Roster/Rumors/Speculation/Trade Talk - 2024-25: Re-Tool, Re-Group, Re-Mix, Re-Build

[leeroggy]

Rosner is hinting that Mayfield might be a healthy scratch for Boqvist based on the morning practice

 

[MJF]

I still prefer Boqvist over Perunovich.

 

[duster19]

I still prefer Boqvist over Perunovich.

He’s more offensive for sure. The problem with replacing one with the other is that Mayfield plays. Now you are running out Pelech Pulock Mayfield Romanov. These are not really offensive guys and I think Roy wants more offense/driving play from the back end.

 

[duster19]

Well, not everyone has keen senses. I'm the one who started a thread just before last season suggesting Brock Nelson could be an option to move at the trade deadline for an excellent haul if the team is not in a playoff spot. I'm still not opposed to trading him. I'm not sure where the jump from his performance at Four Nations leads to their being some offense taken or wanting Brock Nelson to be forever an Islander. You know they are not connected, correct?

His play simply matched my expectations during Four Nations, that's it. I noticed many people criticizing his performance and was just a bit baffled on why their expectations where high. I'm in the boat where if Brock Nelson doesn't want to sign a team friendly deal that puts him in the area where he can age into a 3C or even a wing, I'm not opposed to keeping him. If he wants to be paid as a 2c and long term, yes, definitely trade him.


Better? Hardly. Bad in a different area; correct.

Not sure I agree with that. Deangelo has been our best D since we grabbed him. Reilly was very good last year as well.

 

[xECK29x]

"okay, Mayfield was terrible"

 

[MJF]

He’s more offensive for sure. The problem with replacing one with the other is that Mayfield plays. Now you are running out Pelech Pulock Mayfield Romanov. These are not really offensive guys and I think Roy wants more offense/driving play from the back end.

I think Mayfield’s going to sit tonight. He only played 10 minutes against Dallas.

 

[leeroggy]

I wonder if it makes sense to make a lateral move with Detroit, to facilitate getting Mayfield off the books.

Something like

Mayfield and Palmieri for Tarasenko and Holl

Buy out Holl after the season and one year left of Tarasenko, who could play 3rd line next year and maybe gets us an asset next year. Holmstrom or Tsyp replace Palms on the 2nd line.

Detroit gets an upgrade for their playoff run in Palms over Tank, who only has 7 goals in 55 games.

 

[IslesNorway]

Rosner is hinting that Mayfield might be a healthy scratch for Boqvist based on the morning practice

Aren't we luck y to have him for another six years??

 

[Throttle]

Aren't we luck y to have him for another six years??

That’s not a hard contract to get rid of. He’s definitely a playoff-type defenseman. A contender takes on 2-3 years of it, from there, he sticks around, gets traded, or gets bought out.

Some teams that want some jam in the playoffs would want a guy like that.

 

[impaaaaaact]

Mayfield might be the odd man out when Dobson is back. I don’t think Roy wants to take out Perunovich or Deangelo

 

[MJF]

That’s not a hard contract to get rid of. He’s definitely a playoff-type defenseman. A contender takes on 2-3 years of it, from there, he sticks around, gets traded, or gets bought out.

Some teams that want some jam in the playoffs would want a guy like that.

The idea is not to sign guys to ridiculous contracts that make them a buyout candidate after 1 year. It’s bad business.

Mayfield might be the odd man out when Dobson is back. I don’t think Roy wants to take out Perunovich or Deangelo

I don’t get the love for Perunovich. He’s Aho 2.1

 

[Throttle]

The idea is not to sign guys to ridiculous contracts that make them a buyout candidate after 1 year. It’s bad business.


I don’t get the love for Perunovich. He’s Aho 2.1

Mayfield isn’t a buyout candidate. Roy wants to play a different style that’s not really suited for him.

Now, Lou brought in some offensive-minded guys that Roy (now desperate…) wants to run with them, to the extent they suck it up defensively.

I understand the reason for retaining Mayfield, looks like Lou went a bit too cute that summer with Mayfield and Engvall.

 

[Richie Daggers Crime]

I understand the reason for retaining Mayfield, looks like Lou went a bit too cute that summer with Mayfield and Engvall.

The issue isn't really what he did, but why.

 

[PK Cronin]

I know an Island for you Elias

Is it Long or Robidas?

