Buppy

It's fun to imagine an alternate universe where Brett keeps growing more cynical because Ches never answered him, and instead he got some random, confusing post about the "gold plan".

There is no discussion. You're repeating yourself. If you really want me to do the same, here you go:

I pretty much agree with all of this. The idea to trade those guys was based of CRLs plan to not be relevant for 5 years. Changing the timeline would affect my opinions. We're going in circles now; no point in repeating myself. If you want an answer just read one of my previous posts.

I have no ulterior motive, nor any problem with that opinion. I don't agree, but at least it's reasonable. I would simply argue that in that case, and depending on how long you'd expect it to take before we became a contender, it could make more sense to trade players currently in their prime for players who would be in their prime in the expected cup window. What I don't think is reasonable is trying to walk down both sides of the street, arguing that Mantha and AA will be vital components of our cup contention as they move into their 30's, while simultaneously arguing that they aren't good enough to try to build with now, and maybe we won't even want them at that age anyway.

So I would surmise from this that you think our rebuild is in the beginning stages (i.e. What we need to succeed has yet to be drafted, so we need to stay "bad" in order to get high picks.) rather than the middle (i.e. We pretty much have what we need, Just need some guys to finish developing, and fill a couple holes.)?

You misunderstood the premise.

The part you bolded wasn't even a complete idea. There was nothing there to agree or disagree with. Odd that you would say you have more faith than I do when you think it will take 4 years to accomplish what I think can be done in 2. To answer your last question here: No, I do not think we need 4 years. I think we could be a contender after 2. Even as soon as next year if we got really lucky. Maybe not President's Trophy winners/odds-on favorites, but good enough to feel we would have a legit shot at beating any team in the league in a 7-game series. If we are able to add some good FAs over the next two years, and we are still not at that point, I would have to start questioning whether or not that core of players would ever get there. Regarding the expansion draft; you lose one player. No more, no less. Even if we assume that we have a full allotment of players to protect already, adding a UFA then subsequently losing him to Seattle isn't any worse than never signing the player in the first place. Possibly even better if the player we would otherwise lose could be even a minor contributor. If we signed more than one player, or we had "free" protection slots, we are unquestionably ahead. Again, literally impossible for the expansion draft to hurt us any more than you would already be hurting yourself. The NHL has seen plenty of young leaders, and plenty have come from FA. Though considering you've already admitted that you're not sure you would even want them in that role makes me think you're being disingenuous here anyway, and using insults to mask the lack of a real argument.

All I would disagree with here is that we need to have "an actual roster" before we can start making moves to try to supplement what we have. I don't think you should ever pass up an opportunity to add talent to your expected core. You never know if you'll have that opportunity in the future. While it requires having some faith that what we have already is worth building upon, the counter argument is that if they aren't then our rebuild is pretty much f***ed regardless. I understand if we want to say our rebuild needs more high picks. That we still need to draft more potential stars. I don't agree, but I understand the logic. I'd just add that if that's the logic we want to go with, we should shift our thinking away from "we're half-way done building around Larkin, Mantha, and AA" to "we just started this thing", and from there start looking at our current prime players and asking if they'd be better used as part of the future, or assets we could use to acquire some.

Neither, really. I would say that if we consider our current core nothing more than placeholders, we'd be better off trading them for guys who would be entering their prime in our expected cup window, but obviously if you think that window could open in a couple years it's not really an option.. Yes "Becoming competitive again in 2 seasons" gives a very different impression than "Next Window: Larkin's Second Contract AKA the return to cup contention", so maybe I just have the wrong idea about what you actually expect the next four seasons to look like. But going off the "cup window opens in year 5" your original post suggested I'd still say we'd be much better off with a few kids in their early 20s just entering their prime then a few guys at the end of theirs (especially if you think there's even any chance you might not want to keep them). There are always "vet leaders" to be had in free agency. Plus the risk of losing them in three years whether we want to or not. Hell, if we're not contenders before Larkin's current deal is up, I wouldn't be so sure he'd even want to stay. Year 3 for the window opening changes things obviously. Personally I hope the management has not yet written off this season (much less next) the way fans have. Grim as it looks from our off-season so far, I'm still hoping we see enough growth from the younger guys that we feel comfortable making a move or two this year, or at the very least head into next summer with a much more proactive and aggressive attitude.

There is no discussion. You're repeating yourself. If you really want me to do the same, here you go: But they aren't core players in your plan. You're skipping right over that stage of their careers to the "maybe they'd be worth keeping around as vet leaders" stage. They'll be 29 when Larkin's next contract starts, assuming they don't just bail in 3 years when they could be UFAs. They;ll be at the stage where they're likely starting to decline, possibly saddling us with bad contracts right in the middle of your planned cup window. Considering both AA and Mantha have at times had their work-ethic questioned, and neither of them have played a NHL playoff game at this point (nor, according to your plan, will they in the next two years at least), I don't think "veteran leader" is a role either would particularly well-suited for. If we're going to do anything with those guys, it needs to be done soon. Either build something with them, or trade them while we can still get a return that could contribute during Larkin's window.

Neither do telephones. Funny how words work.

