Perhaps the quality of regular season and playoffs are different, but results in both tell you the quality.
Ah, so we're getting to a little more nuance now. You started off dismissing the regular season, and claiming that "contenders" are only determined by the playoffs, and now after getting caught in a contradiction, your position has suddenly changed again. So exactly how much weight does the mighty Dreakmur allow us to put on each?
Just like regular season games, sample sizes matter.
We finally have you acknowledging sample sizes! Another one off the list! I wonder which sample size would be more representative of a team's quality... the outcome and underlying results of 82 games against 31 different opponents over a 7 month period, or just the end outcome of 4-7 games against one team over a 1-2 week period with no context. Exactly how big of a sample size do we need? Because you seem to be trying to simultaneously dismiss outcomes in a sample size of 4 series, while making contradictory declarations based on the outcome of 1 series.
I got called it for arguing Dubas was quite good at finding under-valued players, though it didn’t always provide results because he was not good at building a balanced team.
The issue is that you correctly identified something that he was good at, instead of pretending that he caused climate change. And yet even as you reminisce about the one compliment you ever gave him, you can't help but simultaneously make inaccurate criticisms.
That explains why I know I'm in the middle - I get into disagreements with both side of the fringes.
And people in the middle, like me. Getting into disagreements with everybody doesn't make you in the middle, or right.
You have your predetermined agenda of espousing the greatness of Kyle Dubas, and you make whatever argument you think best fits that agenda.
My only "predetermined agenda" is following the facts, and evaluating things fairly and accurately, with context. Unlike many, I evaluate all players, teams, and GMs the same way, regardless of who they are. It's not my fault that Treliving is making bad decisions. I'd love it if he didn't.
Oh you've absolutely blamed luck every year.
No, you just accuse people of "blaming luck" when they consider any of the context that you suddenly started considering once the GM changed to Treliving.
Pretty sure that was the best option at that time.
Unless he was supposed to let him walk for nothing and sign Laurent Brossoit, Anthony Stolarz or Mackenzie Blackwood.
So have we finally reached acknowledgement that Treliving chose to sign Samsonov, and then chose to go into the playoffs with no goalie changes? It seems like now that the GM is different, you're eager to consider context like the options actually available to a GM, and the fact that decisions that are "good at the time" don't always turn out well, but I think the first step is admitting what he did.
He signed Jones, who basically saved out season when he took the reigns....
We didn't even have a good record in the limited games we played with Jones, so I'm not sure how he "saved our season". He came up and filled in nicely for a stretch, before going back to struggling. Which is perfectly fine for a third stringer, and it turned into a good acquisition by Treliving for that role, but I'm not sure what the goalie that Treliving chose for his third stringer has to do with the playoffs.
When you have no cap space, and very few assets to trade, options are limited.
We had a ton of cap space and assets. Every option was available to him. I think it's just that people are finally realizing that acquiring dominant goaltending is easier said than done.
