Question on rebuild.

[Jame]

Im not in the buisness of just being in the playoffs. We could have done that without being the worst team in the league. Being a 100 pnt team may be a successful rebuild, but not what Im hoping for.

The question wasnt "what are you hoping for"

We all want a cup

Building a team that is a high see playoff team yearly, is a successful rebuild.

Not getting the job done over an extended period time would be a failure (post rebuild)

 

[joshjull]

The question wasnt "what are you hoping for"

We all want a cup

Building a team that is a high see playoff team yearly, is a successful rebuild.

Not getting the job done over an extended period time would be a failure (post rebuild)

Well said.

We've already seen a successful rebuild done. That was by Darcy during the post Hasek/bankruptcy years. We came out of the lockout as a young, talented and very deep team that was one of the best in the league. That it unraveled like it did is a another story.

 

[sba]

I don't want to be the SJ Sharks of the east.


Would it be exciting? Sure. Would it be filled with suspense? Sure.

Would it be satisfying? Hell no.

I see your point and agree, but there's worse things to be than San Jose.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Is a Stanley Cup required in order for you to consider the "rebuild" a success?

I know a lot people are black and white about things.. you either win or you don't...but some look at the totality of the situation.

How is it for you.... Cup or go home?

The lifting of at least one Lord Stanley is required.

 

[Zman5778]

Building a team that is a high see playoff team yearly, is a successful rebuild.

Not getting the job done over an extended period time would be a failure (post rebuild)

Well said.

A successful rebuild and winning a Cup could be two very different phases.

The rebuild could get us 90% of the way there....it'd then be the tweaking that needs to be done which could be considered a separate phase.

 

[Ruckus007]

I don't know how anyone can realistically call winning a Cup to be a prerequisite for calling a rebuild successful.

I agree with the other posters who talk about a extended success in terms of seeding/playoffs/winning playoff rounds. To, the purpose of the type of rebuild the Sabres are in is to return to that level of competitiveness. Cup or bust is a slogan, but it's not a legitimate operating plan.


EDIT: If the result of this current process is that the Sabres end up as a new version of the current Sharks, or of the Capitals, that will not be a failure of the rebuilding process. IMO, that will signal it's success. Not winning a championship under those circumstances would be a different failure.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

The question wasnt "what are you hoping for"

We all want a cup

Building a team that is a high see playoff team yearly, is a successful rebuild.

Not getting the job done over an extended period time would be a failure (post rebuild)

do i need to underline the it is a successful rebuild part? i shouldnt think so seeing as you bolded it

but i guess the opporunity to use an eye roll takes up too much brain space to actually read it all

the point of the post was that a successful rebuild doesnt necessarily mean Ill be happy with the results

 

[start winnin]

Of course not.

The rebuild is a success when a core structure is in place for long term contention (NHL roster and pipeline)

under those terms, the GM did his job and then it's on the players/coaches to get the job done (of course the GM plays a role in that as well)

The success of "the rebuild" is not dependent on a cup...

If you go from bottom of the league to consistent 90-100 pt team, with a core and a pipeline of talent... Then the rebuild was a success

Like the sharks?

 

[enthusiast]

A cup has never been as important to me as it seems to be for most others. If the sabres play like the best team in the NHL for a few years and don't manage to get a cup that doesn't invalidate their play or status.

 

[Jame]

Like the sharks?

Yes, the Sharks built a contender, and now after a prolonged period of time some people will have to take the heat for that failure.

 

[Sabre the Win]

A cup has never been as important to me as it seems to be for most others. If the sabres play like the best team in the NHL for a few years and don't manage to get a cup that doesn't invalidate their play or status.

But there's always that argument when someone says; "has your team won a cup?" or "how many cups has your team won" that kills Buffalo fans everytime. Sure you could brag how good they were but they weren't the best because they didn't win. Simple counter argument.

 

[Paxon]

But there's always that argument when someone says; "has your team won a cup?" or "how many cups has your team won" that kills Buffalo fans everytime. Sure you could brag how good they were but they weren't the best because they didn't win. Simple counter argument.

I roll my eyes at that, like Leafs are suppose to draw pride from their team winning a Cup a decade before they were born.

 

[SabresFanNorthPortFL]

Ok, I'm an older Buffalo fan....let me put it this way....