We're going in circles now; no point in repeating myself. If you want an answer just read one of my previous posts. I'm not sure what you consider rushing, or what you think is being proposed, but I would just add that waiting too long can be as harmful as anything. Mantha, AA, and Bert could leave in three years. Larkin in four. The slower we progress toward relevancy, the greater the risk of that happening. The more opportunities to add talent we allow to pass by, the greater the risk of missing out entirely. What exactly is it we're supposed to be waiting for, anyway?

You all know we did have a strength and conditioning coach prior to this, right? This isn't some new innovation here, literally about as mundane a move as you can get. Also, I don't think that post is even accurate. From the online job posting, it seems Barwis is the owner of the firm he hired to find a coach for him. He basically had his secretary make a phone call to hire an outside service provider, and people think it's exciting. There's going to be a rash of heart attacks if he ever makes an actual good move.

You're getting awfully strawman-y here. I wouldn't call trading three players "blowing up the team" (maybe in the context of the current team, but not in terms of the one we're trying to build), nor am I "throwing away" anything. Calculated trades, with the aim of turning some guys who would be older into guys who would be younger. AA put up 30g and 56p, Mantha had a dominant run at the end of the year and into the WC, Bert finished strong. I'm not suggesting we trade them all for a 4th rounder. I'd expect a very good return. High picks, high-end prospects. Obviously there's some risk with even high picks, just like there's some risk of those three players leaving anyway. If you just want to say the one risk is acceptable and the other isn't, I have no problem with that. But don't act like I'm saying trade them just to get rid of them. You even said you'd be willing to trade them for the right package. I'm looking at it in terms of a cup window - 5 or 6 years or so - so it's more than just where those guys will be in year 5. It's where would they be in years 5 through 10, relative to what a few kids age 21-26 would be. So it's not some "boo 29-year-olds". It's weighing the relative merits of two options. I'd love to sign good 21yo UFAs, or even good 25yo UFAs, but there aren't any. I'd love to sign a 28yo then immediately flip him for a 21yo, but no one does that. 28+ is the only option. I know they won't likely be vital core players in my cup window, and maybe won't even be around for the whole thing. I would hope by the time their usefulness ends, our younger players will have transitioned from secondary players to leaders to offset that loss. And beyond all that is the implications needing 4 more years to build anything would have in regards to what we've already built. The pieces we have already, all our top prospects - several of whom already have NHL experience - given 2 more years of development, AND augmented with some UFAs. But you don't think that team could complete for anything? If our prospects are that slow to develop, or that bad, what is another two years supposed to accomplish? You say you're not building through free agency, so that can't be it. Unless you're expecting Ethan Phillips to be the next Point, or some similar miracle from a future draft, I don't get it. You think you're optimistic, but in regards to what we've already built I don't think you're close enough to optimism to see it through a telescope. I'm not going any more "FA heavy" that your suggestion, I'm just doing it earlier, so I'm not sure where that came from. We would still have leaders who've been with the team. Larkin primarily. Bert has only been on the Wings for 1/2 a season longer than Rasmussen. We'd have other young players with several years of experience. Having Yzerman as a GM I'd think we'd be pretty open to the idea of getting some leadership from young players. Shanahan, Larionov, Fetisov, Murphy, Hull, Rafalski... I feel confident that we could get some valuable leadership from outside the current team as well. Especially considering neither Mantha nor AA are known for any leadership qualities (kind of the opposite in fact), and you've admitted you're not even sure you'd want them at that point, I wouldn't be worried about it and I don't think you are either. This whole angle is pure sophistry.

The part you bolded wasn't even a complete idea. There was nothing there to agree or disagree with. Odd that you would say you have more faith than I do when you think it will take 4 years to accomplish what I think can be done in 2. To answer your last question here: No, I do not think we need 4 years. I think we could be a contender after 2. Even as soon as next year if we got really lucky. Maybe not President's Trophy winners/odds-on favorites, but good enough to feel we would have a legit shot at beating any team in the league in a 7-game series. If we are able to add some good FAs over the next two years, and we are still not at that point, I would have to start questioning whether or not that core of players would ever get there. Regarding the expansion draft; you lose one player. No more, no less. Even if we assume that we have a full allotment of players to protect already, adding a UFA then subsequently losing him to Seattle isn't any worse than never signing the player in the first place. Possibly even better if the player we would otherwise lose could be even a minor contributor. If we signed more than one player, or we had "free" protection slots, we are unquestionably ahead. Again, literally impossible for the expansion draft to hurt us any more than you would already be hurting yourself. The NHL has seen plenty of young leaders, and plenty have come from FA. Though considering you've already admitted that you're not sure you would even want them in that role makes me think you're being disingenuous here anyway, and using insults to mask the lack of a real argument.

