LastPommerFan Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Mayhaps we can organize a mass virtual votive candle-burning when the time comes. i'm in. Click through for the animation, can't put .gif in the comment directly. Edited March 7, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Sure, he could get hurt. Anybody could get hurt. Pretty weak statement. He could bust, but if he's healthy then there's very little chance he doesn't become a star. Top draft picks in the NHL don't have a high bust rate, at all. And he is an unbelievable talent, so please leave TC's name out of this. Your argument seems to be that we need more than one player so we shouldn't target this one. Do you think we should sign Callahan? If so, I say we need more than one player so we shouldn't go after him. No, we shouldn't *sign* Callahan; we should acquire/make a whole team full of Callahans- good work ethic, lots of hustle, respectable talent. At the beginning of the season we had none of those. Now we have a team that works and hustles but you can coach someone to be talented if it isn't inherently there. My point is that focusing on the tank is not the right way. Building up the *whole* team is the right way. Let's look at it differently: Tyler Myers. Great rookie season, a superstar in the making. Then he loses his mojo and becomes hovers around mediocrity for a few years. Now he's maturing and busing out of it. A year or two ago we said he needed to go, now he's playing out of is mind crazy franchise good. Let's say we get McDavid. You guys seem so obsessed with the guy. When we get him, he will be a boy among men. There will be a lot of pressure on him and on the organization to move him up. With all that pressure we don't know how he'll handle it. Will he be a star? Maybe in four or five years. Maybe until then he will go through lots of ups and downs. All I'm saying is don't take it as a sure thing that if we draft the guy, a competitive team is inevitable. It might take years. It might never happen. Or what if the team tanks and McDavid goes to someone else anyway due to the lottery? The tank is like buying lottery tickets for your retirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 No, we shouldn't *sign* Callahan; we should acquire/make a whole team full of Callahans- good work ethic, lots of hustle, respectable talent. At the beginning of the season we had none of those. Now we have a team that works and hustles but you can coach someone to be talented if it isn't inherently there. My point is that focusing on the tank is not the right way. Building up the *whole* team is the right way. You're still ignoring that fact that we have a gazillion (approximately) picks and have had about that many over the last few years... The focus isn't just throwing everything at McDavid. We have plenty of players. We have plenty of hard-working and able prospects that should work with McDavid. It's not like the NBA where a team tanks by wiping all talent in the organization. You can hide talent in the form of prospects in the NHL. The team will be built from the ground levels up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 No, we shouldn't *sign* Callahan; we should acquire/make a whole team full of Callahans- good work ethic, lots of hustle, respectable talent. At the beginning of the season we had none of those. Now we have a team that works and hustles but you can coach someone to be talented if it isn't inherently there. My point is that focusing on the tank is not the right way. Building up the *whole* team is the right way. Let's look at it differently: Tyler Myers. Great rookie season, a superstar in the making. Then he loses his mojo and becomes hovers around mediocrity for a few years. Now he's maturing and busing out of it. A year or two ago we said he needed to go, now he's playing out of is mind crazy franchise good. Let's say we get McDavid. You guys seem so obsessed with the guy. When we get him, he will be a boy among men. There will be a lot of pressure on him and on the organization to move him up. With all that pressure we don't know how he'll handle it. Will he be a star? Maybe in four or five years. Maybe until then he will go through lots of ups and downs. All I'm saying is don't take it as a sure thing that if we draft the guy, a competitive team is inevitable. It might take years. It might never happen. Or what if the team tanks and McDavid goes to someone else anyway due to the lottery? The tank is like buying lottery tickets for your retirement. You can take your criticisms of the tank and apply it to any other method of trying to build a team. It's ALL a lottery ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Would you rather have first pick or next two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 But a more incremental, broad-based approach can take into