That's a reference to exactly 1 time something happened. So let's acknowledge that and not set your one random example as the standard or the predictor of all future outcomes under the same circumstances. Literally your example if one instance is not a fundamental universal law just because you have 1 example of a consequence to an action some other team took in a different draft in a different year, an example chosen from literally decades of draft history and hundreds and hundreds if first round picks.Ah, yes. The famous Buffalo Sabres 2014/15 model where they tanked for McDavid. Guaranteed to bring success
With that said, the general trend is... more picks and higher picks is better players with higher success rates.
So therefore, they havent been competetive. On paper their lack of competetive is not a suprise, its reasonably expected.
So retaining valuable assets to remain competetive isnt exactly a thing.
Sign some short term vets, hire a babysitter, deal away value assets for more picks. And do that 3 years ago when this team was on its steep decline.
Or be surprised by the Duck decline and not earn your paycheck. Keep playing music on the deck of titanic when there are a myriad of signs of the future and options to take.
BM is always half trying to play the violin and half scuffle toward a life raft.
