Speculation: What changes should be made for this team to be successful?

[PucktotheHead]

The one iota I'd like to know, which I doubt I will ever be privy to, is whether or not Ted restricts GMGM's coaching selection now to former Caps.

I'd like to know this as well. It's a great question and I can easily see the answer being yes. Bring in a name that even casual Caps fans know and sell more tickets. More tickets equals more cash right? And isn't that what the knock on Uncle Ted is? He is in this for the money not necessarily the Cup. I don't believe that, or at least don't want to but there are some strange things going on that make me wonder.

 

[Hersh]

He's not Ovechkin star-wise, but he is absolutely closer to him than to Backstrom. That's just insane.

Are you seriously comparing Rick Nash, the guy who's had more points than games played in a season just once and that was 79 points in 78 games, to Ovechkin or Backstrom? That's just insane.

Seriously, he isn't anywhere near the level of Ovechkin.

 

[g00n]

The guy has never broken 80 points in his career. Being the best player on a terrible team gets you inflated numbers (and not really all that inflated) and All-Star game sympathy selections. Doesn't make him a star.

Think about what you just said. How is a guy on the worst team in the league going to put up a lot of points? Who else is going to score and give him assists? On a defense-first team for many of those years?

You realize Nash broke the 40 goal barrier twice, was on a 40 goal pace last year with the shortened season, scored more than 30 goals every year but one since his rookie season in 02-03, and is on a 30+ pace again this year?

In the capped era, the Nash trade is as close as you're going to get to a team trading Ovechkin. By the time it happens the Caps will be in the basement of the league and off the national radar, just like Columbus was, and Ovechkin will still be the "face of the franchise" that management relies on to sell tickets. The exact stats are IRRELEVANT.

 

[g00n]

You've gone from local market importance to team building. The gap between Nash and Ovechkin is even bigger when you consider hockey ability and team building.

Regarding your comment on point trends, are you trying to imply that the Caps would be trending upwards if they'd traded Ovechkin 3 seasons ago?

No my point was that all the metrics he mentioned were marketing fluff and not related to team performance. See my previous post.

 

[Liberati0n*]

The guy has never broken 80 points in his career. Being the best player on a terrible team gets you inflated numbers (and not really all that inflated) and All-Star game sympathy selections. Doesn't make him a star.

What does how good he is have to do with anything? The argument was about his status as a star, "face of the franchise," etc. Jersey sales were brought up. Nash's jersey sales were probably 20 times Backstrom's. Obviously Nash is a terrible player.

 

[g00n]

You can't just ignore the bigger picture. You're needlessly narrowing the scope of the discussion to make it fit your stance.

Let's also look at points trends without any context at all and infer that it is due to one team trading its best player and the other one holding on to theirs.

See what I just said about metrics.

The original question was "Has trading a player of that caliber ever worked out in the history of the league?"

I have asked repeatedly WHO fits that condition? Again, if there are no 100% comparable players, how can we talk about whether or not it's 'worked out'? If there are no 100% comparable players then we're left to discuss the next closest thing based on similar criteria.

And if that's not good enough, then the question is **** because it's meaningless.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Think about what you just said. How is a guy on the worst team in the league going to put up a lot of points? Who else is going to score and give him assists? On a defense-first team for many of those years?

You realize Nash broke the 40 goal barrier twice, was on a 40 goal pace last year with the shortened season, scored more than 30 goals every year but one since his rookie season in 02-03, and is on a 30+ pace again this year?

In the capped era, the Nash trade is as close as you're going to get to a team trading Ovechkin. By the time it happens the Caps will be in the basement of the league and off the national radar, just like Columbus was, and Ovechkin will still be the "face of the franchise" that management relies on to sell tickets. The exact stats are IRRELEVANT.

I don't understand the point of this post. This whole 'trade Ovechkin' nonsense is referring to moves to make NOW, not when the Caps are nationally irrelevant.

I don't know why you're trying to force narrow the scope to make the Nash trade equivalent. The Jackets weren't a perennial playoff team when they did it, Nash isn't close to as good or as marketable of a player as Ovechkin is, on the local, national, or international level, and Nash wasn't the reigning MVP with another Richard trophy in the bag.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

No my point was that all the metrics he mentioned were marketing fluff and not related to team performance. See my previous post.

You don't think 'marketing fluff' has a direct impact on how much ownership will spend on the team, and what players would want to come here?

Those factors have direct impact on team performance.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

See what I just said about metrics.