 

[periferal]

I see I might be adding fuel to the flame but the truth of the matter is, every team to have won 2 or more cups in the past 15 years has had a self-drafted #1 star center, another self-drafted star forward, a self-drafted star Dman, and in most cases, a self-drafted SC-winning goalie, at least for one of the Cups.

Sticking with the importance of the self-drafted star forwards and Dman, one-Cup winners Capitals, Avelanche, and Panthers (granted Huberdeau was swapped for Tkachuk first) have certainly fit that bill as well.

The special exceptions seem to have been Vegas and St. Louis.

All certainly added key components from the outside along the way. That can't be denied. Certainly not.

But within the industry, it is more or less understood that the blueprint for winning multiple Cups in the modern era requires a minimum of 2 self-drafted impact/star forwards (one being a center) and a self-drafted #1 Dman.

Again, the multicup winners also each had a self-drafted starting goalie, at least for one of their cups.

***
Many teams have been trying to emulate this blueprint and have fallen short. There can only be one winner. But the teams that have multiple cups have gone exactly this route.

Without exception.

As always...Chapin is the (intelligent and informed) voice of reason.

To further on this debate of (high) draft picks being paramount in terms of building a (perennial) Cup contender/winner, but also how long that build could last, again let's look at teams that did it.

Here's a list of teams that did a (cover your ears) "rebuild" - Below you will see the first year they made a top 5 pick and then the year they won the Cup:

• Penguins: 2003 ---> 2009 (6 years)
• Capitals: 2004 ----> 2018 (14 years)
• Blackhawks: 2006 ---> 2010 (4 years)
• Kings: 2008 ----> 2012 (4 years)
• Lightning: 2008 ----> 2020 (12 years)
• Avalanche: 2009 ----> 2022 (13 years)
• Panthers: 2011 ----> 2024 (13 years)

If we average out those years the number is about 9.4 years from the start of a rebuild to winning a Cup. When you look at it like that I can certainly understand why many fans would not want to go through a "rebuild." The word alone is probably as dirty as "socialism" to some out there.

It would also explain why looking at the last 5-8 drafts and assuming all those teams who drafted high in them failed at their rebuild is such an incomplete way to look at things. We're now starting to see teams like the Oilers, Hurricanes, and Devils start to see the fruit of those older drafts...While newer teams like the Sens, Red Wings, and Blue Jackets are starting to profit of more recent drafts.

The reality is that rebuilds take years - And usually more years than even the teams doing them would care to admit. Given the reactions you get by some when you suggest selling off vets to be worse so you can draft in the top 5, I'm guessing a handful of fans would rather stay in denial that this 2025 Isles team can win a Cup because in the face of long drawn out discomfort, denial can actually feel like hope.

I wish we could just throw out the word "rebuild" and instead just admit that the Isles need:

• A new GM (and president)
• A new and younger core of 2-4 players more talented than most any player on the current roster
• Those younger/elite players are almost always found not only through the draft, but with very high picks in the draft. Thus would probably be best if the Isles really stunk for a couple of seasons.

If it makes you uncomfortable to use the "R" word then feel free to call that plan anything you want. Oh and we've already heard tons of times how "risky" this plan would be and how it "doesn't guarantee anything." You know what that's called...?

Life.

If you want to be safe then you continue on the path our current GM has us on, which ironically is more of a guarantee that we will never get near a Cup.

When it's clear that something is not working as this current "plan" isn't, then put me in the "risk taking" column. I'll happily take the risk that the next GM will be worse and that tanking for high picks will not succeed as opposed to running the GM and roster back next season with just one more "Engvall/Duclair signing."

Let's think bigger. Let's be bolder. Now is the time so we don't waste more of it.

 

[SI]

I see I might be adding fuel to the flame but the truth of the matter is, every team to have won 2 or more cups in the past 15 years has had a self-drafted #1 star center, another self-drafted star forward, a self-drafted star Dman, and in most cases, a self-drafted SC-winning goalie, at least for one of the Cups.

Sticking with the importance of the self-drafted star forwards and Dman, one-Cup winners Capitals, Avelanche, and Panthers (granted Huberdeau was swapped for Tkachuk first) have certainly fit that bill as well.

The special exceptions seem to have been Vegas and St. Louis.

All certainly added key components from the outside along the way. That can't be denied. Certainly not.

But within the industry, it is more or less understood that the blueprint for winning multiple Cups in the modern era requires a minimum of 2 self-drafted impact/star forwards (one being a center) and a self-drafted #1 Dman.

