This is the problem I was talking about. Smart business people see the big picture. Prime example is on Dragons Den when they have kids on. You often see the Dragons invest in kids knowing this current idea is a failure, but the kid is going to be good. It's smart business.
Remember thats a TV show and for rating purposes, its good to support kids even if the ideas are not as good. Its not as much smart business as it is smart rating. Even if they lose money, they'll end up making it back from the good press/good will. That makes it no risk/high reward so its smart business but not really related to hockey business.
I do agree that if you sell hope, you'll still be better off than we are right now... seemingly having no direction. We are trying to retool when realistically we should be rebuilding (tho like i said, the business part is the reason we probably aren't doing a full rebuild yet).
There is no guarantee of anything. I mean we are far far from a sure shot at the playoffs this year. I would guess we are closer to last then the playoffs.
There isn't a guarantee of anything, you're right but the moves... like you said, will get us a better chance of the playoffs next year. That means a more competitive team and likely better revenue next year. Where as with a full rebuild, you can forecast lesser revenue now with a chance of better revenue later on but you can't forecast it nor how much later it will be before that revenue comes in. There's even the question of rather or not you still own the business when that revenue comes. Making the books better now would actually mean you can get more for the company now if you decide to sale (since now is tangible while future isn't as much... at least not if you're trying to sell). Not saying we'll be suddenly getting new owners but that gives Aquilini more flexibility if he suddenly needs money.
I hate when people use the oilers to try and point to anything other than bad management, and the islanders look fine, they are getting better and better. Again under bad management and ownership before. The Jets are an interesting case, I think they had bad management in Atl, so there is that. Really you look at most bottom teams that stay down at the bottom, and it is bad management. It's teams not committing or being run so bad that it takes a long time to accumulate good assets.
And what exactly do we have? I think majority of fans think Benning and co = bad management. We might not have the worst management group in the league but not far off and its debatable that we don't have the worst. Looking at Bennings moves, its hard to have any faith.
Basically pointing out we are more or less where the Oilers/Leafs were a few years ago when they had bad management (i think their groups are better now tho Oilers Hall trade is one of the reasons Boston has a new GM...).
Actually MG said he wanted to rebuild. I do think he would have gone more a Chi route, of selling valuable players for more youth (see Saad, or Buff, Ladd, Sharp).
Chicago and Pits had terrible ownership that lead to both instances you speak of. I mean the Chicago one is super well known that they wouldn't air hockey games on TV, and stuff. Pits was so poorly run that's how Mario ended up owning the team.
He wanted to build like the Wings, that was stated multiple times. He tried to get a competitive advantage with sleep research, etc while improving scouting and over developing players in the minors. He has been on the record multiple times saying that. Of course things started changing after we lost to the Bruins and aquilini probably demanding we started using that model (not something that fits MG's strength). The result afterwards more or less spoke for themselves and MG was the wrong person to try and turn our team into the Bruins (so we hire the Bruins AGM to turn us into the Bruins...).
There is no question you need luck to be a championship team, but to be a good hockey team is not nearly as hard as many teams turn it out to be. It is good management, something we clearly don't have anymore. Having said that, the clear best way to build is to do it correctly unlike what we are doing now.
Agree the best way to build is actually a full rebuild where we go through a few years of losing while gaining assets then use those assets to build up. Problem is that model means a few years of much lower revenue and of course most owners are more shortsighted than that.
As far as being a good hockey team goes... if you're willing to spend to the cap, you'll have a competitive advantage over 1/2 the league so if you have decent management, you could realistically make the playoffs more often than not. Once you're in... honestly everyteam has a chance assuming you get hot at the right time. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future... teams just try to stack the odds in their favor by having the best possible team but as Detroit has proven, as long as you make the playoffs and get hot at the right time you can win even if you weren't the favorite going in. LA did it the first time they won too (which is why no one underestimated them regardless of their regular season). They key really is just getting into the playoffs and having players get hot at the right time (luck).
Look at teams with young solid cores and tell me how the Jerse sales are doing.
Jersey sale depends on the name of the players not really the young core. I.e. McDavid is 3rd among forwards right now despite the Oilers being bad but McDavid is basically a 1 in 10 year or so talent. The rest of the list are basically from Hawks/Kings/Bruins/Rangers + sid/Ovechkin (same reason as McDavid) as you'll expect.
It can, have an impact, but you can generally look at numbers, and games and have an idea if they are going to fit. This is also looking at trajectory, ie is a player still improving vs is he stagnant. Sometimes players do just need a change, but they generally have proven something first.
Sometime you go with a unique or elite skill and hope the rest improves the way it could. For example, thats what we hoped Raymond would do (everything catches up with his speed). Sbisa had speed and physical traits thats ideal in a tpo 4 dmen... it was the mental side that you hope your coach could fix (sometime it happens, most of the time it failed). If he lived up to his potential, then you got a huge steal... if he doesn't then its a lost. The problem is Benning compounded his lost by signing the extension when it was clear WD wasn't going to get anything more out of Sbisa.
One recent 'nuck example of that was AV getting much more out of maxim lapierre that his previous teams got. Teams will always go after players like this hoping they are right. Benning just tries it way more often than other GMs.
There is way too many moves that I have not liked for me to like going after Barrie. He is a very good player but would be a bad fit mainly with where this team is, not with what we need. I too would be scared with what we give up.
Exactly, its hard to have faith in Benning's moves now given how most of his other moves turned out and how he more or less made our situation much worst since he has taken over. Every big move he makes seems to be a negative...
True, but left side D are generally easier to come by, or so I am told.
Although thats what everyone says, the problem is we have no depth in our system so any addition we make has to be outside of the organization... and that's generally expensive regardless. Not like there are many good LHD UFA right now nor like we'll have cap to sign one next off season. That leaves yet another trade and i think we both know how much faith everyone has with Benning + making a trade...
I guess we couyld just throw Olli Juolevi into the NHL and put him 2nd on our LHD depth chart...
Actually given Bennings history, that might be a possibility despite Juolevi likely being not physically ready yet.
Just a short summary of our D depth
LHD
Edler (need protection)
Hutton (doesn't need protection)
Sbisa (need protection)
Tryamkin (doesn't need protection but has KHL out)
Pedan (waiver/need protection aka might not be hear if LV decides to draft him or waived)
Olli Juolevi (Jr. if he doesn't make the team so non-depth after season starts)
Brisebois (Jr.)
Sautner (Utica)
Cederholm (Utica)
Ballin (Utica)
McEneny (Utica/Alaska)
RHD
Tanev (need protection)
Gudbranson (need protection)
Larsen (need protection)
Biega (need protection)
Stecher (Utica)
Subban (Utica)
Out of the Utica D, the 2 most "ready" likely will be RHD. It might even be 3 since it makes the most sense to waiver Biega as the #9 D due to Pedan being younger and we can't keep 9 D on the team (or at least it wouldn't be smart to carry 9D and no extra forward).
Also right now our 4 D is perfect in that 2 are LHD and 2 are RHD. After that is really anyone's guess what the depth chart looks like but it'll likely include the same list in the NHL mix and Utica mix with Juolevi being a long shot but given the roster situation he shouldn't even be given 9 games... (since odds are we lose someone to give him those games... of course injuries could change this).
the worst part is, I don't know how much we are looking at that. I know the quote was old before the rules came out, but that quote about not looking at anything until we know the rules is scary when we also look at the other f-ups this team has had with the CBA.
What rules? I thought the expansion draft rules were released weeks ago... Is there other CBA related changes this off season?