Proposal: Trade Proposal Thread: Part 61

[Captain Mountain]

This is just a weird way to look at this.

2017-18 - yes they missed the playoffs, hence the shift towards rebuilding, whether they announced that in June of 2017 like you keep on insisting (which i'm not even debating) or in February 2018 like I said originally, which was just based on that letter. It doesn't change my argument.

2018-19 - I think it's normal, that the year after you declare you're rebuilding, that you miss the playoffs, don't you agree?

2019-20 - They lost in the play-in round, but this is where they've started becoming a competitive team again...remember when you asked me to define competitive team, I said a team that is challenging for a playoff spot.

2020-21 - in a short season the New York Rangers missed the playoffs despite being a +20 differential team.

2021-22 - They're currently sitting 6th overall.

What exactly is the issue here? lol I don't get what you're arguing?

I said I didn't expect it to take 5 years for the Habs to make the playoffs, I said that there's no reason why this shouldn't be a COMPEITTIVE team within 2 years and then used the Rangers as a comparable.

What's the problem? lol

I'm not sure how you can shift towards rebuilding in 2017-2018 because you missed the playoffs in 2017-2018, when you literally announce you're rebuilding in 2017 before the draft and free agency and make clear rebuilding moves. The reason for something happening (missing the playoffs) usually doesn't happen eight months after the thing happens (starting a rebuild).

I have no idea how I can express it any clearer. They started a rebuild and missed the playoffs for 4 seasons, which you have made abundantly clear was unacceptable. I disagreed.

The Rangers are literally in the 4 year of their "rebuild plan" and they're now among the better teams in the NHL and their arrow is pointing way up.

That seems like a reasonable timeline for me to look too as it relates to the Habs.

Its also clear that the Rangers also got incredibly lucky too. I'm hoping that happens for the Habs too, but I would never base my expectations on that happening.

None of this "miss the playoffs for 5 years because that's what I do on my PS5 NHL 22 franchise" crap that's been mentioned here.

5 years! Do you know how long that is??? lol

I don't give a **** about video games, I'm looking at other rebuilds.

And 5 years is significantly shorter than some teams have wandered in no-mans land.

That's cool...I still think it would be unacceptable for this team to be out of the playoffs for 5 years. That's not an acceptable standard for me, if it is for you...more power to you.

Its an arbitrary standard when it comes to a rebuild. I don't care if they miss the playoffs for 4 or even 5 years if there is clear progression to the objective of a true Stanley cup contender and I'm not going to declare it unacceptable without context.

They have salary commitments to good players...not sure what the issue is? Carey Price, Jeff Petry, Brendan Galagher, Tyler Toffoli, Josh Anderson, Nick Suzuki...are all good players. I don't see what hte issue is with having committed salaries to them.

The issue is we haven't been able to get them to play to the level of their ability this year...that's a coaching issue, as well as a personnel one...but before we address the latter, we need to resolve the former.

That's fine, but what is the goal? Because if its a rebuild, then a part from Suzuki (and perhaps Anderson, but he's pretty overrated and his game not age well) the players you listed aren't likely to play any role in a rebuild team. And they all have term and most probably don't have much trade value ATM. Which means it'll take time to either create a trade market or fix the coaching/development issue. It also doesn't get into the money paid to guys that aren't earning it lower in the lineup (Hoffman, Armia, Savard).

And the issue is making rebuilding moves. The Habs have to clear salary anyways to ice a full roster next season, let alone re-sign a guy like Romanov. They can't take contracts for picks or prospects and they have to be careful about retaining salary for guys with term.

No one said it was easy...I just said there's no way it should be as difficult as being in purgatory for 5 years.

I mean even the mid-to-late-90s & early-2000s Montreal Canadiens team, all of who were bereft of talent and front office know-how, never went 5 years without missing the playoffs.

Now i'm supposed to believe that that's an acceptable timeline for this edition?

Sorry...not me.

Montreal has been in purgatory for a lot longer than 5 years and that's not what people are hoping for.

And the NHL in the mid-to-late-90s & early-2000s was a significantly different place. The Habs also weren't rebuilding then.

There is no "acceptable timeframe". These "3 year plans" and "5 year plans" are all BS. I'd be pissed if things go badly and they miss the playoffs 8 years in a row (Carolina), 10 of 11 straight seasons (Leafs), 6 of 7 straight seasons (Avalanche), 12 of 13 straight seasons (Oilers), 7 of 8 straight seasons (Panthers), 5 of 6 seasons (Lightning), 9 of 10 seasons (Blackhawks), etc.

Hopefully its quicker. But the context and progression is more important than making the playoffs.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Can anyone think of a team that rebuilt themselves in 2 years to become a competitive/contending team in the cap era? I'm not sure if there is a team, but if there is, they would be the exception and certainly not the rule.

 

[BozoTheClown]

Can anyone think of a team that rebuilt themselves in 2 years to become a competitive/contending team in the cap era? I'm not sure if there is a team, but if there is, they would be the exception and certainly not the rule.

Exactly!
The Rangers got extremly lucky with Fox and Panarin. Those 2 are basically 2 very high 1st round quality players.
This team needs to be drafting, at least top 5 for about 3 years and top 10 for a couple more, while adding extra 1st round picks.
Price, Gallagher, Weber are most likely gone and will need to be replaced and it wont happened within 3 years i can guarantee that.

I know it sucks to wait another 4 to 5 years to have a competitive team when we already were a bad team for the last 8 years, but it is what it is and taking shortcuts while rebuilding isnt going to work.

5 years plan baby!

 

[417]

I'm not sure how you can shift towards rebuilding in 2017-2018 because you missed the playoffs in 2017-2018, when you literally announce you're rebuilding in 2017 before the draft and free agency and make clear rebuilding moves. The reason for something happening (missing the playoffs) usually doesn't happen eight months after the thing happens (starting a rebuild).

Yeah I don't have anything further to say on this.

I have no idea how I can express it any clearer. They started a rebuild and missed the playoffs for 4 seasons, which you have made abundantly clear was unacceptable. I disagreed.

OK

Its also clear that the Rangers also got incredibly lucky too. I'm hoping that happens for the Habs too, but I would never base my expectations on that happening.

Luck is always a factor.

I don't give a **** about video games, I'm looking at other rebuilds.

And 5 years is significantly shorter than some teams have wandered in no-mans land.

Cool story...I really don't give a **** about other rebuilds. I just mentioned the Rangers because that's where Gorton came from and you've dragged me into this back and forth that IMO, is really unnecessary.

Once more, i'll repeat...I don't care if it took the Toronto Maple Leafs 80 years to rebuild...I will never accept what you're suggesting is a standard. I don't care that the Sabres have wandered in no-man's land for the last decade. I don't cheer for the Buffalo Sabres.

I really think Gorton is a strong hockey executive and I'd expect that he'll have this team back in a competitive position before 5 years.

Cheers

 

[417]

Can anyone think of a team that rebuilt themselves in 2 years to become a competitive/contending team in the cap era? I'm not sure if there is a team, but if there is, they would be the exception and certainly not the rule.

That depends how you define competitive/contending.

A team that has committed to rebuilding, should be trying to compete for the playoffs within 2 years...you can't be perpetually accumulating high picks because it's fun.

There are steps that must be reached before you become a contending team...you don't just collect top 5 picks for 5 straight years and then POOF! you're magically a Cup contending team in year 6.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

They were finishing off the rebuild when Tavares signed (not in their tear down phase). If they kept Kadri to the sweet deal they signed him too and continued collecting picks/drafting well (instead of immediately shifting to a win now phase), I'd reckon they would have made it past the first round by now (although this is just an opinion).

Becoming a playoff team is not the sole benchmark indicating that the rebuilding phase is cumulatively over. Look at Colorado for example, made the playoffs after a record awful season and drafted Newhook + Byram. My point being, not signing Tavares allows you to accrue picks + prospects for 1 to 2 more seasons and have a much more competitive roster down the line.

I think you are getting your timelines completely mixed up. Exactly where do you think the Maple Leafs would have been drafting if they hadn't signed Tavares? They were drafting in the late teens/twenties in the couple of years before he was signed. You can't be seriously suggesting that these picks would have helped them make it past the first round by now (these would have been 2019 and 2020 picks). Say what you will about how unnecessary Tavares was to that team - and I'd agree - I think you're completely misremembering where the Leafs were at that point in the time. It's where they are now: trying to get over the hump. Those picks probably would have been traded at the deadline either way. They wouldn't be their captain and a PPG center.