Again, the multicup winners also each had a self-drafted starting goalie, at least for one of their cups.

***
Many teams have been trying to emulate this blueprint and have fallen short. There can only be one winner. But the teams that have multiple cups have gone exactly this route.

Without exception.

Just to add my two cents here -

Look at the teams that it hasn't worked for - Edmonton, New Jersey, Buffalo (no playoffs in a decade), Toronto (1 first-round win in decades), Islanders (no cup since 83), Rangers (no cup since 94), Canucks (no cups), Senator (no playoffs in almost a decade), Red Wings (no playoffs in almost a decade), and Flyers. All teams have had their fair share of top 5 picks and have not won a cup.

I would argue that a major reason for the Florida Cup was not DRAFT, but the trades for Bennett, Reinhart, and Tkachuk. Not to mention the big gamble in signing BOB.

Also, I'm not sure the Kings fit the model either - Kopitar was 11 OA, Carter and Richards were trades - the only High pick was Doughty, not to mention that Quick was a 3rd round pick.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

After seeing DeAngelo and Boqvist play here, I really have no desire to watch Mayfield anymore.

It's amazing how much their passing games have left me having absolutely no desire to watch Mayfield's plodding, time-consuming struggles to do something with the puck and 1980s-style skating mechanics.

I mean, I literally just have no desire to watch him play.

I say that having long appreciated what he's meant for this team as a #5/6 defender.

He just isn't the type of hockey I like to spend my time watching.

 

[beach]

Would be funny if Lou does do a move to bring in EP and then signs Boeser in free agency.

Even funnier is if Lou trades for EP and then trades for JT Miller this summer

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

Just to add my two cents here -

Look at the teams that it hasn't worked for - Edmonton, New Jersey, Buffalo (no playoffs in a decade), Toronto (1 first-round win in decades), Islanders (no cup since 83), Rangers (no cup since 94), Canucks (no cups), Senator (no playoffs in almost a decade), Red Wings (no playoffs in almost a decade), and Flyers. All teams have had their fair share of top 5 picks and have not won a cup.

I would argue that a major reason for the Florida Cup was not DRAFT, but the trades for Bennett, Reinhart, and Tkachuk. Not to mention the big gamble in signing BOB.

I mentioned that many have tried this blueprint and haven't won.

But all who did win multiple cups took this route, without exception.

Also, I'm not sure the Kings fit the model either - Kopitar was 11 OA, Carter and Richards were trades - the only High pick was Doughty, not to mention that Quick was a 3rd round pick.

They fit this model. Kopitar may not be a Crosby or Kane based on gaudy numbers, but he carried that level of importance for the Kings in both of their Cups.

Brown was the other key self-drafted forward for that team.

Doughty was the self-drafted D anchor and Quick the self-drafted starting goalie.

Now, nowhere in my post did I mention that all these guys were high draft picks.

Simply that they were the self-drafted core of multiple cups.

 

[PK Cronin]

As always...Chapin is the (intelligent and informed) voice of reason.

To further on this debate of (high) draft picks being paramount in terms of building a (perennial) Cup contender/winner, but also how long that build could last, again let's look at teams that did it.

Here's a list of teams that did a (cover your ears) "rebuild" - Below you will see the first year they made a top 5 pick and then the year they won the Cup:

• Penguins: 2003 ---> 2009 (6 years)
• Capitals: 2004 ----> 2018 (14 years)
• Blackhawks: 2006 ---> 2010 (4 years)
• Kings: 2008 ----> 2012 (4 years)
• Lightning: 2008 ----> 2020 (12 years)
• Avalanche: 2009 ----> 2022 (13 years)
• Panthers: 2011 ----> 2024 (13 years)

If we average out those years the number is about 9.4 years from the start of a rebuild to winning a Cup. When you look at it like that I can certainly understand why many fans would not want to go through a "rebuild." The word alone is probably as dirty as "socialism" to some out there.

It would also explain why looking at the last 5-8 drafts and assuming all those teams who drafted high in them failed at their rebuild is such an incomplete way to look at things. We're now starting to see teams like the Oilers, Hurricanes, and Devils start to see the fruit of those older drafts...While newer teams like the Sens, Red Wings, and Blue Jackets are starting to profit of more recent drafts.

