Speculation: Our Contender Window

[Foppa2118]

Even if there is a skate in the crease?

We're due after that BS offsides call in game 7.

 

[MarkT]

I'd much rather be the Kings than the Preds or the Sharks.

On the Caps, you have the greatest goal scorer of all time. The Pens have a generational talent and the 3rd(maybe 2nd) best player of an entire era on their team; those change the rules for contending teams. Mack and Rants are great players but as of now they don't really compare to those 3. Plus with our drafting record we also can't compare to those teams unless there is a dramatic change in our development and scouting starting basically last year.

I'd love to contend for a decade, but it isn't likely.

You'd much rather be a Kings fans than a Sharks or Preds fan this season?
See, you seem only interested in talking about hindsight. You see the LA was of running a team as better than the Sharks or Preds way because LA won two cups, but that's backwards thinking. LA management could have made all the exact same decisions but not won any cups if things had worked out a little differently in the playoffs. San Jose and Nashville both could have won multiple cups if things had worked out a little differently in the playoffs.

So it's not a question of win cups or not. Winning cups is not an option when you're talking about team building. The best you can have is a good shot at the cup, but there's too much randomness in the playoffs to say more than that.

And yeah, contending for a decade (or more) is not likely. But with smart moves and a bit of luck it's certainly possibly, and it should be the aim of Avs' management.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

Our window closes tonight if we don't score two more than the Penguins.

 

[Bubba Thudd]

Our window closes tonight if we don't score two more than the Penguins.

Well, there's always next window...

 

[The Abusement Park]

You'd much rather be a Kings fans than a Sharks or Preds fan this season?
See, you seem only interested in talking about hindsight. You see the LA was of running a team as better than the Sharks or Preds way because LA won two cups, but that's backwards thinking. LA management could have made all the exact same decisions but not won any cups if things had worked out a little differently in the playoffs. San Jose and Nashville both could have won multiple cups if things had worked out a little differently in the playoffs.

So it's not a question of win cups or not. Winning cups is not an option when you're talking about team building. The best you can have is a good shot at the cup, but there's too much randomness in the playoffs to say more than that.

And yeah, contending for a decade (or more) is not likely. But with smart moves and a bit of luck it's certainly possibly, and it should be the aim of Avs' management.

Yes I’d rather win 2 cups in three years and then struggle, instead of contending for 15 years and winning nothing.

 

[Soedy]

Well, there's always next window...

We need tank commander Cliche with his general Guenin back!

 

[henchman21]

Yes I’d rather win 2 cups in three years and then struggle, instead of contending for 15 years and winning nothing.

Same... to me the goal is winning a Cup. Pulling a San Jose for a decade is all well and good, but I'd much, much rather be the Kings.

 

[MarkT]

Yes I’d rather win 2 cups in three years and then struggle, instead of contending for 15 years and winning nothing.

Same... to me the goal is winning a Cup. Pulling a San Jose for a decade is all well and good, but I'd much, much rather be the Kings.

Holy shit guys. For the last time: There is NOTHING SAKIC CAN DO TO GUARANTEE A CUP! He could make all the short term moves you guys want and we could still end up winning zero cups. Stop framing the argument as winning cups vs not winning cups. None of the philosophies put forward in this thread lead necessarily to any cups.

And if cups is all you care about, then you should be on my side. Winning the cup is a lot like the draft. You can plan all you want, but whether or not your pick turns into a great player is often down to luck. Same goes for the playoffs. You might be the best team in the league, and yet get swept in the first round. So many things can go wrong in the playoffs that the best strategy is to give yourself as many chances as possible. Basically, what you guys seem to want is for the Avs to really go for it for the next four years, and not really consider anything beyond that. But what if in each of those four years something goes wrong for the Avs or something goes right for another team? We could load up all we want and still not win any cups in the next four years. Then we'll still end up sucking, but not have any cups to show for it. And honestly winning zero cups is the most likely outcome (mathematically-speaking) no matter what moves Sakic makes in the next four years.