account changes in players, not getting the players you want, etc. If you purposely lose for years to get a single player and then you don't get him, you're left with a bunch of players that don't know how to win. Start building now, tank be damned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 But a more incremental, broad-based approach can take into account changes in players, not getting the players you want, etc. If you purposely lose for years to get a single player and then you don't get him, you're left with a bunch of players that don't know how to win. Start building now, tank be damned. What do you think Zadorov, Risto, Gus, Grigs, Armia etc.. are? We are building now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Would you rather have first pick or next two? First pick. I would take McDavid over Eichel and Hanifin. But a more incremental, broad-based approach can take into account changes in players, not getting the players you want, etc. If you purposely lose for years to get a single player and then you don't get him, you're left with a bunch of players that don't know how to win. Start building now, tank be damned. Sure. If there was only one elite player in next year's draft then it'd make sense. But there are multiple. Buffalo teams are always right outside the group of elite prospects in every draft. Next year it's time to change that. Not getting McDavid would be a disappointment, but I'll cry over an authentic Eichel or Hanifin Sabres jersey. Edited March 7, 2014 by Tankalicious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Would you rather have first pick or next two? General question, or pertaining to next year? Because my answer varies. Next year, first pick all day. This year? Give me next two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 What do you think Zadorov, Risto, Gus, Grigs, Armia etc.. are? We are building now. You're not building if the goal is to continue to tank. Because they could easily ice a team next season that could compete for eighth. The only way around this is to trade for some other lower-tier team's 2015 first round. Then, they could re-build, yet still take solace that they have a shot at McDavid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkMeadow Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Hey, not to be a party pooper at the McDavid adulation club, but I'm old enough to recall the hype surrounding the last first overall pick the Sabres had. There was even a big article in Sports Illustrated (I think) long before the Sabres picked him, about how he was the next great thing and a can't miss Superstar in the mold of Mario. I'm not saying that McDavid is another Sneaky Pete, but he just might not turn out to be all that he projects to be at age 17. I'm of the mindset that we need to build a solid TEAM of talent, and if we are lucky enough to get him in the process, then hooray for us. But if we don't get him, it should not be a reason not to contend for the Cup within five years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swedesessed Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Bottom line for me is this: The Red Wings have been a mark of consistency and elite play for a very long time in the NHL (not so much lately but they are still good) I don't recall them having high draft picks to build with to build the team they had, and as well use FA to their advantage when need be. Tim Murray needs to draft well, regardless of where he picks, and Pegula needs to spend the right way when needed. #1 picks don't guarantee anything. Just ask Edmonton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Hey, not to be a party pooper at the McDavid adulation club, but I'm old enough to recall the hype surrounding the last first overall pick the Sabres had. There was even a big article in Sports Illustrated (I think) long before the Sabres picked him, about how he was the next great thing and a can't miss Superstar in the mold of Mario. I don't even remember who that was. Who was it? I'm of the mindset that we need to build a solid TEAM of talent, and if we are lucky enough to get him in the process, then hooray for us. But if we don't get him, it should not be a reason not to contend for the Cup within five years. Bottom line for me is this: The Red Wings have been a mark of consistency and elite play for a very long time in the NHL (not so much lately but they are still good) I don't recall them having high draft picks to build with to build the team they had, and as well use FA to their advantage when need be. Tim Murray needs to draft well, regardless of where he picks, and Pegula needs to spend the right way when needed. #1 picks don't guarantee anything. Just ask Edmonton. Yes. All of that. Edited March 7, 2014 by Doohickie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 #1 picks don't guarantee