The reality is that rebuilds take years - And usually more years than even the teams doing them would care to admit. Given the reactions you get by some when you suggest selling off vets to be worse so you can draft in the top 5, I'm guessing a handful of fans would rather stay in denial that this 2025 Isles team can win a Cup because in the face of long drawn out discomfort, denial can actually feel like hope.

I wish we could just throw out the word "rebuild" and instead just admit that the Isles need:

• A new GM (and president)
• A new and younger core of 2-4 players more talented than most any player on the current roster
• Those younger/elite players are almost always found not only through the draft, but with very high picks in the draft. Thus would probably be best if the Isles really stunk for a couple of seasons.

If it makes you uncomfortable to use the "R" word then feel free to call that plan anything you want. Oh and we've already heard tons of times how "risky" this plan would be and how it "doesn't guarantee anything." You know what that's called...?

Life.

If you want to be safe then you continue on the path our current GM has us on, which ironically is more of a guarantee that we will never get near a Cup.

When it's clear that something is not working as this current "plan" isn't, then put me in the "risk taking" column. I'll happily take the risk that the next GM will be worse and that tanking for high picks will not succeed as opposed to running the GM and roster back next season with just one more "Engvall/Duclair signing."

Let's think bigger. Let's be bolder. Now is the time so we don't waste more of it.

Tabulation: Top 5 Draft Picks by Team (2003–2024)
Let’s take a thorough look at the list to ensure there are no other errors or omissions. I’ll cross-check the data against the NHL Entry Draft records from 2003 to 2024, focusing on the top 5 picks (1st through 5th overall) for each year, and verify that every team’s total aligns with historical draft results. I’ll also ensure that traded picks are correctly attributed to the team that made the selection, not necessarily the team that originally owned the pick, as per the methodology.

Team	Top 5 Picks	Years
Pittsburgh Penguins	5	2003 (1st), 2004 (2nd), 2005 (1st), 2006 (2nd), 2022 (4th)
Chicago Blackhawks	5	2006 (3rd), 2007 (1st), 2019 (3rd), 2023 (1st), 2024 (2nd)
Edmonton Oilers	5	2010 (1st), 2011 (1st), 2012 (1st), 2015 (1st), 2016 (4th)
Buffalo Sabres	5	2003 (5th), 2014 (2nd), 2015 (2nd), 2018 (1st), 2021 (1st)
Washington Capitals	4	2004 (1st), 2006 (4th), 2007 (5th), 2013 (5th)
Columbus Blue Jackets	4	2003 (4th), 2007 (4th), 2016 (3rd), 2023 (3rd)
Anaheim Ducks	4	2005 (2nd), 2008 (2nd), 2023 (2nd), 2024 (3rd)
New Jersey Devils	4	2017 (1st), 2019 (1st), 2022 (2nd), 2024 (5th)
Florida Panthers	4	2003 (3rd), 2004 (4th), 2010 (3rd), 2014 (1st)
Carolina Hurricanes	3	2003 (2nd), 2011 (5th), 2018 (2nd)
New York Islanders	3	2009 (1st), 2012 (5th), 2014 (5th)
New York Rangers	3	2017 (4th), 2020 (1st), 2021 (5th)
Philadelphia Flyers	3	2007 (2nd), 2017 (2nd), 2024 (4th)
Toronto Maple Leafs	3	2008 (5th), 2015 (4th), 2016 (1st)
Montreal Canadiens	3	2012 (3rd), 2018 (3rd), 2022 (1st)
Los Angeles Kings	2	2008 (1st), 2009 (5th)
Atlanta Thrashers/Winnipeg Jets	2	2008 (3rd), 2016 (2nd)
Minnesota Wild	2	2004 (5th), 2022 (5th)
Ottawa Senators	2	2020 (3rd), 2020 (5th)
San Jose Sharks	2	2019 (2nd), 2024 (1st)
Tampa Bay Lightning	2	2009 (2nd), 2013 (3rd)
Colorado Avalanche	2	2011 (2nd), 2013 (1st)
Vancouver Canucks	2	2013 (4th), 2019 (5th)
Arizona Coyotes/Utah Hockey Club	2	2015 (3rd), 2018 (5th)
Boston Bruins	2	2006 (5th), 2010 (2nd)
Detroit Red Wings	1	2021 (4th)
Nashville Predators	1	2004 (3rd)
St. Louis Blues	1	2006 (1st)
Dallas Stars	1	2017 (3rd)
Calgary Flames	1	2014 (4th)
Seattle Kraken	0	None
Vegas Golden Knights	0	None

Assuming the table above is accurate (I had the AI overlords compile it for me) here are some thoughts.