The way I see it we have Larkin, Mantha, AA, and Bert, and maybe a couple guys like Dekeyser, Bowey, De La Rose, and Glendening could still be depth/role players. Then you add in where Zadina, Ras, Veleno, Hronek, Cholo, McIsaac, and maybe a couple others, could be with two more years of development. Then you add some good FAs on top of that... If that team isn't ready to compete for a cup, it probably never will be. Blow it up and start over while we can still get something for the good parts. If we think that's where we'll be after three years...still hoping a couple more summers can turn us into something...may as well not even wait. Make the moves now so maybe we'll be in a situation where a couple more summers will make a difference. These arguments don't make sense. Expansion draft is a non-issue, as it's literally impossible for signing a UFA to leave you any worse off than you'd be by not signing one. You're worried about the uncertainty of picks/prospects, but perfectly ok with the uncertainty of whether you would or even could keep those players. 1. Team culture; even though you admit you're not sure if you would even want those players in that role, and despite the fact that we'd still have Larkin, plus kids like Hronek, Ras, and Zadina who would be in their mid-20s with several years of experience, plus you're going to have veteran FAs regardless so I don't see why they couldn't provide any leadership. 2. Never said they couldn't be productive, just that they'd be in decline and that with your timetable it'd be better to replace them with players entering their prime. 3. The way I see it your "holding pattern" is already "hitting the reset button", especially given that you think we need another 4 seasons of work before we'll be relevant again. Also don't see how you're getting "constantly" from one proposal, particularly when it's clear I'm advocating pushing the rebuild into high gear right away. There could be a lot of quality UFAs on the market next year. We already wasted one summer "holding". Hopefully we don't do it again. Our cup window would probably only be 5-6 years even in the best case.

"Becoming competitive again in 2 seasons" gives a very different impression than "Next Window: Larkin's Second Contract AKA the return to cup contention", so maybe I just have the wrong idea about what you actually expect the next four seasons to look like. But going off the "cup window opens in year 5" your original post suggested I'd still say we'd be much better off with a few kids in their early 20s just entering their prime then a few guys at the end of theirs (especially if you think there's even any chance you might not want to keep them). There are always "vet leaders" to be had in free agency. Plus the risk of losing them in three years whether we want to or not. Hell, if we're not contenders before Larkin's current deal is up, I wouldn't be so sure he'd even want to stay. Year 3 for the window opening changes things obviously. Personally I hope the management has not yet written off this season (much less next) the way fans have. Grim as it looks from our off-season so far, I'm still hoping we see enough growth from the younger guys that we feel comfortable making a move or two this year, or at the very least head into next summer with a much more proactive and aggressive attitude.

I didn't bother to read the whole thing, no need. For one you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The randomness inherent in the lottery is all that is needed to prevent overt tanking. Secondly, the one and only reason the draft even exists is for parity...give the worst teams the best chance at the best young talent. Any attempt to turn draft picks into a merit reward is simply wrong. Barely even makes any sense, since you're still limiting your competition to only the worst teams. You're still rewarding s*** teams. just switching it to the ones that do the best in a tournament. Why would the #17 team be more deserving than the #16?

But they aren't core players in your plan. You're skipping right over that stage of their careers to the "maybe they'd be worth keeping around as vet leaders" stage. They'll be 29 when Larkin's next contract starts, assuming they don't just bail in 3 years when they could be UFAs. They;ll be at the stage where they're likely starting to decline, possibly saddling us with bad contracts right in the middle of your planned cup window. Considering both AA and Mantha have at times had their work-ethic questioned, and neither of them have played a NHL playoff game at this point (nor, according to your plan, will they in the next two years at least), I don't think "veteran leader" is a role either would particularly well-suited for. If we're going to do anything with those guys, it needs to be done soon. Either build something with them, or trade them while we can still get a return that could contribute during Larkin's window.

That's why you'd have to trade them right away. (Ideally in this scenario we should have traded them before this year's draft.) Give the picks (or prospects would also work) time to develop. If you wait until they're on the cusp of UFA, your return will be lower and won't fit your timetable. You'd also have the secondary benefit of making the team worse in the short term and getting higher picks.

If our plan is anything like that we need to trade Mantha, AA, Bert, and anyone else older than Larkin asap for as many picks as we can get.

You're talking a fairly wide range of results. Finishing 9th then getting the 15th OA pick is still missing the playoffs. But putting that aside and assuming we're only talking about finishing near the bottom and getting a top-5 pick vs being a wild card and losing in the first round, you still have to look beyond just the result. Why we make or miss the playoffs is much more important than whether. I can't agree with the "sucking now will make us better later" idea. The team is going to have a bunch of players at or near their prime. Players who we would expect to be contributors, to a greater or lesser degree, to any competitive iteration of the team in the future. If we "suck", it would likely be because several players who we need to be good, weren't. And that's probably worse for our long-term outlook than whoever we'd draft at #4 would be good for it. Conversely, if we make the playoffs it would likely be because those players perform even better than what we expect. Also better long-term than our 1st pick would be. I want our younger players to do well, not just in terms of scoring points (particularly if 1/3rd of those points are the result of just a handful of big games), but also in learning how to impact games. Learning how to win. Obviously that would mean actually doing some winning. So if it's a choice between being mediocre, missing the playoffs, and picking 12th, or being a bit better mediocre, making the playoffs, and picking 18th I'd take the latter every time.

Fixed

Got me interested, so... Points earned over the course of the season: