So you are saying Edmonton used your rebuild road map. Also you are saying Edmonton didn't rebuild properly. So you pretty much indirectly said your way of rebuilding doesn't really work?
Pits won the damn Lottery. That's why rebuild was a success. They didn't get much from stacking those picks.
PIT won the lottery in the Fleury draft as well, why wasn't it considered a success at that point? Why did they keep going? Why did they stack picks?
EDM accrued picks at the rate I would expect a rebuilding team to do. That said, their management team was porous and stalled what could have been successful rebuilds prior to lucking into McDavid.
Winnipeg finished 23 14 25 20 in the standings from 2013 to 2017. 3 out last 4 years before becoming an elite team finished in the 20 range. Now all of sudden you are bringing standings in the argument. So they finished early 20 to Mid 20 range. You never said in your debate a rebuild needs to finished lower than that. ln your debate you keep on adding something and changing the goal post and add something different.
Pits Tampa Edm Leafs. They all didn't get better becauze they were stacking picks.
The thing there is so many rebuilds. Each rebuild the method was not exactly the same. You are pretty much saying there one method to rebuild. Which is non sense. It's like saying there is one way to build a cup contender. If you actually look at all those rebuild you would know exactly the same which proves me that I am right.
Anyway No matter what evidences you throw at me. You are not going convince me. I won't be able to convince me as well. I am not going to reply to this thread anymore.
My wife was right. I spend too much on this forum debating about non sense.
Generally, when a team is first in the basement for 5 years, and then begins to bounce from mid-round to late round picks the next 4 years afterward, people don't look at the last 4 years and say that those were the rebuilding years.
No goal posts are shifting. You are failing to recognize which window is actually the rebuilding window. That's why the examples you are pushing (WPG 2014-2017) and (CHI, which you have now ignored) are all over the map. Pick a window. First establish that it is in fact the team's rebuilding window, and then study it.
There's no one way to build a core group. I've repeated this over and over again. VAN will have a core group from these 5-6-7 years of failure under Benning. A core group will emerge. Just like a core group emerged in EDM. The question is: Was that the best way to go about creating a new core group? That's the difference between a focused managerial push towards a rebuild, and this 'call it what you want' build.
-------------------------------------------
I knew that as soon as we got into judging examples, this topic would fall off the tracks. For example, there is an interpretation. The more examples, the more interpretations, and the higher likelihood we would disagree on each interpretation. It's a red herring.
What this boils down to is methodology. I'm going to list what I feel are the commonalities in a rebuild, and you do the same. Then, we'll take these interpretations to an independent audience and have them judge which set represents the more expected method in a rebuild. Are you up for it?
Here's my list:
1. Picks are the primary assets in a rebuild.
2. Therefore, what emphasizes the procurement of picks, serves the rebuild best.
3. Trade vets for picks.
4. Seldom trade picks for players, even younger fringe players.
5. During the rebuild window, make sure to have a pick surplus.
6. Do not sign free agents to inflated or long-term deals.
7. Do not over-sign depth players, so as to take spots away from prospects.
8. Weaponize cap space.
9. Depth picks are extremely important as they can yield core/support pieces.
10. Drafting is better than trading and/or signing players.
Does that represent my position?