If we're talking about tanking to accumulate top 5 draft picks because that's the way you build a perennial cup winner. Tampa Bay, Los Angeles, Boston, St. Louis, and Colorado have only had two top 5 picks since 2003. Chicago only had two before their cups. It's not about being bad for a long stretch, it's about being bad at the right time (and obviously selecting wisely). If all we're looking at is top 5 picks as the start or end of a re-build then every non-expansion team has had one so that will validate the strategy no matter who wins the cup every year.

Some people will say things like if you look at all the cup teams that win it's clear you need two or three hall of famers on your team if you want to win a cup. That's great and all, but the hall of fame is only decided after a player has finished their career and winning greatly impacts credentials on getting into the hall of fame. How do you know in the moment if those players are hall of very good or hall of fame? You don't, until they win.

I don't know if the next wave examples provided make sense for what you're advocating.

The Oilers are an example of having a bunch of top 5 picks and doing nothing with them for quite some time. How many of those players are still around? How many yielded impact players in trades? I honestly don't know but I do know that McDavid is the only top 5 pick that really matters from their group of selections.

Carolina has had three top picks since 2003 and only one of those has come within the last 10 years.

Ottawa has only had two picks and they both came 5 years ago, and Columbus has only had two in the last 10 years. Detroit has had a single pick.

There are very few teams who have been bad enough to select multiple times in the top 5 year after year. I think it's completely reasonable to sell of pieces, accumulate those assets, and have a few down years before bouncing back a little bit. The change in the draft lottery allows teams to not tear it down to the studs and still get top 5 picks, so I think turnarounds could be a little quicker than they used to be if you get lucky (and you have to get lucky no matter what you do).

You and I have spoken at length about this previously, but I agree with you that it's about accumulating more talent. I won't care how that's done so long as it is successful but I also think there's more than one way to skin a cat and just because some teams have had a lot of success doing things one way doesn't mean there aren't alternative ways to have that same success.

Then again, that table could be completely made up and wrong so all of these numbers are inaccurate and I look like a dummy for trusting them.

 

[periferal]

Just to add my two cents here -

Look at the teams that it hasn't worked for - Edmonton, New Jersey, Buffalo (no playoffs in a decade), Toronto (1 first-round win in decades), Islanders (no cup since 83), Rangers (no cup since 94), Canucks (no cups), Senator (no playoffs in almost a decade), Red Wings (no playoffs in almost a decade), and Flyers. All teams have had their fair share of top 5 picks and have not won a cup.

I would argue that a major reason for the Florida Cup was not DRAFT, but the trades for Bennett, Reinhart, and Tkachuk. Not to mention the big gamble in signing BOB.

Also, I'm not sure the Kings fit the model either - Kopitar was 11 OA, Carter and Richards were trades - the only High pick was Doughty, not to mention that Quick was a 3rd round pick.

Putting aside the fact that several of the teams you mentioned had literally some of the worst owners in recent sports history running the team while they were rebuilding (Charles Wang, Terry Pegula, Eugene Melnyk, etc), but if you think that losing in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals (by a goal) means that Edmonton's rebuild didn't work then I'd say you're not being objective and simply have an axe to grind.

 

[PK Cronin]

After seeing DeAngelo and Boqvist play here, I really have no desire to watch Mayfield anymore.

It's amazing how much their passing games have left me having absolutely no desire to watch Mayfield's plodding, time-consuming struggles to do something with the puck and 1980s-style skating mechanics.

I mean, I literally just have no desire to watch him play.

I say that having long appreciated what he's meant for this team as a #5/6 defender.

He just isn't the type of hockey I like to spend my time watching.

I think there's a bunch of guys on this roster who don't fit the need for the Islanders anymore but could still have success someplace else. Mayfield is one of those guys for sure.

 

[PK Cronin]

Putting aside the fact that several of the teams you mentioned had literally some of the worst owners in recent sports history running the team while they were rebuilding (Charles Wang, Terry Pegula, Eugene Melnyk, etc), but if you think that losing in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals (by a goal) means that Edmonton's rebuild didn't work then I'd say you're not being objective and simply have an axe to grind.

