Three is ample evidence every single day that NHL teams constantly make horrible mistakes. I am 100% confident I would be a better GM than Peter Chiarelli, Bob Murray, Brian Burke, Anyone who's ever run Ottawa or Buffalo, Dave Nonis.........I could go all day.

Being an NHL GM is as simple as a) being born into an NHL family b) playing in the NHL c) being a player agent (which first requires being a lawyer) c) starting your own stats company.

I think that covers 100% of the NHL's GMs.

What I lack in hockey experience first hand, I make for by being one of the only people on this earth capable of an original thought, having been to college, and being an expert in critical thinking.

I dunno, I think I could hack it, no problems. Also, I should probably point out (before you pull something trying to respoind) that I am only giving the answer this question deserves, I'm not entirely serious.
- James_Tanner

Nice respoince. Your only giving the answer this question deserves ? I asked zero questions. Only pointed out your blog sucks and your crazy. And I can say that 100% because I'm super smart and know everything. I should probably point out (Before you pull something trying to respoind) I'm being sarcastic. Only about the super smart thing. Your still crazy. And this blog sucks

Ridiculous. Seriously ridiculous.

Three is ample evidence every single day that NHL teams constantly make horrible mistakes. I am 100% confident I would be a better GM than Peter Chiarelli, Bob Murray, Brian Burke, Anyone who's ever run Ottawa or Buffalo, Dave Nonis.........I could go all day.

Being an NHL GM is as simple as a) being born into an NHL family b) playing in the NHL c) being a player agent (which first requires being a lawyer) c) starting your own stats company.

I think that covers 100% of the NHL's GMs.

What I lack in hockey experience first hand, I make for by being one of the only people on this earth capable of an original thought, having been to college, and being an expert in critical thinking.

I dunno, I think I could hack it, no problems. Also, I should probably point out (before you pull something trying to respoind) that I am only giving the answer this question deserves, I'm not entirely serious.
- James_Tanner

you think what your numbers tell you to think. if i can know what you think without you telling me what you think, there's nothing original in that.

Nice respoince. Your only giving the answer this question deserves ? I asked zero questions. Only pointed out your blog sucks and your crazy. And I can say that 100% because I'm super smart and know everything. I should probably point out (Before you pull something trying to respoind) I'm being sarcastic. Only about the super smart thing. Your still crazy. And this blog sucks
- Trevrrrgavo

Sort of smart maybe?

My training in critical thinking that I received in college (I remember one course that was basically devoted to this) suggests you are full of poop.

Well yeah, that was sort of the point.

If luck plays such a strong role in deciding the Stanley cup winner each year, then it seems your "strategy" you have "created" would be the opposite of what should be done.

If you need luck to win it all, then you just want to actually be good enough to make the playoffs year after year so you have a chance to be "lucky enough to win."

Incorrect. Luck plays a huge role, but that doesn't mean you just surrender yourself to providence. It's not an either/or proposition. The best team is still going to have the best odds of winning.

So you take the steps needed to be the best team. And if you're the best team by a mile, then you have way better odds of winning at least once in the two years you max out vs the four or five years of your competitive window in a normal situation.



Unless of course you believe that using your brilliant strategy of trading all your future draft picks is somehow going to make your team so amazeballs that they transcend the normal rules and no longer need to worry about luck.
- Thecakeisalie

What you're describing is a more traditional way of doing things - it's the way things were done long before a cap system was in place.

What I am talking about is taking advantage of a system which most teams don't understand how to properly use.

It's not like we're talking about a marginal gain here. Marner, Mathews and Nylander will cost a minimum of $25 million dollars. Today they cost combined less than Komarov.

So you could get 3 more impact players in the next two years than you could otherwise.

The odds of getting an Auston Matthews in addition to a Marner and Nylander are essentially zero. This is a once in lifetime opportunity.
- James_Tanner

So they're all gonna justify an average of more than $8mil/season going into their second contracts? Or are you counting on Matthews to get $12mil?

James, I think the basis of your blog is very logical. Its basic premise is to maximize the roster talent capability by taking advantage of the fact that your best players will be the least paid players. In a salary cap league, this strategy is brilliant, and serves to put any team that would use this concept in position for immediate and short term success (The ultimate goal of the Stanley Cup not guaranteed, however... due to the luck reasons you mentioned).

The only thing I disagree with you on is not in your blog, but your response to the comment regarding the follow-up success of the 2010 Blackhawks Cup. You stated that if they had kept that team together, they may have won 5 more championships (paraphrasing).... but the dismantling of that team was attributed to the Salary Cap, something that becomes inevitable based on monetary numbers. That is one reason mathematics is known as the ultimate truth. In calculation, there is only one right answer. Yes there are ways to defer money, hide money (see Pronger and Datsyuk), but in essence, once a team becomes too successful, the increase in player compensation factor shrinks a GM's ability to structure a team within the Cap parameters, and the window of opportunity disappears very quickly. I personally feel very lucky as a fan that the Blackhawks were able to re-load and reel off 2 more Cups so quickly.

