Goalies can't be left legs, sorry. They're more like middle legs.
- Tomahawk

In my opinion, people who can't understand that many teams with a superstar player drafted in the top, don't win, are zealots or idiots. People that can't understand that drafting high is not the only reason why a team has won. We see many teams that haven't won when drafting high. They don't win because they didn't surround the player with a quality team. That proves that it's not the top 5 player that is the biggest reason why they won. They won because they built the best team. Along with many other factors that are involved. Such as what Tomahawk tried in vain to educate you on.
- MJL

zealiots

It’s not that I don’t enjoy reading what you post, but man you spill a lot of ink to argue that it’s easier to win with superstars that are selected higher. Is anyone really arguing that it isn’t easier? Maybe I don’t actually focus enough on it and am spotty when I pop in so if that’s a gross oversimplification then that’s on me. I just think the prevailing sentiment the other way is yeah it’s easier but it’s not the only way. That being said, most teams in all leagues embrace some degree of tanking at some point. Do have to give the flyers credit though. Perhaps to their own detriment at times, but they never have.
- stayinthefnnet

Tanking is defined as intentionally fielding a non-competitive team. If you make a trade or even a couple of trades of veteran players to acquire future assets, which weakens your team. That is not tanking. You're still trying to compete with the rest of your roster

Tanking is defined as intentionally fielding a non-competitive team. If you make a trade or even a couple of trades of veteran players to acquire future assets, which weakens your team. That is not tanking. You're still trying to compete with the rest of your roster
- MJL

See - Penguins, Pittsburgh 1983-84

You just keep making up stuff...I would not have referenced those 3 together for this season, I was speaking of in future years. I believe the context was ideal wingers types for Frost (once again, in the future, not this season). It was meant to be an example of player type.

You know nothing about how I think. You make up this crap to put other posters down and never voice any consideration in self-evaluating the errors you make in your thesis.



- NC Flyers Fan

You did, but its ok.

I never attack posters. Just their posts.

And I am completely open to being proved wrong. I work in a profession where people present ideas and theses for others to be as critical as possible.

But I do expect that when this proving occurs, the prover will actually pay some attention to what the potentially false proposition is. It has been laid out in gory detail again and again, including last page.

Finding a bunch of wingers many of whom played in cup winning teams or finals teams and were not drafted high is regrettably not a refutation of that proposition, and that is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

See - Penguins, Pittsburgh 1983-84
- corduroy

And Penguins, Pittsburgh 2002-03, 2003-04. They tanked both those seasons before the lockout. They didn't intend to be as bad as they still were in Crosby's rookie year, I think.

You did, but its ok.

I never attack posters. Just their posts.

- PT21

This is a complete falsehood. You regularly attack posters. No single poster calls other posters insulting names as much as you do.

It’s not that I don’t enjoy reading what you post, but man you spill a lot of ink to argue that it’s easier to win with superstars that are selected higher. Is anyone really arguing that it isn’t easier? Maybe I don’t actually focus enough on it and am spotty when I pop in so if that’s a gross oversimplification then that’s on me. I just think the prevailing sentiment the other way is yeah it’s easier but it’s not the only way. That being said, most teams in all leagues embrace some degree of tanking at some point. Do have to give the flyers credit though. Perhaps to their own detriment at times, but they never have.
- stayinthefnnet

You’re not wrong. He both claims that you have the best odds at winning a cup with a superstar and restricts the definition to only forwards and defenseman using preseason positional rankings from NHL.com and the like. He will say if you think there is any other way, you aren’t playing the odds and believe in luck or faith to get you there. (Look PT, I’m paraphrasing.)

You did, but its ok.

I never attack posters. Just their posts.

And I am completely open to being proved wrong.
- PT21

Go find the post and we’ll see, since you made the accusation.

Goalies can't be left legs, sorry. They're more like middle legs.
- Tomahawk

Oh dear.

I am sorry that a guy like you, unable to empirically disprove such a straight forward proposition, and finding it incompatible with your theses, are resorting to such infantile digs.

Oh dear.

I am sorry that a guy like you, unable to empirically disprove such a straight forward proposition, and finding it incompatible with your theses, are resorting to such infantile digs.
- PT21

You don't have any mirrors in your house, do you?

So in conclusion, out of the 29 top players last season in the NHL, 20 out of 29 players in post season awards. Were drafted outside of the top 5 in the draft.
- MJL

Very factual.

When did they do away with the trivia question of the game? Only recently noticed it’s gone.

Very factual.
- NC Flyers Fan

You have to tank to get that top 5 pick. If not, your future is very bleak.

It’s not that I don’t enjoy reading what you post, but man you spill a lot of ink to argue that it’s easier to win with superstars that are selected higher. Is anyone really arguing that it isn’t easier? Maybe I don’t actually focus enough on it and am spotty when I pop in so if that’s a gross oversimplification then that’s on me. I just think the prevailing sentiment the other way is yeah it’s easier but it’s not the only way. That being said, most teams in all leagues embrace some degree of tanking at some point. Do have to give the flyers credit though. Perhaps to their own detriment at times, but they never have.
- stayinthefnnet

Its a bit more than that. Its not just easier.