If the bar is winning then Edmonton didn't win and shouldn't be considered successful yet (I think they will be). If you allow them to be a success you're getting more into the business of being less objective and more into you being the sole determiner for what counts and doesn't count. You surely wouldn't suggest Nashville or Montreal had a successful rebuilds that led them to losses in the finals. It's better if we just keep Edmonton out for now I'd think.

 

[periferal]

Tabulation: Top 5 Draft Picks by Team (2003–2024)
Let’s take a thorough look at the list to ensure there are no other errors or omissions. I’ll cross-check the data against the NHL Entry Draft records from 2003 to 2024, focusing on the top 5 picks (1st through 5th overall) for each year, and verify that every team’s total aligns with historical draft results. I’ll also ensure that traded picks are correctly attributed to the team that made the selection, not necessarily the team that originally owned the pick, as per the methodology.

Team	Top 5 Picks	Years
Pittsburgh Penguins	5	2003 (1st), 2004 (2nd), 2005 (1st), 2006 (2nd), 2022 (4th)
Chicago Blackhawks	5	2006 (3rd), 2007 (1st), 2019 (3rd), 2023 (1st), 2024 (2nd)
Edmonton Oilers	5	2010 (1st), 2011 (1st), 2012 (1st), 2015 (1st), 2016 (4th)
Buffalo Sabres	5	2003 (5th), 2014 (2nd), 2015 (2nd), 2018 (1st), 2021 (1st)
Washington Capitals	4	2004 (1st), 2006 (4th), 2007 (5th), 2013 (5th)
Columbus Blue Jackets	4	2003 (4th), 2007 (4th), 2016 (3rd), 2023 (3rd)
Anaheim Ducks	4	2005 (2nd), 2008 (2nd), 2023 (2nd), 2024 (3rd)
New Jersey Devils	4	2017 (1st), 2019 (1st), 2022 (2nd), 2024 (5th)
Florida Panthers	4	2003 (3rd), 2004 (4th), 2010 (3rd), 2014 (1st)
Carolina Hurricanes	3	2003 (2nd), 2011 (5th), 2018 (2nd)
New York Islanders	3	2009 (1st), 2012 (5th), 2014 (5th)
New York Rangers	3	2017 (4th), 2020 (1st), 2021 (5th)
Philadelphia Flyers	3	2007 (2nd), 2017 (2nd), 2024 (4th)
Toronto Maple Leafs	3	2008 (5th), 2015 (4th), 2016 (1st)
Montreal Canadiens	3	2012 (3rd), 2018 (3rd), 2022 (1st)
Los Angeles Kings	2	2008 (1st), 2009 (5th)
Atlanta Thrashers/Winnipeg Jets	2	2008 (3rd), 2016 (2nd)
Minnesota Wild	2	2004 (5th), 2022 (5th)
Ottawa Senators	2	2020 (3rd), 2020 (5th)
San Jose Sharks	2	2019 (2nd), 2024 (1st)
Tampa Bay Lightning	2	2009 (2nd), 2013 (3rd)
Colorado Avalanche	2	2011 (2nd), 2013 (1st)
Vancouver Canucks	2	2013 (4th), 2019 (5th)
Arizona Coyotes/Utah Hockey Club	2	2015 (3rd), 2018 (5th)
Boston Bruins	2	2006 (5th), 2010 (2nd)
Detroit Red Wings	1	2021 (4th)
Nashville Predators	1	2004 (3rd)
St. Louis Blues	1	2006 (1st)
Dallas Stars	1	2017 (3rd)
Calgary Flames	1	2014 (4th)
Seattle Kraken	0	None
Vegas Golden Knights	0	None

Assuming the table above is accurate (I had the AI overlords compile it for me) here are some thoughts.

If we're talking about tanking to accumulate top 5 draft picks because that's the way you build a perennial cup winner. Tampa Bay, Los Angeles, Boston, St. Louis, and Colorado have only had two top 5 picks since 2003. Chicago only had two before their cups. It's not about being bad for a long stretch, it's about being bad at the right time (and obviously selecting wisely). If all we're looking at is top 5 picks as the start or end of a re-build then every non-expansion team has had one so that will validate the strategy no matter who wins the cup every year.

Some people will say things like if you look at all the cup teams that win it's clear you need two or three hall of famers on your team if you want to win a cup. That's great and all, but the hall of fame is only decided after a player has finished their career and winning greatly impacts credentials on getting into the hall of fame. How do you know in the moment if those players are hall of very good or hall of fame? You don't, until they win.