Colorado had an outlier year but I don't think that applies to Toronto at all. With Matthews and Marner they were never going to be as bad as Colorado fell back to, as shown by repeating their initial, unexpected playoff year with another and a closes series against the Bruins. Nobody on the planet thought the Leafs were in a rebuild or should be in a rebuild. They weren't going to be getting any high picks.

 

[Draft]

I don't think a lot of posters realize how long it takes picks/prospects to develop into impact players. You're looking at 3-5 years AFTER you make the pick for most players to make a notable impact... and that includes most high-end players. In that time, we've also burnt through ELCs and bridge contracts for our first/current group of good young players. This is a mistake.

Anything more than a year or two at the bottom of the league or in rebuild mode is a huge missed opportunity when we currently have a group of good young players we can add to by other means. We should be all-in on rebuilding this year - that includes acquiring players further along their development path and making the majority of our picks in THIS draft.

Bottom of the league for four years could mean 7-8yrs before we're in a competitive window.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Can anyone think of a team that rebuilt themselves in 2 years to become a competitive/contending team in the cap era? I'm not sure if there is a team, but if there is, they would be the exception and certainly not the rule.

Boston in the mid 10s. They reset and started contending again. Chicago only tanked two years and not on purpose.

 

[ECWHSWI]

bottom of the league for four years could mean 7-8yrs before we're in a competitive window.

Going to miss the po for the 4th Time un 6 years or something, and made it thanks to covid...

So im willing to gamble.

 

[Runner77]

Some of those teams have missed the playoffs 4/5 years in a row.
I don’t count this season as the first year of the rebuild as this is a team Bergevin built to compete for the cup. The first year of the rebuilt starts after free agency this coming summer. We should be a regular playoffs team in 2026.

Can’t wait to see ownership be on board for anything that involves rostering a non-competitive team beyond 2 years. What’s been particularly disappointing is seeing all these mediocre performances during Bergevin’s tenure and the fans not even having a franchise offensive player to cheer for.

 

[1909]

What is sad is that on paper (without injuries) Habs seemed to have a competitive and talented team. But right now, I would be glad to see Hoffman, Armia, Drouin and Petry gone forever, and possibly, Toffoli, Gallagher and Dvorak too. That's a lot of dead wood to move. Good luck Gorton !

 

[BozoTheClown]

Can’t wait to see ownership be on board for anything that involves rostering a non-competitive team beyond 2 years. What’s been particularly disappointing is seeing all these mediocre performances during Bergevin’s tenure and the fans not even having a franchise offensive player to cheer for.

That’s the crazy thing about it. We missed the playoffs 4 years in a row, 5 times in the last 6 seasons and we couldn’t even add and extra 1st round pick.
We have 2 terrible contracts in Price and Gallagher and no buyouts.
No high end quality skaters.
No cap space.
Just crazy!

this will take more than 2 years.

 

[417]

That’s the crazy thing about it. We missed the playoffs 4 years in a row, 5 times in the last 6 seasons and we couldn’t even add and extra 1st round pick.
We have 2 terrible contracts in Price and Gallagher and no buyouts.
No high end quality skaters.
No cap space.
Just crazy!

this will take more than 2 years.

To compete for the Cup? Yes...certainly.

To be a competitive team that challenges to make the playoffs or is a playoff team? 2 years is more than fair.

As far as Price & Gallagher having terrible contracts.

Price's contract has been terrible from the moment he signed it, that didn't prevent the Habs from doing a lot of good things throughout that time.

Gallagher has a really good reputation around the NHL, maybe not on HF Boards, but NHL teams and executives recognize his value and can look past his performance on a dysfunctional Habs team.

Don't ever underestimate GM's willingness to think "player A might suck on Team B, but I bet you he won't on mine".

Of course, that doesn't mean that the Habs will be able to trade Gallagher and his contract for picks & prospects. They'll likely assuredly have to take some salary back.

But if the Habs are desperate to get rid of Gallagher, which I don't think they should, there would be no shortage of takers.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Boston in the mid 10s. They reset and started contending again. Chicago only tanked two years and not on purpose.

Both those teams had veteran core peices and top 3 picks that panned out. Were will Price be in two years when we're two years into a tank, or Petry? We don't have the horses they had to add to. We have an old, broken down core with Price, Weber, Petry and Gally either no longer playing or way past their prime. Apples to oranges.

