mriswith
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2011
- 4,238
- 7,549
The argument about older players being the key to the cup is so bizarre to me.
Any argument about how old the cup winning teams core was should be based off of how old those players were when that team became a contender. Winning a cup is luck, being a cup contender is not.
The reason the players are a bit older is because it takes a long window of being a contender to win a cup, even if you have a team that at the start of every season has a 60% chance of winning the cup (truly, extremely exceptional and probably has never happened) it's still likely to take a few years.
The last 5 years the cup winners were TBL, STL, WAS, PIT. How many years were those teams contenders and didn't win the cup before the year they did? Where are we in that life cycle compared to them?
Instead, it seems like the age argument gets used to duck the questions about how exactly this team will win a cup when it can't even become a contender in the first place. "The players will be older then!!!!" if you aren't a contender before they get older, this literally works against your argument, provided the argument is in good faith.
It also amazes me that people somehow believe that the manager who couldn't make the playoffs in 2/3 years with three star players on ELC's generating a ~20-25 mil cap advantage is somehow going to make that team a year in year out contender with almost no cap advantages now that all of those deals are over. Particularly when that managers primary method of "improving the defense", which has always been the weakest link and has needed improving and rebuilding every year of his 7 year tenure, is adding cap anchors that aren't worth their contracts, and even his staunchest supporters fear Bennings pen when free agency rolls around.
Any argument about how old the cup winning teams core was should be based off of how old those players were when that team became a contender. Winning a cup is luck, being a cup contender is not.
The reason the players are a bit older is because it takes a long window of being a contender to win a cup, even if you have a team that at the start of every season has a 60% chance of winning the cup (truly, extremely exceptional and probably has never happened) it's still likely to take a few years.
The last 5 years the cup winners were TBL, STL, WAS, PIT. How many years were those teams contenders and didn't win the cup before the year they did? Where are we in that life cycle compared to them?
Instead, it seems like the age argument gets used to duck the questions about how exactly this team will win a cup when it can't even become a contender in the first place. "The players will be older then!!!!" if you aren't a contender before they get older, this literally works against your argument, provided the argument is in good faith.
It also amazes me that people somehow believe that the manager who couldn't make the playoffs in 2/3 years with three star players on ELC's generating a ~20-25 mil cap advantage is somehow going to make that team a year in year out contender with almost no cap advantages now that all of those deals are over. Particularly when that managers primary method of "improving the defense", which has always been the weakest link and has needed improving and rebuilding every year of his 7 year tenure, is adding cap anchors that aren't worth their contracts, and even his staunchest supporters fear Bennings pen when free agency rolls around.