What I'm suggesting is the best strategy is to load up as much as you can every year without harming your ability to compete for the cup at any time in the future. So you only trade assets if you think you can replace them internally, like when the Avs traded Barrie with Makar waiting in the wings. Same goes for prospects - we can afford to trade prospects if we think we have another prospect who can take their spot in the organization. The focus of the strategy is to give us the maximum number of chances at the cup, rather than the maximum chance in a single year or even in a few years. I think we have the best chance of winning a cup if we compete for more cups, rather than loading up for any one run.

And if you're looking for support for my argument, NHL history is absolutely full of teams that have sacrificed the future to make a run in the playoffs, not won the cup, then fell down the standings later. Columbus is looking like just the latest example. Sometimes it takes several decisions like that before the fall happens though.

Meanwhile, the list of NHL teams that have loaded up and traded away lots of futures and then won a cup - that's a smaller list. Cups tend to get won by teams that have been good for a long, long time, or who just go on a hot run (usually led by a hot goalie).

In my mind, you guys are basically advocating for something that NHL history does not support as a good way to run a team.

 

[flyfysher]

Holy **** guys. For the last time: There is NOTHING SAKIC CAN DO TO GUARANTEE A CUP! He could make all the short term moves you guys want and we could still end up winning zero cups. Stop framing the argument as winning cups vs not winning cups. None of the philosophies put forward in this thread lead necessarily to any cups.

Really? But the posters would have us believe that adopting their philosophy would automatically lead to a SC. Seriously though, you nailed it.

 

[henchman21]

Holy **** guys. For the last time: There is NOTHING SAKIC CAN DO TO GUARANTEE A CUP! He could make all the short term moves you guys want and we could still end up winning zero cups. Stop framing the argument as winning cups vs not winning cups. None of the philosophies put forward in this thread lead necessarily to any cups.

And if cups is all you care about, then you should be on my side. Winning the cup is a lot like the draft. You can plan all you want, but whether or not your pick turns into a great player is often down to luck. Same goes for the playoffs. You might be the best team in the league, and yet get swept in the first round. So many things can go wrong in the playoffs that the best strategy is to give yourself as many chances as possible. Basically, what you guys seem to want is for the Avs to really go for it for the next four years, and not really consider anything beyond that. But what if in each of those four years something goes wrong for the Avs or something goes right for another team? We could load up all we want and still not win any cups in the next four years. Then we'll still end up sucking, but not have any cups to show for it. And honestly winning zero cups is the most likely outcome (mathematically-speaking) no matter what moves Sakic makes in the next four years.

What I'm suggesting is the best strategy is to load up as much as you can every year without harming your ability to compete for the cup at any time in the future. So you only trade assets if you think you can replace them internally, like when the Avs traded Barrie with Makar waiting in the wings. Same goes for prospects - we can afford to trade prospects if we think we have another prospect who can take their spot in the organization. The focus of the strategy is to give us the maximum number of chances at the cup, rather than the maximum chance in a single year or even in a few years. I think we have the best chance of winning a cup if we compete for more cups, rather than loading up for any one run.

And if you're looking for support for my argument, NHL history is absolutely full of teams that have sacrificed the future to make a run in the playoffs, not won the cup, then fell down the standings later. Columbus is looking like just the latest example. Sometimes it takes several decisions like that before the fall happens though.

Meanwhile, the list of NHL teams that have loaded up and traded away lots of futures and then won a cup - that's a smaller list. Cups tend to get won by teams that have been good for a long, long time, or who just go on a hot run (usually led by a hot goalie).

In my mind, you guys are basically advocating for something that NHL history does not support as a good way to run a team.

Pretty much every team that has built a Cup winner has sacrificed their future to build a key piece. The Blues gave up a 1st, a 2nd, a B prospect for ROR to solve an issue (and brought in a few good UFAs spending). The summer before they gave up 2 firsts for Schenn. By your logic they should have kept those picks and waited. The Caps were pretty solidly built off spending on UFAs, but shored up their defense with Kempny at that deadline. Other key pieces like Eller were brought in through trades of picks. The Pens patched back up their team (after having to re-tool from their first Cup) but spending all the future. They spent many 1sts, some 2nds and 3rds, and top prospects like Kapanen to keep that ship afloat. The Kings built their adjacent core (Carter, Richards, Williams) off trades and filled the depth by spending picks. Chicago used their sell and massive transaction volume to buy and sell their Cup group. They traded a young Saad for depth to trade for him back when they couldn't afford his replacement. They've moved their top prospects and young players with little hesitation. All Cup teams load up and sell off around the core. They have a defined core that they keep and build the best team around that as possible.

