We have a GM problem

[hockeydoug]

ignoring the rest of this post because you already wasted enough time and effort coming up with this hokey cliche crap just to ask this question: how can the hawks be the new sabres when the old sabres are still the new sabres?

Try substituting "sabres" for "lost and rudderless franchise for more than a decade" if that helps.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Try substituting "sabres" for "lost and rudderless franchise for more than a decade" if that helps.

Colorado sucked for longer than 10 years, look at them now. Edmonton had 3 1st overall picks in a row and sucked for MANY years, Cup contender now. A decade is what people should expect for a complete turnaround, this isn't Football.

 

[GIADF]

Colorado sucked for longer than 10 years, look at them now. Edmonton had 3 1st overall picks in a row and sucked for MANY years, Cup contender now. A decade is what people should expect for a complete turnaround, this isn't Football.

What 10 year span did Colorado suck for? In the last 30 years they have only twice had 3 consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.

Their longest playoff drought was back in the 80s when they were getting developed as an expansion team.

 

[Hawkaholic]

What 10 year span did Colorado suck for? In the last 30 years they have only twice had 3 consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.

Their longest playoff drought was back in the 80s when they were getting developed as an expansion team.

Making the playoffs and losing in Round 1 isn't not sucking, especially back then when talent wasn't near as spread out as it is today. They drafted Landeskog 2nd overall in 2011, Mackinnon 1st in 2013, Makar 4th in 2017, Bryam 4th in 2019. So sorry, 8+ years.

 

[statswatcher]

What 10 year span did Colorado suck for? In the last 30 years they have only twice had 3 consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.

Their longest playoff drought was back in the 80s when they were getting developed as an expansion team.

from the 04 lockout to the 16-17 season they made the playoffs 4 times in 12 years. in the last 12 seasons the hawks have made the playoffs 6 times*.
*5 times not counting the bubble

 

[hockeydoug]

Colorado sucked for longer than 10 years, look at them now. Edmonton had 3 1st overall picks in a row and sucked for MANY years, Cup contender now. A decade is what people should expect for a complete turnaround, this isn't Football.

After 8 or 9 years of sucking they notched 3 playoff series wins for the first 8 years of McDavid... Who is going to look at that and think well of it?

Colorado was not a coherent plan to build up, neither was TB. LA was 3 pts from blowing everything up and selling. These weren't plans start to finish.

 

[Hawkaholic]

After 8 or 9 years of sucking they notched 3 playoff series wins for the first 8 years of McDavid... Who is going to look at that and think well of it?

Colorado was not a coherent plan to build up, neither was TB. LA was 3 pts from blowing everything up and selling. These weren't plans start to finish.

So who is your gold standard of how to build a team? lol

Colorados plan sucked, Tampa Bays plan sucked, Edmontons plan sucked, 3 of the top Cup contenders to this day, and for the last 3-5 years. lol

Should we have been Dallas, hang on to our old players and try to find gems half way through the 1st round? Only to have nothing to show for it? You've literally talked shit about almost every teams plan for building. Please, give us your gold standard team on how to build a team properly.

LA should have blew it up, now they are just stuck in mediocrity with no way out.

 

[GIADF]

So who is your gold standard of how to build a team? lol

I asked you this recently, and maybe you didn't see it, but you never answered. Would still be curious what rebuilds you would consider a success. Not necessary a blueprint to follow, every team will always be different, but am curious which rebuilds you think were well thought out and executed if nothing else.

 

[Hawkaholic]

I asked you this recently, and maybe you didn't see it, but you never answered. Would still be curious what rebuilds you would consider a success. Not necessary a blueprint to follow, every team will always be different, but am curious which rebuilds you think were well thought out and executed if nothing else.

I can't think of many teams that tore it right down and started from scratch like the Hawks. Most teams just sucked for years unintentionally, so tough to compare. But the teams that are contenders today, sucked for many years, accumulated top draft picks and built around those players in various ways. (Colorado, Tampa Bay, Florida, Toronto, Edmonton)

It's a different question than I am asking. The tear down part was done to get Bedard, he is here now, we now have to suck for a few more years to get top end players to play with him. I don't know what people are expecting. It takes multiple years to build that core and start to become a half way decent team. You don't just go out and sign some old UFAs to start to trend up, that never works.

 

[hockeydoug]

So who is your gold standard of how to build a team? lol

Colorados plan sucked, Tampa Bays plan sucked, Edmontons plan sucked, 3 of the top Cup contenders to this day, and for the last 3-5 years. lol

Should we have been Dallas, hang on to our old players and try to find gems half way through the 1st round? Only to have nothing to show for it? You've literally talked shit about almost every teams plan for building. Please, give us your gold standard team on how to build a team properly.

LA should have blew it up, now they are just stuck in mediocrity with no way out.

The standard is the approach for a long term agenda, every franchise has different circumstances.

Full or partial tear down, doesn't matter.

WPG built a good plan but probably should have hired one more senior hockey advisor with Cheveldayoff, very limited market. STL had an excellent plan for their market, so did Carolina under Francis. I never expected any of them to win but the plans to build took the important things into account.

I was a big fan of PHI's plan to rebuild/retool mid of last decade but their leadership was crazy and they built what I thought was a great plan that fit what they had and then lit it on fire. Seattle's plan and NAS' plans always look more like a business plan than hockey franchise plan. NYR's plan never matched the market. I suspect Boston will have an excellent rebuild when they decide to start over Boston does all the important things well at the top of the list and they play to their strengths.

Chicago did what Buffalo did, jumped in with both feet without knowing what they were good at. Many "rebuilds" are really a matter of setting up for a sale and aren't really comps.

 

[Hawkaholic]

The standard is the approach for a long term agenda, every franchise has different circumstances.

Full or partial tear down, doesn't matter.

WPG built a good plan but probably should have hired one more senior hockey advisor with Cheveldayoff, very limited market. STL had an excellent plan for their market, so did Carolina under Francis. I never expected any of them to win but the plans to build took the important things into account.

I was a big fan of PHI's plan to rebuild/retool mid of last decade but their leadership was crazy and they built what I thought was a great plan that fit what they had and then lit it on fire. Seattle's plan and NAS' plans always look more like a business plan than hockey franchise plan. NYR's plan never matched the market. I suspect Boston will have an excellent rebuild when they decide to start over Boston does all the important things well at the top of the list and they play to their strengths.

Chicago did what Buffalo did, jumped in with both feet without knowing what they were good at. Many "rebuilds" are really a matter of setting up for a sale and aren't really comps.

WPG never rebuilt, STL never rebuilt, CAR never rebuilt...like what? So your plan to rebuild, is to not rebuild? Seems like a solid plan. There's a difference between retool and rebuild, only team you mentioned was Philly who did a rebuild, and yay for them, they are now stuck in mediocrity.

How do you know Boston does all the important things well, when they have never had to enter a rebuild?

 

[Crow]

This is some of the weirdest shit I’ve ever read when it comes to evaluating our management. It’s coming from literally no where with no evidence.