I suppose that is where the luck you speak of comes into play, and those are the teams that are fortunate enough win a Stanley Cup - or even multiple ones.

Interesting topic
- Katana777

I was only trying to differentiate (perhaps poorly) between their first and other Cups. Simply no way to keep that team together, but the other two Cups are that much more impressive because of it.

The best part is that after seeing what it took to get a good young defenseman (Taylor Hall) and saying how bad of a trade it was (worst in nhl history right?)...you went on to say the defense fix is simple...just trade a couple of these draft pick thingys for good young defensemen! THIS IS EASY
- YuenglingJagr

Part of what makes it such a bad trade is that the Oilers could have gotten a defenseman just as good as Larson without trading Hall.

I guarantee you there is at least one team around that would given you a similar player for 3 or 4 draft picks. Then you keep Hall and you're in a way better off spot.

Part of what makes it such a bad trade is that the Oilers could have gotten a defenseman just as good as Larson without trading Hall.

I guarantee you there is at least one team around that would given you a similar player for 3 or 4 draft picks. Then you keep Hall and you're in a way better off spot.
- James_Tanner

Name three. Hell, even just one example of a team willing to give a comparable player that wouldn't wreck their salary structure for just draft picks (without your idea of giving up four 1sts).

Part of what makes it such a bad trade is that the Oilers could have gotten a defenseman just as good as Larson without trading Hall.

I guarantee you there is at least one team around that would given you a similar player for 3 or 4 draft picks. Then you keep Hall and you're in a way better off spot.
- James_Tanner

When's the last time a young, potential top pairing d-man was traded for picks? I'm not saying he is a top pairing dman yet, but he has potential to develop into one.

You're acting like picks are guaranteeing you a McDavid or Matthews. Even if they are first rounders, it doesn't guarantee you are picking first or even 10th. Also, you could pick a bust. Picks aren't as valuable as you think...

Part of what makes it such a bad trade is that the Oilers could have gotten a defenseman just as good as Larson without trading Hall.

I guarantee you there is at least one team around that would given you a similar player for 3 or 4 draft picks. Then you keep Hall and you're in a way better off spot.
- James_Tanner

Regardless of how stupid you believe Chia to be and how stupid he actually is, I have 0 doubts that he wouldn't have traded Hall unless he felt it was necessary for what he got in return. They also have the best player in the world for his entire career....you dont think those first rounders will come in handy when McDavid has to get paid?

Your little trade scenario to get all these good players backfires miserably if they dont win while the guys are on ELCs. The safe and more rewarding method is to take the amazing player they were gifted and build a team around them. All trades to make you better come with a risk that often involves some sacrifice of the future

Regardless of how stupid you believe Chia to be and how stupid he actually is, I have 0 doubts that he wouldn't have traded Hall unless he felt it was necessary for what he got in return. They also have the best player in the world for his entire career....you dont think those first rounders will come in handy when McDavid has to get paid?

Your little trade scenario to get all these good players backfires miserably if they dont win while the guys are on ELCs. The safe and more rewarding method is to take the amazing player they were gifted and build a team around them. All trades to make you better come with a risk that often involves some sacrifice of the future
- YuenglingJagr

Yeah it's just dumb if you really think about it. You might have a 50% shot at winning the cup for two years. If you don't win the cup those years then you have zero chance to win for the next 10 cause you're not in the playoffs... I'd rather have a 30% chance to win for 10 years than 50% chance for 2 years. But that's just me, I'm not as great of a hockey mind as Tanner...

Tanner, One reason the Hawks lost so many players after 2010 was because some paper work was mishandled by Stan Bowman. The contract offers for some restricted free agents was not submitted in time so those players became free agents and received larger contracts. This is supposedly one of the reasons Dale Tallon was fired but ironically got replaced by Stan who messed up in the first place.

can we stop talking about how larsson has made the oilers better? hall is clearly contributing as he has 5 goals in 6 games for the low scoring devils. larssons' impact is less obvious and harder to estimate.

yes the oilers are 6-1-0 but they're also getting outshot pretty much every game. if you put the current version of freddie andersen in there (the game tying goal to laine was brutal, he was like 5 feet above the crease for no reason) the oilers would be below .500. Also, the team wasn't actually that bad when McDavid returned from injury.

stop talking about larsson like he's the reason why they're 6-1 so far. i'm not saying he's a bad player or anything but he definitely is not the reason and that was still a bad trade.

