BrickNHL
Registered User
- Feb 25, 2019
- 2,848
- 7,148
Rumor: Avs Proposals/Rumors/Free Agents 18-19 part XXXVII | Everyone is pessimistically optimistic
- Thread starter SoundwaveIsCharisma
- Start date
- Status
Avs_19
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2007
- 84,867
- 32,987
After begging Kessel to waive his NTC, the Wild are now begging old man Pavelski to visit them and consider signing. I don't care what the Avs are doing and how much doom and gloom there is here, I always have time to laugh at the Wild.
Bill Peckerskull
Fargin' Icehole
Absolutely not, the other situations don't apply to Barrie...it's more of a coincidence that some of the worst trades lately have been with RHD.
- Sakic won't purposely give away Barrie to one team to get him away from the conference/division because he doesn't want to sign an extension with the club (aka Trouba).
- Sakic won't trade Barrie at low value to get rid of his contract and him as fast as possible to sign a centre on July 1st (aka Subban).
- Sakic won't trade Barrie because he simply hasn't asked for a trade (aka Risto).
- Sakic has said that he will listen to every offer, but that doesn't mean Barrie is on the trade market as other defenders are (aka Letang).
For the record there is a good possibility that the Tyson Barrie situation eventually ends up in one of these four option, especially with the addition of Byram. But at the current moment and in the next couple of months Sakic has absolutely no reason to trade Tyson Barrie except for a 2nd line centre. I absolutely buy the rumours of Canucks offering a 1st+Virtanen for Barrie and Sakic said **** no and why Vancouver is inviting Tyler Myers to personal dinners at Michelin star restaurante .
Bill Peckerskull
Fargin' Icehole
Can't imagine Dallas wants to give NYR their 1st next year.
Foppberg
Registered User
True, but if they feel like the Seguin/Benn window is their best bet to win, I could see them doing it.
Bill Peckerskull
Fargin' Icehole
SoundwaveIsCharisma
Moderator
Hopefully Pavelski signs with Tampa. Get him away from the Central teams
Again reading what you want to see. My point is that there is no point in crying. Who knows what happens, he might re-sign, he might be traded for junk, or he could bring back a haul. But you use other dumb deals to create a catastrophic narrative completely ignoring other deals that go in the other direction.
MarkT
Heretic
- Nov 11, 2017
- 3,997
- 4,513
I'm about to go to bed, but I'll leave this for you guys to discuss:
On the topic of windows, it seems to me like the people who support that idea only think in terms of the length of the window. So if you think the Avs window is 4 years, or 6 years or 10 years, that's all you care about. If you expect the Avs' window to end in 5 years, then it doesn't really matter what happens in year 6. This is how you justify signing a guy to a deal that will suck at the end of it - because by that point the team will probably suck anyway, since their window will have closed.
My problem with this thinking is that it's not ambitious enough. To me, the ideal team is one that is able to realistically compete for the cup every single year forever. Now of course no team will ever achieve that ideal, but that's what the goal should be. So to me, to make plans that necessarily involve years of being a bad team (after the "window" closes), is completely antithetical to the goal of trying to win every year.
Where this issue becomes practically relevant is when you're discussing contracts and trades. For someone who supports the window ideology, they'll generally be supporting moves that have short term benefits and long term costs. For those of us who support the perpetual success ideology, we'll generally be more cautious and want to see incremental improvement, and to stay away from any deal with heavy long-term consequences.
Generally, I think the window ideology is much more common, especially among NHL GMs. It epitomizes a lot of teams who have won the cup in the cap era. But I think the perpetual success ideology is shared by teams like San Jose and Nashville, and likely now Tampa and perhaps St. Louis (edit: and Boston too now that I think about it). I'd personally much rather be a fan of a team that's in the playoffs every year for decades than a team that wins a single cup then sucks for five years.