The original question was "Has trading a player of that caliber ever worked out in the history of the league?"

I have asked repeatedly WHO fits that condition? Again, if there are no 100% comparable players, how can we talk about whether or not it's 'worked out'? If there are no 100% comparable players then we're left to discuss the next closest thing based on similar criteria.

And if that's not good enough, then the question is **** because it's meaningless.

You do realize the reason there are so few examples is because it's a dumb thing to do, right?

 

[Liberati0n*]

NBTW with this Pejorative Slured ****ing marketing stuff again. It does not matter. The team could have to shut down completely and it would have absolutely nothing to do with whether the trade was a good hockey decision.


Maybe you should apply to be McPhee's replacement. Ted would love you.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

NBTW with this Pejorative Slured ****ing marketing stuff again. It does not matter. The team could have to shut down completely and it would have absolutely nothing to do with whether the trade was a good hockey decision.

Of course it does. Don't be so obtuse.

Marketable players => higher revenue

Higher revenue => higher likelihood to spend to the cap

And a team shutting down completely has no impact on hockey competitiveness?

 

[Liberati0n*]

Of course it does. Don't be so obtuse.

Marketable players => higher revenue

Higher revenue => higher likelihood to spend to the cap

Did you copy and paste that out of a Ted's Take?

I wonder if you would agree with that logic if it were applied to any other player than Ovechkin. Winning teams are more marketable than players. Ovechkin wasn't drawing sell-outs in 2006 and he won't be in 2015 if the team sucks. And it just isn't relevant. Either the players you get back make your team better or they don't. Nothing else is part of the equation. Spending to the cap is a choice, not a function of revenue.

And a team shutting down completely has no impact on hockey competitiveness?

None at all. It has no impact on the quality of the roster the team would have had.

 

[Stewie G]

Think about what you just said. How is a guy on the worst team in the league going to put up a lot of points? Who else is going to score and give him assists? On a defense-first team for many of those years?

You realize Nash broke the 40 goal barrier twice, was on a 40 goal pace last year with the shortened season, scored more than 30 goals every year but one since his rookie season in 02-03, and is on a 30+ pace again this year?

In the capped era, the Nash trade is as close as you're going to get to a team trading Ovechkin. By the time it happens the Caps will be in the basement of the league and off the national radar, just like Columbus was, and Ovechkin will still be the "face of the franchise" that management relies on to sell tickets. The exact stats are IRRELEVANT.

So each team's best player has the exact same local market impact as every other team's best player?

 

[g00n]

You do realize the reason there are so few examples is because it's a dumb thing to do, right?

Circular reasoning logical fallacy. The proof of your statement is presumed to be in the statement itself.

Q: X is asinine. When has X ever worked?
A: X has never worked because it is asinine.


Are you ever going to list any player trades you would accept as fitting the criteria of your question, or are we just at the point where you admit your question was meaningless unless we expand the criteria to include similar but not exact situations?

 

[g00n]

So each team's best player has the exact same local market impact as every other team's best player?

Do you understand the difference between equivalency and comparison?

 

[Ridley Simon]

Well, this thread went off the rails fast.

Focus people! Discuss change!

Not some silly comparison between Ovechkin and other players.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Circular reasoning logical fallacy. The proof of your statement is presumed to be in the statement itself.

Q: X is asinine. When has X ever worked?
A: X has never worked because it is asinine.


Are you ever going to list any player trades you would accept as fitting the criteria of your question, or are we just at the point where you admit your question was meaningless unless we expand the criteria to include similar but not exact situations?

Gretzky, Roy, Messier are three. Jagr is arguable. Espo's close, but he was 5 years older.

And what do you think the reason is players of that caliber rarely get traded? Wouldn't logic dictate that if it were a good idea from a hockey standpoint, it'd happen more than once a generation or so?

 

[Mothra]

See what I just said about metrics.

The original question was "Has trading a player of that caliber ever worked out in the history of the league?"

I have asked repeatedly WHO fits that condition? Again, if there are no 100% comparable players, how can we talk about whether or not it's 'worked out'? If there are no 100% comparable players then we're left to discuss the next closest thing based on similar criteria.

And if that's not good enough, then the question is **** because it's meaningless.

Roy?
Jagr?

 

[g00n]

Gretzky, Roy, Messier are three. Jagr is arguable. Espo's close, but he was 5 years older.