I don't know if the next wave examples provided make sense for what you're advocating.

The Oilers are an example of having a bunch of top 5 picks and doing nothing with them for quite some time. How many of those players are still around? How many yielded impact players in trades? I honestly don't know but I do know that McDavid is the only top 5 pick that really matters from their group of selections.

Carolina has had three top picks since 2003 and only one of those has come within the last 10 years.

Ottawa has only had two picks and they both came 5 years ago, and Columbus has only had two in the last 10 years. Detroit has had a single pick.

There are very few teams who have been bad enough to select multiple times in the top 5 year after year. I think it's completely reasonable to sell of pieces, accumulate those assets, and have a few down years before bouncing back a little bit. The change in the draft lottery allows teams to not tear it down to the studs and still get top 5 picks, so I think turnarounds could be a little quicker than they used to be if you get lucky (and you have to get lucky no matter what you do).

You and I have spoken at length about this previously, but I agree with you that it's about accumulating more talent. I won't care how that's done so long as it is successful but I also think there's more than one way to skin a cat and just because some teams have had a lot of success doing things one way doesn't mean there aren't alternative ways to have that same success.

Then again, that table could be completely made up and wrong so all of these numbers are inaccurate and I look like a dummy for trusting them.

In terms of your last line, the "AI overlords" didn't get it right as they botched the Islanders right out of the gate. Here's what it should look like:

• 2009 - 1st overall (John Tavares)
• 2010 - 5th overall (Nino Niederreiter)
• 2011 - 5th overall (Ryan Strome)
• 2012 - 4th overall (Griffin Reinhart)
• 2014 - 5th overall (Michael Dal Colle)

The fact is that no rebuild will work if you have a bad GM and/or scouting department making horrendous picks like this. I've reviewed it multiple times and when I see who we could've drafted instead of those bottom 4 picks it makes me sick.

And I also agree that I don't really care how we acquire the talent, but it has to be better than what is on the current roster. If you're going to trade for core players then you need to aim higher than guys like Horvat and instead be in on guys like Jack Eichel or Matt Tkachuk - And to get guys like that you need a stable of players/picks/prospects much better than we have thanks to years of Lou selling off 1sts for average talent.

So this debate of if a rebuild works or doesn't work is really secondary to this...Getting a new GM.

Until that happens we're going nowhere. Don't believe me? Try to picture yet another offseason with Lou and then what the opening night roster of the 25-26 Islanders will look like. Then do 26-27, and so on.

It's so ugly right now.

 

[PK Cronin]

In terms of your last line, the "AI overlords" didn't get it right as they botched the Islanders right out of the gate. Here's what it should look like:

• 2009 - 1st overall (John Tavares)
• 2010 - 5th overall (Nino Niederreiter)
• 2011 - 5th overall (Ryan Strome)
• 2012 - 4th overall (Griffin Reinhart)
• 2014 - 5th overall (Michael Dal Colle)

The fact is that no rebuild will work if you have a bad GM and/or scouting department making horrendous picks like this. I've reviewed it multiple times and when I see who we could've drafted instead of those bottom 4 picks it makes me sick.

And I also agree that I don't really care how we acquire the talent, but it has to be better than Horvat (as much as I like him). If you're going to trade for core players then they need to be like Jack Eichel or Matt Tkachuk - And to get guys like that you need a stable of players/pciks/prospects much better than we have thanks to years of Lou selling off 1sts for average talent.

So this debate of if a rebuild works or doesn't work is really secondary to this...Getting a new GM.

Until that happens we're going nowhere. Don't believe me? Try to picture yet another offseason with Lou and then what the opening night roster of the 25-26 Islanders will look like. Then do 26-27, and so on.

It's so ugly right now.

What's funny is I did notice some other issues then corrected them but I didn't even bother to look at the Islanders.

I think they should get a new GM regardless of whether or not he makes the right decisions moving forward, simply because he won't or shouldn't be here when the team starts competing again. There are parts of how he operates that I like and then some that I don't. As of now he's made too many missteps for me to want to seem him continue.

Since he won't be gone until at least the end of the season, and even then he might not if the team can squeak into the playoffs again, I just hope he makes the right decisions from now until then. For me that looks like trading anyone you can who is 30+ that has positive value.