The Rebuild Started...

[Bleach Clean]

1 that is youe opinion and I respect that

2 I don't care what other posters think.

3 you are the one that is claiming picks 2 to 7 is better. Shouldn't you show your homework? So there is not clear argument on both ways so that makes me wrong and you right? You even said the data is not available?


4 just because you were pick at a certain point. It doesn't mean you belong in that category from the start.

5 would you find another job that you don't see any difference from your current job? Probably not. GM makes trades because that they are getting advantage. If There is no advantage why make that trade?

1. It's not mere opinion. The definition of "mixed" has never included or implied equal parts of all elements within the mixture. That's your perception of what mixed means.

2. I know, but doesn't that say something about your position on this topic? If you know that any rationale, even if it comes from people outside of HF VAN, will not change your opinion, then you're really not accepting new information.

3. There is no homework. No one has done a complete enough study to be conclusive. That said, we have at least 40+ years of anecdotal evidence that has rebuilding GMs cycle older assets for picks. We know that pick conversion increases with an increase in pick totals. We also know that the reclamation hunting Benning is doing is somewhat atypical. That's many arrows pointing in one direction and nothing concrete to turn them the other way.

4. So your answer is that Baertschi was not worth a mid-1st rounder when drafted? I just want to be clear that this is your position before we move to prove that he was/was not worth a mid 1st at the time of draft.

5. If what you say is true, there is no inherent advantage in keeping the depth pick rather than trading it for a struggling 20 year old. The 20 year old is closer to the NHL, his weaknesses are better known, his projection is surer. As a GM, you would be cutting out a lot of the guess work and the development time. So why don't all GMs trade their depth picks for reclamation projects? What is the advantage in keeping the pick?

 

[me2]

Man these poll results are mind boggling. It’s like I’m reading that half the American population thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth or doesn’t believe in evolution [MOD] anyway I just don’t understand how someone can look at a team with a top 3 prospect pool and say they aren’t rebuilding. It’s so utterly insane that it’s almost as funny as it is depressing.

Just because you find a gold nugget while digging a trench doesn't mean you were prospecting.

 

[RebuildinVan]

I have confidence it may or may not start sometime

 

[nuck luck]

Tomorrow is my last day on this thread. Getting tired of having the same topic over and over again. As of right now nobody can convince me that a 2nd to 7th round player has a better chance than trading for struggling early 20 year old.

Throw your best argument out.

Earth is not flat!

Vaccines are necessary!

Draft picks are valuable!

Daring to champion views that go against the consensus does not make oneself brave and honorable.

"Truth will always be truth,
regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance."

W. Clement Stone

 

[Askel]

Just to Clarify I said 2010 cup stacking pick wasn't a factor. It was in their second cup that was a factor

Crawford Wishnewski didn't play for Hawks in 2010. Burrish and Brower played small roles. Bickell only played a few games. Keith Bolland Buff were drafting from there own pick. Keith and Bolland was from their first pick in the secound round. Buff was a 8th round pick. If Hawks didn't get extra picks They would of picked those players anyways. Hjalmarrsson was a 4th round pick I believe Hawks got that pick in trade. At that time he was number 4 D behind Keith SEABROOK Campbell. So in 2010 all there main pieces it wasn't because they stacked Picks.

Brouwer outscored Ladd, and played one less minute per game.
Hjalmarsson outscored Campbell, and played more minutes he was a more important part than Campbell

The thing that made it possible for them to draft Keith and Bolland was that they didn't give their picks away for project players. The Blackhawks built their depth through picks, that was their main building strategy. they added to that with some smart UFA signings (Campbell, Hossa, Madden) when they were ready to compete. The there project players didn't add more to that team than depth picks.

They main reason they became a top team was the drafting of Toews and Kane, who were drafted after tanking for 2 seasons.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Just because you find a gold nugget while digging a trench doesn't mean you were prospecting.

If beforehand you explicitly state that you want golden nuggets and at the end of the day you have golden nuggets then it doesn’t matter how you got them, whether digging a ditch or otherwise.

 

[Canucks1096]

Brouwer outscored Ladd, and played one less minute per game.
Hjalmarsson outscored Campbell, and played more minutes he was a more important part than Campbell

The thing that made it possible for them to draft Keith and Bolland was that they didn't give their picks away for project players. The Blackhawks built their depth through picks, that was their main building strategy. they added to that with some smart UFA signings (Campbell, Hossa, Madden) when they were ready to compete. The there project players didn't add more to that team than depth picks.

