Pretty much every team that has built a Cup winner has sacrificed their future to build a key piece. The Blues gave up a 1st, a 2nd, a B prospect for ROR to solve an issue (and brought in a few good UFAs spending). The summer before they gave up 2 firsts for Schenn. By your logic they should have kept those picks and waited. The Caps were pretty solidly built off spending on UFAs, but shored up their defense with Kempny at that deadline. Other key pieces like Eller were brought in through trades of picks. The Pens patched back up their team (after having to re-tool from their first Cup) but spending all the future. They spent many 1sts, some 2nds and 3rds, and top prospects like Kapanen to keep that ship afloat. The Kings built their adjacent core (Carter, Richards, Williams) off trades and filled the depth by spending picks. Chicago used their sell and massive transaction volume to buy and sell their Cup group. They traded a young Saad for depth to trade for him back when they couldn't afford his replacement. They've moved their top prospects and young players with little hesitation. All Cup teams load up and sell off around the core. They have a defined core that they keep and build the best team around that as possible.
It's clear you have absolutely no idea what I think if this is your reply to me. Do you think I'm arguing that Sakic should never make any moves? I think the exact opposite. I think if Sakic is going to keep this team in contention for the next decade, he's going to have to make a lot of moves. In my view, we should be expecting to see trades of guys like Jost, Compher, or even Landeskog or Timmins, if it looks like they'll be too expensive and the team can replace them internally. I'm also not opposed to making a trade here or there where we give up futures. All I'm asking for is balance in terms of both types of moves.
I'll give an example. We traded Soderberg (a useful player we felt we could replace with a younger player internally) and got back a 3rd. We then traded for Bura, and gave up a 2nd as well as a 3rd. So in the balance we're only down a 2nd. We can debate the merits of Bura elsewhere, but that's the kind of move I like. I also liked Sakic aggressively pursuing Panarin on a short-term deal, because that would help our chances to compete now without hurting our chances to compete in the future.
What I argue against is trying to sign all those good but not great free agents that come up every year. Guys like Pavelski, Zuccarello, Hayes, etc.. Guys that you have overpay in terms of both cap hit and term, who make enough that it genuinely affects your ability to keep the team together long-term. I'm against signing players who will help us now, but become the next Loui Eriksson later. I'm against trading picks and prospects that are likely to play key roles for us in the future if all we're getting in return is a short-term rental. I'm opposed to the philosophy that would include a phrase like "that's a problem for 5 years from now".
What teams have won a cup being passive? Cup winning teams are always adding players to take them to the next level, whether that's by getting better bottom 6'ers/pairing guys or adding higher end talent. Off the top of my head all the recent cup winners have added players at the deadline or offseason to improve the team and give them a better shot at winning.
Yep, like henchman you seem to have built a version of me in your head where I think Sakic shouldn't make any moves. See above. You're arguing with a figment of your imagination.
That's not to say that we should blow all of our picks and prospects right now to win this year, but over the next 4 years picks and prospects should be moved 100% to improve the team where it's necessary. As awesome as prospects are sometimes you just can't wait the 2 years it will take them to become an impact player.
Right, and that is exactly the philosophy I oppose. The only reason you can't wait the 2 years is if you've made choices to sacrifice the future for the present. It seems like if you were in charge you would trade pretty much every good pick and prospect we have who isn't going to be an impact player within the next 4 years. That's a recipe for watching MacKinnon and Rantanen either leave the team or watching them play for a terrible team with no depth. All in exchange for a
chance at a cup. See, if we trade away all our picks and prospects, we'll almost certainly be bad at some point in the near future, but that same level of certainty doesn't apply to cup wins.