 

[Sterling Archer]

That depends how you define competitive/contending.

A team that has committed to rebuilding, should be trying to compete for the playoffs within 2 years...you can't be perpetually accumulating high picks because it's fun.

There are steps that must be reached before you become a contending team...you don't just collect top 5 picks for 5 straight years and then POOF! you're magically a Cup contending team in year 6.

To compete for the Cup? Yes...certainly.

To be a competitive team that challenges to make the playoffs or is a playoff team? 2 years is more than fair.

Honestly, I think all the arguments are a question of semantics with a huge grey area that makes arguing a point impossible. I'm sure we can be a relatively competitive, middling team in two years especially if we still have Price and he's at the same level he's at now. But chances are you wouldn't have accumulated enough pieces to be a contender and I'd rather finish in the bottom ten than just outside the playoffs. No one wants to tank for tanks sake. But if it's being an average team in 2 years vs being a perennial contender in 4, I'll take the latter with top shelf prospects integrating into the NHL slowly and not have the crushing pressure to be "the savior" that's killed so many careers for Hab prospects over the years.

 

[417]

Honestly, I think all the arguments are a question of semantics with a huge grey area that makes arguing a point impossible. I'm sure we can be a relatively competitive, middling team in two years especially if we still have Price and he's at the same level he's at now. But chances are you wouldn't have accumulated enough pieces to be a contender and I'd rather finish in the bottom ten than just outside the playoffs. No one wants to tank for tanks sake. But if it's being an average team in 2 years vs being a perennial contender in 4, I'll take the latter with top shelf prospects integrating into the NHL slowly and not have the crushing pressure to be "the savior" that's killed so many careers for Hab prospects over the years.

But why?

Draft position doesn't determine draft success...only good scouting does.

So if you're a team that ends up drafting 12th, you just need to hit on that player. We've landed on #3 picks twice in the last decade and neither player is still with this team. Meanwhile players who were picked after, are still staples on their team.

So what was more important? The rush to finish bottom 3?

Or should more focus have been put on selecting the right player?

The Habs should be in a position at this coming draft to have at MINIMUM

2 1st round picks
2 round picks
4 round picks (we already have 3)


This would give the Habs as many as 8 top 90 picks...that's how you accumulate organizational assets, because of course, draft picks aren't necessarily exclusively to be used to select players at the amateur draft...it's also trade currency.

Given that the entire hockey ops department will be new, there shouldn't be any loyalty to anyone...so accumulating assets is going to be part of the natural selection process. It's not going to happen all at once, but gradually over the next 12-18 months, it will for sure.

Fastest way to turning this around...accumulate draft picks, they are the best and more affordable commodities to have and/or move.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Both those teams had veteran core peices and top 3 picks that panned out. Were will Price be in two years when we're two years into a tank, or Petry? We don't have the horses they had to add to. We have an old, broken down core with Price, Weber, Petry and Gally either no longer playing or way past their prime. Apples to oranges.

You asked. I gave you an answer. Not exactly sure what you were looking for. It seems like you're asking: Show me a team that was exactly like the Montreal Canadiens and were able to compete in two years. Well, it's hard to say considering how odd of a team the Canadiens are in the first place. Of course, there's been movements, but we're looking at a team that just went from the Finals to having a record similar to a team that stripped their entire roster in Arizona. It's hard to say what they are exactly or what we have on the roster, especially regarding forwards considering they have zero support from the backend.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I don't think a lot of posters realize how long it takes picks/prospects to develop into impact players. You're looking at 3-5 years AFTER you make the pick for most players to make a notable impact... and that includes most high-end players. In that time, we've also burnt through ELCs and bridge contracts for our first/current group of good young players. This is a mistake.

Anything more than a year or two at the bottom of the league or in rebuild mode is a huge missed opportunity when we currently have a group of good young players we can add to by other means. We should be all-in on rebuilding this year - that includes acquiring players further along their development path and making the majority of our picks in THIS draft.

Bottom of the league for four years could mean 7-8yrs before we're in a competitive window.

Exactly. You're potentially writing off the rest of the decade if you think this team should be at the bottom for four years. It's a ridiculous proposition and I doubt very much Gorton intends to be at the bottom for four years because I don't think any self-respecting GM would. This board is absurd.

