Its incredible how out to lunch you are on my opinion yet feel the need to lecture me about it despite your ignorance.
I know what your opinion is.
I also feel the goal of the rebuild is to trade away assets for more picks and prospects. I fully expect that we will struggle while this process is going on. Probably near the bottom of the standings this year and struggling for long stretches during the season as well. But to accept the team's current record, putrid organization within games and poor structure as all "part of the plan to rebuild" is absurd.
You expected them to be near the bottom. Is it then safe to say that smarter hockey people running the organization expected the same thing?
What does that mean? If their expectations were that they would be a bad team?
If you have the opportunity to make changes that would win more games, but you choose not to because the plan isn't to win short term, what do you call that? I don't call it "intentionally losing". I call it rebuilding.
Can you trade talent and acquire futures, accept that it increases the likelihood of a poor season, without that poor season being "part of the plan"? The plan is to acquire talent, the plan is to win in 2016+, what happens record wise in 2013 is not part of the plan... it's a meaningless aspect.
I prefer to separate the two.
1. The Plan : Rebuild. Ship talent for futures. Groom youth. Create a new culture. Rid the past.
2. Short Term Outcomes : likely poor, but unrelated to the "The Plan"
Now because of those expected short term outcomes... you're likely not sticking with a coach long term... you need someone to drive the car around the block for awhile before it's time to get on the high way.
The team is current playing at a .150 percentage pace. Posters actually think this is what we should see? That along with 1.2 goals per game? These are absurdly low numbers that should not at all be acceptable. The structure and accountability Rolston talked about is not anywhere to be found.
We have a 3rd line winger centering our 2nd line
We have no ability to matchup
Half our forward core are either career 4th liners or Children
Half our blueline are rookies
Our best player (vanek) is the 3rd or 4th best player on a contender
We have exactly 1 player who would crack a good teams top 6 (Vanek)
We have exactly 1 player who would crack a good teams top 4 (Ehrhoff)
The roster is too average on the veteran end and way too young on the other.
Their putrid play should not be surprising
You can lose more often than not and still look as if you know how to play the game.
I think Buffalo has gone far too long without seeing a roster like this one... you should've watched the Panthers a few years ago. You wouldve tempered your expectations.
I'm not sure what your getting at. I don't think "intentionally losing" is a conspiracy nor do I think Rolston is a "Patsy".
Do you think Ron Rolston was hired with the intention of leading this team when it "comes of age", when breaks out of the rebuilding phase, and into the contending phase?
I certainly don't. I think he was hired to be fired. I think they saw benefits that he would bring to the rebuild in terms of "teaching"... but if he was hired to be fired... then he is the patsy... he's the guy that will take the fall after 3 years of suffering.