 

[Foppa2118]

Sakic knows the benefit of building a team with a great core that can compete for a long period of time, rather than building one that can compete for only a couple years.

He was on some powerhouse Avalanche teams that should have won a couple more Cups but didn't. Look at Tampa and SJ. They should both have won Cups the last five years or so but haven't. A lot of things have to come together at the right time for a team to win a Cup, and just because you load up like Columbus for a 1 or 2 year window does't mean you're going to win.

In this new era of the NHL, there's even less separating the power house teams from the middle of the pack teams in the playoffs. The momentum swings are massive now, and there's so may good goaltenders now, that if one gets hot they can beat anyone and go the whole way.

Seems much more prudent IMO to build a team of good players on good long term contracts, so you can build around them and stay competitive for as long as possible without rebuilding for a decade.

 

[flyfysher]

Pretty much every team that has built a Cup winner has sacrificed their future to build a key piece. The Blues gave up a 1st, a 2nd, a B prospect for ROR to solve an issue (and brought in a few good UFAs spending). The summer before they gave up 2 firsts for Schenn. By your logic they should have kept those picks and waited. The Caps were pretty solidly built off spending on UFAs, but shored up their defense with Kempny at that deadline. Other key pieces like Eller were brought in through trades of picks. The Pens patched back up their team (after having to re-tool from their first Cup) but spending all the future. They spent many 1sts, some 2nds and 3rds, and top prospects like Kapanen to keep that ship afloat. The Kings built their adjacent core (Carter, Richards, Williams) off trades and filled the depth by spending picks. Chicago used their sell and massive transaction volume to buy and sell their Cup group. They traded a young Saad for depth to trade for him back when they couldn't afford his replacement. They've moved their top prospects and young players with little hesitation. All Cup teams load up and sell off around the core. They have a defined core that they keep and build the best team around that as possible.

Now tell us about all of the contenders that made moves that didn't pan out with a SC. Point is, you (and other posters) have a different opinion than Sakic on the value of making such a move at a given point in time. I have to believe that in Sakic's estimation, the options you and others pointed out would not have substantially led to the SC last season. I can understand where you and cgf may feel like he's too reserved when he should be making a push for the SC. There's merit to that but I can also see why Sakic took the route that he did and as it so happens, he's in the driver's seat and we're along for the ride. I truly believe the Avs have a definitive plan in place with some pretty specific criteria which they're looking at in terms of considering who they would acquire.

I tend to be with Mark T. in terms of going for the SC. It depends on how you define 'contention.' If 'contention' means we should be in the conference finals or SC then yeah, at least a four year window. By my book though, once you're in the POs then you're contending. Anything can happen. If not for the refs and a league desire for the Sharks to finally win the SC last year, we wouldn't have had that ****** call go against us in game 7 (although I didn't think we could beat the Blues then. I think we can now with being able to ice a gritty line like Landeskog-Kadri-Compher) then who knows?

I can definitely foresee a situation where I believe the Avs should be in the POs for at least 7 out of the next 10 years if not more. If you think that's hard, look at where the Avs have been since Roy was coach. 2 seasons out of the POs, 3 seasons in the POs. Now everyone thinks we should have a 4 year window at a minimum. If that's the case, then it's 2 seasons out (including the monumentally worst season ever) and 7 seasons in the POs. So a little perspective is in order.

 

[avsfan09]

Yes I’d rather win 2 cups in three years and then struggle, instead of contending for 15 years and winning nothing.

Were you happy with the Avs from 2002-2018? Ideally your team continually balances future and present and making steps to better your team, drafting and development/systems and chemistry. Obviously nothings ideal but winning and even that has no mathematical formula. It’s tough but I don’t see why a team shouldn't aim for it. Its obvious that most teams need to bottom in order to get cup winning 1c’s or be extremely shrewd with drafting and developing. But after they acquire those players which I would argue we have acquired them... its about finding a way to keep them and fill in the support pieces.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Were you happy with the Avs from 2002-2018? Ideally your team continually balances future and present and making steps to better your team, drafting and development/systems and chemistry. Obviously nothings ideal but winning and even that has no mathematical formula. It’s tough but I don’t see why a team shouldn't aim for it. Its obvious that most teams need to bottom in order to get cup winning 1c’s or be extremely shrewd with drafting and developing. But after they acquire those players which I would argue we have acquired them... its about finding a way to keep them and fill in the support pieces.