They main reason they became a top team was the drafting of Toews and Kane, who were drafted after tanking for 2 seasons.

The hawks top 3 lines in the playoffs for the most part were

Kane Toews Buff
Kopecky Sharp Hossa
Ladd Bolland Versteeg

Brower on the 4th line for the most part and I believe he was healthy scratch as well. Ladd played much bigger role. He play against top lines

You are right about Hjalmarrsson. That part I am wrong.

True but your first argument you said Hawks got 48 picks in total and that's why there able to draft all the players in the later round. To prove my point Keith and Bolland were there own picks. This mythe that you stacked all draft picks to be success is not true.

Don't forgot one thing I never said Project was better than later Rounds. I don't see much of a difference.

They didnt really tank. After the lockout hawks signed Aucoin Handzus Cullimore, Russian goalie. Traded picks and young prospects for Havlet. So they were trying to compete. They weren't trying to tank. Also hawks won lottery were from 5th to 1st to drsft Kane. Havlet didn't resign and Hawk used that money to sign Hossa. The off season Hawks missed the playoffs and they signed Campbell

 

[Askel]

Here is my Point that Hawks team drafted their no 1 d-man, No 3 d-man , Shutdown center , Brouwer ( WHO was played on the 2nd and 4th lime Btw) Byfuglien WHO was played as a first to 3rd lime RW, with picks after the first Round. Thats why you keep picks. These planers contributaed more than Sharp, Ladd & Versteeg .

We seem to talk in circles so lets leave it here

 

[Canucks1096]

Here is my Point that Hawks team drafted their no 1 d-man, No 3 d-man , Shutdown center , Brouwer ( WHO was played on the 2nd and 4th lime Btw) Byfuglien WHO was played as a first to 3rd lime RW, with picks after the first Round. Thats why you keep picks. These planers contributaed more than Sharp, Ladd & Versteeg .

We seem to talk in circles so lets leave it here

But that still doesn't prove you are right Because we are talking about which percentage is higher. There success with later picks is still probably no more than 10%. Those project trade they got 3 out of them. I am pretty sure it's higher than 10%.

You can't just look at more drafted nhl players that equals a better success because you have more draft picks than those type of trades

The original point you made how they became be cause stacked picks is not true.

Yes we are going around circles. I will stop.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

But that still doesn't prove you are right Because we are talking about which percentage is higher. There success with later picks is still probably no more than 10%. Those project trade they got 3 out of them. I am pretty sure it's higher than 10%.

You can't just look at more drafted nhl players that equals a better success because you have more draft picks than those type of trades

The original point you made how they became be cause stacked picks is not true.

Yes we are going around circles. I will stop.

What are the percentages for each category of players you list here?

 

[tantalum]

I will stop.

Thank you

 

[PuckMunchkin]

If beforehand you explicitly state that you want golden nuggets and at the end of the day you have golden nuggets then it doesn’t matter how you got them, whether digging a ditch or otherwise.

If you apply this to healthcare. Doctor's A & B explicitly state they wants to heal you:

Doctor A Follows the traditionally accepted, scientifically proven methods and you are healed.

Doctor B Prays to the ancient Egyptian god Isis to grant you good health and you are healed.


Do you think, in the future, you should trust Doctor A or Doctor B?
In both cases they wanted you healed, and you ended up healing. If your child became sick, which doctor would you have treat him/her?

 

[me2]

If beforehand you explicitly state that you want golden nuggets and at the end of the day you have golden nuggets then it doesn’t matter how you got them, whether digging a ditch or otherwise.

It just makes it a ridiculous lie to say you were prospecting when anyone with a brain can see you were not. Saying you want golden nuggets and means nothing...if you aren't looking for them. A bit like saying the Canucks were rebuilding is an obvious lie.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

From a recent The Athletic article as voted by ~2000 NHL fans of different teams

 

[Melvin]

From a recent The Athletic article as voted by ~2000 NHL fans of different teamsView attachment 133265

2000 fake plastic pseudo fans you mean. Not true fans like the slurpers on here.

 

[CanaFan]

If beforehand you explicitly state that you want golden nuggets and at the end of the day you have golden nuggets then it doesn’t matter how you got them, whether digging a ditch or otherwise.