1. Ralph Wilson was the only owner the Bills had ever known, and I'm not convinced he lived and breathed Bills football. IMO, it was a business. Did he want to win? Sure. Did he do everything in his power to win? I'm not so sure. Bottom line...he lived in Detroit, and owned the Buffalo Bills.

No disrespect to Ralph but he owned one of the biggest looser franchises in the nfl, and if it wasn't for Bill Polian, it would arguably the worst.

2. Sabres. Again, the Knox's owned the team forever but did they put their all into it? I'm not sure. Galisano saved the franchise but he owned it to flip it. Success on his part. Regis...hey, if they were in it to win it, they would have upgraded the team around Hasek.

Bottom line for this rebuild to me.....this is the A) first time the rebuild/retool is being done right and B) we have an owner who is a Buffalonian, who has deep pockets, and WHO WANTS TO WIN BAD!!!

So in the history of Buffalo sports, it appears for the first time that the only acceptable outcome is to win the Stanley Cup.

No other answer is acceptable.

Pegula said "Cups," which is plural....they're doing it right, maintain the course, and in 2-3 years we will be a contender.

It's the Stanley Cup or bust.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

As has been said, a successful rebuild is putting a roster together that becomes a contender and at least gets to the ECFs a few times. There's so much else that factors into winning a Cup that is out of the GM's hands. I'd say Murray et all have done their job if the team gets in the playoffs 4-7 times in a row and to a SCF at least once.

Wanting anything more than that falls under a different topic for debate.

 

[yahhockey]

There may be some rebuilds where being perennial Cup contenders is deemed a success however this is not one of those rebuilds. This will be a complete makeover trading anyone another team desires, letting useless cogs walk and stockpiling the largest collection of top sixty selections in NHL history. Given the scope of what has happened in Buffalo, including the "team" we put on the ice last year and the one that will be out there this season, only a Cup would truly make it a successful rebuild.

I would enjoy watching the team consistently make the playoffs and be a popular preseason choice to win the division, conference or even the Cup. I may be happy to see a competitive Sabres team be the talk of the NHL but in my heart it won't be the same without winning a Cup. Even one makes it worthwhile. Adding that "s" to the end would be an any positive superlative you can imagine but the first one will make the rebuild a success.

 

[Chad Thundercock]

Stop falling for what Pegula said about cups, that's hype like most new owners do. And how it worked, 2011 was rough. He's a fan, which we all know. There's positives and negatives to that, which we've seen.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

I don't recall if it was Scotty Bowman who said this but it sounds like him:

"You can build a team to get to the conference finals; everything else is luck."

 

[haseoke39]

It seems the debate has shifted to one over terminology, i.e., what is a rebuild and what is a post-rebuild.

I think taking that tack is silly because it just avoids a fair question put forward by the OP.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

It seems the debate has shifted to one over terminology, i.e., what is a rebuild and what is a post-rebuild.

I think taking that tack is silly because it just avoids a fair question put forward by the OP.

The rebuild, at least for me, is a joint Timmy/Darcy venture. Winning a cup would be all Murray for me. That's directly a result of there being some line between rebuild and winning a cup. So I have to say that how I feel about the rebuild has no connection to winning a cup.

But I'd also have to say that a good rebuild that doesn't win a cup, probably is as insignificant to me as when we won the Presidents Trophy and then lost to Ottawa. It was nice, but at the end of the day it was overshadowed by a more significant failure.

 

[brian_griffin]

Is a Stanley Cup required in order for you to consider the "rebuild" a success?

I know a lot people are black and white about things.. you either win or you don't...but some look at the totality of the situation.

How is it for you.... Cup or go home?

My answer at the end...

Depends on what the question is.

Will I be personally satisfied? Of course not. It's not successful if judged solely from the perspective of whether it delivered what I most wanted.

But put it this way: Let's say the result of our rebuild was a perennial contender who went deep in the playoffs regularly but could never seal the deal for a variety of somewhat sympathetic reasons - run into the hottest goalie of the year in the finals, crushed by injuries, etc.

And let's imagine that after that run was over we fell out of the playoffs for a couple years and we had to decide how to rebuild them team. Would I consider what we did "successful" enough to repeat the process, or would I advocate constantly trying to get into the playoffs? Of course I would say our rebuild was a successful enough example. So if the question is did we, overall, have a successful tactic in rebuilding the way we did, the answer might be emphatically yes.