Well run organizations dont take 16 years to go from poor team to contender.

The Avs were simply very poorly run from about ~2006 until 2015 when Sakic had learned the ropes and Roy left allowing him to follow through on his own plans.

Quite frankly there's no real signs aside from Sakic that the organization is any better run now either. Our drafting is still in the shits and until that improves we'll be lucky to have a 3-4 year window to win a cup like we have right now.


Hopefully Sakic doesn't share the same patient, average for a while without ever truly contending approach some folks believe in here. I really do not want to be the leagues next Winnipeg Jets(We dont draft good enough to be the Sharks).

 

[avsfan09]

Pretty much every team that has built a Cup winner has sacrificed their future to build a key piece. The Blues gave up a 1st, a 2nd, a B prospect for ROR to solve an issue (and brought in a few good UFAs spending). The summer before they gave up 2 firsts for Schenn. By your logic they should have kept those picks and waited. The Caps were pretty solidly built off spending on UFAs, but shored up their defense with Kempny at that deadline. Other key pieces like Eller were brought in through trades of picks. The Pens patched back up their team (after having to re-tool from their first Cup) but spending all the future. They spent many 1sts, some 2nds and 3rds, and top prospects like Kapanen to keep that ship afloat. The Kings built their adjacent core (Carter, Richards, Williams) off trades and filled the depth by spending picks. Chicago used their sell and massive transaction volume to buy and sell their Cup group. They traded a young Saad for depth to trade for him back when they couldn't afford his replacement. They've moved their top prospects and young players with little hesitation. All Cup teams load up and sell off around the core. They have a defined core that they keep and build the best team around that as possible.

RoR and Schenn are part of there future right? RoR when acquired was signed 5 years. Thats not being reckless. Thats a sure player on a good contract.

I don’t get your chicago point either he was traded for a better player who wasn’t significantly older. Thats not being reckless thats a superstar player that was affordable.

 

[Foppa2118]

Well run organizations dont take 16 years to go from poor team to contender.

The Avs were simply very poorly run from about ~2006 until 2015 when Sakic had learned the ropes and Roy left allowing him to follow through on his own plans.

Quite frankly there's no real signs aside from Sakic that the organization is any better run now either. Our drafting is still in the ****s and until that improves we'll be lucky to have a 3-4 year window to win a cup like we have right now.


Hopefully Sakic doesn't share the same patient, average for a while without ever truly contending approach some folks believe in here. I really do not want to be the leagues next Winnipeg Jets(We dont draft good enough to be the Sharks).

I think that's true for the most part.

The main difference between the old teams Sakic was building and this one though, is their current plethora of high end young defenseman that will be with the team for a long time, and the fact they finally have a legit superstar #1C, #1W, and one of the best lines in the NHL. They didn't have any of that before.

That goes a long way towards competing for the Cup for a long time, and can make up for a less than stellar drafting record. If they can get good reliable goaltending from Grubauer or someone else, they'll have filled all the toughest positions to find.

 

[avsfan09]

Well run organizations dont take 16 years to go from poor team to contender.

The Avs were simply very poorly run from about ~2006 until 2015 when Sakic had learned the ropes and Roy left allowing him to follow through on his own plans.

Quite frankly there's no real signs aside from Sakic that the organization is any better run now either. Our drafting is still in the ****s and until that improves we'll be lucky to have a 3-4 year window to win a cup like we have right now.


Hopefully Sakic doesn't share the same patient, average for a while without ever truly contending approach some folks believe in here. I really do not want to be the leagues next Winnipeg Jets(We dont draft good enough to be the Sharks).

Sakic has picked up Girard, Rantanen, Timmins and Makar. I think that’s a good sign that our pro scouts are making strides. They aren’t afraid to go overseas now either. Rome wasn’t built in a night but I’m seeing steady progress and Joe becoming one of the more competent GM’s in the league.