 

[BozoTheClown]

To compete for the Cup? Yes...certainly.

To be a competitive team that challenges to make the playoffs or is a playoff team? 2 years is more than fair.

As far as Price & Gallagher having terrible contracts.

Price's contract has been terrible from the moment he signed it, that didn't prevent the Habs from doing a lot of good things throughout that time.

Gallagher has a really good reputation around the NHL, maybe not on HF Boards, but NHL teams and executives recognize his value and can look past his performance on a dysfunctional Habs team.

Don't ever underestimate GM's willingness to think "player A might suck on Team B, but I bet you he won't on mine".

Of course, that doesn't mean that the Habs will be able to trade Gallagher and his contract for picks & prospects. They'll likely assuredly have to take some salary back.

But if the Habs are desperate to get rid of Gallagher, which I don't think they should, there would be no shortage of takers.

I wish I could respond, but this site doesn’t allowed me to do it as it reloads itself every time.

 

[Sterling Archer]

But why?

Draft position doesn't determine draft success...only good scouting does.

So if you're a team that ends up drafting 12th, you just need to hit on that player. We've landed on #3 picks twice in the last decade and neither player is still with this team. Meanwhile players who were picked after, are still staples on their team.

So what was more important? The rush to finish bottom 3?

Or should more focus have been put on selecting the right player?

The Habs should be in a position at this coming draft to have at MINIMUM

2 1st round picks
2 round picks
4 round picks (we already have 3)


This would give the Habs as many as 8 top 90 picks...that's how you accumulate organizational assets, because of course, draft picks aren't necessarily exclusively to be used to select players at the amateur draft...it's also trade currency.

Given that the entire hockey ops department will be new, there shouldn't be any loyalty to anyone...so accumulating assets is going to be part of the natural selection process. It's not going to happen all at once, but gradually over the next 12-18 months, it will for sure.

Fastest way to turning this around...accumulate draft picks, they are the best and more affordable commodities to have and/or move.

The bolded statement is in direct opposition to the mathematical probability of the draft. The higher the draft position, the higher the probability of a successful NHL career. This isn't disputable. Sure there are later picks that exceed but that's all within the confines of the statistical probability of the draft. If you want to maximize potential return of a player, the higher you have to pick.

And even if you have multiple picks in the next two drafts, only the top 1 or 2 players are ready for the NHL at 18 year olds. The rest take 2,3,4+ years to mature enough to even make a roster and that's for really good picks like Guhle we got in the middle of the draft. So again, if you're relying on prospects to propel you to being competitive/contender, it will take more than 2 years.

You asked. I gave you an answer. Not exactly sure what you were looking for. It seems like you're asking: Show me a team that was exactly like the Montreal Canadiens and were able to compete in two years. Well, it's hard to say considering how odd of a team the Canadiens are in the first place. Of course, there's been movements, but we're looking at a team that just went from the Finals to having a record similar to a team that stripped their entire roster in Arizona. It's hard to say what they are exactly or what we have on the roster, especially regarding forwards considering they have zero support from the backend.

I'm pointing out that any team in Montreal's current position doesn't become a contender in 2 years of a rebuild. Even the examples you luckily managed to draft super star level players had a deep core of existing players to bring them up. Think of Seabrook on the bench in the playoffs calming down Toews when he was losing it. We don't have those type of players to start off with. So a 2 year turn around time is not a likely scenario. Ask Edmonton, Anaheim, San Jose, Carolina, etc etc etc.

Honestly, I don't even know what you and 417 are arguing about at this point. The odds of a rebuild occurring in two years is just incredibly small if you look around the league at even best case scenarios. We're just not that team.

 

[DAChampion]

You asked. I gave you an answer. Not exactly sure what you were looking for. It seems like you're asking: Show me a team that was exactly like the Montreal Canadiens and were able to compete in two years. Well, it's hard to say considering how odd of a team the Canadiens are in the first place. Of course, there's been movements, but we're looking at a team that just went from the Finals to having a record similar to a team that stripped their entire roster in Arizona. It's hard to say what they are exactly or what we have on the roster, especially regarding forwards considering they have zero support from the backend.

This isn't the same Habs team as that which went to the finals.

