Speculation: Hypothetical

[Paxon]

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

That's not true. They're two distinct hypotheticals. In one, the team we have now is capable of reaching a potential that makes them contenders, and then reaches that potential. That doesn't imply that in scenario A those same players have or reach the same potential.

 

[Jame]

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

So, you needed a poll to attempt to prove that it would take the impossible to dissuade a fan base of a terrible team from MacDavid???

Huh

 

[enthusiast]

So, you needed a poll to attempt to prove that it would take the impossible to dissuade a fan base of a terrible team from MacDavid???

Huh

No, I'm genuinely curious at what point a level of guaranteed demonstrated success would outweigh potential success given Hf's reputation. I'm not trying to be snide or make some clever point

 

[Jame]

That's not true. They're two distinct hypotheticals. In one, the team we have now is capable of reaching a potential that makes them contenders, and then reaches that potential. That doesn't imply that in scenario A those same players have or reach the same potential.

The potential the players have is not a variable.

 

[enthusiast]

please consult this poll and vote after voting here.

 

[enthusiast]

While Rob is correct in the spirit of the question, I didn't explicitly state it so have a field day.

 

[Paxon]

The potential the players have is not a variable.

In reality it isn't -- our perceptions of it are -- but I would say this hypothetical essentially demands that it be.

 

[Beerz]

I figured it was kind of going on what the Rangers did this year...if thats the case I choose A all day.

In a fantasy world where we are a legitimate top 3 or 4 team then B..


But at the end of the day I feel dumber for having participated in this poll.

 

[enthusiast]

But at the end of the day I feel dumber for having participated in this poll.

I assure you it didn't change my opinion of any of you

 

[Sabreality]

well considering the non flukey, sustainable nature of this hypothetical, its B. That would mean Reinhart/Grigo/Girgs/Larsson exceed all expectations down the middle at an unprecedented rate. Hodgson/Ennis/Foligno contribute career years that are just the beginning, while Stewart carves out a role worthy of re-signing and Stafford has a contract year upping his trade value. F chemistry up and down is electric...Armia, Fasching, Compher, Baptiste, Bailey, Hurley still on the way...

top 4 of Ehrhoff, Myers, Risto & Pysyk munch minutes and produce offensively, Zads/McCabe prove close to being ready.

toss in career years from Enroth/Neuvirth and did we take a G with one of this years 2nd's?

still have STL/BUF mid-late 1sts and a what is hopefully a Top 5 NYI pick. sounds good.

is that what we're hoping for?

 

[joshjull]

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.

Those guys taking great leaps is a massive understatement if scenario B played out. If the premise is those guys along with other youngsters having huge development surges leading to this success then I would definitely want scenario B. That would mean its not due to a quick fix attempt at team building.


But obviously there is zero chance of scenario B happening.

 

[Ron C.]

Is Emilio Estevez the new coach for these young Mighty Sabres? It will take an unrealistic Disney plot for the Sabres to not be a top 2 pick next year. I choose A.

 

[B U F F A L O]

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

Then I choose option A. Where Girgensons, Risto, Grigorenko, Larsson all make great strides in their development, but we are still a last place team and draft McDavid/Eichel.

 

[haseoke39]

B, obviously. If you're winning that much in 2015, those players are likely to win a cup in the future.

 

[enthusiast]

Then I choose option A. Where Girgensons, Risto, Grigorenko, Larsson all make great strides in their development, but we are still a last place team and draft McDavid/Eichel.

That's not part of A.

 

[B U F F A L O]

That's not part of A.

Well, considering we were a last place team this year, and all 4 of those players made strides in their developments, then its absolutely a part of A.

"Players perform as befitting a last-place team."

I view that as collectively the team performs at a last place level, but that doesnt mean certain players cant be good individually. For example, Grigs/Risto/Larsson could make strides in their development in the A next season and we are a last place team.

You gave a very blanket statement then when people interpret it a different way than what you want it to read, youre in the thread trying to force option B as the only correct answer.

