Speculation: Hypothetical

[enthusiast]

Which of the following situations would you rather see, assuming for the sake of the exercise each would be possible in spite of realistic chances?

Again, let me stress I want an answer to the question as asked. Obviously if the team were to regress after B it wouldn't be worth it. I wanted B to be suggestive that they would not.

A: Sabres finish last in the league, draft McDavid/Eichel. Players perform as befitting a last-place team.

B: Sabres win their division in a non-fluke, sustainable for future development fashion and lose in the conference finals. Grigorenko/Ristolainen/Girgensons/Larsson take great leaps, Enroth solidifies himself as starter material, etc.

Assume Islanders/Blues picks remain the same for each scenario.



e: full disclosure: I go into this expecting McDavid to deliver on his hype.

Click to read more...

 

[Beerz]

I take the realistic scenario

A)

To expand.

We don't have a team that will ever be capable of winning the Cup ..even if all the players we have as of right now hit their ceilings.

 

[enthusiast]

I disagree on the latter.

 

[TheMistyStranger]

A will help lead to sustained B.

 

[landy92mack29]

I take the realistic scenario

A)

To expand.

We don't have a team that will ever be capable of winning the Cup ..even if all the players we have as of right now hit their ceilings.

not sure how you don't see how bright the future is for the sabres coming from an outside perspective.

 

[Beerz]

not sure how you don't see how bright the future is for the sabres coming from an outside perspective.

It is bright.

We don't have the high end offensive talent at this point tho.

 

[ZeroPT*]

A because B won't be a fluke if A comes to fruition

 

[Moskau]

Tim Murray of all people should know that option A is better. The Senators were set up to go through a 2-3 year rebuild much like he wants to do in Buffalo. Erik Karlsson and Craig Anderson threw a wrench into that plan and now the Senators are in trouble because Bryan Murray thought they were much better than they really are and decided to go all in much sooner than he should have. They don't have a 1st this year, they are going to lose Spezza for less than what he should be worth and will likely have to give up assets to replace him anyways. They are going to have to overpay Bobby Ryan or risk really putting that organization into the dump. And to top it off they will likely be just average enough this year to be drafting in that dreaded 10-14 overall territory.

 

[enthusiast]

A because B won't be a fluke if A comes to fruition

B's explicitly not a fluke by terms of the question, though.

 

[enthusiast]

Tim Murray of all people should know that option A is better. The Senators were set up to go through a 2-3 year rebuild much like he wants to do in Buffalo. Erik Karlsson and Craig Anderson threw a wrench into that plan and now that Senators are in trouble because Bryan Murray thought they were much better than they really are and decided to go all in much sooner than he should have. They don't have a 1st this year, they are going to lose Spezza for less than what he should be worth and will likely have to give up assets to replace him anyways. They are going to have to overpay to Bobby Ryan or risk really throwing that organization into the dump. And to top it off they will likely be just average enough this year to be drafting in that dreaded 10-14 overall territory.

Again, this isn't really a comparable based on the question being asked

 

[ZeroPT*]

B's explicitly not a fluke by terms of the question, though.

My mistake.

I'd still rather have A,just seems like the better option. Can't really explain why.

 

[Moskau]

Again, this isn't really a comparable based on the question being asked

It is. The Senators had that same leap in growth in 2012 that you mentioned. The group for Buffalo you mentioned is simply not good enough of a group to be satisfied with no matter their growth much the way the Senators were/are. Sustainable growth or not you aren't building a contender with just those players the same way Erik Karlsson is obviously not a fluke.

 

[enthusiast]

It is. The Senators had that same leap in growth in 2012 that you mentioned. The group for Buffalo you mentioned is simply not good enough of a group to be satisfied no matter their growth much the way the Senators were/are. Sustainable growth or not you aren't building a contender with just those players the same way Erik Karlsson is obviously not a fluke.

It doesn't really fit the question because everyone and their mother in that organization regressed the next year. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in the OP, so I added a bit about assuming they wouldn't suddenly fall off the face of a cliff relative to their performance in that season. It's more along the lines of 2013 Habs.

I'm not going to ask people if one year of playoffs and then trash again is worth passing up McDavid. Have a bit of faith .

 

[Meichel Kane]

So the options are A in reality or B in a fantasy world while the players are better than they actually ever will be.

 

[Jame]

What's the purpose of the hypothetical? Is it supposed to reveal something about the individual who answers?

 

[enthusiast]

What's the purpose of the hypothetical? Is it supposed to reveal something about the individual who answers?

Yes.

 

[Paxon]

If it's truly sustainable, then you have to go with B, because it's more of a guarantee this team will be a contender than B not happening and then getting McDavid ever would be.

 

[Moskau]

Are Toews or Kane going to Free Agency in scenario B?

 

[Jame]

I voted A
Because if The players we have now are capable of B, then A only makes it better

 

[enthusiast]

I voted A
Because if The players we have now are capable of B, then A only makes it better

Dodging the question, but I left that window open so go ahead

 

[ZeroPT*]

honestly, what's the point?
A is much more likely than B to happen. Every team would love if B happened, it won't though.

Not sure what the point is.

 

[ZZamboni]

What's the purpose of the hypothetical? Is it supposed to reveal something about the individual who answers?

I think it's revealing more about the OP when I read the responses. Trying to sell B a little bit?

It's A for me.

 

[enthusiast]

I think it's revealing more about the OP when I read the responses. Trying to sell B a little bit?

It's A for me.

It has to be a legitimate choice. Rightly or wrongly, the cult of McDavid has a strong grip on the entire NHL's fanbase and I'm curious as to how good B would have to be to break the thrall

 

[enthusiast]

Not sure what the point is.

Asked and answered

 

[enthusiast]

Are Toews or Kane going to Free Agency in scenario B?

If in A, then B. All else is equal.