Part of the reason I think the perpetual success ideology is more rare is because it's more difficult. It means making moves that hurt the team a bit in the short term in order to maintain success long-term. It means not being afraid to trade good players or let them walk rather than signing them to bad deals. It means generally avoiding the big names in free agency and trying to find the value deals. It means taking chances on players who might end up being more of a benefit than a cost. Building for a short term win on the other hand is easy. You just fill the team with the best players you can get, and you part with whatever draft picks and prospects you need to achieve this. Columbus last season epitomized this thinking.
What do you guys think?
On the topic of windows, it seems to me like the people who support that idea only think in terms of the length of the window. So if you think the Avs window is 4 years, or 6 years or 10 years, that's all you care about. If you expect the Avs' window to end in 5 years, then it doesn't really matter what happens in year 6. This is how you justify signing a guy to a deal that will suck at the end of it - because by that point the team will probably suck anyway, since their window will have closed.
My problem with this thinking is that it's not ambitious enough. To me, the ideal team is one that is able to realistically compete for the cup every single year forever. Now of course no team will ever achieve that ideal, but that's what the goal should be. So to me, to make plans that necessarily involve years of being a bad team (after the "window" closes), is completely antithetical to the goal of trying to win every year.
Where this issue becomes practically relevant is when you're discussing contracts and trades. For someone who supports the window ideology, they'll generally be supporting moves that have short term benefits and long term costs. For those of us who support the perpetual success ideology, we'll generally be more cautious and want to see incremental improvement, and to stay away from any deal with heavy long-term consequences.
Generally, I think the window ideology is much more common, especially among NHL GMs. It epitomizes a lot of teams who have won the cup in the cap era. But I think the perpetual success ideology is shared by teams like San Jose and Nashville, and likely now Tampa and perhaps St. Louis (edit: and Boston too now that I think about it). I'd personally much rather be a fan of a team that's in the playoffs every year for decades than a team that wins a single cup then sucks for five years.
Part of the reason I think the perpetual success ideology is more rare is because it's more difficult. It means making moves that hurt the team a bit in the short term in order to maintain success long-term. It means not being afraid to trade good players or let them walk rather than signing them to bad deals. It means generally avoiding the big names in free agency and trying to find the value deals. It means taking chances on players who might end up being more of a benefit than a cost. Building for a short term win on the other hand is easy. You just fill the team with the best players you can get, and you part with whatever draft picks and prospects you need to achieve this. Columbus last season epitomized this thinking.
What do you guys think?
Last edited:
BrickNHL
Registered User
- Feb 25, 2019
- 2,848
- 7,148
- Jan 18, 2016
- 34,246
- 25,458
I mean the point is to win a cup. I’d take 5 good years and a cup over 13 good years and no cup.
BrickNHL
Registered User
- Feb 25, 2019
- 2,848
- 7,148
Raucherhusten
Unselfish Gif Lover
Avs_19
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2007
- 84,867
- 32,987
Foppberg
Registered User
Avs_19
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2007
- 84,867
- 32,987
MarkT
Heretic
- Nov 11, 2017
- 3,997
- 4,513
Columbus went all in and didn't win a cup. Just because you load up your roster, it doesn't guarantee a cup.
And why on earth do you think 13 good years would equate to zero cups?
We're not talking about going all in for one season at all, that's what you seem to not understand. Our team isn't even close to Columbus in terms of set-up, all our core is locked up basically except Barrie. We don't have all our core UFA at the end of the year, we can add some depth and start to contend now if we want.
MarkT
Heretic
- Nov 11, 2017
- 3,997
- 4,513
I'm just using Columbus as an example. I understand we're not talking about one season. My point is there's no such thing as a team building philosophy that guarantees a cup. One hot goaltender on the opposing team. A couple key injuries. That can be all it takes to derail a playoff run. if Fleury hadn't been insanely good in Vegas' run, we might all be pointing to Winnipeg as the epitome of how to build a team.
If you want to see what as do and do not understand, go read my long boring post above.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Useless Thread MDCCCLXXXVVIII - The Cancun Capitals Appreciation Thread- Latest: PanthersPens62
-
-