anything. Just ask Edmonton. Trying as hard as possible to win doesn't guarantee anything either. Just ask...the Sabres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 You're not building if the goal is to continue to tank. Because they could easily ice a team next season that could compete for eighth. Just flat out wrong on both accounts. There are different ways to build. The Sabres chose this way, which has proven in the past to be the right way (I won't say the only way even if the evidence strongly points to it). And MAYBE they could ice a team that competes for eighth, but that's HIGHLY doubtful. You're not competing for a playoff spot if you only have one legitimate NHL center and a bunch of prospects. I know the response will be "but throw money at Callahan!" That's one player, and it takes two sides to come to an agreement. It's not a foregone conclusion that ANYBODY will want to come here. Period. I don't even remember who that was. Who was it? Turgeon. Hey, not to be a party pooper at the McDavid adulation club, but I'm old enough to recall the hype surrounding the last first overall pick the Sabres had. There was even a big article in Sports Illustrated (I think) long before the Sabres picked him, about how he was the next great thing and a can't miss Superstar in the mold of Mario. You do realize that Turgeon scored 500 goals and had over 1300 points, right? Bottom line for me is this: The Red Wings have been a mark of consistency and elite play for a very long time in the NHL (not so much lately but they are still good) I don't recall them having high draft picks to build with to build the team they had, and as well use FA to their advantage when need be. Tim Murray needs to draft well, regardless of where he picks, and Pegula needs to spend the right way when needed. #1 picks don't guarantee anything. Just ask Edmonton. GIVE ME A BREAK on the Detroit thing. That's ONE example. Same with Edmonton. Edmonton also never had a world-class prospect in their time. Every other team besides Detroit has selected an elite prospect at the top of the draft as part of their whole building process. If you can give me the luck of getting Datsyuk and Zetterberg in the late rounds of the draft then I'll agree to build with the Detroit model. But it's not happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkMeadow Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) Turgeon. You do realize that Turgeon scored 500 goals and had over 1300 points, right? Not saying he wasn't any good, but how many Cups did he lead his teams to? He was not the kind of player to build a team around, and he was often invisible (which I believe is how he came by the handle "Sneaky Pete") (Sorry - I couldn't figure out how to cut part of your response and put in the shaded quote box!) Edited March 8, 2014 by ParkMeadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 There is most definitely a sex joke there. What would this board do if we acquired another 2015 first round pick from a fringe team that misses the playoffs, the islanders defer, we end the season with the 1st and 2nd pick pre lottery. The #14 team whos pick we own wins that lottery and we draft 1,2,3 in 2015... Would anyone else sh!t their pants? That would give me a ###### for weeks :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 First pick. I would take McDavid over Eichel and Hanifin. Sure. If there was only one elite player in next year's draft then it'd make sense. But there are multiple. Buffalo teams are always right outside the group of elite prospects in every draft. Next year it's time to change that. Not getting McDavid would be a disappointment, but I'll cry over an authentic Eichel or Hanifin Sabres jersey. General question, or pertaining to next year? Because my answer varies. Next year, first pick all day. This year? Give me next two. I think it's an interesting question though. Truthfully I was completely unimpressed with McDavid at the WJHC. He didn't look anywhere near like the best player on the ice. Sure, he's dominating juniors but that's an overall lesser group of talent to go against. I seem to recall him sulking a bit when things weren't going his way, etc. Perhaps I missed a few things in that tournament but I was just not impressed. It seems that a team might benefit even more from have picks #2 and #3 over #1 even with the top talent on display. Just for fun the draft picks from 2004-2013 in order 2004: Alexander Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin, Cam Barker 2005: Sydney Crosby, Bobby Ryan, Jack Johnson 2006: Erik Johnson, Jordan Staal, Jonathan Toews 2007: Patrick Kane, James van Riemsdyk, Kyle Turris 2008: Steven Stamkos, Drew Doughty, Zach Bogosian 2009: John Tavares, Victor Hedman, Matt Duchene 2010: Taylor Hall, Tyler Seguin, Erik Gudbranson 2011: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Gabriel