bud white wrote: ↑15 May 2025 12:19 pm
The issue with trade conjecture on this board is simply this:
Winning a Cup and / or building a competitive NHL team does not happen by pouring over hockey-refernce.com or by creating a team through EA Sports. It is won on the ice. You need a balance of skill and battle. Skill can be measured by stats, but battle simply cannot.
Battle is the finished check. The little stick nudge on the back of the leg. The incessant yipping that gets the opposition out of their comfort zone, draws them away from the task at hand, and ends up in a stupid penalty taken at a critical juncture of the game. Battle is going to the front of the net knowing you'll get whacked, hacked and abused for two plus months.
Battle is the guy you hate on the other team ... but would love to have on your team.
That's where guy like Schenn, Neighbors, Bolduc, Suter and Tucker live. This is where they thrive. And man "battle" guys learned the ropes in the Western Junior League. Kids are driving hours to a game or practice...and hours back the other way. They give an honest effort.
Stanley Cups come through the Western Juniors (frankly, that's a core issue of the Maple Leafs).
The Winnipeg fan base absolutely hated Neighbors, Schenn and Bolduc (who played more like a western kid than a kid from the Q). And while many point to their lack of production, this series doesn't go to 7 games without them.
So let's pump the brakes on Neighbors and Bolduc. They aren't JAGs. They are young and they are tough. And they are exactly who is needed as you build a winning culture.
Since we got into the playoffs it's triggered a wave of let's find the next 2-3 pieces now. It's what fans do. I didn't give a [shirt] about making the playoffs this year and said so. Then I was accused of wanting to "tank" and create a losing culture.
We have a short and a long window for deep playoff runs and possible Cup contender status. We are most likely going to need to make some unpopular moves to fulfill the promise in both cases. In my opinion we're not there yet in any case.
It's probably best to pick one or the other. I prefer going for the latter one. Maybe I'm wrong in that choice. Regardless of ones viewpoint there's going to be differing conjecture on this board as how to best to achieve it. I see no need to try to censor others . It's a board for fanatical types after all.
bud white wrote: ↑15 May 2025 12:19 pm
The issue with trade conjecture on this board is simply this:
Winning a Cup and / or building a competitive NHL team does not happen by pouring over hockey-refernce.com or by creating a team through EA Sports. It is won on the ice. You need a balance of skill and battle. Skill can be measured by stats, but battle simply cannot.
Battle is the finished check. The little stick nudge on the back of the leg. The incessant yipping that gets the opposition out of their comfort zone, draws them away from the task at hand, and ends up in a stupid penalty taken at a critical juncture of the game. Battle is going to the front of the net knowing you'll get whacked, hacked and abused for two plus months.
Battle is the guy you hate on the other team ... but would love to have on your team.
That's where guy like Schenn, Neighbors, Bolduc, Suter and Tucker live. This is where they thrive. And man "battle" guys learned the ropes in the Western Junior League. Kids are driving hours to a game or practice...and hours back the other way. They give an honest effort.
Stanley Cups come through the Western Juniors (frankly, that's a core issue of the Maple Leafs).
The Winnipeg fan base absolutely hated Neighbors, Schenn and Bolduc (who played more like a western kid than a kid from the Q). And while many point to their lack of production, this series doesn't go to 7 games without them.
So let's pump the brakes on Neighbors and Bolduc. They aren't JAGs. They are young and they are tough. And they are exactly who is needed as you build a winning culture.
Can "battle" be measured by missing teeth? Kyrou missing any?
Bubble4427 wrote: ↑13 May 2025 13:15 pmFor every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.
And many taken at the top of the draft have been less than stellar or outright busts.
Tanking guarantees nothing except encouraging a losing culture that is hard to reverse.
Well that’s just not true.
Obviously each draft is unique and there’s exceptions to the rule in both directions all the time but when you plot many year of data together there’s no denying the top of the draft is where the value is.
So you are saying that there are no stars taken out of the top 10 in almost every draft?
You also are saying that drafting in the top 3 guarantees you future success. Nail Yakapov was never close to being a star.
How many top 3 picks do the Dallas Stars have compared to the Sabres or Blackhawks? If you think that the only way to get good players is to draft early….I politely disagree.
I’m not saying either one of those things actually. I’m simply showing you the math. Obviously late round gems come along every once in a while and obviously sometimes high picks bust but my point was that “For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.” is a ridiculously false statement.
If you were to take the last 10 drafts and collect the top three picks taken overall in each draft….you are saying that you would have more stars than if you take all of the other players drafted after the first 10 picks?
I seriously doubt it. I wonder how many of. Those 60 that were drafted never amounted to anything?
Just wondering, but It’s not important enough to me to look it up.
I don't think there is any argument that you get a better player the earlier you draft. Reality is that when those players get to their potential they generally eat up more of the cap space. For every top 3 or 5 pick you can have on your roster 2 picks that came in 15 - 30. That may or may not make your team better. Hockey is a team sport. A dominant player affects the game far less than in some other sports. Basketball a superstar makes a huge impact. In hockey, that superstar can eat up 20% of the cap, but only affect 10% of the game. There are many ways to build a winner. How many years has Edmonton had arguably the top 2 players. They may prove us wrong this year but to date that haven't won a cup.