Not caring about how or why things occur is a very strange way to go through life. Maybe not in the 1400’s but definitely today.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

If you apply this to healthcare. Doctor's A & B explicitly state they wants to heal you:

Doctor A Follows the traditionally accepted, scientifically proven methods and you are healed.

Doctor B Prays to the ancient Egyptian god Isis to grant you good health and you are healed.


Do you think, in the future, you should trust Doctor A or Doctor B?
In both cases they wanted you healed, and you ended up healing. If your child became sick, which doctor would you have treat him/her?

I will answer your question but I have to point out how you completely changed the analogy in several ways that all break the analogy and renders it disanalogous to the previous examples and therefore useless.

1. You say that there is a single accepted and proven method and imply that there is such a thing for building a hockey team, which there isn’t. There are lots of legitimate ways to build a team and depending on circumstances each one will be preferable over the other. For example Winnipeg built through the draft but they made virtually zero trades during they’re rebuilding phase. The Vancouver Canucks last Cote was built through trading to get the Sedins and Luongo, and a lot of their depth and some signings, and some drafted players like Kesler and Schneider. The Pittsburgh Penguins built through drafting two generational players. Tampa Bay built through draft also but also maximized assets. Four teams, four slightly different to very different building methods. Which one is “accepted and proven” and which three should the GM’s have been fired for because they deviated from your dogmatically enforces single method?

2. You say the traditional and accepted way is proven to work but when you bring it back to hockey it doesn’t apply because look how many Edmontons there are that the so-called traditional way failed for. If treatment is proven not to work day and I will opt for the one that works.

3. Completely changed the goal posts of the analogy because initially the question was “was the GM legitimately rebuilding/was the guy who found the golden nuggets his own way by digging in a ditch prospecting” so if your analogy was correct and true to the original form you wouldve asked me did Dr. B perform a healing intervention, The answer is yes to what you should’ve asked me because it’s obvious it’s all contained that the desired result was achieved after the goal was set to achieve that result. What this whole disagreement boils down to is you don’t like the way the results were achieved therefore you’re doing everything in your power to pretend that the result wasn’t achieved at all or that it was unimportant or some other negative thing you have to tack on to belittle the achievement.

If I did go to Dr. B and he prayed to an Egyptian God to heal me or my child and it actually worked I would not then go around saying that he’s an idiot and that he should be fired and calling him everything under the sun or saying that he didn’t heal me or my child because he didn’t do it the “proper” way. That would be totally dishonest of me.

 

[bossram]

If beforehand you explicitly state that you want golden nuggets and at the end of the day you have golden nuggets then it doesn’t matter how you got them, whether digging a ditch or otherwise.

That's one way to go through life completely clueless. You know, it might behoove someone, particularly the top management executive in a multi-million dollar organization, to actually learn how he's going about things, and why they're happening the way they are.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Not caring about how or why things occur is a very strange way to go through life. Maybe not in the 1400’s but definitely today.

I would say that I do care about how and why things work which is why I care about introducing high character veteran mentors over having an extra late pick worth a +2% chance of getting player above replacement level. The reason why I want high character veteran mentors to develop the existing Prospect Pool is because I care about how and why things like success and proper development occur. If I thought that happened by simply getting as many young immature and inexperienced children together to carry a billion dollar company to success then I would be on your side. I think that position is devoid of real thought and scrutiny, not mine.

 

[CanaFan]

I would say that I do care about how and why things work which is why I care about introducing high character veteran mentors over having an extra late pick worth a +2% chance of getting player above replacement level. The reason why I want high character veteran mentors to develop the existing Prospect Pool is because I care about how and why things like success and proper development occur. If I thought that happened by simply getting as many young immature and inexperienced children together to carry a billion dollar company to success then I would be on your side. I think that position is devoid of real thought and scrutiny, not mine.

I agree trying to build a hockey team with children is a terrible idea. Thank god that’s not an option in the NHL. Can’t play until your 18th birthday.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I will answer your question but I have to point out how you completely changed the analogy in several ways that all break the analogy and renders it disanalogous to the previous examples and therefore useless.

1. You say that there is a single accepted and proven method and imply that there is such a thing for building a hockey team, which there isn’t. There are lots of legitimate ways to build a team and depending on circumstances each one will be preferable over the other. For example Winnipeg built through the draft but they made virtually zero trades during they’re rebuilding phase. The Vancouver Canucks last Cote was built through trading to get the Sedins and Luongo, and a lot of their depth and some signings, and some drafted players like Kesler and Schneider. The Pittsburgh Penguins built through drafting two generational players. Tampa Bay built through draft also but also maximized assets. Four teams, four slightly different to very different building methods. Which one is “accepted and proven” and which three should the GM’s have been fired for because they deviated from your dogmatically enforces single method?