Oh my. Some things change, but Tanners brain remains the same.
Yes James, In theory this is a good idea. Teams are limited from becoming true powerhouses by financial limitations. Jump in while you have 10million dollar players playing for 1 million dollars and and drop the bank on solid Dmen to give it legs. I get it.

A teams odds of winning the cup are 1/30, if this was as simple as picking numbers. Skill gives you good numbers, better odds. It does not account for injuries. Not for underachivement. Not for flukey bounces.

In reality, your theory doesn't hold water because if it were that simple a savvy GM would have already done it. It's not that simple. It's great blog stuff and I appreciate the entertainment, even the wistfulness it creates. Thanks for the lift today.

Oh my. Some things change, but Tanners brain remains the same.
Yes James, In theory this is a good idea. Teams are limited from becoming true powerhouses by financial limitations. Jump in while you have 10million dollar players playing for 1 million dollars and and drop the bank on solid Dmen to give it legs. I get it.

A teams odds of winning the cup are 1/30, if this was as simple as picking numbers. Skill gives you good numbers, better odds. It does not account for injuries. Not for underachivement. Not for flukey bounces.

In reality, your theory doesn't hold water because if it were that simple a savvy GM would have already done it. It's not that simple. It's great blog stuff and I appreciate the entertainment, even the wistfulness it creates. Thanks for the lift today.
- jackzack87

I'm mostly with you here. I just don't like the idea that because it hasn't been done that it can't be. Some innovation is always available. In reality, you could do a version of this scheme that mitigates risk and isn't so extreme. I think it'd work well.

I'm mostly with you here. I just don't like the idea that because it hasn't been done that it can't be. Some innovation is always available. In reality, you could do a version of this scheme that mitigates risk and isn't so extreme. I think it'd work well.
- James_Tanner

You make a trade or two to push the team over the top once you realize they are very close to a cup. Not right after years of misery and tanking just because you got a really good player on an ELC

I'm mostly with you here. I just don't like the idea that because it hasn't been done that it can't be. Some innovation is always available. In reality, you could do a version of this scheme that mitigates risk and isn't so extreme. I think it'd work well.
- James_Tanner

I cant argue with the fact that it cant be done and if it was to happen the other 29 teams would follow. Just like when the Kings won with size and goaltending every other team tries to copy, than a speedy team wins and the other 29 teams try to follow.

I will take your theory one step further. Lets use the 2010 Hawks as an example. say your idea works and you win with a bunch of entry level contracts, who says you have to sign the players whose contracts are expiring? How about trading those players to recoup the draft picks you lost to get some of them? So instead of signing Toews and Kane you trade one or both for a cart load of picks and prospects. Not saying this is the way to go, just expanding on your theory.

The funniest thing about your "theory" on how to get a championship team is that is EXACTLY what got the Leafs where they are today.
Trader Cliff was quoted as saying "draft picks, shmaft picks" they traded them for guys like Nieuwendyk and Housley... so that they could "win now"... and look what it got them.

I haven't read anything in this blog or in the comment section... I just wanted to say that I like Adam Larsson. Thank you.

"That is why the Taylor Hall trade was so stupid. You can't get another Taylor Hall, but you can approximate another Adam Larsson, and they should have just thrown future draft picks at the other team until they got a deal".

Why do you make statements in absolutes, as if you have any idea what actually transpires inside the GM's office, and when conversations take place between GM's? Who were these other Larsson's they could have had using GM mode on your choice of gaming platform's NHL17?

Considering how well the Oilers are doing with Larsson, and without Hall. It would seem at this point at least, that Larsson was definitely worth Hall to the Oilers. And that in itself is the key to a trade. Not a players perceived individual value as seen by fans of the game such as yourself.

"That is why the Taylor Hall trade was so stupid. You can't get another Taylor Hall, but you can approximate another Adam Larsson, and they should have just thrown future draft picks at the other team until they got a deal".

Why do you make statements in absolutes, as if you have any idea what actually transpires inside the GM's office, and when conversations take place between GM's? Who were these other Larsson's they could have had using GM mode on your choice of gaming platform's NHL17?

Considering how well the Oilers are doing with Larsson, and without Hall. It would seem at this point at least, that Larsson was definitely worth Hall to the Oilers. And that in itself is the key to a trade. Not a players perceived individual value as seen by fans of the game such as yourself.
- leonkennedy

I love how condescending you are and yet you're judging the worst trade in NHL history as good after seven games.

I love how condescending you are and yet you're judging the worst trade in NHL history as good after seven games.
- James_Tanner

I love how condescending you are and yet you're judging the worst trade in NHL history as good after seven games.
- James_Tanner

Hypocrisy thou reareth thine ugly head yet again

Why does my head throb after reading Tanner's blogs?
- Dannyboy

Why do you read them