Landeskog, Jonathan Huberdeau 2012: Nail Yakupov, Ryan Murray, Alex Galchenyuk 2013: Nathan MacKinnon, Aleksander Barkov, Jonathan Druin It seems to me that in many cases, having the next two would be almost better than having the #1. Do you think the Oilers would have preferred next two in 2011 or 2012? I suppose that with Crosby's draft you could say that he's better than having Ryan and Johnson and that might be right, but what we don't know is how good Pittsburgh would be if Malkin was not there as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) I think it's an interesting question though. Truthfully I was completely unimpressed with McDavid at the WJHC. He didn't look anywhere near like the best player on the ice. Sure, he's dominating juniors but that's an overall lesser group of talent to go against. I seem to recall him sulking a bit when things weren't going his way, etc. Perhaps I missed a few things in that tournament but I was just not impressed. It seems that a team might benefit even more from have picks #2 and #3 over #1 even with the top talent on display. Just for fun the draft picks from 2004-2013 in order 2004: Alexander Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin, Cam Barker 2005: Sydney Crosby, Bobby Ryan, Jack Johnson 2006: Erik Johnson, Jordan Staal, Jonathan Toews 2007: Patrick Kane, James van Riemsdyk, Kyle Turris 2008: Steven Stamkos, Drew Doughty, Zach Bogosian 2009: John Tavares, Victor Hedman, Matt Duchene 2010: Taylor Hall, Tyler Seguin, Erik Gudbranson 2011: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Gabriel Landeskog, Jonathan Huberdeau 2012: Nail Yakupov, Ryan Murray, Alex Galchenyuk 2013: Nathan MacKinnon, Aleksander Barkov, Jonathan Druin It seems to me that in many cases, having the next two would be almost better than having the #1. Do you think the Oilers would have preferred next two in 2011 or 2012? I suppose that with Crosby's draft you could say that he's better than having Ryan and Johnson and that might be right, but what we don't know is how good Pittsburgh would be if Malkin was not there as well. And how old was McDavid at the WJHC ? Edited March 8, 2014 by bunomatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Did Crosby come into his draft with the same amount of hype McDavid is getting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Did Crosby come into his draft with the same amount of hype McDavid is getting? More. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 It seems that a team might benefit even more from have picks #2 and #3 over #1 even with the top talent on display. Just for fun the draft picks from 2004-2013 in order 2004: Alexander Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin, Cam Barker 2005: Sydney Crosby, Bobby Ryan, Jack Johnson 2006: Erik Johnson, Jordan Staal, Jonathan Toews 2007: Patrick Kane, James van Riemsdyk, Kyle Turris 2008: Steven Stamkos, Drew Doughty, Zach Bogosian 2009: John Tavares, Victor Hedman, Matt Duchene 2010: Taylor Hall, Tyler Seguin, Erik Gudbranson 2011: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Gabriel Landeskog, Jonathan Huberdeau 2012: Nail Yakupov, Ryan Murray, Alex Galchenyuk 2013: Nathan MacKinnon, Aleksander Barkov, Jonathan Druin Too early to tell in 2013, but MacKinnon looks like a star. The ones that two and three are better than just one: 2012, 2011, 2006. That's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Too early to tell in 2013, but MacKinnon looks like a star. The ones that two and three are better than just one: 2012, 2011, 2006. That's it. 22+28 in like 60 games as a rookie? Yeah I'd say so. People are getting so hyped on McDavid they forgot how much MacKinnon was hyped, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) You're not building if the goal is to continue to tank. Because they could easily ice a team next season that could compete for eighth. I disagree. You're implying that there's only one level of an NHL organization, meaning that if the top tier isn't performing well then we must not be doing anything constructive. This isn't the nfl or the Nba, we have farm systems that can continue to develop and mature, or build up the organization, while the top tier underperforms. I've said before but I guess I'll say it again, 5 seasons of 8th-10th place finishes aren't nearly as appealing as 4 seasons of building followed y consistent, top 5 teams. If anyone wants a perfect example of why we shouldn't try to make a run at 8th next season feel free to call up Garth snow Edited March 8, 2014 by WildCard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 22+28 in like 60 games as a rookie? Yeah I'd say so. People are getting so hyped on McDavid they forgot how much MacKinnon was hyped, too. MacKinnon did not get as much hype as McDavid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.