Well put.

There is only 1 measure of true success.

A perennial contender might save jobs but it doesn't mean we've accomplished the goal.... There would still be work to be done.

I contend a rebuild isn't complete until you win a championship

The goal in Pro Hockey is to win the Championship.

If you have a solid plan, and you build a playoff team and they fall short of a goal it's clear that you need to continue building.

The variable can be planned for. If injury is the reason you failed you have to address depth. If overall talent is the issue you need to tweak your top end.

If you fail to win there is always a modification to be made.

And if 15 years Murray leaves buffalo with 11 playoff seasons, 4-5 deep runs, a presidents trophy, and no championships he will leave having failed.

Because there is only one goal that anyone cares about.

Thats simply not true. An injury to a core player in the playoffs in this cap era pretty much seals a teams fate. The top teams are so close in talent that if a Toews, Kane, Koiptar, Doughty etc goes down there is no way they can ice enough depth to overcome that.

To pretend that all aspects of winning a Cup are within the control of the GM is being a tad naive. Posters hate to read it but a certain degree of luck is involved in winning Cup, particularly with injuries to your team or an opponent. Its why Crosby's Pens have a Cup and the Wings didn't win 2 in a row.

I agree with joshjull, and disagree with Karate Johnson that winning a Cup can be formulaicly planned for, with all contingencies identified and addressed in advance. In the 23-man roster, 30-team, salary cap era, one can no loger build teams like the 1970s Canadiens, and 1980s Islanders and Oilers where a single club puts 4, 5, or 6 players combined on the NHL's 1st and 2nd-team all-stars.

One can't say with sincerity that the best team in the NHL has won the Cup each and every year since (you pick your year). One could say certain seasons have had teams besides the Cup winner who were equally capable of winning the Cup, but did not.

Well said.

A successful rebuild and winning a Cup could be two very different phases.

The rebuild could get us 90% of the way there....it'd then be the tweaking that needs to be done which could be considered a separate phase.

I disagree with separating the phases. We are rebuilding with the goal of winning the Cup (which I agree with Karate Johnston). We are not rebuilding with the goal of completing a rebuild which allows us to compete for a Cup. Not only is it unneccessary to decouple the two, it dilutes focus by doing so.

I'm sure the 90% value was subjectively chosen, but it is an appropriate delineator for the so-called tweaking threshhold. e.g., in a 16-team Eastern conference, 50% success = making playoffs (8/16). 75% success is making second round (4/16). 88% chance is making ECF (2/16). Beyond that, tweak what you wish and hope you get lucky.

I don't know how anyone can realistically call winning a Cup to be a prerequisite for calling a rebuild successful.

I agree with the other posters who talk about a extended success in terms of seeding/playoffs/winning playoff rounds. To, the purpose of the type of rebuild the Sabres are in is to return to that level of competitiveness. Cup or bust is a slogan, but it's not a legitimate operating plan.


EDIT: If the result of this current process is that the Sabres end up as a new version of the current Sharks, or of the Capitals, that will not be a failure of the rebuilding process. IMO, that will signal it's success. Not winning a championship under those circumstances would be a different failure.

I don't view the Caps the same way as the Sharks. Re: BUF potential rebuild performance similar to Sharks, it would either be failure to "tweak" / "tweak correctly" to get that last 10% to the goal, or repetitive bad luck. (We can debate which failure befell SJ each post-season.)

I don't recall if it was Scotty Bowman who said this but it sounds like him:

"You can build a team to get to the conference finals; everything else is luck."

Actually, I've said that in a few threads over the years. joshjull has, too.

A perrenial Conf. finalist caliber team (building blocks = individual and collective skills, team system, roster flexibility, roster depth, pipeline replacement depth, in-game coaching, conditioning, need-based trade deadline improvements) should probabilistically yield a couple Cup Finals, and with luck, a Cup.

The (only) goal is the Cup.
The only way to reach that goal is to be the ECF winner.
The rebuild is successfull if/when BUF routinely makes the ECF. From there, probability suggests they'll make a couple Finals. With luck as well, they'll win the Cup. To believe a Cup can be won without it (luck), in this era of the game, is, IMO, naieve.