Plus, I specifically quoted your words "If in A, then in B. All else equals." So if in B they make strides in their development, then you basically told me that in A the same could be true... I choose option A. The team as a whole performs as a last place team, but our young guys make great strides in development and we draft the generational talent.

 

[haseoke39]

Well, considering we were a last place team this year, and all 4 of those players made strides in their developments, then its absolutely a part of A.

"Players perform as befitting a last-place team."

I view that as collectively the team performs at a last place level, but that doesnt mean certain players cant be good individually. For example, Grigs/Risto/Larsson could make strides in their development in the A next season and we are a last place team.

You gave a very blanket statement then when people interpret it a different way than what you want it to read, youre in the thread trying to force option B as the only correct answer.

Plus, I specifically quoted your words "If in A, then in B. All else equals." So if in B they make strides in their development, then you basically told me that in A the same could be true... I choose option A. The team as a whole performs as a last place team, but our young guys make great strides in development and we draft the generational talent.

Yeah, that all sounds like ******** unless they're making great strides in Rochester or we deal some other talent off the roster. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If this is a 30th place team next year, it's going to be because some significant guys aren't progressing very fast.

 

[DazedandConfused]

This whole scenario is just....mindblown. Maybe it\ll make sense in the morning.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

the way the poll reads to me is; "would you trade our shot at Eichel, McDavid to guarantee the last 4 years of moves were 100% successful"

because in order for us to make this 'leap' Hodgson and all the draft picks would have to be stars, would I trade Eichel/McDavid for Risto/Zads/Grigs all hitting their peak potentials? that I might do

top 10 player in the league for a top 20 defender a top 40 defender and #1 center, but hey they all could hit those levels regardless

 

[enthusiast]

If A then B


Is not the same thing as


If B then A

 

[EichHart]

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.

B for me personally. We would still have 5th, 20th, and 26th overall in next years draft. The part that gets me is this, "Sabres win their division in a non-fluke, sustainable for future development fashion and lose in the conference finals." If this was true than the following players would be all reaching strides into there potential which may not be met if these conditions weren't set forth. This imples that

Grigs- 1st line center would put up 60-70 pts next season
Girgs-2nd line center with the defensive responsbility to stop opponents top lines. Ala Kesler/Backes/Couts 40 pts
Risto- 1st line D man putting up 40-50 pts
Larsson- shut down center on 3rd line- 30-40 pts
Enroth- top 15 goalie with SP around 920%

I would take these guys making massive strides in there progression as they are key to the success of the rebuild. Add the 5th, 20th, and 26th overall picks next year in addition to our picks this year and the rebuild is pretty set. Also, going to the ECF would be amazing a run I would thoroughly enjoy and as was mentioned this is hypothetically speaking that these trends are not flukes but solid strides in development so the following season we could make a run at another ECF or even the Cup. I don't think people are interpreting the question correctly based on the current poll.

 

[wunderpanda]

B of course, would have picked B without the conference finals qualifier. Would be great if the prospects we have are able to provide such a quick return into contention and sustain it.

Actually, it is just as realistic/fantasy as A, no guarantee we actually draft a messiah in 2015, or that said messiah will deliver or if he gets hit by a bus.

 

[Dutchess]

You don't win Cups without superstars. That simple.

 

[Jim Bob]

You don't win Cups without superstars. That simple.

How many guys would you call superstars are in the NHL today and who are they?

I'm just asking because LA and Boston are two Cup contenders that don't really have what I would call a superstar. And this year's Conn Smythe winner certainly isn't one.

 

[DazedandConfused]

How many guys would you call superstars are in the NHL today and who are they?

I'm just asking because LA and Boston are two Cup contenders that don't really have what I would call a superstar. And this year's Conn Smythe winner certainly isn't one.

Do you not know who Drew Doughty is?

A superstar IMO is someone who is top-5ish in their respected position around the league.

Doughty is this with ease....

Kopitar could be argued to be a bubble top-5 Center.