They've lost Price, Weber, Danault, Perry, Kotkaniemi and have added Drouin, Montambeault, Dvorak, Hoffman, Perrault, Pacquette, Savard. Alternatively,

Price > Montambeault
Danault > Dvorak
Kotkaniemi > Pacquette
Weber > Savard
Perry > Drouin

 

[417]

The bolded statement is in direct opposition to the mathematical probability of the draft. The higher the draft position, the higher the probability of a successful NHL career. This isn't disputable. Sure there are later picks that exceed but that's all within the confines of the statistical probability of the draft. If you want to maximize potential return of a player, the higher you have to pick.

Odd that someone who cheers for the Montreal Canadiens would argue this isn't disputable.

Let's look back at our last 3 top 5 picks

- Price @ 5 or Kopitar @ 11?
- Galchenyuk @ 3 or Forsberg @ 11 ?
- Kotkaniemi @ 3 or Tkachuk @ 4 ? (though I still think this is kind of early)

Let me ask...what was more important?

Having the lower pick?

or

Scouting and picking the right player?

And even if you have multiple picks in the next two drafts, only the top 1 or 2 players are ready for the NHL at 18 year olds. The rest take 2,3,4+ years to mature enough to even make a roster and that's for really good picks like Guhle we got in the middle of the draft. So again, if you're relying on prospects to propel you to being competitive/contender, it will take more than 2 years.

Again, you're looking at this like most do...thinking that draft picks are exclusively for the team to use for picking players and keeping them.

Draft picks are ASSETS.

I'm pointing out that any team in Montreal's current position doesn't become a contender in 2 years of a rebuild. Even the examples you luckily managed to draft super star level players had a deep core of existing players to bring them up. Think of Seabrook on the bench in the playoffs calming down Toews when he was losing it. We don't have those type of players to start off with. So a 2 year turn around time is not a likely scenario. Ask Edmonton, Anaheim, San Jose, Carolina, etc etc etc.

Cool story.

I never said anything about them becoming a contender in 2 years.

The amount of time we waste posting and replying, instead of reading and comprehending is astouding.

Honestly, I don't even know what you and 417 are arguing about at this point. The odds of a rebuild occurring in two years is just incredibly small if you look around the league at even best case scenarios. We're just not that team.

You've clearly demonstrated that.

Realest shit you said so far.

 

[HuGo Burner Acc]

I don't think a lot of posters realize how long it takes picks/prospects to develop into impact players. You're looking at 3-5 years AFTER you make the pick for most players to make a notable impact... and that includes most high-end players. In that time, we've also burnt through ELCs and bridge contracts for our first/current group of good young players. This is a mistake.

Anything more than a year or two at the bottom of the league or in rebuild mode is a huge missed opportunity when we currently have a group of good young players we can add to by other means. We should be all-in on rebuilding this year - that includes acquiring players further along their development path and making the majority of our picks in THIS draft.

Bottom of the league for four years could mean 7-8yrs before we're in a competitive window.

Goods point. Colorado is good now but from 2009-2019 (besides a few years), they were garbage. Even if you want to begin at 2011 with the Landeskog pick, thats still nearly 10 years before their prospects developed/acquired the right assets for themselves and they became a good team

 

[John B]

Interesting discussion about timeline for a rebuild going on. I don't think it matters where the Habs finish over the next few seasons. It's all about asset management and smart decisions at the draft table. IMO Habs can't afford to lose good assets for nothing just to squeak into the playoffs (or miss them completely). Sacrifices need to be made. Once this team is in a position to compete in the playoffs it's alright to hang on to players that they might lose to free agency and acquire the rentals (that will actually make a difference) at the deadline.

 

[417]

Interesting discussion about timeline for a rebuild going on. I don't think it matters where the Habs finish over the next few seasons. It's all about asset management and smart decisions at the draft table. IMO Habs can't afford to lose good assets for nothing just to squeak into the playoffs (or miss them completely). Sacrifices need to be made. Once this team is in a position to compete in the playoffs it's alright to hang on to players that they might lose to free agency and acquire the rentals (that will actually make a difference) at the deadline.

Precisely...

Way too many people are obsessed with gutting this team in order to finish in the bottom 3 for 5 straight years...thinking that the quickest way to make this team a Cup contending team.

But it's not..that's the quickest way to being the perpetually losing Arizona Coyotes.