As for the bolded strong strawman there. I would be willing to be that no one in here hopes to he average without truly contending lol. I think the divide has more to do with some thinking our time is running out and others thinking its finally all coming together lets not ruin our chance for one or a couple shots at a cup when I think we can have the same shots at the cup without increasingly our odds of going through another rebuild and losing important core players.

 

[flyfysher]

Quite frankly there's no real signs aside from Sakic that the organization is any better run now either.

Yikes! And I thought I was hyper-critical.

 

[henchman21]

Now tell us about all of the contenders that made moves that didn't pan out with a SC. Point is, you (and other posters) have a different opinion than Sakic on the value of making such a move at a given point in time. I have to believe that in Sakic's estimation, the options you and others pointed out would not have substantially led to the SC last season. I can understand where you and cgf may feel like he's too reserved when he should be making a push for the SC. There's merit to that but I can also see why Sakic took the route that he did and as it so happens, he's in the driver's seat and we're along for the ride. I truly believe the Avs have a definitive plan in place with some pretty specific criteria which they're looking at in terms of considering who they would acquire.

I tend to be with Mark T. in terms of going for the SC. It depends on how you define 'contention.' If 'contention' means we should be in the conference finals or SC then yeah, at least a four year window. By my book though, once you're in the POs then you're contending. Anything can happen. If not for the refs and a league desire for the Sharks to finally win the SC last year, we wouldn't have had that ****** call go against us in game 7 (although I didn't think we could beat the Blues then. I think we can now with being able to ice a gritty line like Landeskog-Kadri-Compher) then who knows?

I can definitely foresee a situation where I believe the Avs should be in the POs for at least 7 out of the next 10 years if not more. If you think that's hard, look at where the Avs have been since Roy was coach. 2 seasons out of the POs, 3 seasons in the POs. Now everyone thinks we should have a 4 year window at a minimum. If that's the case, then it's 2 seasons out (including the monumentally worst season ever) and 7 seasons in the POs. So a little perspective is in order.

Of course there are always moves that don't pan out, but that is the chance teams take. It remains that the best teams are continually trying to get better and finding ways to facilitate that. Nearly every Cup winner has done something to improve their team or improve their core group during the window beyond just being patient for the team to win. I actually feel there will be a moment when Sakic does get aggressive and does load up on the team. He's shown he's willing at every deadline where the team is close to the playoffs or in, that he will make a move. He hasn't made the big move yet. I think it will come at some point. It may not be this year or next, but sometime before MacK's contract is up, where the Avs will mortgage the future. Now why do I think this? Both Cups that Sakic was a part of, had big, big help from those sorts of moves. 95-96 brought in some big name swaps, then buying up Roy. The 2001 Cup had Blake and Bourque. Sakic saw directly how it can change a team. As much as that though, is he sees how the NHL operates and pretty much every contending team supports their core in a similar manner. It can be from UFAs and high dollar contracts, it can be from trades, but all teams have to find ways to support their core and build the team. Even the very best teams need a little kick. Tampa didn't make a move last summer or last season that was significant. They thought McDonagh and Miller was all they'd need to get over the hump... but in the end their lack of defensive depth behind Hedman and McDonagh killed them in the first round.

RoR and Schenn are part of there future right? RoR when acquired was signed 5 years. Thats not being reckless. Thats a sure player on a good contract.

I don’t get your chicago point either he was traded for a better player who wasn’t significantly older. Thats not being reckless thats a superstar player that was affordable.

Nobody is saying to be reckless.

 

[flyfysher]

I actually feel there will be a moment when Sakic does get aggressive and does load up on the team. He's shown he's willing at every deadline where the team is close to the playoffs or in, that he will make a move. He hasn't made the big move yet. I think it will come at some point. It may not be this year or next, but sometime before MacK's contract is up, where the Avs will mortgage the future.

I agree that there may come a time when Sakic does get aggressive and load up the team. But I hate that you wrote, "Avs will mortgage the future." What exactly does that mean?

 

[henchman21]

I agree that there may come a time when Sakic does get aggressive and load up the team. But I hate that you wrote, "Avs will mortgage the future." What exactly does that mean?

