SoupNazi
Serenity now. Insanity later.
- Feb 6, 2010
- 26,460
- 14,772
Are you saying there was consensus the Blackhawks would be perennial championship contenders when they drafted Kane and Toews...before they even ever made the playoffs?
They didn’t make the Stanley Cup Playoffs, but the Chicago Blackhawks showed signs in 2007-08 that they could be major contenders in the NHL for years to come.
But to look at Toews -- whether he wanders out of the Blackhawks dressing room, approaches the media, signs autographs for fans, skates onto the ice or skates back into his own zone to cover an opposing center -- you catch a flash of the No. 19 on the back of his jersey, and we defy you not to think of another No. 19, a guy named Steve Yzerman.
CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS
Story line: The excitement surrounding the Blackhawks is reminiscent of the wave of enthusiasm that washed over Pittsburgh when Sidney Crosby came to town.
[...]
Three reasons to like the Blackhawks: 1. Toews and Kane are the NHL's best young center-wing combination, with a chemistry similar to Bryan Trottier and Mike Bossy. 2. The Blackhawks' defensive core, led by Campbell and Duncan Keith, rates among the best in the West. 3. The Blackhawks went 5-3 against the Red Wings last season. They are more confident than many opponents realize.
I'm going to need you to explain to me how you define "tank." Because we are not tanking by any definition of the term.
Why do you think tank can only be at the beginning of the season? If Wings are trading Vanek, Ott, and/or Green/Nyquist/Tatar or whoever else at deadline for draft picks, that is a tank.
Why do you think tank can only be at the beginning of the season? If Wings are trading Vanek, Ott, and/or Green/Nyquist/Tatar or whoever else at deadline for draft picks, that is a tank.
If Wings are trading those assets to upgrade... say for Shattenkirk (for example), that is not a tank.
If Ken Holland opts to keep Ott and Vanek, that is not a tank.
And I would be very happy if Ken Holland re-signs Vanek to 2 more years.
But I regress, I don't think you have to announce you're team is tanking at the start of the season for it to be 'officially' a tank. It could be giving up on the season and selling for picks. Which also means if you're selling Green, Vanek, Nyquist for example, that weakens next season and the season after. Which also means tank (unless they upgrade those players during free agency).
Well teams do outright declare that tank at the trade deadline and we best be one of them this year.
Yes. There was lots of buzz about their future. How about this one titled "Blackhawks A Team on the Rise". Or is that a little too on the nose?
https://www.nhl.com/blackhawks/news/blackhawks-a-team-on-the-rise/c-477017
Here's an article also from 2008 comparing Toews to Steve *** Yzerman.
http://www.espn.com/nhl/preview2008/columns/story?id=3635150&columnist=burnside_scott
Or here's another: "Central preview: Red Wings still rule, but Blackhawks are rising"
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2008-09-30-central-preview_N.htm
The hype train was super real. Although I'm sure you'll argue this isn't "consensus" so...
And now it begins. Whether they make it past the first round or not, the Flames have surprised everyone in the league with how far they’ve come, and have now established that they’ve got what it takes to be a constant Cup contender from here on out.
These guys are exciting to watch and ooze with potential. Each of them possess unique skill sets that mesh well with each other and all of them get along very well on and off the ice. So thank whoever you’d like Avalanche fans, because that is one talented core for the near future. They are poised to become real contenders to win Championships in the upcoming years.
The Panthers were one of the NHL's surprises last year, winning the Atlantic Division - only two years after finishing a staggering 51 points back in the division race - and putting together the best regular season in franchise history. Now they have the look of a full-fledged contender, with expectations higher than they've been in two decades.
In fact, their window has just cracked open. Given what they have on hand, and what's on the way, the best is yet to come.
The Stars are going to make the playoffs and should be back in it for a while, thus ending their run of missing the postseason in six of the previous seven years.
After that, once their defensemen catch up to their forwards, then they will be the Blackhawks.
These puff pieces are written every single offseason about every bad team that finally has a decent year and is now poised to be a stanley cup contender.
2017 draft ain't showing much hope with draft eligible players.
It's hard to replace Vanek and Green. I doubt the picks they return will be close to their level... assuming any of those picks even develop into an NHL player at all. 2017 draft ain't showing much hope with draft eligible players.
Wrong year to try to tank for a top 5 pick. Unless you can land that #1. But in the draft lottery, who knows. They don't have to finish bottom 5 for the #1, either.
Keep Green and Vanek, trade Ott and Smith. I could live with that.
do you have better odds of winning the cup if you miss or make the playoffs?
The answer is obvious, but you have to look at the bigger picture.
do you have better odds of winning the cup if you miss or make the playoffs?
Over a 20 year span which gives you a better chance at winning the Cup?
- Tank hard for 5 years, assemble a core with all the picks you've accumulated that can compete for 15.
- Never rebuild, pick low for 20 years, hope to catch lightning in a bottle and find that Datsyuk and Zetterberg in the 6th and 7th round. Make the playoffs as a bubble team for 20 years straight.
It's the first one.
The chances of finding elite players after the first round are pretty much 0. They happen, but they're exceedingly rare. And they get even rarer when you realize that you're trading away draft picks at the TDL to keep making those playoff "runs" where you lose in 5 games in the first round.
Overall, in the long term, you can have better odds of winning the Cup if you miss the playoffs for a bit.
do you have better odds of winning the cup if you miss or make the playoffs?
If we're approaching this with a digital (on vs off) mentality, then do 29 teams fail every year?do you have better odds of winning the cup if you miss or make the playoffs?
do you have better odds of winning the cup if you miss or make the playoffs?
You have a zero percent chance of winning the powerball if you don't play.
vs.
You have a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of winning if you do play.
Over a 20 year span which gives you a better chance at winning the Cup?
- Tank hard for 5 years, assemble a core with all the picks you've accumulated that can compete for 15.
- Never rebuild, pick low for 20 years, hope to catch lightning in a bottle and find that Datsyuk and Zetterberg in the 6th and 7th round. Make the playoffs as a bubble team for 20 years straight.
It's the first one.
The chances of finding elite players after the first round are pretty much 0. They happen, but they're exceedingly rare. And they get even rarer when you realize that you're trading away draft picks at the TDL to keep making those playoff "runs" where you lose in 5 games in the first round.
Overall, in the long term, you can have better odds of winning the Cup if you miss the playoffs for a bit.
I honestly don't even think we need to tank for 5 years.
With mrazek, dekeyser, AA, mantha, larkin, oullette, as well as someone like svechnikov(spelling). If we get a high pick this year and sign say shattenkirk. I think we are competing again next year.
If we could dump kronwall and Ericsson even better but I doubt it.