2. You say the traditional and accepted way is proven to work but when you bring it back to hockey it doesn’t apply because look how many Edmontons there are that the so-called traditional way failed for. If treatment is proven not to work day and I will opt for the one that works.

3. Completely changed the goal posts of the analogy because initially the question was “was the GM legitimately rebuilding/was the guy who found the golden nuggets his own way by digging in a ditch prospecting” so if your analogy was correct and true to the original form you wouldve asked me did Dr. B perform a healing intervention, The answer is yes to what you should’ve asked me because it’s obvious it’s all contained that the desired result was achieved after the goal was set to achieve that result. What this whole disagreement boils down to is you don’t like the way the results were achieved therefore you’re doing everything in your power to pretend that the result wasn’t achieved at all or that it was unimportant or some other negative thing you have to tack on to belittle the achievement.

If I did go to Dr. B and he prayed to an Egyptian God to heal me or my child and it actually worked I would not then go around saying that he’s an idiot and that he should be fired and calling him everything under the sun or saying that he didn’t heal me or my child because he didn’t do it the “proper” way. That would be totally dishonest of me.

You are overthinking this. I was simply replying to the post I quoted where you implied it doesn't matter what process was taken as long as the desired result is achieved. If that is not what you were saying I am sorry. But that was the point I was trying to make. The method matters, the process matters.

Your reply is interesting tho. With how you would believe the obvious hoaxer doctor simply because it seemed to have worked.

I would say that I do care about how and why things work which is why I care about introducing high character veteran mentors over having an extra late pick worth a +2% chance of getting player above replacement level. The reason why I want high character veteran mentors to develop the existing Prospect Pool is because I care about how and why things like success and proper development occur. If I thought that happened by simply getting as many young immature and inexperienced children together to carry a billion dollar company to success then I would be on your side. I think that position is devoid of real thought and scrutiny, not mine.

Remind me why we have Sutter, Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson & MDZ? Do we need to get more mentors next summer to mentor Beagle & Roussel?

 

[CanaFan]

You are overthinking this. I was simply replying to the post I quoted where you implied it doesn't matter what process was taken as long as the desired result is achieved. If that is not what you were saying I am sorry. But that was the point I was trying to make. The method matters, the process matters.

Your reply is interesting tho. With how you would believe the obvious hoaxer doctor simply because it seemed to have worked.



Remind me why we have Sutter, Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson & MDZ? Do we need to get more mentors next summer to mentor Beagle & Roussel?

Apparently the correct ratio of mentors to rookies is something like 10-1. If it falls below that, Edmonton is the result every time.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

But that still doesn't prove you are right Because we are talking about which percentage is higher. There success with later picks is still probably no more than 10%. Those project trade they got 3 out of them. I am pretty sure it's higher than 10%.

You can't just look at more drafted nhl players that equals a better success because you have more draft picks than those type of trades

The original point you made how they became be cause stacked picks is not true.

Yes we are going around circles. I will stop.

There are a couple key differences when comparing the Blackhawks trade and the Canucks trades.

1) Chicago only traded a 3rd for Sharp. Ladd and Versteeg were traded for Tuomo Ruutu and Brandon Bochenski( Chicago even got a conditional pick). Benning has traded several more picks and few of them were higher than the lone draft Chicago traded.

2) The teams were in complete different situations. Chicago was at the end of their rebuild and trying to compete again. Benning made these trades to avoid bottom finishing/rebuilding and ended up at the bottom anyways. Chicago didn't trade multiple picks to try to skip the rebuild.

Is there a team that has been able to skip/shorten a rebuild and find success by trading multiple picks for older prospects? If this is a good strategy than why is Jim Benning doing less of these trades now instead of more?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Apparently the correct ratio of mentors to rookies is something like 10-1. If it falls below that, Edmonton is the result every time.

Winning culture if hard to achieve when 3/4 of your lines are unable to score a goal.

 

[CanaFan]

Winning culture if hard to achieve when 3/4 of your lines are unable to score a goal.

Ya but you don’t win games by scoring goals, you win by pushing guys after the whistle and giving good speeches in the dressing room.