It means 1sts, 2nds, prospects and young players will be available. You give up future pieces for now.

 

[avsfan09]

Of course there are always moves that don't pan out, but that is the chance teams take. It remains that the best teams are continually trying to get better and finding ways to facilitate that. Nearly every Cup winner has done something to improve their team or improve their core group during the window beyond just being patient for the team to win. I actually feel there will be a moment when Sakic does get aggressive and does load up on the team. He's shown he's willing at every deadline where the team is close to the playoffs or in, that he will make a move. He hasn't made the big move yet. I think it will come at some point. It may not be this year or next, but sometime before MacK's contract is up, where the Avs will mortgage the future. Now why do I think this? Both Cups that Sakic was a part of, had big, big help from those sorts of moves. 95-96 brought in some big name swaps, then buying up Roy. The 2001 Cup had Blake and Bourque. Sakic saw directly how it can change a team. As much as that though, is he sees how the NHL operates and pretty much every contending team supports their core in a similar manner. It can be from UFAs and high dollar contracts, it can be from trades, but all teams have to find ways to support their core and build the team. Even the very best teams need a little kick. Tampa didn't make a move last summer or last season that was significant. They thought McDonagh and Miller was all they'd need to get over the hump... but in the end their lack of defensive depth behind Hedman and McDonagh killed them in the first round.



Nobody is saying to be reckless.

No but they are saying there is a definitive window and that if we don’t make moves now we are blowing it. So they aren’t being selective enough. Impulsivity works out at times but patience and waiting for your opportunity works put more often. Wait for a like Vegas made with Mark Stone or make sure the player is a fit before blowing our load. It’s highly likely some great top sixers shake loose between now and the deadline. But don’t mortgage flexibility in the future unless you’re sure on a player and have plans to deal with the cap.

 

[henchman21]

No but they are saying there is a definitive window and that if we don’t make moves now we are blowing it. So they aren’t being selective enough. Impulsivity works out at times but patience and waiting for your opportunity works put more often. Wait for a like Vegas made with Mark Stone or make sure the player is a fit before blowing our load. It’s highly likely some great top sixers shake loose between now and the deadline. But don’t mortgage flexibility in the future unless you’re sure on a player and have plans to deal with the cap.

People talking about the window, including myself are on a 3 or 4 year timeframe. They aren't saying all in this year and screw 3 or 4 years from now, but saying load up as much as possible for that timeframe. 3 or 4 years is a very long time in the NHL. From the 2015-16 team, only 5 players remain who were even in the NHL at all(EJ, Landy, MacK, Rants, and Z)... only 3 of them were up the whole season. 16-17 only brings that number up to 10 and 2 of those players are in the AHL (Greer and Lindholm). There is a lot of turnover in the NHL, and people are simply saying these are the prime contending years, then at best, a re-tool has to happen while the team builds depth back up from absorbing MacK's 9+m raise and then potential Mikko's 4-5m raise a couple seasons after.

What that means to me, is if a player can't be counted on as playing a good role or being an impact piece in the next 3/4 years, then they are available. Byram is probably the only untouchable I'd have in the prospect pool as his NHL timeline is next year and should be impact in 21-22. Newhook/Timmins/Bowers/insertfavoriteprospect would all be up for grabs if you can get a 3 or 4 year solution to a need. The lower down you go in value and impact timeline, you might shrink that to two or three years. IE I'd give up this year's first as a part of a deal for a 2 or 3 year 2nd line wing solution. 1st + Newhook/Timmins/Bowers for a 4 year solution. RD has a similar gap that I'd like solved too, but less of a pressing need today (needed within a couple seasons). Now Timmins could play his way out of the available group by getting into the NHL and sticking. Which has the nice option of solving the RD issue too.

 

[flyfysher]

It means 1sts, 2nds, prospects and young players will be available. You give up future pieces for now.

I can see trading 1sts, 2nds, prospects and young players. But the import of the remark is as though the Avs would be intentionally foregoing the likelihood of making the POs even as a wild card for a very long time. And I would have a problem with that. If you said a season or two, that's a different matter depending on the context of the situation at the time.

 

[SirLoinOfCloth]

Shit. I'm just happy to see we are contenders, and I plan to enjoy it for as long as it lasts.