And what do you think the reason is players of that caliber rarely get traded? Wouldn't logic dictate that if it were a good idea from a hockey standpoint, it'd happen more than once a generation or so?

So you ask a question that has a sample size of 3, and again you use circular reasoning to prove your point.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

As I said earlier, "How does anyone know if the outcome is positive or negative?" If there are so few examples, then it's an unknown and not necessarily proof that it can't work.

Again, as I said earlier, regarding Gretzky, Roy and Messier:

"And how many times was that done because a crappy, small market team couldn't afford the star player they tanked into anymore or because the franchise was mismanaged to begin with?"

Edmonton and Montreal had real problems at the times of those trades. You can't compare salary dumps and a player walking out on the team and demanding a trade in his prime due to mismanagement to a calculated rebuild move.

Did you also forget this post by someone else:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=81596805&postcount=106


Those trades don't happen much not because they're idiotic for the trading team, but because they're usually very expensive in general, and by sheer law of averages RARE due to the RARITY of such players.

So again, it's an "absurd" question to begin with. I am not arguing for or against trading Ovechkin, just the facts regarding the notion that it's 'asinine' to even consider it for hockey reasons.

 

[BiPolar Caps]

Watching Bruins/Canadiens game last night, they listed the top faceoff men in the league this season:
1. Bergeron
2. Malhorta
3. Boyd Gordon
4. Gaustad

We currently suck in the dot. Malhorta soon to be UFA making 600 K other option bring Boyd Gordon home and his 3 million a year for the next few years. I'd say Joel Ward for Boyd Gordon, currently equal salaries, trading from a strong position at Right Wing for a weak position Center/face offs. Wards numbers are better this year, but as I've noted before believe that this is a career year for him. Edmonton looking for toughness I'd imagine, hence why they picked up Hendricks. Other option Beagle/Erskine for Gordon, again salary wash.

 

[Stewie G]

Do you understand the difference between equivalency and comparison?

Yes. You've narrowed a situation down so much that you're basing your comparison on a single factor. A team trading their franchise's most valuable player.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

So you ask a question that has a sample size of 3, and again you use circular reasoning to prove your point.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

As I said earlier, "How does anyone know if the outcome is positive or negative?" If there are so few examples, then it's an unknown and not necessarily proof that it can't work.

Again, as I said earlier, regarding Gretzky, Roy and Messier:

"And how many times was that done because a crappy, small market team couldn't afford the star player they tanked into anymore or because the franchise was mismanaged to begin with?"

Edmonton and Montreal had real problems at the times of those trades. You can't compare salary dumps and a player walking out on the team and demanding a trade in his prime due to mismanagement to a calculated rebuild move.

Did you also forget this post by someone else:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=81596805&postcount=106


Those trades don't happen much not because they're idiotic for the trading team, but because they're usually very expensive in general, and by sheer law of averages RARE due to the RARITY of such players.

So again, it's an "absurd" question to begin with. I am not arguing for or against trading Ovechkin, just the facts regarding the notion that it's 'asinine' to even consider it for hockey reasons.

No, it's not an absurd question at all.

When you've got a rare player, you have to consider rare scenarios.

For the sake of argument, lets say you expand my parameters. Consider trades of these types of players in their primes, with term left. How many trades of these types improved the trading team?

Established top player at his position?

Established top-5 player at his position?

Established top-10 player at his position?

Face of the franchise player?

So far, you've given me one example of it working: Columbus and Nash. That's a modest success, at best, and Nash was nothing more than a borderline top-30 player at his position.

 

[Langway]

Lindros wouldn't play for Quebec so that's not really a comparable situation either. In recent memory Jagr is the closest thing but he too was disgruntled at the time. Frankly, it just doesn't happen. Conclude from that what you will but it doesn't.

If you want to lower the bar and look at situations like Nash in Columbus and Thornton in Boston that's fine. They were cornerstone type players at the time but not on the same level. Forget marketing, it's another level of commitment to move a higher-end elite NHL player. Being wrong in that situation carries a great deal more risk. In both of those two recent, lesser situations their betterment was executed by a new General Manager. I don't think it would be ridiculous to trade Ovechkin under a new GM but if it happens he's probably not truly elite at the time anyway (or disgruntled for whatever reason). Typically if a GM knows what he's doing he's building around that player if they're truly such a rare commodity.

 

[strungout]

How this has even turned into a discussion....I have no idea.

 

[ChibiPooky]

Poll added. Cast your votes now!