You essentially never win without superstars in certain positions. And those winning superstars almost always come from high picks.

Does that make it a bit more worthy of ink spilled?

When did they do away with the trivia question of the game? Only recently noticed it’s gone.
- hereticpride

Was done away with last season. Too many sponsored segments during the broadcast to squeeze in the trivia question in the 1st period and answer in the 3rd. I enjoyed doing those. I researched and wrote the questions for the final 3 seasons they did the Dodge Trivia question.

When did they do away with the trivia question of the game? Only recently noticed it’s gone.
- hereticpride

It got thrown away for betting sponsorships dollars

Was done away with last season. Too many sponsored segments during the broadcast to squeeze in the trivia question in the 1st period and answer in the 3rd. I enjoyed doing those. I researched and wrote the questions for the final 3 seasons they did the Dodge Trivia question.
- bmeltzer

Boo. I remember seeing you did them the last few seasons. Crazy that they couldn’t find 30 seconds during the game to keep it. All the betting ads are overkill if you ask me.

Its a bit more than that. Its not just easier.

You essentially never win without superstars in certain positions. And those winning superstars almost always come from high picks.

Does that make it a bit more worthy of ink spilled?
- PT21

In Hart, Vezina and Norris trophy voting last season. 20 out of the top 29 vote getters were chosen outside of the top 5 picks in their respective draft year.

Tanking is defined as intentionally fielding a non-competitive team. If you make a trade or even a couple of trades of veteran players to acquire future assets, which weakens your team. That is not tanking. You're still trying to compete with the rest of your roster
- MJL

We could go back and forth on semantics about it, and agree or disagree I view it as such. The players on the ice/field always try to win, but the team has a significant eye on the future, rather than giving everything in the organizational power to put the best product they can out at that given moment. Teams aren’t always going to put out a letter like the rangers or turn it into a rallying cry like the sixers, but you can tell where the intentions are at. Granted, some teams push it to the extreme and extend it longer in duration. There’s also the very real dollars/being cheap aspect that goes into it too. Selling of a rental at the deadline when you don’t think they’ll resign obviously isnt akin to say pens early 2000s era stuff, or specifically chasing a prospect coming out, but you know when a team is viewing the next few seasons as developmental ones or not. It happens. Just like I don’t think you can say oh the only way to get a stud is to tank to pick high, it’s a lot of grey areas. In your scenario, just how many vets need to be traded off for it to count? I don’t think there is a black and white answer. It’s about the objective/direction/priorities of the franchise. Call it development, asset accumulation, improving odds, whatever it may be. But it’s not “winning”.

You have to tank to get that top 5 pick. If not, your future is very bleak.
- MJL

His view is pretty depressing. In real life, I would avoid him and he, very likely, would never notice me. I need to find a way to make that happen for me on Flyerbuzz.

Go find the post and we’ll see, since you made the accusation.
- NC Flyers Fan

Whoa? What accusation? You are taking that particular statement too seriously.

You have made innumerable posts that can be called optimistic. That is however a sidelight.

The basic point however was that your list did not come anywhere close to refuting my proposition.

We could go back and forth on semantics about it, and agree or disagree I view it as such. The players on the ice/field always try to win, but the team has a significant eye on the future, rather than giving everything in the organizational power to put the best product they can out at that given moment. Teams aren’t always going to put out a letter like the rangers or turn it into a rallying cry like the sixers, but you can tell where the intentions are at. Granted, some teams push it to the extreme and extend it longer in duration. There’s also the very real dollars/being cheap aspect that goes into it too. Selling of a rental at the deadline when you don’t think they’ll resign obviously isnt akin to say pens early 2000s era stuff, or specifically chasing a prospect coming out, but you know when a team is viewing the next few seasons as developmental ones or not. It happens. Just like I don’t think you can say oh the only way to get a stud is to tank to pick high, it’s a lot of grey areas. In your scenario, just how many vets need to be traded off for it to count? I don’t think there is a black and white answer. It’s about the objective/direction/priorities of the franchise. Call it development, asset accumulation, improving odds, whatever it may be. But it’s not “winning”.
- stayinthefnnet

It's also not tanking. It's also not semantics. A few moves don't add up to tanking. It's a collective decision. We are purposely not going to try and be competitive this season. We are purposely going to field a non-competitive team. That is tanking.

Boo. I remember seeing you did them the last few seasons. Crazy that they couldn’t find 30 seconds during the game to keep it. All the betting ads are overkill, if you ask me.
- hereticpride

I was happy that center ice broadcasts pre and post-game shows this season (I've had nhltv the last few years). I'm not too fond of the betting segment, and I love to gamble.

Its a bit more than that. Its not just easier.

You essentially never win without superstars in certain positions. And those winning superstars almost always come from high picks.

Does that make it a bit more worthy of ink spilled?
- PT21

Haha never said it wasn’t worthy ink in the first place pal. I guess my point is, you can’t argue something as a certainty while simultaneously using words like almost and essentially. Rather than prove the point they provide the platform for the existence of an alternative.