YES, the top 3 is usually filled with top talent. NO, we are not bad enough to compete in 'sucking with the worst in this league'. Teams that WIN usually are not drafting at the top/sucking long term. They hit it and quit it. We have this year and possibly next. Anything longer and we start getting sucked into the void

It doesn't matter though because we could land Hughes or Kakko while being #11th worst.

 

[Off Sides]

Skimmed this conversation re:needing a top 5 pick to win, and at the end of the day what's undeniable is that you need elite talent to win.

If you can find me a better way (statistically or otherwise) for acquiring that level of talent other than drafting high & often, I'm all ears.

I'd love to not suck for 3+ seasons, but the only other alternative is to get really, really lucky.

I'd add that is sure helps a lot if that high end talent is not on fresh off the UFA market cap hits.

High end talent, cap structure, players primes, all have to coalesce in order for a team to have it's best chances at a Cup. Teams will likely need more than one chance to win it if they ever do. If that is all balanced well, that team likely has good management, and will likely have several chances.

If a team is managed poorly, what's the difference in how they build? The end product is going to be representative.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

How can you prove that the reason Edmonton, Buffalo and Florida haven't won is because they have bad management? Do they have bad management, maybe. Is that the reason why teams loaded with high picks don't even make the playoffs???

If you don't think those teams have been poorly managed you have not been watching hockey very long. Bad UFA signings, Bad Trades, Bad Cap Management, Bad Coaching, Bad (later round) draft choices, Bad roster makeup and decisions. Those teams have ALL of that in common.

Also, there is the fact that NO team wins unless they have good management from the top down, which should be abundantly clear.

 

[duhmetreE]

If you don't think those teams have been poorly managed you have not been watching hockey very long. Bad UFA signings, Bad Trades, Bad Cap Management, Bad Coaching, Bad (later round) draft choices, Bad roster makeup and decisions. Those teams have ALL of that in common.

Also, there is the fact that NO team wins unless they have good management from the top down, which should be abundantly clear.

Bad Management = trading all your valuable assets/veterans for futures or bad UFA signings?

Where would Buffalo be if they kept ROR?
Chia is Chia.. There's no defending him even though he has had top picks out the ass.
Colorado has a solid group of talent. Why have they sucked for so long?

 

[mulli25]

Top Talent... available all over the draft..

Top 3 picks, no longer guaranteed no matter how much you suck.

YES, teams that win have top talent. YES, the top 3 is usually filled with top talent. NO, we are not bad enough to compete in sucking with the worst in this league.

It doesn't matter though because we could land Hughes or Kakko while being #11th worst.

As a general comment, and particularly in response to the bold, give some genuine consideration to the statistics of the situation.

Nothing is about guarantees, they simply do not exist. Its about maximizing opportunity.

 

[duhmetreE]

As a general comment, and particularly in response to the bold, give some genuine consideration to the statistics of the situation.

Nothing is about guarantees, they simply do not exist. Its about maximizing opportunity.

Statistically, you have a better chance at pick #4 than getting a top3 pick as the WORST team in the league.

Getting the 1OA or even 2OA pick takes luck. I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point. We are no where near as bad as the 'worst' in the league and we will probably never be with HL and the foundation that we already have.

We can slightly improve our chances but at what cost? I'm all for shutting down Kreider and Zibanejad;; send them on an early vacation.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

The Rangers have 1 cup in 80 years. In their almost 100 year history of the being in the NHL they have had approximately 1 #1 overall draft pick, who never played a game in the NHL. They've never bottomed out and drafted the elite of the elite talent and they don't have much to show for not doing it that way. The real question is, why NOT try to build the team this way? It's not like the other way is paying dividends.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Statistically, you have a better chance at pick #4 than getting a top3 pick as the WORST team in the league.

Getting the 1OA or even 2OA pick takes luck. I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point. We are no where near as bad as the 'worst' in the league and we will probably never be with HL and the foundation that we already have.

We can slightly improve our chances but at what cost? I'm all for shutting down Kreider and Zibanejad and send them on an early vacation.

Yeah but even if you don't get 1 2 or 3 and you're in the bottom 5, you still are getting a shot at 4,5,6 which would mean and elite draft pick in this draft.

 

[duhmetreE]

Yeah but even if you don't get 1 2 or 3 and you're in the bottom 5, you still are getting a shot at 4,5,6 which would mean and elite draft pick in this draft.

We're just not bad enough. That's the reality and that's where the differences lie here. No one is arguing with getting top picks.

To become as bad as the current bottom 5, it'd take sabotage/bad management or injuries. We have a floor with what's in place and with what Quinn demands.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

The Rangers have 1 cup in 80 years. In their almost 100 year history of the being in the NHL they have had approximately 1 #1 overall draft pick, who never played a game in the NHL. They've never bottomed out and drafted the elite of the elite talent and they don't have much to show for not doing it that way. The real question is, why NOT try to build the team this way? It's not like the other way is paying dividends.

Say they completely strip the team and finish dead last but don't win the lottery. Then what? Say they win the lottery and there's no elite player available at 1oa? Say they get that player, what kind of environment are you adding him to? If this were the NFL where the worst team is guaranteed the top pick, sure. But it's not. And I don't think using Chicago or Pittsburgh (which, by the way the year they got Crosby the Rangers should have gotten him but got screwed) is being completely honest. There are teams that suck, get high picks and do nothing with those picks. Purposely tanking is just as risky as loading up on high priced FAs. Nothing is guaranteed. The Rangers will have off loaded their #1 D and 5 top 6 forwards in less than two years. That's not enough of a rebuild?